How does being an atheist positively impact your life?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Under that logic would hedonism not be involved in your choice to follow Christianity? I mean it is not like there is one overarching meaning of life, you pick the one you think is correct and follow that.

I personally believe in Christianity, because I think there is an overarching meaning to life.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or do you think that your decision to follow Christianity has nothing to do with your own wants and desires but instead was made due to cold hard logic and reason?

It probably did have a bit to do with my wants in the impulse that I wanted to do the right thing, and to live for what was true. At the same hand it had a logical part in that I had to establish that Christianity was indeed true, before I could have that impulse.

Wicknight wrote: »

And this is uncomfortable to you?

Uncomfortable, and non-sensical at the same time.

Wicknight wrote: »

Having a firm authoritative structure to morality is appealing to you, even if ultimately you picked the authoritative structure to follow?

I picked based on what I reasoned was more likely.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is so common in fact there is a logical fallacy named after it, appeal to authority, because we do this so much in all aspects of discussion.

It is only a logical fallacy if such an authority doesn't exist. An appeal to authority in respect to the law isn't illogical, because it is binding on you. In the same way an appeal to God's authority if He exists, isn't illogical because ultimately His judgement is binding on you.

Ush1

It probably did have a bit to do with my wants in the impulse that I wanted to do the right thing, and to live for what was true. At the same hand it had a logical part in that I had to establish that Christianity was indeed true, before I could have that impulse.

You're contradicting yourself yet again here.

You said we're inherently selfish, yet only YOU chose to do the right thing?

You also said you chose christianity because you think there is a meaning to life. But all religions think that, so why christianity?

Can you please explain how good and evil are "incredibly slippery" in an atheistic world view?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe humans are definitely inherently selfish

I find statements like this quite strange. Religious people believe that we're the special creations of a divine being instilled with absolute morality, albeit corrupted by sin, where atheists see human beings as the product of blind and unintelligent evolution. You would think that religious people would view human beings as generally good, what with being the divinely created and all, and atheists wouldn't be surprised to see people being immoral whenever they can get away with it. The FSM knows religious people tell us often enough that that's what we should expect because without god morality is supposedly worthless or as near as makes no difference.

But I find it's very often the exact opposite. Atheists tend to have a lot of faith in their fellow man to do the right thing even without reward or punishment (they have to really) where religious people have no faith in humanity at all. It makes sense I suppose since we're supposed to be inherently sinful and deserving of eternal punishment. I'd say it goes some way towards explaining why some people are drawn to religion. Some people don't need to imagine a metaphysical carrot and stick to keep people in line but those who have no faith in their fellow man to do the right thing without being forced have to put their faith in this overarching being who will punish all offenders. Maybe they even feel that they need to be forced to do the right thing themselves where people who have enough confidence in themselves that they'll do the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do don't need to trick themselves into thinking there's divine being who will punish us if we don't. Maybe when a religious person says things like "I believe human beings are inherently selfish" it's because they're inherently selfish and they assume that others are too and so need to be forced to do good and vice versa for atheists. Even outside of a religious context I've often found that those who are most suspicious of others tend to be the ones who will screw you over whenever they get the chance.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

You can tell other kids the truth and make them cry?

Ha Ha Ha.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally believe in Christianity, because I think there is an overarching meaning to life.

Which is what, exactly?

Because I simply don't get what meaning Christianity offers, except to please a silent God.

Herbal Deity

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe humans are definitely inherently selfish

I believe different humans will exhibit different traits as a result of genetic variations and environmental factors.

What do you base that statement on?

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

It is only a logical fallacy if such an authority doesn't exist. An appeal to authority in respect to the law isn't illogical, because it is binding on you. In the same way an appeal to God's authority if He exists, isn't illogical because ultimately His judgement is binding on you.

Nope it's still a logical fallacy if the authority your are appealing to exists.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

You said we're inherently selfish, yet only YOU chose to do the right thing?

I'm also inherently selfish. I find it beneficial that I can use the Biblical text as an external check and balance to my behaviour. My moral compass, as a result is based on something external to myself.

Ush1 wrote: »

You also said you chose christianity because you think there is a meaning to life. But all religions think that, so why christianity?

I believed in Christianity, because I believe it makes clear sense. Particularly in relation to the human condition actually.

I believe in Christianity because it is different from other world religions for the most part. Christianity says that God loved us first, and as a result of that love we follow Him. Other faiths for the most part say that you must do X, Y and Z for God to love you.

Ush1 wrote: »

Can you please explain how good and evil are "incredibly slippery" in an atheistic world view?

If good and evil are merely defined by the individual, they can hardly be said to be coherent. If good and evil are defined external to the individual, and aren't dependant on our mere opinion, they remain.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm also inherently selfish. I find it beneficial that I can use the Biblical text as an external check and balance to my behaviour. My moral compass, as a result is based on something external to myself.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe when a religious person says things like "I believe human beings are inherently selfish" it's because they're inherently selfish and they assume that others are too and so need to be forced to do good and vice versa for atheists.

So that's a yes then

MagicMarker

I don't understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that we're inherently selfish.

A new born, for instance, is as selfless as you're ever going to get.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe in Christianity because it is different from other world religions for the most part. Christianity says that God loved us first, and as a result of that love we follow Him. Other faiths for the most part say that you must do X, Y and Z for God to love you.

That has no bearing on whether or not christianity is true. Sounds to me like that's a reason why it appealed to you rather than something that suggests its truth

Kooli

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm also inherently selfish. I find it beneficial that I can use the Biblical text as an external check and balance to my behaviour. My moral compass, as a result is based on something external to myself.

Well I consider it a huge 'benefit' of being an atheist that my moral compass is internal and I can trust myself to know the difference between right and wrong. I imagine it would feel a bit frightening to rely on outer forces to regulate my behaviour - it would feel less secure, less stable, a bit scary.
I like not having to 'check' that my feelings or values or right or wrong by someone else's measure. That's not to say I don't give them thought or attention, or that I follow any whim I have blindly because I'm always right - I definitely give my choices a lot of thought, and I examine my feelings and hunches to try and understand them as best I can. But I do have a deep trust in myself - it may not be a by-product of my atheism, but it definitely isn't being interfered with by theism.

Carl Rogers believed that it was much more emotionally healthy to use an internal locus of evaluation rather than an external one, and much of the work of therapy was to bring this shift about, from external to internal. I'm with Carl on this one!

Ickle Magoo

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that we're inherently selfish.

A new born, for instance, is as selfless as you're ever going to get.

And yet when my son was born prematurely it was suggested to me he should be christened on the spot lest he not get into heaven if he didn't make it...if I needed anything to cement how nutty religion can be, that was it.

Kooli

MagicMarker wrote: »

A new born, for instance, is as selfless as you're ever going to get.

Really? I'd be pretty sure they only think of themselves! In fact, I think it takes a while before they even realise there is anything in the world apart from themselves!!

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm also inherently selfish. I find it beneficial that I can use the Biblical text as an external check and balance to my behaviour. My moral compass, as a result is based on something external to myself.



I believed in Christianity, because I believe it makes clear sense. Particularly in relation to the human condition actually.

I believe in Christianity because it is different from other world religions for the most part. Christianity says that God loved us first, and as a result of that love we follow Him. Other faiths for the most part say that you must do X, Y and Z for God to love you.



If good and evil are merely defined by the individual, they can hardly be said to be coherent. If good and evil are defined external to the individual, and aren't dependant on our mere opinion, they remain.

You are selfish yet choosing christianity was in no way selfish? Just because the bible is external doesn't make it any better than your own sense of morality. It was written by men, who as you've said you believe, are selfish.

Hmm, your ideas of christianity are different from alot I've heard. So God will love me if I butcher people? Seems a strange point to draw morality from so.

Sorry but I have to laugh at that. So you're claiming that the bible is one strict and clear guideline on what is good and evil. There are so many interpratations of the bible I think you'll find it is by far, the most slippery moral high ground. Many, many divisive issues within lots of religions, christianity very much so. Homosexuality, abortion, artificial contraception etc...

Also, you seem to be thinking Atheism as an alternative religion. You don't have to only have your own personal ideas of morality. In fact, society sort of sorts that for you by having laws which in a democratic country, would be accepted by the majority. This, on top of your own inheirent sense of morality.

MagicMarker

Kooli wrote: »

Really? I'd be pretty sure they only think of themselves! In fact, I think it takes a while before they even realise there is anything in the world apart from themselves!!

Well imo to be called selfish you need to understand the concept of selfishness.

Dades

I'd agree we're all inherently selfish (especially newborns!) It's a trait that kept our ancestors alive before societies, I guess.

What's refreshing is acting against that selfish instinct without guidance, or fear of consequences if you don't.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally believe in Christianity, because I think there is an overarching meaning to life.

What if the desire to believe there is an overarching meaning to life is a by-product of our evolved mind, and doesn't relate to reality, in the same way we desire to see causality in nature (one event follows another) when quantum physics is contradicting that view. Would that effect how you think about the necessary existence of meaning to life?

You long for an overarching meaning and religion claims to provide one. Based on your pre-established notion that there should be an overarching meaning you are therefore more likely to accept claims that there is.

Similar to the way we tend to remember bad things about something and ignore good things, which make slander and newspaper retractions difficult, as well as product warning.

We have a preconceived narrative about how the world should be, and we are much more likely to accept explanations that fit this narrative.

Jakkass wrote: »

Uncomfortable, and non-sensical at the same time.

That goes back to the point above. We find certain explanations and narratives far more mentally pleasing than others. That includes religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

I picked based on what I reasoned was more likely.

Based on how you think the world should be?

Jakkass wrote: »

It is only a logical fallacy if such an authority doesn't exist.

That wasn't quite my point. My point was that this is so common in human behavior they have terms and scores of research studying it.

Obviously some times authority does exist and is correct because they are an authority. But that wasn't the point.

The point is how much mental bending we do based on these notions, irrespective of whether they are true.

Jakkass wrote: »

An appeal to authority in respect to the law isn't illogical, because it is binding on you. In the same way an appeal to God's authority if He exists, isn't illogical because ultimately His judgement is binding on you.

Yes but ultimately he doesn't have to exist for you to find the notion of his existence deeply deeply appealing and sensible because your brain is set up to crave explanations that fit into these notions.

Which is obviously going to be a major factor in your decision when you come to reason which, in your opinion, is more likely given that you are reasoning solely on what you think makes sense.

Ush1

Dades wrote: »

I'd agree we're all inherently selfish (especially newborns!) It's a trait that kept our ancestors alive before societies, I guess.

What's refreshing is acting against that selfish instinct without guidance, or fear of consequences if you don't.

Well hang on, how inherently selfish you talking here? As a baby would not survive without someone looking after it.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

You are selfish yet choosing christianity was in no way selfish? Just because the bible is external doesn't make it any better than your own sense of morality. It was written by men, who as you've said you believe, are selfish.

What does make something better from worse? Just curious, what standard do you determine what is good from evil by?

Ush1 wrote: »

Hmm, your ideas of christianity are different from alot I've heard. So God will love me if I butcher people? Seems a strange point to draw morality from so.

God loves us irrespective of what we do. However, as a just God He is still obliged to punish you unless you turn away from sin.

Ush1 wrote: »

Sorry but I have to laugh at that.

Just stop here, and take a good long chuckle before we continue :pac:

At least something productive will have come out of this post.

Whether you laugh or not is really irrelevant to the actual subject at hand

Ush1 wrote: »

So you're claiming that the bible is one strict and clear guideline on what is good and evil. There are so many interpratations of the bible I think you'll find it is by far, the most slippery moral high ground. Many, many divisive issues within lots of religions, christianity very much so. Homosexuality, abortion, artificial contraception etc...

Not quite. I am claiming that God Himself is the standard for good and evil. The Bible is His message to mankind by which we can better understand God.

Ush1 wrote: »

Also, you seem to be thinking Atheism as an alternative religion. You don't have to only have your own personal ideas of morality. In fact, society sort of sorts that for you by having laws which in a democratic country, would be accepted by the majority. This, on top of your own inheirent sense of morality.

Right, let me correct myself. I find secular moral systems (at least those which I have studied in detail in philosophy) to be lacking.

As for our "own inherent sense of morality". Christians believe that our inclinations towards morality are a result of a God-given conscience (Check out Romans 2:12-16 for the Biblical take on it).

So referring to our "own inherent sense of morality" isn't really an alternative to Christianity. The conscience is what is used to bring us towards moral and ethical behaviour.

Dades

Ush1 wrote: »

Well hang on, how inherently selfish you talking here? As a baby would not survive without someone looking after it.

Isn't that the point? A baby won't survive unless it is fed, kept warm, and away from wild animals. So instinctively it demands what it needs to survive.

It's an 'animal' instinct, same as what makes us want to look after 'number one' as adults (imo).

MagicMarker

I think it's a matter of semantics. I personally wouldn't call a crying hungry baby selfish, even though literally speaking they are.

Ickle Magoo

Yeah, I wouldn't really call babies selfish either. It is slightly different as they aren't looking after themselves at the expense of others, they don't know anything but basic survival instincts, they are not thinking of others because they don't yet have the capacity to.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

What does make something better from worse? Just curious, what standard do you determine what is good from evil by?

Better=helps others
worse=harms others


A hell of a lot better than "better=what an authority figure says it is even if what he says involves harming others as it often does"

liamw

Dades wrote: »

I'd agree we're all inherently selfish (especially newborns!) It's a trait that kept our ancestors alive before societies, I guess.

What's refreshing is acting against that selfish instinct without guidance, or fear of consequences if you don't.

I disagree. The genes themselves are the only things that need to be 'selfish' i.e. they need to ensure their own self-propogation. The phenotype will often result in altruistic behaviour, partially because our ancestors lived in small related social groups and the benefit of altruistic vs. selfish behaviour outweighed the cost.

The interesting thing about observing the behaviour of young children is that they are mostly adhering to that genetic drive. Experiments show that children will voluntarily perform many altruistic acts to strangers.

philologos

Sam Vimes - Let the poster I asked answer for themselves :pac:

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes - Let the poster I asked answer for themselves :pac:

I'm not answering for him, I'm answering for me. If he disagrees he can say so but I sincerely doubt he will. Do you see any problem with that standard?

philologos

I do considering that I don't think that harming others is the only thing that would mark something as wrong.

I think the harm, and pleasure principle of morality (utilitarianism / consequentialism) is effectively flawed. It is based on an a-posteori (after the fact) principle of ethics where you have to imagine what every outcome of ones actions could be. Humans don't have the ability to accurately determine the outcomes of their actions.

An a priori system of ethics (values motivating our actions before the fact) with a combination of learning from our mistakes (a posteori) is better than trying to perceive what will harm, or not harm based on an idealistic view of a pseudo-ability to determine outcomes.

I've studied a good bit of ethical / moral philosophy at this point.

I digress though, because this is getting into philosophy rather than religion or lack thereof.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

An a priori system of ethics (values motivating our actions before the fact) with a combination of learning from our mistakes (a posteori) is better than trying to perceive what will harm, or not harm based on an idealistic view of a pseudo-ability to determine outcomes.

Better at what? What is the goal of such a system?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I do considering that I don't think that harming others is the only thing that would mark something as wrong.

What marks something as wrong besides harming others? And why is it wrong? If the answer is "because god says so" then why does he say so?

Or are you agreeing that things that do harm are wrong but saying that some things do unseen harm?

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the harm, and pleasure principle of morality (utilitarianism) is effectively flawed. It is based on an a-posteori (after the fact) principle of ethics where you have to imagine what every outcome of ones actions could be. Humans don't have the ability to accurately determine the outcomes of their actions.

An a priori system of ethics (values motivating our actions before the fact) with a combination of learning from our mistakes (a posteori) is better than trying to perceive what will harm, or not harm based on an idealistic view of a pseudo-ability to determine outcomes.

I've studied a good bit of ethical / moral philosophy at this point.

I digress though, because this is getting into philosophy rather than religion or lack thereof.

What Yeah the universe is a complicated place and sometimes our actions don't have the intented outcome but it's absolute nonsense to suggest that we're incapable of knowing the outcomes of any of our actions. I know that if I stab someone I will injure them, I don't need a magic man in the sky to tell me that. Can you give me some examples of these things that should be marked as wrong even though there is nothing to suggest that they harm others and how do you think they harm others?

And do you think that no one has ever been harmed by someone who was doing something that fits with christian morality but nonetheless had unforeseen outcomes?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What marks something as wrong besides harming others? And why is it wrong?

Or are you agreeing that things that do harm are wrong but saying that some things do unseen harm?



What Yeah the universe is a complicated place and sometimes our actions don't have the intented outcome but it's absolute nonsense to suggest that we're incapable of knowing the outcomes of any of our actions.

It also doesn't matter. The morality is determined based on the outcome, this is independent to whether we can effectively judge the outcome.

For example if homosexual sex is harmful to people then it is immoral. The current understanding is that it isn't, and thus it is not considered immoral.

You would never get to the place where we decide it is moral later find out it is harmful and then say well we have already determined it is moral so it is staying moral. The moral principle has already been determined, the only question is determining which is the case.

This is infinitely better in my view that subscribing to a set of moral beliefs where you don't know the reason behind them and may never know the reason behind them and where there is no detectable harm. It becomes purely a matter of faith but the ugly question arises of how you determine the correct religion to have faith in. Which goes back to the egotistical nature of religious belief, the self assured belief in one's own judgement to pick the right religion and then stop making decisions.

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Better=helps others
worse=harms others


A hell of a lot better than "better=what an authority figure says it is even if what he says involves harming others as it often does"

The Golden Rule is a good rule of thumb, but I still think this is over simplistic. The concept of right and wrong can get really blurred given certain context and situations. In the End Of Faith, Sam Harris gave a great example of whether it is OK to torture a terrorist if it means saving millions of lives. In essence we can use logic and reason to determine the morality of an action.

Certain actions that are deemed 'wrong' in everyday circumstances can often become blurred towards 'good' given a certain context.

However, now we are talking about ethics, to say that we get decent ethics from the Bible is utterly absurd! It's hardly even worth discussing.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

What does make something better from worse? Just curious, what standard do you determine what is good from evil by?

Not really sure what you mean here. If you're talking where to derive morals, I've addressed that in my last post. Irregardless, the default other answer is not religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

God loves us irrespective of what we do. However, as a just God He is still obliged to punish you unless you turn away from sin.

That's your interpretation of God.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just stop here, and take a good long chuckle before we continue :pac:

At least something productive will have come out of this post.

Whether you laugh or not is really irrelevant to the actual subject at hand

I do find hypocrasy rather amusing.:)

Jakkass wrote: »

Not quite. I am claiming that God Himself is the standard for good and evil. The Bible is His message to mankind by which we can better understand God.

Is this the squirming again? Doesn't matter if you say god or the bible to be honest as both have many different interpretations to many different people. Not at all a solid "moral" viewpoint.

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, let me correct myself. I find secular moral systems (at least those which I have studied in detail in philosophy) to be lacking.

As for our "own inherent sense of morality". Christians believe that our inclinations towards morality are a result of a God-given conscience (Check out Romans 2:12-16 for the Biblical take on it).

So referring to our "own inherent sense of morality" isn't really an alternative to Christianity. The conscience is what is used to bring us towards moral and ethical behaviour.

I have a conscience but don't believe in God.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Better at what? What is the goal of such a system?

A combination of a priori ethics, and a posteori ethics is better than trying to estimate what will happen as the result of our actions, because we cannot do this accurately.

A priori (before the fact) ethics is advantageous as it prevents us from doing what is wrong, without having to do what is wrong to know what is wrong. I.E - That ones life is motivated by a series of values which dictate how we should act towards other people.

This also can be coupled with a posteori (after the fact) ethics, in that we can learn from our mistakes as well as basing our lives around a series of values that dictate how we should act towards others. By a posteori ethics are not the main source of knowledge in such an ethical system.

What is flawed with utilitarianism is that it tries to imagine what the a posteori (after the fact) effects of choosing one act over another will do a priori (before the fact), but the problem with that is, one cannot possibly know 100% what an action will do unless one has witnessed or perpetrated that action in the past.

Jeremy Bentham who first wrote about utilitarian ethics wrote that pain and pleasure were in effect our ethical masters. I.E - They were pretty much universal standards that all people could use to determine right from wrong. Can we be really assured that pain and pleasure will be the same for all people though?

/philosophy :pac:

Ush1

Dades wrote: »

Isn't that the point? A baby won't survive unless it is fed, kept warm, and away from wild animals. So instinctively it demands what it needs to survive.

It's an 'animal' instinct, same as what makes us want to look after 'number one' as adults (imo).

No I'm talking about how selfish we talking. As in, we look after our young, which I would have thought is not really in our own interests. So irregardless of previous to societies, we would not have survived as a species if we were not in some way selfless and looked after our offspring.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

A combination of a priori ethics, and a posteori ethics is better than trying to estimate what will happen as the result of our actions, because we cannot do this accurately.

Yes but better at what? Improving society? Decreasing harm? Making people happy?

Jakkass wrote: »

A priori (before the fact) ethics is advantageous as it prevents us from doing what is wrong, without having to do what is wrong to know what is wrong. I.E - That ones life is motivated by a series of values which dictate how we should act towards other people.

How is it determined in the first place that someone is wrong then?

If you are following a moral law that no one has established results in say harm, then what is the basis for the moral law in the first place?

Jakkass wrote: »

What is flawed with utilitarianism is that it tries to imagine what the a posteori (after the fact) effects of choosing one act over another will do a priori (before the fact), but the problem with that is, one cannot possibly know 100% what an action will do unless one has witnessed or perpetrated that action in the past

A priori system doesn't solve this problem? In fact it decreases the confidence since you don't even try to figure out if the moral law you are following will actually do.

Which is why you have Christians following ancient laws, such as the law against homosexual relationships, without actually being able to explain why.

Jakkass wrote: »

Jeremy Bentham who first wrote about utilitarian ethics wrote that pain and pleasure were in effect our ethical masters. I.E - They were pretty much universal standards that all people could use to determine right from wrong. Can we be really assured that pain and pleasure will be the same for all people though?

That isn't the issue though. That only becomes a problem if we define absolute moral laws and then ignore if these laws result in pain in the future (for example proclaiming homosexual relationships are still moral even after we discover that they result in untold suffering of aliens on the far side of the moon).

So really you are talking about making a judgement that might be flawed and just not making any judgement at all. I'm falling to see how you think the latter is better than the former. The only difference is that you introduce a god authority to justify yourselves.

When presented with the fact that you can't explain how or why these laws are immoral you simply say God says the are and God knows all. You by pass the flaw in that system by simply pretending you have an all knowing authority speaking for you.

That is hardly a solution. You could be as wrong about that as I could be wrong about determining the harmful effects of an action, but at least I'm trying to determine the effects where as you aren't bothering.

liamw

Ush1 wrote: »

As in, we look after our young, which I would have thought is not really in our own interests.

It is in our interest becuase that child has 50% of your genetic code. So investing energy into having your child survive and reproduce is in the seflish interest of our genes. You should read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins.

Ush1

liamw wrote: »

It is in our interest becuase that child has 50% of your genetic code. So investing energy into having your child survive and reproduce is in the seflish interest of our genes. You should read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins.

Fair enough. I thought there would be an anthropological explanation. I haven't read too much up on it though.

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

The Golden Rule is a good rule of thumb, but I still think this is over simplistic. The concept of right and wrong can get really blurred given certain context and situations. In the End Of Faith, Sam Harris gave a great example of whether it is OK to torture a terrorist if it means saving millions of lives. In essence we can use logic and reason to determine the morality of an action.

Certain actions that are deemed 'wrong' in everyday circumstances can often become blurred towards 'good' given a certain context.

However, now we are talking about ethics, to say that we get decent ethics from the Bible is utterly absurd! It's hardly even worth discussing.

To be honest I don't think it is over simplistic. The principle of doing harm=bad is still there, it's just there that are situations where harm is unavoidable and so we have to try to figure out how to minimise it as much as possible. That's also a problem with the idea of absolute morality that takes no account of context. We end up in a situation where massively more harm is done because we had a priori defined something as wrong and so wouldn't do it even though doing it would have avoided further harm

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but better at what? Improving society? Decreasing harm? Making people happy?

Encouraging behaviour that is:
1) Good for society and 2) best for the individual.

Wicknight wrote: »

How is it determined in the first place that someone is wrong then?

In a priori moral systems in general or in Christian morality? - Generally a priori moral systems are based on key values, or wisdom. Aristotle and Kant are two philosophers to look at for alternative views on a priori ethics. In the Christian context, it is based on God, and the example revealed to us in Scripture.

If God created the world, and if God is truly omniscient, it then follows that God knows how best to live in this world, and His commandments are actually for our welfare rather than just being inconvenient.

If you are following a moral law that no one has established results in say harm, then what is the basis for the moral law in the first place?

Wicknight wrote: »

A priori system doesn't solve this problem? In fact it decreases the confidence since you don't even try to figure out if the moral law you are following will actually do.

Who says that one cannot reason as to why it is better?

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is why you have Christians following ancient laws, such as the law against homosexual relationships, without actually being able to explain why.

I think another key reason as to why we follow ancient beliefs, is because 1) we don't believe that the truth changes over time, and 2) we believe that they are just as relevant to us today as back then.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't the issue though. That only becomes a problem if we define absolute moral laws and then ignore if these laws result in pain in the future (for example proclaiming homosexual relationships are still moral even after we discover that they result in untold suffering of aliens on the far side of the moon).

It becomes an issue, as it renders moral interaction into the subjective, rather than an coherent standard.

Wicknight wrote: »

So really you are talking about making a judgement that might be flawed and just not making any judgement at all. I'm falling to see how you think the latter is better than the former. The only difference is that you introduce a god authority to justify yourselves.

No that isn't what I'm saying at all

A priori moral systems are based on making judgements based on the values we hold, after thought. What is more virtuous would be the Aristotelian way of looking at it, or for the Christian what is good rather than what is evil is based on the standard that God has revealed to us.

We can of course question if God is omniscient, or if God is omnipotent, but ultimately that is what Christian ethics is based on.

On the other hand, an entirely a posteori system (I do allow for some a posteori ethics in the context of learning from mistakes) would derive ethics based on past mistakes, rather than based on values before the fact.

And then we have utilitarianism, which tries to imagine the a posteori situation, and bases our actions on an imaginary hypothetical that we have drawn up that may not be entirely accurate, and indeed may have an entirely different outcome in reality.

Wicknight wrote: »

When presented with the fact that you can't explain how or why these laws are immoral you simply say God says the are and God knows all. You by pass the flaw in that system by simply pretending you have an all knowing authority speaking for you.

Which laws?

Wicknight wrote: »

That is hardly a solution. You could be as wrong about that as I could be wrong about determining the harmful effects of an action, but at least I'm trying to determine the effects where as you aren't bothering.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is all we are doing. You claim it is an unthinking process, which is pretty contrary to how I would see it. I'm doing a lot of thinking on the mechanics of ethics / morality for you right now :pac:

rainbow kirby

Honestly, I think Rush put it best.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

Being an atheist is freeing. Freedom from the mental contortions needed to try and reconcile my views with religion.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I do feel in general that values, good, evil are incredibly slippery in an atheistic worldview.

Good heavens, Jakkass, I thought you had studied philosophy at some point!

Atheists usually avoid using the terms "good" and "evil", at least in the same sense as the religious use them, since these terms only have meanings within religious frameworks. And these religions declare in an absolutist, proof-free, unquestionable manner, what is good and evil.

So, what's more corruptible or open to antisocial behaviour, a bunch of people who are handed a set of values on a plate and told not to question them, or an amorphous group of individuals each of whom views the acts of questioning and negotiation as central to the development of a general ethical code?

Herbal Deity

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Honestly, I think Rush put it best.

"A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings,
Of powers we cannot perceive!"

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Good heavens, Jakkass, I thought you had studied philosophy at some point!

In the middle of studying, yes.

robindch wrote: »

Atheists usually avoid using the terms "good" and "evil", at least in the same sense as the religious use them, since these terms only have meanings within religious frameworks. And these religions declare in an absolutist, proof-free, unquestionable manner, what is good and evil.

Good and evil, right and wrong, choose whichever terms you wish

robindch wrote: »

So, what's more corruptible or open to antisocial behaviour, a bunch of people who are handed a set of values on a plate and told not to question them, or an amorphous group of individuals each of whom views the acts of questioning and negotiation as central to the development of a general ethical code?

I think the secular system is more open to corruption, to be brutally honest. At least in the Christian system, whereby you have numerous people reading the same text, it will draw criticism when you attempt to strawman it for your own goals.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Good heavens, Jakkass, I thought you had studied philosophy at some point!

Atheists usually avoid using the terms "good" and "evil", at least in the same sense as the religious use them, since these terms only have meanings within religious frameworks. And these religions declare in an absolutist, proof-free, unquestionable manner, what is good and evil.

So, what's more corruptible or open to antisocial behaviour, a bunch of people who are handed a set of values on a plate and told not to question them, or an amorphous group of individuals each of whom views the acts of questioning and negotiation as central to the development of a general ethical code?

Indeed. A system of a priori absolute unquestionable ethics depends not only on the supposed authority figure existing but on all of their words and commands being honestly and accurately interpreted at all times by all people. I think history shows us that these words have not always been accurately interpreted, so much so that to this day there is nothing even approaching consensus on what they mean, and a system of an a priori system that is riddled with flaws but nonetheless is treated as divine perfection is a recipe for disaster

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the secular system is more open to corruption, to be brutally honest. At least in the Christian system, whereby you have numerous people reading the same text, it will draw criticism when you attempt to strawman it for your own goals.

I think the 33,000 branches of christianity beg to differ with you mate.

Also I don't know where you got the idea that only christians can criticise each other

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Encouraging behaviour that is:
1) Good for society and 2) best for the individual.

So we are back to the issue of harm. It is two different routes to the same end point. Ultimately all morality is based on concepts of harm.

Jakkass wrote: »

In a priori moral systems in general or in Christian morality? - Generally a priori moral systems are based on key values, or wisdom. Aristotle and Kant are two philosophers to look at for alternative views on a priori ethics. In the Christian context, it is based on God, and the example revealed to us in Scripture.

In the first case at some point someone had to determine that actions caused harm.

In the second (Christian) some one had to determine God exists and has revealed things to us.

So you can't escape human judgement, and the flaws involved in that. You are just shifting around when and where that judgement takes place.

Jakkass wrote: »

If God created the world, and if God is truly omniscient, it then follows that God knows how best to live in this world, and His commandments are actually for our welfare rather than just being inconvenient.

Yes but you have to determine that is true. And no offense but you are as flawed a human as the rest of us

So why would you think judgments such as working out the harm (or lack of) of drug use, which is something than can be researched and studied, is bad yet believe that personally picking which god and thus religion is true is ok.

It seems to me that we are in a much better position to do the former than the latter, even if we agree that human judgement is often flawed.

Jakkass wrote: »

Who says that one cannot reason as to why it is better?

If I'm following a prior moral system is one in which you follow due to tradition or authority rather than because you understand the consequences of each moral action.

So by definition you won't know the reasons behind the moral rule but follow them because you accept that there is an unknown reason behind them, whether than come from an authority like God or from the tradition (the wisdom of crowds)

Am I misunderstanding?

Jakkass wrote: »

I think another key reason as to why we follow ancient beliefs, is because 1) we don't believe that the truth changes over time, and 2) we believe that they are just as relevant to us today as back then.

But again how do you determine this?

Jakkass wrote: »

It becomes an issue, as it renders moral interaction into the subjective, rather than an coherent standard.

Well firstly it is still subjective because you pick the "coherent standard", you choose Christianity over Islam and if you had chosen Islam your moral standards would have been rather different.

If we are so bad at determining things how come we can determine this?

Secondly it maybe coherent but if you don't understand the reason behind each moral law then you are going on blind faith that the standard itself is perfect.

For example if the rule against homosexuality in Christianity was just because Paul was a closet homosexual how hated the idea of homosexuals, then obviously it is not immoral.

But how do you determine the difference between these two possibilities when you don't understand why homosexuality is supposed to be immoral?

At the very least if you have the reason for a moral decision you are then able to assess this reason, even if you can't accurately do this. You don't have to take it on faith that there is a good reason.

Jakkass wrote: »

A priori moral systems are based on making judgements based on the values we hold, after thought. What is more virtuous would be the Aristotelian way of looking at it, or for the Christian what is good rather than what is evil is based on the standard that God has revealed to us.

I understand that. The issue is that on the one hand you say humans don't have the ability to assess the effects of moral decisions (homosexual is not immoral because it doesn't harm people) but we do some how have the ability to determine God exists and thus can give ourselves over to following his predetermined moral guidelines without understanding why (since we don't need to since we can't assess the effects ourselves).

How is that exactly?

Jakkass wrote: »

We can of course question if God is omniscient, or if God is omnipotent, but ultimately that is what Christian ethics is based on.

And ultimately that is a much harder question to answer than determining the effects of moral decisions.

So where is the advantage to a priori system?

If it is harder to work out which is the correct a priori system to follow than it is to determine the after effects of particular moral actions, then an a priori system provides no advantage.

Jakkass wrote: »

On the other hand, an entirely a posteori system (I do allow for some a posteori ethics in the context of learning from mistakes) would derive ethics based on past mistakes, rather than based on values before the fact.

Or the mistakes of others. I don't need to drop Agent Orange on a person to know it will harm them. Someone else already did that. I don't need to stab someone to know it will harm them.

It would be foolish to believe we ignore collective human experience when determining the outcome of certain actions.

Jakkass wrote: »

Which laws?

God's laws.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not entirely convinced that this is all we are doing. You claim it is an unthinking process, which is pretty contrary to how I would see it.

I don't claim it is unthinking, I'm sure you think you are justified in your belief in God.

I'm saying you don't know why these moral laws exist, you follow them because of where they come from (God) not because you have determined the accuracy of them (homosexuality is harmful).

The issue with that is that it is much harder to determine the correct religion than it is to assess things about the natural world, such as the harmful effects of homosexual sex.

So how is this better?

You seem to simply assume you made the correct decision in following Christianity, while at the same time questioning moral decisions atheists like myself make because you (accurately) point out that we cannot know for certain the outcomes of actions.

It seems to have never occurred to you that you might have picked the wrong religion, and thus have a completely bogus set of a priori moral laws.

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To be honest I don't think it is over simplistic. The principle of doing harm=bad is still there, it's just there that are situations where harm is unavoidable and so we have to try to figure out how to minimise it as much as possible. That's also a problem with the idea of absolute morality that takes no account of context. We end up in a situation where massively more harm is done because we had a priori defined something as wrong and so wouldn't do it even though doing it would have avoided further harm

Indeed minimizing harm is the goal. The golden rule implies though that you should do onto another as you would like done unto yourself, regardless of the context. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but either way, we are on the same page. I guess my point was you can't have a fixed priori set up that takes account of all possible scenarios.

Ush1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think the 33,000 branches of christianity beg to differ with you mate.

Also I don't know where you got the idea that only christians can criticise each other

I've said this to him twice already.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the secular system is more open to corruption, to be brutally honest. At least in the Christian system, whereby you have numerous people reading the same text, it will draw criticism when you attempt to strawman it for your own goals.

But if you believe that your interpretation is correct then you believe God supports you. And who would you side with, God or the other members of your church you say you are wrong? Who are they to question God (ie what is in fact just your interpretation of what you think God wants) It is very dangerous for a person to remove their own authority from moral decisions and to believe they are backed by an all powerful and unquestionable authority who cannot be wrong.

And this is what history demonstrates, thousands of years of people doing what they determined was right with the belief that they had the moral authority of God behind them. In a humanist view you justify your moral position. You and you alone. There is no "... and God agrees with me so I'm right"


Again (like a lot of religious people) you seem to just assume your religion is correct and ignore the choice you made to follow your religion, which was a subjective choice. And as soon as you have done this you (again like a lot of religious people) abdicate responsibility for your choices and say that you are just following the judgement of the supreme authority and who are we to question this authority, when in reality the person we are questioning is you and the choices you made.