| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/17/2015 02:40:51 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists. |
Using atheistic views, can you explain what morality is and how it exists? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 02:40:52 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, you keep asking about atheists and morality. |
That would be a misinterpretation of the issue at hand.
What I do keep asking about is the suggestion by some that atheists are, by their very nature, not capable of being moral.
There is a difference.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 02:53:49 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists.
No one operates in a vaccuum and unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I would suggest that morals are not the exclusive domain of the religious, and that the mores of a society are relatively constant in any given milieu, regardless of the fact that some practice faith or not.
Deviance from the norm is normanlly shunned by both parties.
Ray |
I just did. The difference is not in how the two parties act. The difference is in their concept of where those rules originated; do they come from within or from without? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 02:56:55 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Using atheistic views, can you explain what morality is and how it exists? |
As soon as you explain what you mean by "atheistic views".
What does having the belief that there is/are no god/gods have to do with morality?
Morality comes from inside, and the society in which you live.
Personally, I wonder what some of the religious folk would do were it ever proven that no god exists.
Would you all go wild since there would be no Judgement Day, and no Heaven?
|
|
|
|
02/17/2015 03:01:20 PM · #255 |
| painting with broad brushes is fun. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 03:04:55 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Using atheistic views, can you explain what morality is and how it exists? |
As soon as you explain what you mean by "atheistic views".
What does having the belief that there is/are no god/gods have to do with morality?
Morality comes from inside, and the society in which you live.
Personally, I wonder what some of the religious folk would do were it ever proven that no god exists.
Would you all go wild since there would be no Judgement Day, and no Heaven? |
But if it's society and us individually, that would mean it's changeable depending on who's elected.
I'll stay away from invoking Godwin's Law so I'll just focus on slavery. Why couldn't the south keep slavery if that section of society thought it was okay? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 03:13:40 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=RayEthier]
Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists.
Ray |
I'll add one more thing with some technical terms. I think this conversation has been had at least a dozen times over the years so we shouldn't expend too much energy thinking that the 13th time is going to be the game changer.
If we have two spectra on an X/Y axis (theism-atheism, realism-antirealism) then we wind up with four boxes representing their combinations. Three boxes are logically consistent. One box, at least in my view, is not. That box is the combination of atheism and realism (wiki "moral realism" for more info).
Some moral philosophers think that moral anti-realism produces moral frameworks that are not worth talking about compared to realist moral frameworks. That they lack the compelling power one would seek in such a construct. Since atheists can only be anti-realists it is these people who would make the arguments you have run across about atheists being amoral.
EDIT: fix a typo
Message edited by author 2015-02-17 15:29:39. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 03:53:17 PM · #258 |
If we are truthful to ourselves and I mean really truthful, what do we really know about the existential dilemmas in our lives ? Why are we here, why do we suffer, what am I behind these senses that interact in the world? Staying truthful to ourselves, do science or religion hoenstly answer these questions? Maybe the only honest answer is "I don't know"
Or as the 13th century zen monk Dogen put it: To study the Way is to study the Self. To study the Self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2015 04:01:10 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Cory:
I think that, despite the claims of the religious, scientists are often much better at appreciating 'creation', if only because we're looking with our eyes fully open.
Religion seems to want to remove the awe and mystery more than any scientist - so much so that you have no problem accepting 'answers' 'truth' 'facts' that are anything but, it seems the philosophy of religion abhors a mystery and strives to fill every tiny gap with an explanation (even if only 'God did it, because God")... |
You seem to have a very distorted view of religion. Maybe you hang out with the wrong religious people.
True religion shouldn't conflict with science. After all, if science is used to explain the universe, then it would also explain the Creator (the original reason science was established).
If science and religion conflict, there's something wrong with the religion or the science.
EDIT: Usually where science and religion conflict is those who think the bible is a scientific book - it's not. |
How would you define religion? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 04:02:12 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The question that begs to be answered is which interpretation of reality is the correct one. One which can be reviewed, analyzed and proven to be correct, or that which is based on hearsay, supposition, oral history and grandiose tales of floods, people turned to salt and the storing of two of every species of everything known to mankind.
Ray |
I think you have singlehandedly thrown out all of history. :P
BTW, you keep asking about atheists and morality. You keep asking if atheists are IMmoral and the real word you want is whether atheists are Amoral. However, whenever you hear that argument people are making a distinction and their argument would be that atheists have no access to a moral structure larger than themselves (and to them this is the only framework worth considering). The atheist's morality is either constructed by themselves or by other humans. They could not point to a morality that exists independent of human thought. |
I don't think you get much of your morality from the bible. When's the last time you stoned someone? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 04:03:56 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
I don't think you get much of your morality from the bible. When's the last time you stoned someone? |
You forget. Pot is now legal in Oregon... |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 04:09:33 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
I don't think you get much of your morality from the bible. When's the last time you stoned someone? |
You forget. Pot is now legal in Oregon... |
... in a new attempt to lure strays back to the fold ...  |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 05:39:22 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Understanding how something works make me feel even greater awe. |
Often times this is VERY true.
I think that, despite the claims of the religious, scientists are often much better at appreciating 'creation', if only because we're looking with our eyes fully open.
Religion seems to want to remove the awe and mystery more than any scientist - so much so that you have no problem accepting 'answers' 'truth' 'facts' that are anything but, it seems the philosophy of religion abhors a mystery and strives to fill every tiny gap with an explanation (even if only 'God did it, because God")... |
^^^^ pompous statement of the year right there. |
Which definition of pompous are you using here? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 05:41:34 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Just a question for Doc - do you think the the awe and wonder inspired by observation of the universe and the natural world was the end "destination" for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and other such scientists? I'm pretty sure that they would describe that awe and wonder as the "gateway" to their desire for further study and exploration. |
You'd have to ask them, but I'd wonder if "awe and wonder" are only the stepping stones to "control and understanding". i think scientists have a great deal of curiosity, but I don't know if that group would ever feel at home with the idea that something would be so far beyond them as to have no hope of explaining it in detail. To me, awe and wonder are best invoked by something of that nature. If you think that ultimately we, as humans, have the capacity to eventually explain everything there is, can we truly be awed? |
By calling it a religion you are like those scientists trying to explane it in detail, maybe that is not the letting go that awe and wonder are trying to teach. |
This is an important point not lost on me. The term "religion" does get used in a negative sense even among Christian circles (though not always). (They will say something like "I'm not religious. I have a relationship.") Many people have what I call a "pocket god". They keep their god in their pocket to be pulled out when they need something, but these gods make no demands and are blind to our poor choices. In this way the adherent, in their mind, is the one in control. |
So, sorta like some kind of helpful omnipotent scapegoat. Neato, I want one! |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 05:49:57 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Cory:
I think that, despite the claims of the religious, scientists are often much better at appreciating 'creation', if only because we're looking with our eyes fully open.
Religion seems to want to remove the awe and mystery more than any scientist - so much so that you have no problem accepting 'answers' 'truth' 'facts' that are anything but, it seems the philosophy of religion abhors a mystery and strives to fill every tiny gap with an explanation (even if only 'God did it, because God")... |
You seem to have a very distorted view of religion. Maybe you hang out with the wrong religious people.
True religion shouldn't conflict with science. After all, if science is used to explain the universe, then it would also explain the Creator (the original reason science was established).
If science and religion conflict, there's something wrong with the religion or the science.
EDIT: Usually where science and religion conflict is those who think the bible is a scientific book - it's not. |
Perhaps, but it's my general perception that the religious tend to fill any gap left by Science with God. Which is all fine and good, until there aren't any gaps big enough for God to fit in left.
So, while not exactly a classic conflict, it IS a conflict in the sense that Science is constantly undermining religion, slowly chipping away at every nook and cranny where God used to reside. In the deepest and darkest recesses the light of science has yet to shine, but eventually it will shine there, and that's when the real conflict occurs, because sometime before that the religious will have to decide to either illogically embrace their position or they'll have to abandon their deepest and dearest beliefs. That sounds like a recipe for trouble to me.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2015 05:57:55 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The question that begs to be answered is which interpretation of reality is the correct one. One which can be reviewed, analyzed and proven to be correct, or that which is based on hearsay, supposition, oral history and grandiose tales of floods, people turned to salt and the storing of two of every species of everything known to mankind.
Ray |
I think you have singlehandedly thrown out all of history. :P
BTW, you keep asking about atheists and morality. You keep asking if atheists are IMmoral and the real word you want is whether atheists are Amoral. However, whenever you hear that argument people are making a distinction and their argument would be that atheists have no access to a moral structure larger than themselves (and to them this is the only framework worth considering). The atheist's morality is either constructed by themselves or by other humans. They could not point to a morality that exists independent of human thought. |
Well, if we accept that God isn't real, and that at best he is a theological construct, then I think it's pretty darn clear that no morality or ethical code exists outside of independent human thought. And that's probably why so much variation exists in this realm. I have university credits in ethics, so I'm not exactly unfamiliar with this territory - and trust me when I tell you that all ethics and morality are relevant only to their time and place in history, and that there are no absolutes whatsoever that can be agreed upon by everyone. Of course, there are plenty of differing systems of ethics, but all have their base assumptions, and you can't get away from the fact that those assumptions themselves are nothing more than the result of (hopefully) rational human thought.
So basically, nice try on the claim to a higher authority for your system of ethics, but you have zero ability to demonstrate any superiority over any other system, they are all relevant to their time and culture, your values are only 'correct' here and now, or at least, one can say have been 'wrong' at some time and place.
Message edited by author 2015-02-18 12:29:14. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 06:01:49 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=RayEthier]
Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists.
Ray |
I'll add one more thing with some technical terms. I think this conversation has been had at least a dozen times over the years so we shouldn't expend too much energy thinking that the 13th time is going to be the game changer.
If we have two spectra on an X/Y axis (theism-atheism, realism-antirealism) then we wind up with four boxes representing their combinations. Three boxes are logically consistent. One box, at least in my view, is not. That box is the combination of atheism and realism (wiki "moral realism" for more info).
Some moral philosophers think that moral anti-realism produces moral frameworks that are not worth talking about compared to realist moral frameworks. That they lack the compelling power one would seek in such a construct. Since atheists can only be anti-realists it is these people who would make the arguments you have run across about atheists being amoral.
EDIT: fix a typo |
Holy shit, did you really just claim that the religious are the only realists? You guys operate off of something that is demonstrably not factual, and yet claim to be realists. Holy cow. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 06:03:34 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by jagar:
If we are truthful to ourselves and I mean really truthful, what do we really know about the existential dilemmas in our lives ? Why are we here, why do we suffer, what am I behind these senses that interact in the world? Staying truthful to ourselves, do science or religion hoenstly answer these questions? Maybe the only honest answer is "I don't know"
Or as the 13th century zen monk Dogen put it: To study the Way is to study the Self. To study the Self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever. |
Up to the last couple of sentences which drift off into bullcrap mysticism, I'd say that's about as close to right as any position can be (for now. Perhaps one day science really might answer some of that question, or at least give some more context for the theological discussion, but we can be pretty sure that there won't be any major developments in religion over the next millennia...)
Message edited by author 2015-02-17 18:04:35. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 06:33:14 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Cory:
I think that, despite the claims of the religious, scientists are often much better at appreciating 'creation', if only because we're looking with our eyes fully open.
Religion seems to want to remove the awe and mystery more than any scientist - so much so that you have no problem accepting 'answers' 'truth' 'facts' that are anything but, it seems the philosophy of religion abhors a mystery and strives to fill every tiny gap with an explanation (even if only 'God did it, because God")... |
You seem to have a very distorted view of religion. Maybe you hang out with the wrong religious people.
True religion shouldn't conflict with science. After all, if science is used to explain the universe, then it would also explain the Creator (the original reason science was established).
If science and religion conflict, there's something wrong with the religion or the science.
EDIT: Usually where science and religion conflict is those who think the bible is a scientific book - it's not. |
Perhaps, but it's my general perception that the religious tend to fill any gap left by Science with God. Which is all fine and good, until there aren't any gaps big enough for God to fit in left.
So, while not exactly a classic conflict, it IS a conflict in the sense that Science is constantly undermining religion, slowly chipping away at every nook and cranny where God used to reside. In the deepest and darkest recesses the light of science has yet to shine, but eventually it will shine there, and that's when the real conflict occurs, because sometime before that the religious will have to decide to either illogically embrace their position or they'll have to abandon their deepest and dearest beliefs. That sounds like a recipe for trouble to me. |
Seems like you're only speaking to people who are using God of the Gaps which is pretty shaky ground to stand anything on. You need to meet some better people.
Could you wrap your brain around scientists who are religious?
You should check out Christian thinkers in science and look at the list of alive today.
Michal Heller (born 1936): He is a Catholic priest, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a founding member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He also is a mathematical physicist who has written articles on relativistic physics and Noncommutative geometry. His cross-disciplinary book Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion came out in 2003. For this work he won a Templeton Prize.
Andrew Pinsent (born 1966): Fr. Andrew Pinsent, a Catholic priest, is the Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University.[340] He is also a particle physicist, whose previous work contributed to the DELPHI experiment at CERN.
Just to name a few. Also, many of the major scientific discoveries have been by those of the priesthood. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 07:12:24 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=RayEthier]
Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists.
Ray |
I'll add one more thing with some technical terms. I think this conversation has been had at least a dozen times over the years so we shouldn't expend too much energy thinking that the 13th time is going to be the game changer.
If we have two spectra on an X/Y axis (theism-atheism, realism-antirealism) then we wind up with four boxes representing their combinations. Three boxes are logically consistent. One box, at least in my view, is not. That box is the combination of atheism and realism (wiki "moral realism" for more info).
Some moral philosophers think that moral anti-realism produces moral frameworks that are not worth talking about compared to realist moral frameworks. That they lack the compelling power one would seek in such a construct. Since atheists can only be anti-realists it is these people who would make the arguments you have run across about atheists being amoral.
EDIT: fix a typo |
Holy shit, did you really just claim that the religious are the only realists? You guys operate off of something that is demonstrably not factual, and yet claim to be realists. Holy cow. |
Lol. you are so funny Cory. MORAL realism, dunderhead (and I mean that in a loving way). You just in the previous post confirmed that you are an antirealist!
Originally posted by Cory:
Well, if we accept that God isn't real...then I think it's pretty darn clear that no morality or ethical code exists outside of independant human thought. |
That is an almost textbook statement for moral anti-realism. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 10:54:33 PM · #271 |
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
— Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 11:16:45 PM · #272 |
You folks do realize that... you will NEVER convince the other side, right?
Whatever side you're on... you won't convince them to swap to yours here on this thread.
Move on, folks.
There's nothing to see here.
You'll discover your own idea ... on your own... not by having someone try diligently to convince you otherwise.
I know for a fact that... if I'd read the stuff prior to this, I'd still believe what I believe... only would probably just be frustrated that no one could HEAR me.
So... I didn't read it. :D
To each his or her own... But... you'll eventually believe as I do. ;)
So... WHY are you folks still doing this?
But, really. Why? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 11:44:14 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
So... WHY are you folks still doing this?
But, really. Why? |
It's FUN! |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 11:48:28 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Lydia:
So... WHY are you folks still doing this?
But, really. Why? |
It's FUN! |
Bingo!
And besides, we may never switch sides, but there is a certain fascination with understanding the polar opposite view point. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 11:50:19 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Lydia:
So... WHY are you folks still doing this?
But, really. Why? |
It's FUN! |
Okay then.
Carry on! Enjoy!!
|
|
