| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2011 01:38:16 PM · #501 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In a conversation with someone else I mentioned that I find one common theme among moral systems held by atheists to be a generally smaller sphere of influence. In other words, the number of actions which are viewed in a moral light is smaller. |
You are getting jumped on for this, but I don't think it's an invalid observation. The one thing that should be common among atheists is a rejection of the concept of "sin." (Perhaps someone can point me to an exception if they know of one?)
A "sin" is something that is considered immoral simply because it has been declared wrong by God/scripture/dogma. There may be adverse consequences to the "sinful" conduct, but those consequences are secondary to why the conduct is considered immoral. It's immoral because the religion dictates that it is immoral - end of story.
This rejection of "sin" is at the heart of Louis' "yawning chasm of apathy," which is a great description of the reaction that believers should expect from any non-believer when the believer starts talking about what the believer's deity proscribes or commands. "Because God says so" or "because God thinks that" is a singularly unpersuasive argument for anyone that doesn't already believe in your particular deity.
So yes, if you take away the concept of sin as a basis for moral judgment, the sphere of influence will inherently narrow, because now morality must be based upon consequences of conduct and not the mere fact of the conduct itself.
Edited to correct amoral to immoral.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 15:30:41. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 02:00:54 PM · #502 |
I think you are onto something SP, but some of the semantics are wrong. "Sin", in the original context of the word, was an archery term which meant "to miss the mark". So, in a general sense, I don't think everybody is rejecting the concept that you can have actions which "miss the mark", but rather the foundational descriptors of what it means to "hit the mark" are more limited.
A Jew would consider eating pork to be "sin" because they feel it is correct behavior to abstain. A secular person might not eat dolphin because they feel it is correct behavior not to eat such a sentient being. The second may not use the word "sin", although the general concept remains the same. "Sin" has become so loaded with religious meaning that it probably becomes unhelpful in any other context. So an atheist may reject "sin" because of the religious context, but I don't think they reject the idea of "missing the mark" of acceptable behavior. It is immoral to walk up to someone and punch them in the nose with no cause. We could denote this "sin", but I fully understand if we want to avoid the term.
In your last post I substituted the word "immoral" whenever use said "amoral". It seemed like you meant the first rather than the last. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 14:02:04. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 02:06:45 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In a conversation with someone else I mentioned that I find one common theme among moral systems held by atheists... |
la la la I'm not liiiistening.... |
"moral systems held by atheists..." = "moral systems held by people who don't believe in fairies..." = "moral systems held by people who don't believe in ghosts..." Still marching on with that logical fallacy. |
Shannon, I would seriously appreciate it if you would drop the repetitive, mockery, the falling-back-on-formulaic-categorizing-of-fallacies that characterizes your responses in this thread, and deal with me as an intelligent human being who genuinely wants a reasoned answer to his point, to wit:
GIVEN that a specific individual believes that the roots of our morality come from God:
GIVEN that other, specific individuals who avowedly do not believe in God staunchly maintain that morality is a human, not a God-given, characteristic:
PLEASE explain why it is fallacious for the first person to expressly request of the other persons, as individuals, because they are atheists and thus apposite his position, that they explain their own, personal moral codes, where they come from, how they are derived, what is the glue that holds them together, whatever?
All of your "ghosts/fairies/spaghetti monsters fallacy" refutation is just a smoke screen, because the very specific concept of god/not god is embedded in this particular quest: your original seeker wants to understand how someone who does not believe in God can have a grounded, reliable moral code without reference to a greater entity.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2011 02:11:55 PM · #504 |
Why don't we just ask for the appropriate terminology to describe the group of moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to be atheists? I've tried all sorts of ways to sidestep the landmine, but I'm running out of combinations.
I would have figured it would be reasonable to say "one common theme among moral systems held by Americans" to denote that Americans generally have moral systems, Americans may have different sources for them, but there may still be common threads among them.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 14:12:10. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 03:22:52 PM · #505 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why don't we just ask for the appropriate terminology to describe the group of moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to be atheists? I've tried all sorts of ways to sidestep the landmine, but I'm running out of combinations.
I would have figured it would be reasonable to say "one common theme among moral systems held by Americans" to denote that Americans generally have moral systems, Americans may have different sources for them, but there may still be common threads among them. |
But I think this is the point you are missing. There is no common theme amongst Americans. Just as there is no common theme amongst atheists. The serial killer certainly reasons out morality differently than most people. Yet that same serial killer may or may not believe in God. He may well think it's God telling him to do what he does. Yet, in most if not all religions, killing is condemned by God. Morality is a very personal thing. Every individual has to figure it out for him/herself. Most do so before they've even be introduced to religion at all. Babies have compassion for other babies. Small children share. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 03:36:55 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Shannon, I would seriously appreciate it if you would drop the repetitive, mockery, the falling-back-on-formulaic-categorizing-of-fallacies that characterizes your responses in this thread |
Deal... I will stop pointing out fallacies the instant he stops resorting to them (especially when he refers to the posts as 'logical'), and drop the mockery when straight responses prove effective. However neither of those have happened yet as he continues to push the same dreck:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why don't we just ask for the appropriate terminology to describe the group of moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to be atheists? |
The land mine Jason is trying to sidestep is nature of his own question. There is no more correlation between "moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to be atheists" and "moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to not believe in fairies." It's the same exact thing, and equally absurd no matter how you frame it. Do people who don't believe in fairies or dragons have moral systems? Of course they do, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with that lack of belief. Zilch. Is there any way to ask about "moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to not believe in spirit guides" that makes a shred of sense? Nope. The shared disbelief is spurious to the question. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 03:42:55 PM · #507 |
The only way Achoo is going to get what he wants is to do it by conducting a study.
Send PMs to everyone on DPC that he knows or suspects to be atheist/agnostic/etc. Ask them if they'd be willing to conduct a quick survey. Survey consists of the questions he wants answered.
Take all finished surveys, rip them apart for commonalities, put commonalities together, and then declare those gathered commonalities to be the moral system of "atheists" :D
There, I solved all our problems ;) |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 03:53:29 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why don't we just ask for the appropriate terminology to describe the group of moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to be atheists? I've tried all sorts of ways to sidestep the landmine, but I'm running out of combinations.
I would have figured it would be reasonable to say "one common theme among moral systems held by Americans" to denote that Americans generally have moral systems, Americans may have different sources for them, but there may still be common threads among them. |
But I think this is the point you are missing. There is no common theme amongst Americans. Just as there is no common theme amongst atheists. The serial killer certainly reasons out morality differently than most people. Yet that same serial killer may or may not believe in God. He may well think it's God telling him to do what he does. Yet, in most if not all religions, killing is condemned by God. Morality is a very personal thing. Every individual has to figure it out for him/herself. Most do so before they've even be introduced to religion at all. Babies have compassion for other babies. Small children share. |
But I think you are wrong. I think there ARE common themes you could find. For example, the concept of "fairness" would be found throughout the different moralities. This might come from the fact that all Americans share being human (ie. their genetics) or the culture they are immersed in. Etc. Of course when you zoom into individual scenarios, the themes differ, but when you pull back to a large general view, you can see commonalities. It's an obvious truth and I don't know why you guys have so much animosity against such an idea. (not that you, Kelli, were showing animosity, but some of the other posts have been downright aggressive). |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:00:46 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The land mine Jason is trying to sidestep is nature of his own question. There is no more correlation between "moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to be atheists" and "moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to not believe in fairies." It's the same exact thing, and equally absurd no matter how you frame it. Do people who don't believe in fairies or dragons have moral systems? Of course they do, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with that lack of belief. Zilch. Is there any way to ask about "moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to not believe in spirit guides" that makes a shred of sense? Nope. The shared disbelief is spurious to the question. |
This is completely and demonstrably false. There is a difference. I agree there would be no likely correlation between moral systems held and belief in fairies. If you asked 1000 people if they believed in fairies and then asked them to describe their moral system you would find no correlation. However, if you asked 1000 people if they believed in God and then asked the same 1000 people to describe their moral system you would certainly, undoubtedly, demonstrably be able to find correlations which shake out along the lines of whether you believe in God or not. Is there a 100% correlation? No.
I honestly think you just may not be smart enough to grasp this idea. I don't mean that in an insulting way. Everybody has their limit. You've been saying such things for literally years. We can easily find journal articles to show this to be false. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:11:15 PM · #510 |
You might get more traction if you were comparing the moral foundations of conservatives vs. liberals rather than Christians vs. Atheists. What I am hearing is there is a problem in the premise of the debate.
I can see how some would say the Atheism is not the opposite of Christian, or Atheism is not the opposite of religion.
Now you may find more atheists amongst liberals and more Christians amongst conservatives, but they are not mutually exclusive and my no means define either side.
But it would probably be a more interesting comparison seeing that the exact same actions are deemed moral by one side and immoral by the other.
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:13:52 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The land mine Jason is trying to sidestep is nature of his own question. There is no more correlation between "moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to be atheists" and "moral systems held by a group of individuals that happen to not believe in fairies." |
[emphasis added]
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree there would be no likely correlation between moral systems held and belief in fairies. If you asked 1000 people if they believed in fairies and then asked them to describe their moral system you would find no correlation. |
Maybe you misread what Shannon said. The operative concept is NON-belief. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:23:01 PM · #512 |
Thanks Judith. Just insert the word if you want. I mean the same thing.
Perhaps this gets at the difference:
If you took 1000 people and split them based on their question "do you believe in God?" and then asked both groups about their moral systems, you would definitely find statistical differences between them even though there is still variety in both groups. This is the scenario I repeated am referencing. When I say "moral systems held by atheists" I guess I mainly mean "excluding all religious moral systems".
If you then took the group of non-believers only, you would find all sorts of different moral systems. Shannon references this scenario. However, we know there would still be themes. The most obvious is that none of them would be based on God's moral authority (where you might find that answer commonly in the religious group).
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 16:23:49. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:23:02 PM · #513 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you are onto something SP, but some of the semantics are wrong. "Sin", in the original context of the word . . .
A Jew would consider eating pork to be "sin" because they feel it is correct behavior to abstain. A secular person might not eat dolphin because they feel it is correct behavior not to eat such a sentient being. |
See, your example proves my point. The kosher Jew abstains from eating pork because God says not to eat pork. If you ask you might get an answer like "pigs are unclean," but, of course, the reason pigs are deemed unclean is because God/scripture says so. Any rational justifications for proscribing eating pork are ad hoc rationalizations for the religiously proscribed conduct, not the reason they are proscribed in the first place.
The secular person abstaining from eating dolphin is doing it because they believe the conduct is in some way harmful. It is the consequences/implications of the conduct itself, not the consequences of violating an externally imposed ban that makes the conduct "immoral."
I'm sure you are correct on the derivation of the word, but I the word in common usage has become synonymous with "religiously proscribed behavior." So much so, that I have seen the modifier "secular sin" being used in the context of things that people feel obligated to do or not do, not out of personal belief, but out of a sense of obligation or fear of chastisement from the social consensus. For example, a "secular sin" might be not recycling.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In your last post I substituted the word "immoral" whenever use said "amoral". It seemed like you meant the first rather than the last. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
Absolutely right. Note to self - no posting before coffee.
Message edited by author 2011-02-23 16:26:25. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:28:59 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think you are onto something SP, but some of the semantics are wrong. "Sin", in the original context of the word . . .
A Jew would consider eating pork to be "sin" because they feel it is correct behavior to abstain. A secular person might not eat dolphin because they feel it is correct behavior not to eat such a sentient being. |
See, your example proves my point. The kosher Jew abstains from eating pork because God says not to eat pork. If you ask you might get an answer like "pigs are unclean," but, of course, the reason pigs are deemed unclean is because God/scripture says so. Any rational justifications for proscribing eating port are ad hoc rationalizations for the religiously proscribed conduct, not the reason they are proscribed in the first place.
The secular person abstaining from eating dolphin is doing it because they believe the conduct is in some way harmful. It is the consequences/implications of the conduct itself, not the consequences of violating an externally imposed ban that makes the conduct "immoral." |
Here's where I may argue. The Jew thinks eating the pork is harmful...to himself. It is harming his relationship with God. The PETA dude likewise thinks its harmful...I guess to the dolphin, but he may also think it is harmful to his relationship with other PETA people.
You assert that the Jew is just doing it because "God says so", but wouldn't we find some similar assertion for the PETA person? Either "he says so" or "PETA says so" or something. There is, at the foundation, no more reason not to eat a dolphin than there is not to eat a pig. "Because the dolphin is smart" is as axiomatic as "Because the pig is unclean". |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:31:01 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
if you asked 1000 people if they believed in God and then asked the same 1000 people to describe their moral system you would certainly, undoubtedly, demonstrably be able to find correlation. |
Sure (assuming you mean the same god)... because along with that belief they are sharing an agreed upon standard. You could probably say the same thing about a group of people who believe in Zeus or Spirit Guides, too. But you're NOT talking about people who believe in God. You're trying to assign a correlation where there isn't one— no shared standard. As such, it's exactly the same as inquiring the about the moral standards of people who don't believe in fairies, ghosts, Bigfoot.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I honestly think you just may not be smart enough to grasp this idea. I don't mean that in an insulting way. Everybody has their limit. You've been saying such things for literally years. |
I maintain hope that one day you will understand the irony of your post. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:37:01 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
if you asked 1000 people if they believed in God and then asked the same 1000 people to describe their moral system you would certainly, undoubtedly, demonstrably be able to find correlation. |
Sure (assuming you mean the same god)... because along with that belief they are sharing an agreed upon standard. You could probably say the same thing about a group of people who believe in Zeus or Spirit Guides, too. But you're NOT talking about people who believe in God. You're trying to assign a correlation where there isn't one— no shared standard. As such, it's exactly the same as inquiring the about the moral standards of people who don't believe in fairies, ghosts, Bigfoot.
|
You would still find correlations. They would still be there. And they would be more obvious when compared to the group of people who do not share this belief in gods. This has totally been proven. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:44:42 PM · #517 |
Might as well put my money where my mouth is. To quote Jonathan Haidt (an atheist, let you worry about bias):
Religious believers give more money than secular folk to secular charities, and to their neighbors. They give more of their time, too, and of their blood. Even if you excuse secular liberals from charity because they vote for government welfare programs, it is awfully hard to explain why secular liberals give so little blood. The bottom line, Brooks concludes, is that all forms of giving go together, and all are greatly increased by religious participation and slightly increased by conservative ideology (after controlling for religiosity).
It appears there is a correlation between religious belief (as a proxy of God-belief) and the moral weight given to generosity. Perhaps you might find some hair to split, but I think it is a clear-cut example of how you could separate "religious people" (ie. believers in gods) and "non-religious people" (ie. non-believers) along a specific moral line. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 04:52:31 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's where I may argue. The Jew thinks eating the pork is harmful...to himself. It is harming his relationship with God. |
I'm not sure why you are being so pedantic about this. Why would it harm his relationship with God? Answer: Because God has commanded that he not eat pig. If God had not said "don't eat pig," there would be no reason for believing that doing so would harm his relationship God.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You assert that the Jew is just doing it because "God says so", but wouldn't we find some similar assertion for the PETA person? Either "he says so" or "PETA says so" or something. There is, at the foundation, no more reason not to eat a dolphin than there is not to eat a pig. "Because the dolphin is smart" is as axiomatic as "Because the pig is unclean". |
Not sure why you are bringing up PETA, I don't think you have to be in PETA to think dolphin steak is morally questionable.
Outside of a religious context, there may actually be no more reason not to eat a dolphin than there is not to eat a pig, but your own description was that of a person abstaining because they did not think it was morally correct to eat such a sentient animal. That is a far cry from not eating it "because I say so." You may not agree with the rationale, but it is a rationale based upon a perception of the conduct leading to actual, external harm. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:00:28 PM · #519 |
On the subject of 'what to eat' - I would base my decision on whether it tastes good to me, whether it's socially acceptable to eat (i.e. I'm sure goat's brains are delicious, but if they stink up the canteen at work, forget it), and how endangered the animal is.
I'd love to try roast gorilla, but I know there aren't many of them left, and I'd hate for my son in 30 years time to wonder why there are no gorillas left and think it's because his dad ate the last of them.
But pigs, cows, sheep, fish; they're a renewable resource etc. so the skies the limit. I tend to draw a convenient line in the sand regarding aspects like chopping down rainforests to make room for more cows. But if I started thinking about the wider cause-and-effect type environmental impacts of what I ate, then I'd be living on a diet of water and lettuce.
Church-imposed limitations on not eating meat on Good Friday etc. are the perfect reason for me to make my annual visit to McDonalds on that very day. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:13:52 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think there ARE common themes you could find. For example, the concept of "fairness" would be found throughout the different moralities. |
I don't think "fairness" qualifies as a "shared American moral value" at this time, or we wouldn't have state legislators evading arrest in order to protect workers' rights to bargain over working conditions and the House repealing the closest we've come to universal health care (coverage) ... :-( |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:16:03 PM · #521 |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:20:02 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's where I may argue. The Jew thinks eating the pork is harmful...to himself. It is harming his relationship with God. |
I'm not sure why you are being so pedantic about this. Why would it harm his relationship with God? Answer: Because God has commanded that he not eat pig. If God had not said "don't eat pig," there would be no reason for believing that doing so would harm his relationship God.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You assert that the Jew is just doing it because "God says so", but wouldn't we find some similar assertion for the PETA person? Either "he says so" or "PETA says so" or something. There is, at the foundation, no more reason not to eat a dolphin than there is not to eat a pig. "Because the dolphin is smart" is as axiomatic as "Because the pig is unclean". |
Not sure why you are bringing up PETA, I don't think you have to be in PETA to think dolphin steak is morally questionable.
Outside of a religious context, there may actually be no more reason not to eat a dolphin than there is not to eat a pig, but your own description was that of a person abstaining because they did not think it was morally correct to eat such a sentient animal. That is a far cry from not eating it "because I say so." You may not agree with the rationale, but it is a rationale based upon a perception of the conduct leading to actual, external harm. |
OK, I won't keep going on it. I only used "PETA" so I could give a name to the guy, no other reason. I guess my question was that when a person abstains from eating a sentient animal, what is informing him that this ought to be? I'm guessing the answer somewhere would be "genetics", but here we can see that the genetics would be misinforming us at least on a survival basis. There would be no downside to eating a different species, even if that species were smart. I seem to recall people speculating that homo sapiens and neanderthals ate each other with frequency. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:20:42 PM · #523 |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:24:08 PM · #524 |
| Maybe this will help you Doc, maybe it won't but I'll try to explain this (and bear with me as I'm not good with the written word). I personally don't consider the ability to tell right from wrong as "morals" to begin with. I've never not done something because "it was against my morals" though I've not done stuff "because it just doesn't feel right". When I decide if something is right or wrong I take several factors into consideration first. 1st, is it legal. No? I won't do it. Yes, then 2nd would be is it benefical to either myself, my family or the person I'm going to do it for. And 3rd would be does it harm anyone and/or any thing and will it make me feel good/bad. Sometimes I go by gut feel (like I'd never even consider eating a gorilla because to me they seem just a step away from being human). But basically I make my decisions as they come along. I don't sit and ponder "what ifs" because it's just not my nature. I don't have a list of things in my head all the time that I need to follow. And I'm certainly not following anyone's orders (except for the law). Does that explain anything? And the reason I think people are getting so frustrated with this is if you're not following orders (like God's law) then every person's list of right and wrong will vary. |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 05:26:25 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Maybe this will help you Doc, maybe it won't but I'll try to explain this (and bear with me as I'm not good with the written word). I personally don't consider the ability to tell right from wrong as "morals" to begin with. I've never not done something because "it was against my morals" though I've not done stuff "because it just doesn't feel right". When I decide if something is right or wrong I take several factors into consideration first. 1st, is it legal. No? I won't do it. Yes, then 2nd would be is it benefical to either myself, my family or the person I'm going to do it for. And 3rd would be does it harm anyone and/or any thing and will it make me feel good/bad. Sometimes I go by gut feel (like I'd never even consider eating a gorilla because to me they seem just a step away from being human). But basically I make my decisions as they come along. I don't sit and ponder "what ifs" because it's just not my nature. I don't have a list of things in my head all the time that I need to follow. And I'm certainly not following anyone's orders (except for the law). Does that explain anything? And the reason I think people are getting so frustrated with this is if you're not following orders (like God's law) then every person's list of right and wrong will vary. |
I think that was well said. I understand what you mean, anyway. Can I ask what you WOULD consider to be "morals"? What is the definition? We're probably just semantically different. I'd say that everything you described is "morality". So if we just want to disagree on the word, then that's fine. That's just a superficial argument. |
|
