Interview with Ray Comfort: Discussion
After several days off for the holidays, we're back to discuss some of Ray Comfort's ideas that we saw in his e-interview that he was kind enough to provide for us.
The first question observed that many Christians don't recognize Ray Comfort's name, and asked if he was possibly more famous among atheists. His reply:
Two possible perspectives on this possibility. From my perspective as an atheist, it seems to be the case that self-described "atheists" as a group are self-selecting for people who seek out other perspectives and willingly challenge even widely-held opinions. In a culture like America, so saturated with religious and spiritual belief, people who reject religious and spiritual claims are clearly far less likely to simply "go with the flow" and accept the perspective of their culture. This is not to say that all atheists are shining beacons of rationality, incapable of error - far from it (there are certain conspiracy theorist nutjobs I could mention, and there's always Ayn Rand . . .). Even these individuals, though, are still more likely, as a rule, to actively familiarize themselves with differing perspectives.
Of course, the common theist has a simple response; we atheists (or any other culturally non-conformist label) are clearly quite convinced that we're wrong on some level, and we are "seeking answers" not because we want to be certain that we're not mistaken, but because we actually believe that we are mistaken. When Ziztur and I visit different churches, on occasion we will politely inform church-goers who ask about us that we're atheists. Far and away, the most common response we hear is that we've found ourselves in the pew because we are being "called" or "led" to search for God. To this, all I can say is that in my own limited experience, such church services or apologetic books are no more convincing to we atheists than the "new atheist" books are to your average theist. After many churches and many books, our atheism is, if anything, is less dispute than it ever was.
The next question was, seemingly, an extremely simple theological question; it asked Comfort to define "the Gospel."
I should mention, first of all, that not all Christians believe in a literal hell, to their immense credit. With or without this traditionalist theology, though, the Gospel story raises more questions than it answers. Why does God feel the need to punish us with eternal torture simply for disbelieving in him? Why is there such a harsh penalty for having lustful thoughts, especially when every single human being has lustful thoughts, without exception? Even without a literal hell, are "anger" and "lustful thoughts" still sins? Who should rationally be held responsible for lustful thoughts or anger being universal amongst human beings, us or the being(s) who created us?
Additionally, how does the death of Jesus Christ absolve us of our crimes? I've noticed that whenever Comfort discusses our "criminal actions" as sinners, he almost always uses the analogy of a legal fine being paid for us so that our case can be thrown out of court. I would have thought that it's obvious why this analogy isn't convincing to non-believers: If a crime of any significant severity is committed, the court doesn't just administer a simple fine - the offender goes to prison. If hell is an appropriate punishment for sin, then the analogy of a legal fine is grossly inaccurate (in fact, there really is no good comparison at all, because in America we don't even punish our very worst criminals by torturing them to death, which is still far more humane than the traditional concept of hell). Perhaps the closest we can come is the death sentence, or in societies that don't even permit the death sentence on ethical grounds, perhaps life imprisonment without any possibility of parole. Why doesn't Comfort use these punishments as an illustration of the punishment we deserve for our sin? Why does he use the very lightest punishment that our system has for any crime, a mere fine? It's possible for a person to pay a fine for someone else, simply because there's no good way to make sure that the guilty person pays it themselves. A prison sentence, to say nothing of a death sentence, on the other hand, obviously must always be paid by the person who committed the crime.
So, there's one of the single, largest questions I have about Christianity. It seems to me that the very first principle of anything resembling justice is that you punish the person who actually committed the immoral act, and do not punish someone else in their place. Imagine a society built around the principle that a person who commits a wrongful act cannot atone for their own wrongdoing, and the only way for justice to be served is for an innocent person to be punished ( and that the more innocent the punished person is, the more righteous and just the punishment will be). If this society does every single other thing with their courts, prison system, and police force correctly, they are still doing nothing correctly. They could get justice right in every single other way, and would still basically have a completely unjust society. This Christian, Gospel idea of wrongdoers being incapable of atoning for their immoral actions and instead being redeemed by the punishment of a completely innocent person is not simply incorrect justice, it is not merely mistaken justice, it is the polar goddamned opposite of justice.
More about Ray Comfort coming soon. Obviously, I would love for Ray to hang out here and reply to our perspective, but I totally understand that he's very, very busy, so I won't see his absence as proof that he can't answer our questions. Of course, our standard modus operandi is to welcome any dissenting opinion, so I look forward to anyone who can shed some light on this seeming contradiction. That last question, in particular, about Gospel justice has vexed me all my life.
The first question observed that many Christians don't recognize Ray Comfort's name, and asked if he was possibly more famous among atheists. His reply:
Not every Christian watches TV or reads books. However, it seems that most atheists (thanks the Richard Dawkins and others) are pretty familiar with the brainless idiot known as "banana-man."It's not just Comfort, though; if you name Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, etc., I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a higher proportion of atheists recognizing these names than Christians. I can't cite hard data here, so this is just speculation rather than observation, but bear with me.
Two possible perspectives on this possibility. From my perspective as an atheist, it seems to be the case that self-described "atheists" as a group are self-selecting for people who seek out other perspectives and willingly challenge even widely-held opinions. In a culture like America, so saturated with religious and spiritual belief, people who reject religious and spiritual claims are clearly far less likely to simply "go with the flow" and accept the perspective of their culture. This is not to say that all atheists are shining beacons of rationality, incapable of error - far from it (there are certain conspiracy theorist nutjobs I could mention, and there's always Ayn Rand . . .). Even these individuals, though, are still more likely, as a rule, to actively familiarize themselves with differing perspectives.
Of course, the common theist has a simple response; we atheists (or any other culturally non-conformist label) are clearly quite convinced that we're wrong on some level, and we are "seeking answers" not because we want to be certain that we're not mistaken, but because we actually believe that we are mistaken. When Ziztur and I visit different churches, on occasion we will politely inform church-goers who ask about us that we're atheists. Far and away, the most common response we hear is that we've found ourselves in the pew because we are being "called" or "led" to search for God. To this, all I can say is that in my own limited experience, such church services or apologetic books are no more convincing to we atheists than the "new atheist" books are to your average theist. After many churches and many books, our atheism is, if anything, is less dispute than it ever was.
The next question was, seemingly, an extremely simple theological question; it asked Comfort to define "the Gospel."
In a nutshell--that Christ died for our sins and rose again on the third day. The word "gospel" means good news, and the gospel doesn't make sense until we see why we need it, in the same way the good news of a cure makes no sense until we understand that we have a disease. The terminal disease is sin. If it's allowed to take its course, it will not only kill us, it will justly take us to a terrible place of punishment called "Hell"--because each of us has violated God's Law (the Ten Commandments). He sees lust as adultery and hatred as murder. He is morally perfect, and that leaves us all in big trouble. The good news is that God is rich in mercy, became a human being, and took our punishment upon Himself. That means, because Jesus paid our fine and rose again from the dead, God can legally let us walk out of the courtroom. He can forgive us and let us live. Our case can be dismissed upon repentance and trust in the Savior. The good news is that any of us can have everlasting life. Read the Gospel of John for details.Interestingly, this "Gospel story" is possibly the single largest barrier to my ever becoming a Christian (and that's saying something, considering all the other reasons I could name). To put it simply, if I tell you that this season's particular strain of the flu could be very nasty, and that you should get vaccinated ASAP, I can explain why. If you ask, in all innocence, "So this flu thing . . . is that bad? Why?" I can explain that the flu could give you headaches, muscle aches, a cough, and just generally make you feel like crap, and that a few people who are particularly susceptible can even die from it if they catch it from you. Now, here's the important part - if you ask, "Why does the flu do that?" I could answer that it's simply a result of how the flu virus reproduces with the living cells in your body. I could say that the flu doesn't have a mind, and that if it did, it would be wrong for the flu virus to hurt and kill people like it does. Thus, it's easy to understand why you should get vaccinated (in theory, anyway . . .).
I should mention, first of all, that not all Christians believe in a literal hell, to their immense credit. With or without this traditionalist theology, though, the Gospel story raises more questions than it answers. Why does God feel the need to punish us with eternal torture simply for disbelieving in him? Why is there such a harsh penalty for having lustful thoughts, especially when every single human being has lustful thoughts, without exception? Even without a literal hell, are "anger" and "lustful thoughts" still sins? Who should rationally be held responsible for lustful thoughts or anger being universal amongst human beings, us or the being(s) who created us?
Additionally, how does the death of Jesus Christ absolve us of our crimes? I've noticed that whenever Comfort discusses our "criminal actions" as sinners, he almost always uses the analogy of a legal fine being paid for us so that our case can be thrown out of court. I would have thought that it's obvious why this analogy isn't convincing to non-believers: If a crime of any significant severity is committed, the court doesn't just administer a simple fine - the offender goes to prison. If hell is an appropriate punishment for sin, then the analogy of a legal fine is grossly inaccurate (in fact, there really is no good comparison at all, because in America we don't even punish our very worst criminals by torturing them to death, which is still far more humane than the traditional concept of hell). Perhaps the closest we can come is the death sentence, or in societies that don't even permit the death sentence on ethical grounds, perhaps life imprisonment without any possibility of parole. Why doesn't Comfort use these punishments as an illustration of the punishment we deserve for our sin? Why does he use the very lightest punishment that our system has for any crime, a mere fine? It's possible for a person to pay a fine for someone else, simply because there's no good way to make sure that the guilty person pays it themselves. A prison sentence, to say nothing of a death sentence, on the other hand, obviously must always be paid by the person who committed the crime.
So, there's one of the single, largest questions I have about Christianity. It seems to me that the very first principle of anything resembling justice is that you punish the person who actually committed the immoral act, and do not punish someone else in their place. Imagine a society built around the principle that a person who commits a wrongful act cannot atone for their own wrongdoing, and the only way for justice to be served is for an innocent person to be punished ( and that the more innocent the punished person is, the more righteous and just the punishment will be). If this society does every single other thing with their courts, prison system, and police force correctly, they are still doing nothing correctly. They could get justice right in every single other way, and would still basically have a completely unjust society. This Christian, Gospel idea of wrongdoers being incapable of atoning for their immoral actions and instead being redeemed by the punishment of a completely innocent person is not simply incorrect justice, it is not merely mistaken justice, it is the polar goddamned opposite of justice.
More about Ray Comfort coming soon. Obviously, I would love for Ray to hang out here and reply to our perspective, but I totally understand that he's very, very busy, so I won't see his absence as proof that he can't answer our questions. Of course, our standard modus operandi is to welcome any dissenting opinion, so I look forward to anyone who can shed some light on this seeming contradiction. That last question, in particular, about Gospel justice has vexed me all my life.
posted by Flimsyman
at
8:00 AM
46 Comments:
From my Christian perspective, his analogy is pretty weak, for pretty much all the reasons you point out. As for the idea of hell being inhumane however, its totally irrelevant. You seem to want to always measure the morality of God with your own humanistic morals and the problem there is obvious: humanism uses humanity as the measuring stick of what is/is not moral, while God uses Himself as what is moral/not immoral. You can compare God's moral behavior with your own and with humanity's and deem Him to be immoral all you want but you've never gave a satisfactory answer as to why God, if He exists, is morally obligated to treat humanity the way you feel it should be treated, or how logically the created has a better grasp on reality (and morality) than He who created it. If your worldview is based on empirical evidence and hard data, what hard data do you have that humanism is "right" and Christianity is "wrong"? Why are humans the measuring stick of morality?
The problem with the justice isn't so much a contradiction. God does enact final justice at His appointed time, but justice doesn't necessarily have to rule out grace and mercy, which is what the sacrifice of Christ is meant for. Even those who go with Him in the end are punished, but do not receive the punishment of eternal separation from God. But since atheists like yourself want nothing to do with God even if He does exist, why then is it immoral for Him to finally give you your wish at the end and eternally cut Himself off from you?
"You seem to want to always measure the morality of God with your own humanistic morals and the problem there is obvious: humanism uses humanity as the measuring stick of what is/is not moral, while God uses Himself as what is moral/not immoral."
And that's what's wrong with God's morality. Humanist morality is concerned with the security and freedom of all sentient, self-aware, moral lifeforms. God's morality is concerned only with his own contentment (not even his security and freedom, because it's presumably impossible for us to harm him or infringe upon his freedom).
While I'm personally content to accept a code of morality that results in greater security and freedom for sentient moral beings and reject codes of morality that would completely rape the same, are you asking what intrinsic, indisputable reason there is for humanity's freedom being a worthwhile goal? There isn't one. Of course, there isn't any intrinsic reason for morality to be rationally centered on God's contentment either; so taking the question back to this level of absurdity doesn't accomplish anything except to make the word "morality" meaningless.
". . . or how logically the created has a better grasp on reality (and morality) than He who created it."
We've talked about this before - a person who builds a cabinet does not necessarily know more about the the wood that he uses or the physics involved than a scientist educated in the relevant fields. It's a very simple question - just because being X created something doesn't mean that the being is automatically correct about it's creation in every way.
It's all just semantics bullshit anyway - it should be perfectly clear that when I say "morality" I mean that it deals with concepts of ethics that provide for the security and freedom of all people. If you want to use "morality" to mean the will of a specific being, when the will of that being clearly entails no measure of security or freedom for human beings at all, fine, I just think that such a definition would be very strange to most people.
"If your worldview is based on empirical evidence and hard data, what hard data do you have that humanism is "right" and Christianity is "wrong"?"
Actually, that's a good point. I freely admit that I have no hard data on what exactly a society would look like if it consistently applied the principle that justice can only be served by horribly and cruelly punishing innocent people in the place of wrongdoers. I would point out that we have no such data because this concept is such abject lunacy on the face of it that no culture that I'm aware of has ever applied it universally. Some very rare cultures have practiced human sacrifice to some degree or another, but they still only practice this concept in a small minority of cases. Consistently applying this principle would mean always punishing innocent people in place of evildoers.
That is my point. I think that you actually agree with me that it's completely fucking insane to try and achieve justice by torturing an innocent person to death in place of someone who actually committed a crime, yet you simultaneously argue that we humans have morality all wrong and should defer to God's idea of morality. If God's morality is so superior, they why aren't you advocating for his morality to be used in our legal system, instead of the (relatively) humanistic morality that forms our laws and courts now?
"Why are humans the measuring stick of morality?"
Bluntly? Because we exist and God doesn't. ;) No, seriously, even if your God did exist, we couldn't hurt him. He could hurt us. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that our concern for safety and freedom should rest with us mortals.
"The problem with the justice isn't so much a contradiction. God does enact final justice at His appointed time, but justice doesn't necessarily have to rule out grace and mercy, . . ."
Justice means to enact the exact punishment, or lack thereof, that is deserved, no more, and no less. Grace or mercy mean to enact a lesser punishment (or none at all) than what is justified. Actually, yeah, justice and mercy are contradictions by definition. You might as well call God a married bachelor, or say the heaven is both perfectly cubic and perfectly spherical, or claim that the Bible is proven because 2+2=purple. What definitions are you using?
"But since atheists like yourself want nothing to do with God even if He does exist, why then is it immoral for Him to finally give you your wish at the end and eternally cut Himself off from you?"
If your God simply had a particularly neat party for you believers and let us heathens go about our business, I'd have no beef with the whole affair. That is NOT AT ALL what we're talking about. I DO NOT want to go to hell. God is NOT giving me a choice, he is punishing me for defying him, when all I'm trying to do is follow the evidence and figure out how to be a moral person. There's a HUGE difference there.
What Flimsy said.
You can claim to believe god's morality is perfect, but if you genuinely do believe that it is, then you are a terrifyingly horrible person by modern standards. Skipping right over the Biblically-prescribed sentence of death for such offenses as sassing back to your parents or working on the Sabbath and straight to the matter already under discussion: there is no situation under which finite transgressions are justifiably punished with infinite punishment, and I don't understand how anybody can possibly describe that as 'just' without horribly mutilating the word beyond all semblance of meaning. Justice has punishments proportional to the crime (though not necessary equal). Any infinite punishment cannot be proportional to any finite crime.
Which leads me to my main question, which I think I've asked before and never gotten a satisfactory answer: If god a.) has perfect unchanging morality and b.) created humans, then why did he c.) cause humans to have a morality that differs from his own? It makes no sense.
I don't think theism provides any answer that makes sense. The closest I can think of is the horrifyingly anti-progress claim that, as we grow chronologically more distant from Paradise, so too does our morality grow more distant from god's perfect morality. But the question still remains: why would god have arranged that to be the case?
"Humanist morality is concerned with the security and freedom of all sentient, self-aware, moral lifeforms."
Why? For what?
"are you asking what intrinsic, indisputable reason there is for humanity's freedom being a worthwhile goal? There isn't one. Of course, there isn't any intrinsic reason for morality to be rationally centered on God's contentment either; so taking the question back to this level of absurdity doesn't accomplish anything except to make the word "morality" meaningless."
Which is the whole point. Morality is totally meaningless in a naturalistic framework. "Right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with it, its just a meaningless mechanism for coexisting, yet you are unable to explain in conclusive terms why coexisting is moral in the first place.
"We've talked about this before - a person who builds a cabinet does not necessarily know more about the the wood that he uses or the physics involved than a scientist educated in the relevant fields."
That doesn't explain to me your qualifications over God's.
"Bluntly? Because we exist and God doesn't. ;) No, seriously, even if your God did exist, we couldn't hurt him. He could hurt us. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that our concern for safety and freedom should rest with us mortals."
So even if God exists, you once again advocate that you are in a better position to know what is truly right and truly wrong?
"If your God simply had a particularly neat party for you believers and let us heathens go about our business, I'd have no beef with the whole affair. That is NOT AT ALL what we're talking about. I DO NOT want to go to hell. God is NOT giving me a choice, he is punishing me for defying him, when all I'm trying to do is follow the evidence and figure out how to be a moral person. There's a HUGE difference there."
You can't have it both ways Flimsy. If God exists, this world is His. Period. End of story. He created it for Himself and those who want to be with Him. Now you're saying He can only be moral if He takes those who reject Him with Him when its all said and done. Sorry, that's not immorality, that's justice. Or are you entitled to be here regardless? Just because there is a consequence for your choice, doesn't make it less of a choice. Or is our own judicial system just as immoral, since we can choose whether or not to break the law but still get thrown in jail if we do?
And you're missing the point as usual. Morality, whether your code or my code, is based on the idea that humanity has a worth to it, yet you have provided no reference point for you worth or mine. There isn't one, which is why we're left to put value on ourselves as we see fit. Why then is it illogical to decide that humanity isn't of any worth? Why is God (or anyone else for that matter) obligated to treat humanity as if its worth something? If He's not obligated, He's not immoral. If there is no true "right" or "wrong", than morality is irrelevant. There is just behavior. The philanthropist and the mass murderer are only performing a meaningless function in a meaningless random universe. Killing people may step on the freedom and security of the human beings killed, but what makes that "right" or "wrong", and not simple natural functioning? If lions were morally self aware would they be immoral as well when ripping apart their prey? Why or why not?
@Malimar: you are smart enough I think to know when reading the Bible that God gave us free will. Simply giving humanity free will doesn't "cause" humans to have a morality different than His. If God wants us to love Him there has to be a choice involved.
"Any infinite punishment cannot be proportional to any finite crime."
Why? I'm aware what the definition of justice is, but you've implied throughout your response that there is an absolute measuring stick comparing punishments to crimes. I'm curious what that is.
Highboy (or any other Christian responder), I'd like to know exactly what you think the basis of morality is in the Christian system; saying "God uses Himself" as the measurement of morality is somewhat vague, and I don't understand exactly how particular moral laws naturally follow from God's understanding of Himself.
Also I'd like to know if you think that, under the Christian system, there is anything that compels us to be moral, other than the fear of Hell or of some other punishment.
Marc: the basis for morality in Christianity is God's will. Its really that simple. What God's deems good and moral is good and moral. What compels us to be moral is love for God. As far as I'm concerned, Hell and punishments are bad and weak reasons for becoming a Christian. Of course its been argued on this very site that the above basis for morality is circular reasoning. "God said its moral, so I say its moral. Why? Because God said so." What is often ignored here however is that humanism is just as circular, which is why taking this argument to this level is not absurd at all, despite claims to the contrary. The atheist/humanist is unable to define why their moral code is moral for any other reason than because humanity says so. That's it. Either way, morality is totally subjective to the whim of humanity. But if God exists, it is most certainly absurd for the human to declare of their own volition what is/isn't moral in contradiction with the Creator who Created it. Its the equivalent of God forming a big stick out of bark with leaves, naming it a "tree", and the human saying "no God, you're confused. It should be a rock".
It seems you agree with me that Christian morality does not avoid a certain level of subjectiveness or circularity, that seems to me to be in every moral system. My main disagreement with you would only be linguistic, in that I'm not sure your own definition of "morality" is compatible with how the word is generally used; piety might be a better word.
At the risk of turning this into a Euthyphro discussion, I'd like to ask you what criteria, if any, does God use to formulate moral laws? Are there any general basic principles which are expressed in Biblical commandments? Or does He perhaps choose moral laws at random, without any logical framework connecting different laws together?
Your assumption that "free will" exists is deeply flawed. Your assumption that it is in any way compatible with the very existence of an all-powerful being is even more deeply flawed. But, granting those assumptions for the sake of argument: how is god giving us free will and then objecting when we use it to defy him any different from him pre-programming us to defy him and then objecting when we do? The difference is in semantics only, and it makes no sense either way.
And no, I don't think there is any absolute measuring stick for justice. I'm saying that a.) infinite punishment for finite crimes cannot, by any measuring stick whatsoever, be proportional, because infinite punishment is a completely different level of business altogether than finite crimes, and b.) if there were such an absolute measuring stick, a sane god would have programmed us to follow it, or else wouldn't object when we don't.
As for the question of what non-arbitrary, non-supernatural reason we have to act moral? I'm with Hobbes (and, I am told, most modern philosophers) on this one: enlightened self-interest. If I make an implicit contract with everybody else that I will not engage in immoral acts, I can rest fairly secure in the knowledge that they will not preform immoral acts against me. If I act moral, everybody else is better off, and I'm better off. (This is not without its flaws, particularly with the implications that anything you can get away with without anybody finding out is moral, but at least it has some basis in reality and reason, unlike all other possibilities I have heard.)
With that in mind, the measuring stick for what punishment is ideally proportional to what crime should wind up being scientific in nature: we need to identify, through experimentation, what level of punishment leads to the maximum net benefit for society (i.e., reduction in crime), balancing increased likelihood of recidivism attendant with harsher punishments against the possible lack of a deterrent effect for more lenient punishments.
Marc: I have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty how God formulates moral laws, because I'm incapable of examining His thought process, or even concluding that He has a thought process.
Malimar: Its not semantics, its simple fact. He gave us a choice, and told us the consequences beforehand. We chose wrong and pay the price. It makes perfect sense and I fail to see how this is so incomprehensible to you. Or would He be more moral if He programmed us to choose the right choice, or eliminated the choice altogether? Exactly how would removing the freedom to choose be more moral? Or for that matter, removing the consequences? As to your reason to act morally, you've done exactly what has already been stated: there is no "right" actions or "wrong" actions, just a meaningless mechanism for coexisting. But you haven't demonstrated at all why coexisting is moral in the first place. In an amoral universe, how can moral judgments even be relevant? What is morally different between one biological creature treating another biological creature either way?
As for justice: you haven't demonstrated your argument, you've only repeated it. How is eternal punishment for rejection of God disproportionate? Is God obligated to treat you a certain way? If so, where does that obligation come from? You're obviously appealing to some principle that you feel is greater than He who created literally everything so explain to me how God is under any obligation whatsoever?
As for your last point: if God exists, and you've rejected Him regardless, what punishment in your opinion would you consider "just"? This is sheer curiousness on my part because its fascinating that humans could be audacious enough to demand that God treat them a certain way despite their many sins, rejection of Him, and the fact that He created them in the first place. So fine, you stand before God at the end, He is about to re-create the world as was originally intended for those who worship Him. You reject Him. What should He do with you?
There is no freedom to choose, so "removing the freedom to choose" would not be a change. There's no reason to think we have free will, but even if we did, free will and the existence of god are mutually exclusive. Assuming the existence of an all-powerful god: at any moment, he can make us do whatever he wants us to do. Whatever we do, the final choice always comes down to him - he has absolute veto power over everything we do or say or think. Even if he never actually chooses to exercise this power, the very fact that he has it takes away our free will.
We are preprogrammed to make the choices we make in life. The only purpose of punishment is to act on that programming to affect the behaviour of people. Why would god go the circuitous route of assigning punishment to alter our behaviour when he could just change our behaviour directly? It doesn't make sense, and the "free will" explanation wouldn't hold water to answer this question even if it were true.
-
It doesn't matter whether coexisting is "moral", it only matters that it is desirable. Morality is merely a thing which allows comfortable coexistence, and thus is desirable. It's not an end in and of itself. What, you don't think your own comfort and well-being is a good enough reason to do anything? It's good enough for me, and that's all that really matters to my conscience.
-
You seem to feel that might makes right, and that's crap, a throwback to the morality of ancient times before we invented things like compassion or justice or social contracts. What's the point of claiming to believe in free will, if you don't think that gives us any rights at all? I'll let somebody who actually believes it elaborate on the idea that free will itself equates to inherent value.
Anyway, if I were to program a true AI with all the capacities and ability to suffer and delusions of free will as a human, would you say I have the right to do whatever I want with that AI, just because I created it? That I can inflict whatever tortures I want on it, just because I have power over it? If you are at all consistent, then yes, that is exactly what you believe, and I imagine the AI itself would vigorously disagree with you (unless I programmed it not to, I guess).
If you can't see how infinite actions differ fundamentally from finite actions, I don't know if I personally have the mathematical tools to prove it. I'll try, though.
The only way an infinite punishment is warranted for finite transgressions is if the proportion between the two is infinite. Thus, rejecting god, multiplied by an infinite proportion, meets with an infinite punishment. Similarly, the more major crimes of, say, mass-murder, multiplied by an infinite proportion, meets with an infinite punishment.
But what about more minor crimes? Such as, oh, say, killing a harmless spider. It's one of god's creatures, it lives, it has a (tiny) brain, it protects people from harmful mosquitoes. Granted, it (probably) lacks the ability to suffer, but that only brings the degree to which it is immoral to kill it down to very, very small. But very, very small is still slightly greater than zero. And if you multiply slightly-greater-than-zero by an infinite proportion, ohhey, infinite punishment. So if your god is remotely consistent and applies the same (infinite) proportion to all things that are immoral, he should punish people who kill spiders with an eternity in hell.
Unless you think that the only crime is rejecting god, in which case that's a.) insane and b.) not supported by scripture.
-
If god existed, and he created me, and he gave me the capacity for free thought, and he laid out in the universe the (abject lack of) evidence for his existence, then I would consider absolutely no punishment at all "just" for concluding that he does not exist. If he gave me all the evidence and tools I need to come to that conclusion, he can't very well blame me for doing so. Keep in mind that, until I encounter the slightest iota of evidence that actually points to the existence of any deity, I have not rejected or accepted him, I have simply concluded that he does not exist.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't reject him if he did exist. I enjoy a good fantasy yarn as much as anybody, so let's speculate: If I were to die, and you (against all evidence and reason) turn out to be right, and I come before him, he were to say to me "Everything in the Bible is true." and, with actual evidence for his existence in front of me, he were to give me one more chance to either "reject" him or "accept" him, I would probably still stand up to him and say, "Sir, you are an inconsistent tug and a bully, and I cannot in good conscience acknowledge your authority over any being." And the only just punishment for that would still be no punishment at all, because it is the duty of the weak to stand up against the strong. To cower and grovel before god because he is strong and I am weak would make me a coward, an appeaser, and would be neither moral nor just.
I acknowledge a flaw in that last paragraph: if my self-interest is paramount, then I should do anything that improves my own status, so I should kowtow to god if I were to encounter him after I die, because god, unlike mortal tyrants, is not likely to be affected in any way by any resistance to his evil. However, the choice between an eternity of grovelling before a bully and an eternity of torture is still kind of a Morton's Fork, so I'm glad you're almost certainly wrong and I'll never actually have to make that decision.
"Even if he never actually chooses to exercise this power, the very fact that he has it takes away our free will."
You came to that assumption while throwing out another one. You claim that free will is an assumption if God exists, yet you assume that if He does exist, I have no freedom of choice. You have no way of knowing one way or the other so you are equally guilty of an assumption.
"It doesn't matter whether coexisting is "moral", it only matters that it is desirable. Morality is merely a thing which allows comfortable coexistence, and thus is desirable. It's not an end in and of itself. What, you don't think your own comfort and well-being is a good enough reason to do anything? It's good enough for me, and that's all that really matters to my conscience."
Well once again, you've made morality meaningless, which was the whole point I was making, so thank you. There is no moral action, just coexistence in a naturalistic framework. The idea that coexistence may be desirable doesn't make it "right". But you apparently agree with me in that there is no right or wrong action in your worldview so I don't need to argue the point further. But my own comfort would get along quite well if I trampled the rights of others to pursue my own glory.
"You seem to feel that might makes right, and that's crap, a throwback to the morality of ancient times before we invented things like compassion or justice or social contracts."
No, its not a matter of might makes right. We're not talking about some king, but God, who created literally everything. If you are saying that even if He exists that there are principles greater than He that He must adhere to in order to be moral, please list those principles and their origins.
As for your last points, lets address a few things. First, the only crime that sends us to hell is rejection of Christ, and that IS supported by Scripture. Second, it is not against ALL reason to conclude that God exists, as nearly the entire global population from beginning to now has concluded that some type of supernatural God exists. The sheer numbers alone of the human race that reasoned there is a God proves its not against ALL reason. Third, you gave a very well thought out opinion as to what/how you think punishments and crimes both infinite and finite should be measured, but that's it. You gave an opinion but not one supported by anything tangible. Fourth, if God exists, and He is truly going to restore the Earth as it was intended for those who worship Him, what right do you have to be there? For that matter, what right do you have to be here if God exists? And lastly, while I realize that you think God is some evil tyrant, I'm still waiting for explanation as to why he's morally obligated to you in any way whatsoever.
"Second, it is not against ALL reason to conclude that God exists, as nearly the entire global population from beginning to now has concluded that some type of supernatural God exists. The sheer numbers alone of the human race that reasoned there is a God proves its not against ALL reason."
Really? You want to go with that? May I remind you that MOST people right now believe in Alah? Most people at one point came to the belief that the earth was flat. So that can't be against ALL reason.
"Fourth, if God exists, and He is truly going to restore the Earth as it was intended for those who worship Him, what right do you have to be there?"
You're right, God made us and he has the right to destroy us if he doesn't like us. Perfectly moral and responsible. Glad to know you hate us so much and don't think we're welcome in your happy silent hill heaven. It is very loveing to keep out riff raff and torture them for refusing Christ. You know to quote a Minister I used to have "Love does NOT mean 'every now and then'"
""But since atheists like yourself want nothing to do with God even if He does exist, why then is it immoral for Him to finally give you your wish at the end and eternally cut Himself off from you?"
Gosh, what would we call a leader who destroys everyone who is ungrateful enough to disagree with him!?
To Godwin myself, Jews wanted nothing to do with Hitler's Germany therefore it was not immoral for him to kill them.
@Ing: I realize you continue to believe that simply mocking opposing arguments means you've somehow disproved them, but sadly in the real world that is not to be the case. See, what I'm looking for here, is why God, if He exists, is obligated to put the desires and interests of humanity above His own will. In order for God to be immoral if He exists, there has to be a principle you're appealing to that transcends Him. So what is that principle and what is its origin? If you can't answer that request, you're incapable of making a moral judgment of His actions. I won't even address the absurdity in demanding God allow you in His paradise despite any crimes or sins you may commit.
As for reason, pointing out the majority of belief in Allah only hurts the argument that theism goes against all reason. Thanks for pointing out that its simply not the case.
You both are the reason that nothing ever gets solved. You spend all your time talking about god's will and how you view if it is right or not. A lot of self serving babble. Why don't you compare how one of you believes in something that has been proven to be impossible by it's own scientists (by mathmatics, physics)(evolution) and the other believes in something that has never been proven wrong (by mathematics and physics)(creation). To me that is searching for the answer, it seems that the atheists are the most religous in fact that they believe in something that has been proven to be impossible. JB michigan
So JB Michigan - your position is the correct one because it is non-falsifiable?
As far as scientists disproving atheism - citations needed.
@highboy - This is the problem with the non-falsifiable morality you have. It does not matter what god's morality supposedly is - we can't argue against it or prove it wrong. If your god says stoning blasphemers is perfectly moral, then stoning blasphemers is perfectly moral, end of story. If a Muslim claims that his god tells him to fight and slay the Christians (a commandment stated outright in the Koran), then who are you to argue with him?
@ziztur: its not a problem for me at all. Just because you don't like the idea of God arbitrarily deciding what is moral and what isn't, doesn't make your dislike a plausible argument against His morality. If He exists, the Biblical God in question, what principle is higher than He? There isn't one, so as I said before, claiming that His morality (if He exists) is not moral, is the equivalent of God creating a tree, naming it a tree, and you saying "its not a tree, its a rock". As for the Muslim: If my God exists than the Muslim's doesn't, so what he says wouldn't matter would it?
Mine: "are you asking what intrinsic, indisputable reason there is for humanity's freedom being a worthwhile goal? There isn't one. Of course, there isn't any intrinsic reason for morality to be rationally centered on God's contentment either; so taking the question back to this level of absurdity doesn't accomplish anything except to make the word "morality" meaningless."
His: "Which is the whole point. Morality is totally meaningless in a naturalistic framework. "Right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with it, its just a meaningless mechanism for coexisting, yet you are unable to explain in conclusive terms why coexisting is moral in the first place."
Um, reread my paragraph. Morality is ONLY meaningless in a naturalistic framework IF you insist on peeling the debate back to that level. If we accept the concept of morality dealing with the security and freedom of human beings, then it's not meaningless at all. If, however, you reply that there's no intrinsic cosmic reason why people's security and freedom are worthwhile goals, THEN you have stripped the meaning from any concept of "morality."
My main point here, which you don't seem to have responded to, is that at this level, ALL morality is meaningless, including theistic morality. Exactly as you respond, I could just as easily say, "Morality is totally meaningless in a theistic framework. "Right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with it, its just a meaningless mechanism for God's contentment, yet you are unable to explain in conclusive terms why God's contentment is moral in the first place."
All you're doing is asserting over and over again, very emphatically, that God's will matters and humanity's freedom doesn't. At this level of semantics bullshit, ALL morality is made meaningless, and Christian morality and humanist morality are in exactly the same boat.
Of course, that's the truly entertaining thing about this debate; I pointed out that biblical morality, based on God's will, rapes people's security and freedom. You did NOT reply, "no, it doesn't, God's will is perfectly compatible with people's security and freedom," you instead argued this bizarre angle that people's security and freedom DON'T MATTER.
Seriously, do you realize that you've not once even attempted to show or explain that God's will favors or is even compatible with human freedom at all (if it is, why haven't you even tried to argue for this?), you've actually been arguing the exact opposite. You've basically admitted outright that God's will destroys people's security and freedom, and that we merely need to recognize that our security and freedom are meaningless!
We Secular Humanists are arguing that people's security and freedom should be our primary concern, even if that horribly fucks up God's contentment, while you are arguing that God's contentment should be our exclusive concern, even if that horribly fucks up people's security and freedom. Reread that sentence, especially the last half, if you still don't understand why your Christian morality makes me projectile vomit directly into my monitor.
Everything else has been responded to at least as eloquently as I ever could, so I'll leave it at that.
"You both are the reason that nothing ever gets solved. You spend all your time talking about god's will and how you view if it is right or not. A lot of self serving babble."
Well, JB michigan, if you or Highboy were claiming that God's morality served people's security and freedom, then we could debate that claim (or more likely, debate the definitions of "security" and "freedom"), but that's not the claim.
"Why don't you compare how one of you believes in something that has been proven to be impossible by it's own scientists (by mathmatics, physics)(evolution) and the other believes in something that has never been proven wrong (by mathematics and physics)(creation)."
Actually, that's a great point, except that you've got it exactly backwards. Evolution has been extraordinarily well-supported by every piece of evidence that we've ever seen on the subject, while creationism, flood "geology," etc. is disproved even more thoroughly than evolution is supported.
I'll tell you what; give us a cliff-notes version of creationism (or you could simply say that creationism is "what the Bible says," we could work with that) and we'll try our very best to summarize all the ways in which creationism is completely impossible.
As far as science proving that atheism is false, I'm sure we'd all be particularly entertained by this slam-dunk evidence for God's existence. Take note, though, we've tackled and debated a truly staggering number of irrational religious claims already on this blog, so you're not likely to get very far in convincing us unless you've got something new, or at least have a new angle on something that we've heard before.
@Highboy;
I think that that's the point; "If my God exists then the Muslim's doesn't . . ." A Muslim can say the exact same thing about your God. Again: If Allah exists (and your God doesn't), and is the creator of everything, then his commandment to commit genocide of Christians like you alongside other non-believers like Ziztur and I would be perfectly moral. True or False?
Also Highboy, is my point invalid? Is someone who rules by destroying the opposition good or not?
Sorry but if you believe that your feelings SHOULD be hurt. But hey, I'm doing you a favor, since I'm nasty and flippant to your nonsense you can ignore me and assume I have no points. You're welcome.
My point with the Allah thing Highboy was that the argument from popularity is bullshit and you know it.
Majority of god believers are muslim but you don't think they're arguements have more validity because it's more popular than your's right? Same thing. People on the whole can not only be wrong but VERY wrong.
Let's look at it this way, a majority of the human race throughout history if collected in the same place at the same time and polled would say that slavery was just. Clearly this isn't completely wrong or invalid or so many people wouldn't think it, right?
"If, however, you reply that there's no intrinsic cosmic reason why people's security and freedom are worthwhile goals, THEN you have stripped the meaning from any concept of "morality."
Right, but you haven't given me any answer whatsoever as to why they are worthwhile goals. For those to be worthwhile goals humanity would have to have some type of inherent worth, and you've given no reference point for that worth other than "we say so". For example: its not considered immoral if a lion kills another lion, but its considered immoral if a human kills another human. Why, in a naturalistic framework, is one species killing another species immoral, while a different species the same act is immoral? Simply because of moral self-awareness? How does that awareness obligate us? Simply coexistence? Why is coexistence "right" over "wrong"? Animal species have thrived for over thousands of years NOT recognizing security and freedom, so why is humanity different? If a species is extinct, its deemed natural selection, why would humanity be any different? If natural order is all there is, how is one human killing another not natural cause?
"All you're doing is asserting over and over again, very emphatically, that God's will matters and humanity's freedom doesn't. At this level of semantics bullshit, ALL morality is made meaningless, and Christian morality and humanist morality are in exactly the same boat."
Right, but we're not suppose to be in the same boat are we? Because according to you and ziztur, my belief that all God's will is moral because He said so is circular reasoning, while your humanistic version of morality is based on a supposed objective view of reality. Yet you've admitted time and time again that humanistic morality, and even your perception of it are subjective. So how is your reasoning less circular? My reasoning is at least based on the belief that what God created, God defined, while you are stating with great zeal that the "tree" God created isn't a "tree" at all but is in fact a "rock". But you can't be objective and subjective at the same time Flimsy. But in order for you to deem God immoral if He exists you're appealing to some principle that transcends Him. So I ask again: what principle and what are its origins?
"You've basically admitted outright that God's will destroys people's security and freedom, and that we merely need to recognize that our security and freedom are meaningless!"
Wrong. I actually believe quite firmly that God's will not only is absolute but also for the best of humanity, as humanity's benefit does not end with natural existence alone. What I'm asking however, is that if He exists, what obligation does He have to give a rat's ass about your security and freedom? You keep arguing that you're entitled to some sort of treatment from Him and I want to know where that entitlement originates from? Once again, though I know I won't get an answer, where is God's obligation to treat you a certain way? Where was His obligation to create you in the first place? Now that He has, how does that obligate Him to establish security and freedom for you that transcends His will? If you can't point to a higher principle than God and name its origins, than you have no argument against His morality if He exists. Its not a matter of Him being able to bully you, its a matter of Him being the creator and definer of all life, principles, morality, thought process, etc.
"Reread that sentence, especially the last half, if you still don't understand why your Christian morality makes me projectile vomit directly into my monitor."
I understand you don't like it and find it disgusting, as much as I find disgusting that the universe was formed from nothing all by itself by random chance as a logical hypothesis for the creation of the universe. But not liking something doesn't make it untrue.
"I think that that's the point; "If my God exists then the Muslim's doesn't . . ." A Muslim can say the exact same thing about your God. Again: If Allah exists (and your God doesn't), and is the creator of everything, then his commandment to commit genocide of Christians like you alongside other non-believers like Ziztur and I would be perfectly moral. True or False?"
If reality was that the Christian God I worship was not the Alpha and Omega and Allah was, the logic is still the same. Its very odd that a skeptic like yourself appears not to be letting logic dictate your views, but rather how this stuff makes you feel.
@Ing: my point wasn't that you hurt my feelings, as remarks of such an infantile nature aren't as hard hitting as someone like you might imagine. I'm only pointing out that your snarkyness may make you feel like you've disproved something, but all you've done is mouth off.
@everyone: i've been blogging quite a bit today but its getting about that time, and I'm a busy dad, so if I don't respond until late tonight or possibly tomorrow I'm not ignoring you.
". . . I find disgusting that the universe was formed from nothing all by itself by random chance as a logical hypothesis for the creation of the universe."
. . . Why? How is this undesirable? "disgusted," really? I'm genuinely curious here.
As for the "principle" that makes people and their security and freedom worthwhile, I've already said that there is NO such indisputable principle, exactly as there's no such indisputable principle that makes God's contentment worthwhile. Seriously, how many times do I have to say this before you acknowledge it?
The closest thing you've ever given to a response to this is to say that God's will is the ultimate authority because he made everything. At which point, we all throw out various analogies of somebody "making" some form of intelligent, sentient life, and we ask if the "creator" of that life has ultimate authority to rape, torture, and/or murder that life, and you never respond. I'm getting tired of going in circles like this, man. Can't you give a straight answer?
Concerning why your morality disgusts me, your morality states that God can literally do whatever he wants and his actions cannot EVER be immoral. Let's see if I can get through to you with the most basic, primitive, instinctively barbaric moral example I can possibly think of - you have children, don't you? What if God commands you, directly, to rape and torture your wife/son/daughter. This is NOT immoral? Seriously? You don't understand how repulsive biblical morality is? How the blue fuck can you say this shit with a straight face?
"Its very odd that a skeptic like yourself appears not to be letting logic dictate your views, but rather how this stuff makes you feel."
Yes, at some point, we simply have to agree to disagree. You take God's will to be the authority, and I take the security and freedom of all sentient, moral lifeforms to be the authority (deriving more specific moral principles from this premise with logic and evidence).
Seriously, if a person (like, for example, God) tells me that morality is their own individual desire, totally excluding the security and freedom of everyone else, and they want to hurt someone I care about, I'm not going to simply accept that there's no indisputable principle that places my loved one's safety over that person's desire. Since you have not even TRIED to argue that God's will favors or even allows people's safety or freedom in any way, at some point I simply have to say that your Biblical morality is a clear and unambiguous threat to society and to several people that I personally care about.
Glad I came back just in time.
"Why? How is this undesirable? "disgusted," really? I'm genuinely curious here."
If you read what I wrote, I said I found disgusting that the concept in question is a plausible hypothesis.
"As for the "principle" that makes people and their security and freedom worthwhile, I've already said that there is NO such indisputable principle, exactly as there's no such indisputable principle that makes God's contentment worthwhile. Seriously, how many times do I have to say this before you acknowledge it?"
Because you keep dodging the point. Stop dodging and we'll move on. You can't claim on one hand that there is no absolute principle that makes security and freedom worthwhile, yet you continuously argue that they are goals, and they are worthwhile. If you can't explain the reference point for human worth, you have no argument for morality. Simply arguing over and over again that we're both in the same boat in regards to this endless circle isn't good enough. We're not suppose to be in the same boat, your worldview is based on objective perception of reality, all the while with the free admission that this perception is totally subjective and with no absolute reference point. Once again, you can't have it both ways Flimsy. You can't argue for absolute morals (as you've done in the past) and then claim there is no absolute reference point. Answer the points.
"What if God commands you, directly, to rape and torture your wife/son/daughter. This is NOT immoral? Seriously? You don't understand how repulsive biblical morality is? How the blue fuck can you say this shit with a straight face?"
Expressing your outrage isn't proving your point, and I promise you I was literally counting down the hours it would take for you to pull that exact, EXACT illustration out of your ass. So let me repeat: my feelings on a certain concept does not validate/invalidate what is true or what is false. If something is true, and I don't like it, that dislike does not make something untrue.
"Yes, at some point, we simply have to agree to disagree. You take God's will to be the authority, and I take the security and freedom of all sentient, moral lifeforms to be the authority (deriving more specific moral principles from this premise with logic and evidence)."
No, you have not used logic or evidence at all. You've already illustrated you have no idea where human worth can be derived from, you have no answer as to why security and freedom are even worth the effort in a naturalistic framework yet emphatically over and over again state with great certainty that this form of morality is absolute. You've also quite illogically decided that even if God exists, there is a principle greater than He that He must adhere to in order to be moral, yet you have no answer again as to what that principle is or its origins. I've also asked how human behavior in a naturalistic sense should have any more moral significance than the interaction in the animal kingdom, why our moral self-awareness obligates us to a higher standard, and still no answer. I've also asked repeatedly what God's moral obligation to humanity is and still no answer. If He's not obligated, what right to security and freedom do you have? Of course I suspect no logical answer is forthcoming, but more "how can you believe that" outrage.
@flimsy: just thought I'd add, in case this point is once again missed, that the same circular flaws you posit about the Biblical view of morality are found in your own. The exact same flaws. Using your illustration: what if humanity decided that me killing my child was a moral cause? What if population control becomes the latest scare and human culture dictates to me that my child must be murdered? Does the will of the collective humanity, however heinous, become moral regardless?
"You can't claim on one hand that there is no absolute principle that makes security and freedom worthwhile, yet you continuously argue that they are goals, and they are worthwhile."
. . .
*Headdesk*
What? This is your problem, the whole time? Simple answer: I haven't argued that they are worthwhile goals, not in the way that you're insisting. I don't recall ever claiming that there was an absolute cosmic basis for freedom. I obviously have not dodged this question; I have stated this several times now.
Your real problem seems to be that I've argued in the past for objective moral values, while now claiming freely that there's no absolute cosmic basis for human lives having value. The answer is mind-numbingly obvious; we can only argue about things within the definitions of the terms we use. When I say that there exists objective moral values, I am ONLY making that argument within the context of morality being defined as "the security and freedom of sentient, moral lifeforms," or something similar.
In essence, you're just looking at logical arguments I've made in the past (again, within that context of the definition I use for "morality") and claim that my terms are being used incorrectly. You're just imposing your own definitions on those terms, and then complaining when the resulting clusterfuck doesn't work.
Let me put it this way - if there was a God, and his moral edicts remained consistent over time, then, within that theistic moral definition, those moral principles would be "objective." I could point out that there's no absolute cosmic rule that this God's will should trump the will of all other beings, but would that mean that his morality is subjective? No, of course not! It IS still objective, . . . WITHIN that definitional framework.
"Answer the points."
I am supremely entertained that you've somehow concluded that I haven't answered any of these points based on this weaselly semantics bullshit.
"Expressing your outrage isn't proving your point . . ."
Because you insist that it is moral for you to rape your own children to death just as long as your God tells you to, I have officially given up trying to convince you to accept humanist morality. I am content, at this juncture, to illustrate to others who might be reading this exchange exactly how horrifying biblical theistic morality can be.
"If something is true, and I don't like it, that dislike does not make something untrue."
Yes, that's exactly true. I'm not talking, however, about simply "disliking" something, I'm talking about things that are, in my moral framework, morally evil. Since your different moral framework accepts these acts of evil without hesitation, there's unfortunately no other recourse than to hope that the rest of society is on my side. Happily, I think that they are.
"No, you have not used logic or evidence at all. You've already illustrated you have no idea where human worth can be derived from, . . ."
Again, I have used nothing but logic and evidence, but only with the value of security and freedom for sentient, self-aware moral beings as the starting point. The logic is sound even if a premise is faulty. Of course, you've not even tried to show that it is, you've just claimed over and over again that it is. Human worth is valuable on it's own merits.
"there is a principle greater than He that He must adhere to in order to be moral, yet you have no answer again as to what that principle is or its origins . . ."
That principle is Secular Humanism. It's very simple. The values of Secular Humanism are described by us human beings, true, but so is the statement that 2+2=4. Would that statement be false if there were no human to describe it? I don't give a rat's ass WHERE a set of principles comes from, they could have been written by cats for all I care, as long as the principles are internally consistent and useful to us.
"The exact same flaws. Using your illustration: what if humanity decided that me killing my child was a moral cause? . . . Does the will of the collective humanity, however heinous, become moral regardless?"
Um . . . WTF. Have you listened to anything we've ever said? The moral system that you're describing is called cultural relativism, NOT secular humanism. Ziztur and I have said many times before that cultural relativism is a worthless moral system, because it allows one to justify horrifying atrocities. Secular Humanism does not. It is IMPOSSIBLE to justify the morally evil actions that you describe with Secular Humanism. It would be like biblical Christian morality demanding that you swear to forever disobey God. It can't happen. The moral/immoral actions in question are expressly forbidden by the basic tenets of the morality in question.
Ziztur and I have also said many times before that if Secular Humanism pulls a complete 180 and DOES justify or command such horrifying atrocities, we would immediately give up Secular Humanism as a grossly immoral system, without hesitation.
And that is the difference. Assuming that, hopefully, on some level, you do actually recognize that raping and torturing your own child would be grossly morally evil, biblical morality can justify such an act, by your own admission. Secular Humanism cannot.
Doubtless this last point will just be classified as more emotionalism and outrage. That's okay; this actually is a popularity contest, considering that I, for one, am trying to convince people to work with me for a better world.
"I haven't argued that they are worthwhile goals, not in the way that you're insisting. I don't recall ever claiming that there was an absolute cosmic basis for freedom. I obviously have not dodged this question; I have stated this several times now."
You've stated emphatically that your secular humanistic morals were absolute, based on an objective look at reality. Luckily for you my old site has been deleted so I can't prove this accusation so you can continue to pretend you've never made the claim.
"I am supremely entertained that you've somehow concluded that I haven't answered any of these points based on this weaselly semantics bullshit."
Is this clap-trap suppose to smokescreen the fact that you have no answer? The very idea of morality is based on the idea that the beings involved have an inherent worth or value. If you argue on one hand that a set of morals is absolute, such as secular humanism, yet are unable to give a reference point for human worth other than "we say so", than your moral worldview is in the same realm of circular logic as that of Christianity. That isn't semantics, that's simple fact.
"Because you insist that it is moral for you to rape your own children to death just as long as your God tells you to, I have officially given up trying to convince you to accept humanist morality. I am content, at this juncture, to illustrate to others who might be reading this exchange exactly how horrifying biblical theistic morality can be."
Feel free, and I'm content with pointing out how the logic you used to make that conclusion is as flawed as the logic you mock almost on a daily basis in regards to theism. Simply because you find something grotesque, you've declared it untrue. NOT because of evidence, NOT because of logic, but because of your own human desire. Your exact words: "Humanist morality is concerned with the security and freedom of all sentient, self-aware, moral lifeforms. God's morality is concerned only with his own contentment (not even his security and freedom, because it's presumably impossible for us to harm him or infringe upon his freedom)." So you've claimed that the above definition of humanist morality is a worthwhile goal, yet are unable to define why. Since there is no reason you have been able to give as to why these are worthwhile goals, then you've basically admitted that humanism is about human contentment, rather than God's, though you've yet to explain why one is superior to the other.
"Again, I have used nothing but logic and evidence, but only with the value of security and freedom for sentient, self-aware moral beings as the starting point. The logic is sound even if a premise is faulty. Of course, you've not even tried to show that it is, you've just claimed over and over again that it is. Human worth is valuable on it's own merits."
Bullshit. The value of humanity doesn't just exist because you want it to. You may have a value you place on your own life and others, making it valuable to you, but your secular humanist principles make that universal for all humans, yet you are unable to define why. Give me a reference point other than "flimsy says so", and then I'll start considering you more qualified than God.
"That principle is Secular Humanism. It's very simple. The values of Secular Humanism are described by us human beings, true, but so is the statement that 2+2=4."
Except 2+2=4 is something we can demonstrate as true. You haven't demonstrated that secular humanism is true right and true wrong, principles that exist all by themselves with no starting point, no reference point. Other than secular humanism fitting what you want to be right and wrong, there is no evidence that its right and wrong.
You're confusing OBJECTIVE morality with ABSOLUTE morality.
Flimsy and I have talked about the difference between the two and the fact that we do not believe in nor argue for an absolute morality since the day he and I first met over a year and a half ago. I can promise you that he has NOT made any sort of absolute moral claims. Objective - yes! Absolute - no, no, and more no.
"Um . . . WTF. Have you listened to anything we've ever said? The moral system that you're describing is called cultural relativism, NOT secular humanism."
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that secular humanism is a universal concept that lists a set of do's and don'ts that every person claiming to be a secular humanist adheres too? Because if that's your impression, its dead wrong, and stop pretending like the idea of killing children for population control is not something that a secular society could ever adopt.
"Ziztur and I have also said many times before that if Secular Humanism pulls a complete 180 and DOES justify or command such horrifying atrocities, we would immediately give up Secular Humanism as a grossly immoral system, without hesitation."
I'm not saying you would ever condone such a thing. But this is why it doesn't make sense: you've already claimed that secular humanism is absolute, based on an objective view of reality. If secular humanism did the 180, you would change your mind? You are admitting over and over again that evidence is not supporting your decision. Its merely human contentment. So you've taken my worldview, crossed out God's name and put in your own.
"That's okay; this actually is a popularity contest, considering that I, for one, am trying to convince people to work with me for a better world."
And the point of that would be..?
I'll try one more time, and ask it a different way: if we are all products of a natural phenomenon, and the natural order is all there is, how are atrocities we commit anything other than natural order? For example, if animals kill one another is natural order. If whole populations are wiped out, its natural selection. But if we cross out "animals" and replace it with "humans", it becomes a moral issue. How? If its simply the moral self awareness, how does that awareness obligate us to act morally? Even if your moral code truly is a meaningless mechanism to coexist, why is coexisting moral/immoral?
@ziztur: Sorry, but no, that's wrong. I well remember Flimsy claiming on my old site that his humanist moral principles were absolute, because he actually was rebuking me for assuming he was a moral relativist. But luckily again, my old site was deleted, so feel free to continue. Regardless, it doesn't solve the logical problems we've already discussed. If him morals aren't absolute than I could care less about them because they're useless.
@Flimsy: sorry, one more thing. You said:
"I don't give a rat's ass WHERE a set of principles comes from, they could have been written by cats for all I care, as long as the principles are internally consistent and useful to us."
So you've made the undemonstrated claim that secular humanism is a higher principle than God even if He exists and created humans in the first place, yet are unable and unwilling to give me that higher principles origins? This is most curious. In your mind, if God exists, it goes like this: God creates man-man creates principles-principles>God? How is that logically possible?
“just thought I'd add, in case this point is once again missed, that the same circular flaws you posit about the Biblical view of morality are found in your own. The exact same flaws. Using your illustration: what if humanity decided that me killing my child was a moral cause? What if population control becomes the latest scare and human culture dictates to me that my child must be murdered? Does the will of the collective humanity, however heinous, become moral regardless?”
That’s not secular humanism. Secular humanism is not founded on a notion of democratic morality; the highest ideal is not defined as that which most people desire.
Rather, what we secular humanists regard as axiomatic is that the pleasure, safety, and happiness of humans (or, as we might more liberally say, sentient organisms) is good. That is our axiom, and the “will of the collective humanity” has not one fucking thing to do with it. If every single human on Earth thought that it was fine to torture children, then this would not alter what secular humanism holds as ideal—it would merely mean that no one adhered to its ideals. If someone claimed that this was secular humanism, they would be misappropriating that term: While it has undergone some refinement, any philosophy that condones such atrocities is clearly counter to the spirit of the movement from its inception to the current day.
Therefore, raping and murdering your children is absolutely incompatible with secular humanism, because it causes gratuitous suffering. It is not incompatible with the view that whatever God wills is moral, because if God willed that you should do so, it would be moral by definition. For this reason, the view that whatever God wills is moral seems to us secular humanists not to be merely erroneous, but to misappropriate the term, because it no longer describes anything like what we mean by words like “moral” or “ethical”.
This is, to reiterate, because to us, morals are axiomatically dependent on consideration for sentient beings. “Might is right” is a philosophy antithetical to what we understand to be moral—even if you qualify that “Only infinite might is right, but infinite might is infinite right”. The notion that having created something gives you the right to cause it gratuitous suffering seems obscene.
But ultimately, while you have distorted the discussion slightly with the above-corrected strawman, no reconciliation is possible between your position and ours. We hold the inherent value of human life and happiness to be axiomatic. (Incidentally, we hold the contentment of your god to be a nonsensical concept because we do not believe in its existence. Insofar as we consider its existence as a hypothetical possibility, we reject “might is right” as immoral due to the axiomatic foundations of our use of the term “moral”.) You hold human life and happiness to be inherently worthless, because any value they hold is contingent on your god enjoying them; you hold its contentment as axiomatically valuable. Our moralities can never be reconciled because, no matter how valid an argument either side may construct, we begin from incompatible premises.
And frankly, I consider any system of purported morality where human life and happiness are ultimately held to be inherently worthless an appalling and terrifying one.
Highboy, an "objective" statement cannot be devoid of premises. We can only talk about morality based on a definition of morality. Secular Humanism (like any moral system) starts from a premise (again, like all moral systems) and then requires logic, critical thinking, and evidence to reach specific conclusions.
In essence, we're talking about fixing a car, and you respond by insisting that we have no absolute definition of the word "car." This absolutely does not mean that we are helpless to make objective, rational statements within that definition of "car."
You seem to want a statement of morality that is completely devoid of premises. Logic doesn't work that way. Stating a claim that has no premises at all is not a way to arrive at reality, it is a way to ensure that we obfuscate reality.
I'm going to move on to more meaningful statements of yours:
"m sorry, are you under the impression that secular humanism is a universal concept that lists a set of do's and don'ts that every person claiming to be a secular humanist adheres too?"
Um, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. How the hell did you come to this conclusion? What if I had said, "are you under the impression that Christianity is a universal concept that lists a set of do's and don'ts that every person claiming to be a Christian adheres to?"? Um, you've never claimed that, and that would be a really bad strawman if I said it . . .
"stop pretending like the idea of killing children for population control is not something that a secular society could ever adopt."
This is an outright lie. Never and nowhere have I said that a secular society would never accept something evil like this. I said that the MORAL SYSTEM of SECULAR HUMANISM does not justify such morally evil actions in any way. A secular society obviously does not have to follow Secular Humanism.
"you've already claimed that secular humanism is absolute, based on an objective view of reality. If secular humanism did the 180, you would change your mind? You are admitting over and over again that evidence is not supporting your decision. Its merely human contentment."
Simple - if Secular Humanism did the 180, then it would obviously no longer be based on the objective reality that I accept it for, wouldn't it? In the same way, we can describe "2+2=4" as an objective statement. What if this statement pulled a 180, and instead read, "2+2=-4"? Is the statement still true? The original was a "objective" statement, wasn't it? Well, yeah, that's why changing that statement 180 degrees makes it false (unless we have actual evidence that the original statement was mistaken, of course).
"If its simply the moral self awareness, how does that awareness obligate us to act morally? Even if your moral code truly is a meaningless mechanism to coexist, why is coexisting moral/immoral?"
I personally think that the moral self-awareness is the best and most objective criteria, for the simple reason that (as Christian apologists point out frequently) there must be the possibility of "choosing" wrongly before there is any meaning to "choosing" rightly. A person murders an innocent child, we call it an immoral act. A rock falls on a child and kills them, we call it a tragedy, but not an immoral action on the rock's part! (Unless there exists a god of some kind who could have saved the child's life with basically no effort, then we might consider that an immoral action, or criminally negligent inaction, had occurred. Sorry, couldn't resist.)
"In your mind, if God exists, it goes like this: God creates man-man creates principles-principles>God? How is that logically possible?"
Human beings use the statement "2+2=4" to describe an aspect of reality. Can God make the statement, "2+2=-4" true? Or is God bound by the rules of logic himself? It just seems to me that for the existence of God to be even a minimally rational claim, he will at least have to conform to the laws of logic, which means that he will be bound by the descriptive logical statements that we humans devise, as long as the logic is valid, of course.
@Petter: You said this: "Rather, what we secular humanists regard as axiomatic is that the pleasure, safety, and happiness of humans (or, as we might more liberally say, sentient organisms) is good. That is our axiom, and the “will of the collective humanity” has not one fucking thing to do with it."
Right, so you're saying that secular humanism is a higher principle than God if He exists, despite the fact you have absolutely no way whatsoever to demonstrate that principles created by the created creature are higher than the being that actually created all of the above?
"We hold the inherent value of human life and happiness to be axiomatic."
For absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than human desire and human contentment. So as I've rightly stated earlier, you've crossed out God's name and put in your own, using the same circular logic.
"And frankly, I consider any system of purported morality where human life and happiness are ultimately held to be inherently worthless an appalling and terrifying one."
And I would agree, but we have two problems: a.) your terror does not invalidate a concept b.) The Christian worldview doesn't teach that humans are inherently worthless.
"In essence, we're talking about fixing a car, and you respond by insisting that we have no absolute definition of the word "car." This absolutely does not mean that we are helpless to make objective, rational statements within that definition of "car."
Problem being is that your entire argument is based on the idea that you and secular humanists are better qualified than the Creator of humans to define what He created. This cannot be broken down any simpler.
"I said that the MORAL SYSTEM of SECULAR HUMANISM does not justify such morally evil actions in any way."
That sounds suspiciously like the "no true scotsman" fallacy that is actually usually hurled my way if I say "real Christians wouldn't do that".
As to the moral self awareness issue: I realize your personal opinion is that moral self-awareness=moral obligation, but I'm asking how that morally obligates us? That is why I've repeatedly asked why in an amoral universe morality is relevant at all. Why does that moral self-awareness mean that humans with that awareness transcend the rest of the natural order that we belong to?
"Human beings use the statement "2+2=4" to describe an aspect of reality. Can God make the statement, "2+2=-4" true? Or is God bound by the rules of logic himself? It just seems to me that for the existence of God to be even a minimally rational claim, he will at least have to conform to the laws of logic, which means that he will be bound by the descriptive logical statements that we humans devise, as long as the logic is valid, of course."
This is why I don't get your logic. I get that you don't believe God exists, and that you have developed (or adopted, not sure if I'm wording it right but you know what I mean) a moral system so that you can coexist with your fellow man. But what I'm confused about and remain so is how you come to conclusions like that posited above. If the Biblical God exists, and He is the creator of literally everything with literal infinite power, you still claim He is bound by laws of logic, laws of secular humanism created by humans, and laws of human reason. How the hell is that logically possible? Its like this: if an infinitely powerful God exists, and wants to declare something moral, He snaps His fingers and it happens. If He wants to make 2+2=10, He snaps His fingers and makes it happen. If He created everything, He created math, He created the very logic and laws of logic you and I are bound by, reason, morality, and everything else. There is NO reality except what He creates. The fact that you would not like this arbitrary arrangement if He exists would not make the above any less true if He exists. And if you can't provide an absolute reference point for human worth, why is it a moral issue to decide humanity isn't of any worth?
If your god is not bound by the laws of logic, then any discussion of him is meaningless and nonsensical. Why bother discussing god within the boundaries of logic and reason if your god can transcend those things? God can be anything and everything all at once, god can be both A and NOT-A. God cannot be disproven or falsified. God is not amenable to evidence. God can be used to justify anything and everything.
**Highboy and flimsy said: "I said that the MORAL SYSTEM of SECULAR HUMANISM does not justify such morally evil actions in any way."
That sounds suspiciously like the "no true scotsman" fallacy that is actually usually hurled my way if I say "real Christians wouldn't do that".**
There is a difference between the No True Scotsman fallacy and a matter of fact. For example: if I point to an unmarried man and say, "this person is a bachelor, and if they were married, they would not be a true bachelor" I would not be committing the NTS fallacy because I am making a statement about the definition of Bachelor.
I actually discussed this difference here:
http://www.ziztur.com/2009/08/fallacious-no-true-scotsman.html
You can read the humanist manifesto (http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II) and see that killing children goes against it. On the other hand, I can read the Bible and see that killing children does not go against its teachings. It certainly goes against the more modern teachings of Christianity (thankfully!!) though.
I said: "Even if he never actually chooses to exercise this power, the very fact that he has it takes away our free will."
highboy said: "You came to that assumption while throwing out another one. You claim that free will is an assumption if God exists, yet you assume that if He does exist, I have no freedom of choice. You have no way of knowing one way or the other so you are equally guilty of an assumption."
No, I demonstrated (quite adroitly, I think) that free will and an all-powerful god are simply incompatible with one another, and any system which has one cannot possibly have the other. I don't know what assumptions you think I'm making, except in the logical sense that you need to make an assumption in order to construct a valid if-then statement.
I'm not saying "if free will then no god, free will, therefore no god". I'm only saying "not (free will and god)".
Out of the possibilities:
a.) neither god nor free will,
b.) free will and no god,
c.) god and no free will,
d.) god and free will,
I've only ruled out your worldview, (d). Based on unrelated evidence, I personally think (a) is true, but as far as I've proven so far in this discussion, (b) and (c) are still possibilities.
-
"If you are saying that even if He exists that there are principles greater than He that He must adhere to in order to be moral, please list those principles and their origins."
The other guys are arguing for an absolute humanist morality, and they're doing it very well, and that basically brings up the Euthyphro dilemma. Is what god says moral because he says it, or does he say it because it is moral? highboy says the former, Flimsy et al are saying that there is objective morality, but it's not what god says, so what god says is immoral.
But that sidesteps your actual question. There are basically three possibilities for why to actually adhere to the absolute morality under that system: a.) because it makes you feel good, (but if killing babies made me feel good, that wouldn't make it right) b.) because moral things are axiomatically or by definition the right thing to do (which just begs the question), or c.) because, in terms of actions, it winds up basically being congruent with enlightened self-interest. I go with (c).
For me, your question boils down to this, and I will answer it as clearly as I can: god, if he exists, is just some asshole to me. My self-interest is more important to me than his interests, just because he is not me. And because I am human and he is not, the interests of humanity are more important to me than god's interests. Indeed, because I am a physical being as he is not, the interests of all physical beings are more important to me than his interests. The interests of god are of less importance to me than a fly's fart. It's not that there's something higher than god, it's that there's nothing lower than him in the hierarchy of relevance to me personally. If he existed, he would simply be too foreign to my existence for me to give the remotest hoot what he wants. You say he is outside of my morality: that is why I don't care about him.
That your god is an inconsistent, amoral asshole whom I cannot harm or help in any way (because he could have whatever he wants no matter what I do; he could just make me do what he wants, so why bother trying to please him?) is just the icing on the cake of my indifference to his desires.
Being all-powerful, he is perfectly within his rights to do whatever the hell he wants, as far as he's concerned. But for me to give the remotest flying fuck about his desires, some minimum standards of sanity, consistency, relevance to my interests, and for that matter existence have to be maintained, and these are standards which your god abjectly fails to meet.
“…So you're saying that secular humanism is a higher principle than God if He exists, despite the fact you have absolutely no way whatsoever to demonstrate that principles created by the created creature are higher than the being that actually created all of the above?”
Yes, I consider the moral value of sentient life axiomatic. Similarly, you claim that if a god exist, then its whims are a higher principle than secular humanism, despite the fact that you have no way whatsoever to demonstrate that principles created by the creator are higher than the beings it created.
And no, it is not nonsensical to suggest that created things can surpass their creators. It’s why humans create machines, after all; and biological evolution amply demonstrates how simple, mechanical processes can lead to high degrees of sophistication vastly more complex in behaviour than their origins.
“For absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than human desire and human contentment. So as I've rightly stated earlier, you've crossed out God's name and put in your own, using the same circular logic.”
Your strawman version claimed that secular humanism is whatever most people want at any given time. This was untrue.
But certainly, we hold the contentment and value of sentient life to be inherently valuable. If it pleases you to call it circular, go ahead. However, if you claim that it’s a circular argument, you need to read what I wrote more carefully. It’s an axiom to us. It is a premise for arguments, not an argument of any sort, circular or otherwise.
If it’s any comfort to you, your god would get one entity’s worth of consideration in our system, just like anyone else.
“The Christian worldview doesn't teach that humans are inherently worthless.”
Whatever the general Christian worldview may say, you have consistently claimed that morality is defined as whatever your god wants. If so, the only inherent morality is in said entity’s whims and desires.
Are you suggesting that human life has inherent value? That is, that human life and happiness have value even should your god change its mind and consider them worthless? If so, you are contradicting your earlier claims.
"What if God commands you, directly, to rape and torture your wife/son/daughter. This is NOT immoral?
“Expressing your outrage isn't proving your point, “
The point being that believers will excuse ANY action as moral as long as it's done in the name of “god” or perceived to be ordered by god. Tell you what, what was wrong with September 11th if I assume the existence of a certain version of allah? If you think that little babies should be killed for the sins of their parents, what's wrong with murdering a few thousand “infidels” other than the wrong totalitarian monster ordering it? According to you morality is simply an argument from authority and bin laden had the wrong authority. But If 9/11 were an old testament story you would go out of your way to excuse and explain it.
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
<< Home