Religion V: Utopianism, Fundamentalism, Apothesis

[Castel]

Uh no, cause we see, smell and understand it. All the evidence points to the existence of the universe. The universe is very very proven, and the tiny chance that our senses are being fooled is not at all comparable to religious faith. So no, no faith.

Your sense experience of the universe is real, insofar as anything is real. What lies behind it though?

This still does nothing for him when it comes to objective moral standards since essentially he's claiming they exist by fiat, which is a dead end.

[Jo498]

It's not bullshit but normal interpretation of 3000 year old texts. Trying to get a picture of the whole etc.

Of course the Jews would probably have been able to cognitively understand: Slavery is wrong but that does not mean that a society completely without some kind of forced servitude would have been stable and feasible in 1000 BC palestine. To me it seems very clear that slavery was understood as an evil (if not always a moral wrong) in antiquity, but it was a necessary evil like we see people working in badly paid and dangerous jobs as a necessary evil or found it o.k. until very recently to put PoW in forced labor camps (this is probably the closest analogue because usually people ended up as slaves being on the losing side of some war).

The Jewish Law is to my knowledge a document of extraordinary human treatment of slaves and servants.

These scriptures are not magical revelations. (Maybe muslims believe this about the Quran, but it is not standard christian teaching.)

If God is a bastard because he could have abolished slavery by holy decree among 1000 BC Israelites and did not, he is also a bastard because he did not magically reveal a formula for antibiotics to them.

Heck, why even bother putting people on earth with sickness and death, he should just have put us in eternal bliss right away and failing to do so, it follows he must be a cruel bastard...

[TrueMetis]

These scriptures are not magical revelations. (Maybe muslims believe this about the Quran, but it is not standard christian teaching.)

If God is a bastard because he could have abolished slavery by holy decree among 1000 BC Israelites and did not, he is also a bastard because he did not magically reveal a formula for antibiotics to them.

Heck, why even bother putting people on earth with sickness and death, he should just have put us in eternal bliss right away and failing to do so, it follows he must be a cruel bastard...

I think he's starting to get it.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Your sense experience of the universe is real, insofar as anything is real. What lies behind it though?

This still does nothing for him when it comes to objective moral standards since essentially he's claiming they exist by fiat, which is a dead end.

The belief that sense experience corresponds to a real world comes to us the same way our moral standards do- a brain evolved through natural selection with certain hard wired instincts and faculties, then socially refined. Now, I won't claim that statement gets out of the epistemological morass that the hardest skepticism gets us into- but it is consistent (both within itself and with sense experience) and intelligible. I think it's the best we can do, and anyway I don't think there is anyone truly able to act as if their sense experience does not correspond with a real world- how would they? otoh, God and moral fiats always seem to end up confused, inconsistent, and, for the God concept particularly, ultimately unintelligible.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

So, consiousness and the ability to think is an illusion?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

So, consiousness and the ability to think is an illusion?

Apologies- can you clarify? I'm not sure how you're getting there from what I said.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

If our sensory experinces do not correspond to the real world doesn't it follow that they are illusory?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

If our sensory experinces do not correspond to the real world doesn't it follow that they are illusory?

I do believe sense experience corresponds to the real world. I say that belief doesn't stand up to the hardest skepticism, but it's the best we've got.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Uh no, cause we see, smell and understand it. All the evidence points to the existence of the universe. The universe is very very proven, and the tiny chance that our senses are being fooled is not at all comparable to religious faith. So no, no faith.

Enitrely subjective perception is not proof of anything.

Chance that are senses are being fooled is impossible to estimate.

This still does nothing for him when it comes to objective moral standards since essentially he's claiming they exist by fiat, which is a dead end.

Indeed.

It is a bit strange to talk about simplifications after failing to provide any real defense of theistic morality centered around an omni-god than "well...we all have faith man".

Because if there is no God than obviously theistic morality falls apart. So defense of it came from ontological believe not a pragmatism.

The Jewish Law is to my knowledge a document of extraordinary human treatment of slaves and servants.

Probably better than some modern corporations.

These scriptures are not magical revelations. (Maybe muslims believe this about the Quran, but it is not standard christian teaching.)

While at least Catholic Church doesn't interpret all Bible literally, we assume that whole Bible is written under divine inspiration.

Therefore we cannot assume that involuntary work is always something inherently evil.

Heck, why even bother putting people on earth with sickness and death, he should just have put us in eternal bliss right away and failing to do so, it follows he must be a cruel bastard...

But if he didn't put people on earth with sickness, death and slavery George wouldn't write ASOIAF then. And what would be a point of universe without it!?

I think it's the best we can do, and anyway I don't think there is anyone truly able to act as if their sense experience does not correspond with a real world- how would they?

Many people can. Obviously they are not with us trapped within this bloody illusion now ;)

I say that belief doesn't stand up to the hardest skepticism, but it's the best we've got.

See, that's when we all end. The true way of honest agnostic. In the end the only choice is aesthetic one ;)

[Castel]

Indeed.

Because if there is no God than obviously theistic morality falls apart. So defense of it came from ontological believe not a pragmatism.

You haven't really provided a defense with God either. So that's not really in your favor.

Saying something is "ontological belief" doesn't really do much for anyone.

So I don't see how you can complain about simplifications at all.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

So I don't see how you can complain about simplifications at all.

I complain about atheists simplifying morality. I wouldn't do it against muslim, zoroastrian or pagan.

[TrueMetis]

Enitrely subjective perception is not proof of anything.

Chance that are senses are being fooled is impossible to estimate.

It really doesn't work like that. Yea subjective experience is fallible, but if I can get 20-30 people to agree that the sky is blue, that's proof the sky is blue. Further if I can then get a solid reasoning on why the sky is blue (IE the scattering of light particles through air molecules combined with our eyes being set up to see blue easier than purple) than I can claim pretty objectively yes, the sky is blue.

Exact odds might not be possible, but all I have to do is look around, and see all of our accomplishment which really on our senses being at least mostly right to conclude that are perceptions being significantly off is miniscule. I guess at this point you could claim our sense are so off it only appears that everything is working for the most part, but not only is this a ridiculous notion that would need an incredible amount of evidence to even be considered seriously outside of a philosophy class. Even if the universe is merely a result of our perception those perception have a very real effective on us, if you ignore your perception you are going to die. So even if it turn out that the universe is not how our perceptions view it it De Facto is.

[Castel]

I complain about atheists simplifying morality. I wouldn't do it against muslim, zoroastrian or pagan.

Except you haven't seriously explained how or why they have done that, and have mostly done that yourself.

Honestly, calling it a simplification is pretty generous. You haven't simplified anything. You've simply not argued anything.

You just keep throwing this assertion around without never getting into it in the slightest.

It really doesn't work like that. Yea subjective experience is fallible, but if I can get 20-30 people to agree that the sky is blue, that's proof the sky is blue. Further if I can then get a solid reasoning on why the sky is blue (IE the scattering of light particles through air molecules combined with our eyes being set up to see blue easier than purple) than I can claim pretty objectively yes, the sky is blue.

It's not proof that the sky is blue. It's proof that anything we'd reasonably find worth talking about or calling "sky" or "blue" are consistent across our senses.

I just -again- want to head off the solipsistic argument.

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

I just -again- want to head off the solipsistic argument.

But there are no way out.

[Castel]

But there are no way out.

I can't disprove solipsism. That wasn't my goal. My goal was to prevent someone using it as a cheap retort.

You can absolutely claim solipsism if you want. But, unless you're willing to dismiss the point being made (that we can know something about seemingly consistent elements of our perception) I don't really see the impact it'd have here.

[Stubby]

I complain about atheists simplifying morality. I wouldn't do it against muslim, zoroastrian or pagan.

How (with examples) do atheists simplify morality?

What wouldn't you do against those other belief systems?

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

How (with examples) do atheists simplify morality?

Check few posts before where my discussion with Gears of the Beast arised.

What wouldn't you do against those other belief systems?

Because IMHO their moral system are consistent with their metaphysical beliefs.

[Stubby]

Bear in mind your comments in post 255:

Or maybe gods have different standards of whats moral and immoral than you.

Well if you have any non-pathetic rationalizations why God should change his moral stances toward modern ones, I'm willing to listen.

I get that myself as dreadful and warmongering theist believe that you can objectively say somethings immoral or moral. That's withing self-contained logic. But how exactly you my agnostic friend want to prove that Christian god theoretical stance about slavery is immoral? Where do you take those objective moral rules from?

Then consider this:

Check few posts before where my discussion with Gears of the Beast arised.

Because IMHO their moral system are consistent with their metaphysical beliefs.

Having read through the discussion with Gears, I am still failing to see how you can justify the suggestion that he 'simplified' morality. If anything, the person simplifying morality is you.

Having regard to post 255, are we to assume that your view on morality is along the lines of 'all's fair if it is stipulated by god(s) because it's god that's doing the stipulating'?

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Having read through the discussion with Gears, I am still failing to see how you can justify the suggestion that he 'simplified' morality. If anything, the person simplifying morality is you.

Well I don't know. Maybe by saying he's more moral than OT God, and then asked why his stance on slavery is more moral than OT, he just acted like it was so so obvious that his stance is right and truly moral than it doesn't need explanation, and any sane man should agree with him. Not simplifying, not at all.

Having regard to post 255, are we to assume that your view on morality is along the lines of 'all's fair if it is stipulated by god(s) because it's god that's doing the stipulating'?

Indeed. In my opinion if there are no divine base for morality then morality basically don't exist - it's just more polite word for social behaviour.

It doesn't answer "what should be" and "what should we do" - because it's irrelevant question, we have no free will, and we'll do whatever structure of our brain would make us to do.

[Stubby]

Well I don't know. Maybe by saying he's more moral than OT God, and then asked why his stance on slavery is more moral than OT, he just acted like it was so so obvious that his stance is right and truly moral than it doesn't need explanation, and any sane man should agree with him. Not simplifying, not at all.

Indeed. In my opinion if there are no divine base for morality then morality basically don't exist - it's just more polite word for social behaviour.

It doesn't answer "what should be" and "what should we do" - because it's irrelevant question, we have no free will, and we'll do whatever structure of our brain would make us to do.

The short answer to that position is that, by accepting that only a god can make things moral, you have essentially adopted the ‘celestial dictatorship’ proposed by Hitchens. The longer answer is set out below.

We need to start with a definition of ‘morality’. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy defines ‘morality’ as follows:

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
   1. some other group, such as a religion, or
   2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Take the point about ‘rational persons’. What rational person would say it is moral to kill every living thing on a planet (as the OT god did) as punishment for the transgressions of a select few who knew what the rules were? I say that was totally irrational. The being that did so must be irrational. In that sense, rational humans, after learning about things for 3000+ years, have come to the collective conclusion that we do know better than the god of the OT.

Other actions that we have learned are simply unacceptable include (to suggest just a few):

1. The sexual abuse of children

2. The mistreatment of women

3. Slavery

4. Human sacrifice

All of these things were sanctioned in the bible or other religious texts or even carried out by the alleged deity or with the deity’s permission. I submit that rational people do not accept these things are ‘moral’.

As to your point suggesting that morality does not exist absent a divine basis, there are already many schools of thought on this topic. There is a modern idea that evolutionary biology plays a part in what we have learned is immoral: see “Moral Thinking: Biology Invades a Field Philosophers Thought Was Safely Theirs,” The Economist, February 21, 2008. Further, it is possible to be a good human without any reference to god: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Secular_morality.

These are only 2 examples.

I remain of the view that it is you have simplified ‘morality’ by limiting ‘morality’ to what was written in a book some 3000+ years ago.