What is sin?

[Waterfall]

Studmuffin, what keeps "believers" from creating gods in their own image to benefit their own agenda? Some would say a loving God approves of war and it's okay to kill the enemy. Or some would say my loving god says you shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Even within Christianity there is no universal standard of God's nature without us "tweeking" it, according to history. One only has to look at how we justify our bad behaviours by enlisting God as being on our side. What one generation calls bad behaviour another will call acceptable. Even Moses literally broke the tablets with the ten commandments on it and came back with those adjusted. What does God say about the internet? What does God say about artificial insemination? What does God say about space travel?

 

[Hermann]

Well now, studmuffin, I would say that an atheist who feels at one with the cosmic and planetary whole feels responsible for everyone and everything simply because he is everyone and everything. This is not a "gut feeling," as you call it, but a deeply felt intuitive feeling of our/his intuitive intellect.

The drawback of the rational intellect it that it necessarily has to judge from a particular viewpoint, which is arbitrarily chosen by the judger. The intuitive intellect, on the other hand, is a deeply felt feeling which we feel when we abstain from conceptualizing and just experience reality as it really is: as a unified whole. I think that the morality arising from such feeling can be very moral, and can be superior to the morality that relies on unquestioning belief in uprovable hypotheses.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Studmuffin, what keeps "believers" from creating gods in their own image to benefit their own agenda? Some would say a loving God approves of war and it's okay to kill the enemy. Or some would say my loving god says you shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Even within Christianity there is no universal standard of God's nature without us "tweeking" it, according to history. One only has to look at how we justify our bad behaviours by enlisting God as being on our side. What one generation calls bad behaviour another will call acceptable. Even Moses literally broke the tablets with the ten commandments on it and came back with those adjusted. What does God say about the internet? What does God say about artificial insemination? What does God say about space travel?

Scientific discoveries are neither right nor wrong. It's our intent, and what we do with them that's right or wrong. If we had in our vision - the belief in a peaceful, healed, unified world - and everything we did had that end goal, then scientific discoveries could continue to bring good things. If we just endeavor in things without that end goal in mind, without any compassion applied to our pursuits, without forethought, or purely out of self interest or greed or power - that's where I think we run into problems with the discoveries science leads to and they can work against the betterment of humanity.

 

[dreamerman]

Berserk, if you're not going to address my counterpoint in post #205, then just say so. So far, what I'm seeing is a lot of wishy-washy avoidance and it's very telling. You don't really have an argument for a link between belief in gods and meta-ethics, you just have some prejudice and an axe to grind against atheists.

Wait a second here. Is berserk a studmuffin or is a studmuffin a berserk? Maybe this is his way of saying he does not believe he is a studmuffin. The same way he was not a uccprogressive. You never know berserk maybe someone out there truly believes you are a studmuffin. In that case you need not be so hard on yourself.

 

[Mystic]

Kimmio, you miss the point of my argument once again: whether you were moral both before and after you became a Christian is irrelevant to the question of whether you had intellectual justification for what made your right actions right before you became a Christian. If you cannot, you just reinforce my point.
Dreamerman, as usual your lack of critical tools to engage my point puts you in a hissyfit that resorts to insults to compensate for your lack of rigor.
Azdgari, your counterpoint overlooks the standard formation of the theistic grounds for morality. I will take up that point in depth after I establish that no one can ground morality in an atheistic materialist perspective. So far, no one has offered a nonarbitrary explanation of what makes right actions right. Nor can they, of course. But then most were not philosophy majors; and so, are not accustomed to this type of debate. I need to find clearer analogies and will try to offer one in a future post.

 

[Azdgari]

Azdgari, your counterpoint overlooks the standard formation of the theistic grounds for morality.

In this thread you've overlooked it yourself, then.

I will take up that point in depth after I establish that no one can ground morality in an atheistic materialist perspective. So far, no one has offered a nonarbitrary explanation of what makes right actions right. Nor can they, of course. But then most were not philosophy majors; and so, are not accustomed to this type of debate. I need to find clearer analogies and will try to offer one in a future post.

To the bolded: Yourself included. Your statement was more true than you perhaps intended.

In order for the failure of materialism to allow for objective value to be at all important, you have to show that it's any different from immaterialism in that regard. Otherwise, your focus on materialism is totally unjustified.

I've yet to see a non-circular argument of that sort from you, however. And I highly doubt one is possible.

 

[Mystic]

Azdgari, so then, you seem to be conceding that atheistic materialism is incapable of defending a meaningful morality that properly addresses the question of what makes right actions right. Your only redress is your counter claim that theism fares no better. I can demonstrate that you are mistaken here, but first I want to stress your concession. Or if you wish to deny this, produce an argument for morality that does not irrelevantly invoke social consensus, evolutionary herd instinct, "gut" feeling (which is not demonstrably different than mature intuition--Sorry Herman).
I have put forward the decisive example that no one has been able to answer: If hurting others makes me feel powerful and makes me happy, why shouldn't I hurt others, if I can get away with it? .The best respondents have been able to muster is the complaint that most of us don't want to hurt others, and so, that is not their question. This inane appeal to social consensus doesn't work to establish morality any more than social consensus is an acceptable reason for atheists to believe in God. Yet atheists inconsistently invoke social consensus to defend morality. Posters like Kimmio seem incapable of distinguishing their theistic assumptive framework about the possibility of atheistic morality from that of the atheists, which is the very point at issue.

Lets throw in a different example. At least 90% of living species have gone extinct since the origin of life. They simply could not adapt to changing environmental conditions. In Hitler's world, there was no way for Jews to adapt to Nazi culture and hatred. Most people believe that such racism is evil and unjust--morally wrong. But if there is no God but only Nature, then why is genocide any more morally reprehensible than the extinction of 90% of living species? Nature doesn't value humans any more than the extinct trilobites. .We believe that humans are of unique value and should be treated justly with no racism. But our belief can't be justified on the basis of social consensus. herd instinct, "gut" feeling, etc. So how can our believe be justified beyond such indefensible pontifications of what is right? What does "right" mean here anyway?

 

[dreamerman]

Kimmio, you miss the point of my argument once again: whether you were moral both before and after you became a Christian is irrelevant to the question of whether you had intellectual justification for what made your right actions right before you became a Christian. If you cannot, you just reinforce my point.
Dreamerman, as usual your lack of critical tools to engage my point puts you in a hissyfit that resorts to insults to compensate for your lack of rigor.
Azdgari, your counterpoint overlooks the standard formation of the theistic grounds for morality. I will take up that point in depth after I establish that no one can ground morality in an atheistic materialist perspective. So far, no one has offered a nonarbitrary explanation of what makes right actions right. Nor can they, of course. But then most were not philosophy majors; and so, are not accustomed to this type of debate. I need to find clearer analogies and will try to offer one in a future post.

Berserk what critical tools am I lacking in exactly? Do you have these tools at your disposal and if you do can you show them to us so that we may marvel at them? You were the one who chose the name studmuffin I was just wondering why you would choose such a name for yourself. I thought it might be a self esteem issue but I could be wrong.

 

[Azdgari]

Azdgari, so then, you seem to be conceding that atheistic materialism is incapable of defending a meaningful morality that properly addresses the question of what makes right actions right. Your only redress is your counter claim that theism fares no better. I can demonstrate that you are mistaken here, but first I want to stress your concession. Or if you wish to deny this, produce an argument for morality that does not irrelevantly invoke social consensus, evolutionary herd instinct, "gut" feeling (which is not demonstrably different than mature intuition--Sorry Herman).

Almost. Regarding the bolded, I believe that a subjective morality functions just fine. But with that alteration - yes, as someone who does not believe in objective moral values, that concession is one I readily make. Values are held by minds, and do not exist outside of minds. That makes them inherently subjective.

I have put forward the decisive example that no one has been able to answer: If hurting others makes me feel powerful and makes me happy, why shouldn't I hurt others, if I can get away with it?

From my perspective, you shouldn't because it is wrong with respect to the values I hold. From your perspective, it's probably wrong with respect to your own values, too. But if not, then no moral argument can be made to you.

If a god exists who might punish you for your transgressions somehow, then that allows for a practical argument against the behaviour you describe (a warning of punishment or denial of reward). A coherent moral argument would still be impossible, though; nothing else would change.

The best respondents have been able to muster is the complaint that most of us don't want to hurt others, and so, that is not their question. This inane appeal to social consensus doesn't work to establish morality any more than social consensus is an acceptable reason for atheists to believe in God.

It's not an inane appeal to social consensus, because it's not being used to establish morality. It's being used to point out that the question you put forth is only sensible from an amoral perspective. One must wonder, for whom is this a problem? Sociopaths, perhaps. But it will rarely come up for the rest of us, because most humans have generated an idea of morality. The question works as a philosophical thought experiment, but consider that folks may not be very interested in it because it doesn't bear on their lives at all. Perhaps you should use a different, more relevant question in the future.

Lets throw in a different example. At least 90% of living species have gone extinct since the origin of life. They simply could not adapt to changing environmental conditions. In Hitler's world, there was no way for Jews to adapt to Nazi culture and hatred. Most people believe that such racism is evil and unjust--morally wrong. But if there is no God but only Nature, then why is genocide any more morally reprehensible than the extinction of 90% of living species?

Speaking from my own moral system - it is more evil, because of the intent behind it. For that matter, a lot of extinctions probably weren't even especially brutal affairs. If a species was really out to deliberately exterminate another species, then I would consider their actions to be morally questionable at the very least as well.

Note that your question this time is an ethical one, rather than a meta-ethical one, and thus isn't necessarily on topic.

Nature doesn't value humans any more than the extinct trilobites. .We believe that humans are of unique value and should be treated justly with no racism. But our belief can't be justified on the basis of social consensus. herd instinct, "gut" feeling, etc. So how can our believe be justified beyond such indefensible pontifications of what is right? What does "right" mean here anyway?

We are human. Therefore, it makes sense that our subjective values would privilege human life over non-human life. Kind of a trivial point, methinks.

 

[Delightful Life]

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, social consensus (your phrase, "what most of us feel") is irrelevant to the question under discussion--what makes right actions right--just as it is irrelevant to the question of whether God exists. The deafening silence just got even louder.

well actually doesn't part of your logic chain depends on 'theist' vs. 'atheist' modes of morality -- which DEPENDS on 'g_d' existing or not, right?

 

[Delightful Life]

What I've been arguing us a standard philosophical defense of emotivism--the view that moral rules express no more than individual or social approval. For example, as a basis for what is "right," act or rule utilitariansm both focus on some sort of calculation of the optimal balance of pleasure over pain (or a variation of this). No such theory has a way of making the case that a dissenting individual is morally obligated by play by utilitarian roles rather than her own rules. Societies can't function effectively without sanctions for lawbreakers. But the lawbreaker who asks why he should play by society's moral rules can only be sanctioned by the threat of punishment if he is caught. But this is a pragmatic, not a moral consideration, and fails to address the question of a criminal who is clever enough to elude detection or conviction. Sooner or later, the atheist materialist must presume philosophical absolutes as a basis for eliminating the arbitrary nature of moral claims. But in doing so, she is making a claim with even less basis than theism. At least, the core idea of theism is meaningful, even if it is false. Not so, morality with no ultimate grounding.

Put more personally, if I didn't believe in a loving God to whom I'm accountable, I would live only for self and for those few that I loved. Being moral would merely be a matter of convenience to serve those I love and gain their approval. But I wouldn't pretend to be potentially good for doing so. In short, God or reincarnational karma has a basis for morality than atheism does not. For those who want to believe in goodness in a meaningful (nonarbitrary) way, this is a benefit of believing in a loving God, though hardly evidence that such a God exists.

This I can totally grok; I think ;3

Just because you can describe something ( like 'ultimate grounding', 'pragmatism isn't part of morality', 'arbitrary nature of moral claims', doesn't mean that it is important or meaningful/meaningless...) doesn't mean that it is real outside your head?

None of us have absolute knowledge. We, I think, go through life fine without it. Without having absolute justice, absolute law, absolute sugar rushes...:3

It sounds like what you are positing can actually be tested out in the real world, as opposed to have them tested for logical correctness (by whose rules i can show logically such absurdities as i don't have a head)? Like take a look at how 'atheist' communites do vs. 'theist' ones?

And sure you can get beyond the 'is from ought' conundrum--through art. We decide what is right and what is wrong and we teach that to our kids, who, as kids, take that as normal and can then function unconsciously? Not saying that any of our laws, ethics & morality IS consciously made...;3

Its like the Dalai Lama says with his lovingkindness -- that it is probably too late for us adults to be able to practice it with enough skill (automatically), but if we teach our children, then they can grow up eating, sleeping, pooping lovingkindness?

I do grok your point aboot how does the person who doesn't agree with her society's morality, how is she dealt with properly?

I just don't believe that it operates like some kind of role-playing game with True Absolute Rules or Not True Absolute Rules.

(though, of course, people are free to give authority to their actions -- 'morality'? -- as they wish...I just don't really think there is as actual, nontrivial distinction between 'atheist morality' and 'theist morality')

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights will be, in a sense, 'g_d' (being true by being true, no ands ifs or buts) and our children will grow up with it. We adults will die off...

 

[crazyheart]

I see it on my laptop. Kimmio.