Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Londoner]

From whence do you derive the fundamental precept, "We should make other people happy"?

You did not read my example. The reason I gave why we might think murder etc. was wrong was that ultimately it makes the murderer unhappy. Not-murdering is good because it is in their self-interest.

Remember, that you might disagree with this is besides the point. That people might find it hard to live by is besides the point. You asked for an example of how we could base a morality on non-theistic grounds. This is one. I did not claim it was the only morality possible - I do not claim it is the 'objective truth'.

[Arising_uk]

... But no morality that a human being can manufacture by himself is sufficient to merit eternal life, says the Bible. ...

So Christians only behave as they do because they think they will have a big reward later? How Islamic of them. As an atheist I prefer just the merit of a moral behavior in this temporary life. I now understand why IC is so worried about atheism as he would behave badly if he did not believe in his 'God' and the punishment and reward system 'it' offers. How tawdry.

And if one believes otherwise, then even if he calls himself a "Christian" and wears a smile, a cassock or a mitre, you can be absolutely certain he is not what he thinks he is. ...

Does this apply to Christians who twist statistics to suit themselves?

But not because I say so. Because the Word of God says so.

This 'Word of 'God' ' appears to allow for many interpretations so not just because it says so eh!

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, do you believe that God's moral injunctions are reasonable so that reasonable people can agree with them?

All of God's injunctions as per The Bible? Or only some of them?

[Immanuel Can]

An atheist can also use the word 'must' to mean moral obligation. Anyone can.

Didn't say they couldn't. Just that they cannot justify or rationally defend their usage of it.

If theists can have 'different views', then their view of morality cannot be objective.

Non sequitur. There are different kinds of Theist. Some can be right, and some can be wrong. There's no monolithic unity implied.

An objective fact would be one everyone considers true, because it is verifiable.

At one time, everyone alive considered the world to be flat. And they verified it, by looking at the flatness of it.

So when you say theism can supply a base, you are only referring to your own personal beliefs.

Non sequitur. I'm speaking of the proposition that God exists, which if true, will be true for everyone -- even Atheists -- regardless of my personal beliefs.

What aspect of God is outside the mind?

If God is real, then all the important facts are outside of one's mind. Science is like that too: you use your mind to do it, but that does not mean that it is just "in the mind." It's in reality.

As I asked before, if God was the sort of thing dealt with by science, the sort of thing we describe as an objective fact, then he must have physical properties, like extension, location and so on.

No, that would only be true if I posited a God as merely material. Material entities have specific location, extension and so forth: entities with metaphysical properties do not.

Locke's discussion of the difference between "self" and "body" is relevant here. You can give people a piece of your body, but not actually give them a piece of your mind. But minds are as real as bodies.

If you and the other theists disagree about God (as you do), but your beliefs are based on objective fact, then you ought to be able to point to a piece of scientific evidence that will compel them to agree that you are right and they are wrong.

Well, I think I can. After all, God has an objective identity. To the extent that they describe the actual features of God, a given religion may be correct; and to the extent they get the objective facts about God wrong, they're wrong. But not because I say so...because God says so.

For example, one of the fundamental confessions in Judaism (and in Islam) is that of their being one God. That means that either the Polytheists are right, or the Jews are right, or if God didn't exist, both would be wrong. But one thing we can know for certain: it is logically absurd to say that they are both right. That's logically impossible, by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Likewise, the Jewish God makes Israel his Chosen People. Islam says Allah wants Jews to be killed for worshipping the wrong God, and for not converting to Islam. So they have a different view of God...a mutually exclusive one. One is right and one is wrong, or both are wrong: but we know absolutely that they aren't both right; and not because we're "antisemitic" or "Islamophobic," but because impartial reason tells us that plainly, regardless of their feelings.

We cannot prove which of us is correct by science (or logic).

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Not true. You and I can agree that the sum of 2+2 = 4. Now, you may conceptualize that a LITTLE differently from me (say, seeing it written in red, while I see it written in blue) but the substance of the calculation we agree on.

Maths has no substance. 2+2=4 does not tell us 'there are 4 apples' or 'four Gods'.

Not the point. I was just saying that we can agree on things. It's not true to say that everybody has his or her own unique, unsharable perspective for all things.

...most people do not agree there is such a fact.

You seem to think that what "most people" believe is of some importance. Except during elections and beauty contests, it's just not. That's Bandwagon Fallacy.

Me: Do you think of 'good' or 'right' as a thing, literally 'contained' in a mind? Or as a physical substance, that has dimensions, mass etc.?

Neither.

Then God cannot be an 'objective fact'.

Non-sequitur. There are non-physical, objective facts. For example, "Child abuse is wrong," is a value judgment, but I hope we both believe it's objectively true.

Your consciousness is an "objective fact." But it is not "contained in mind" in the sense that you're merely imagining you have consciousness, but don't really. That wouldn't even make sense to suppose.

What I have reason to think is that your "interpretation" is not data, not objective fact.

An interpretation isn't "data": it's a reading of the data. It can be wrong, partially right, or correct. We can discuss the data, and you can decide whether or not I have the right interpretation. That's all I'm saying.

How do you know what the mind of God is like? How do you know the Bible is reliable? Remember, most theists would disagree with you, as would all atheists. First, you need to prove - as an objective fact - that God exists, before you get on to all the theology.

None of us would know the answer to these questions if we did not have a revelation from God. So what we do is look at the data (i.e. the revelation of God in the Bible, the Koran, the Gita, and so on.) Then we decide which one is plausibly true, if any. And we live or die with that determination.

Remember the point we are discussing; the claim that only Theism provides a basic criteria for believing morality has any objectivity at all. We have already established we do not mean theism generally, only a specific form of theism.

Oh, absolutely. I marvel that it took us so long to establish that. Yes, have always been assuming that, and make no apology for it. Nor for saying that Atheism has no perspective on morality. Even the Atheists say that.

Now I am asking where this objectivity is obtained. First, what is this objective basis for the specific form of theism you approve of, such that you can demonstrate from fact that you are right and others are wrong? And (as others have asked) how would we get from that fact to a moral 'ought'?

Can you sharpen the question? You've got about three I can see in there, and I'm not sure which angle you wish to take. Which would you like to start with?

Isn't it the case that you must be using the term 'objective' is a peculiar way?

Not peculiar at all, since "objective" is not coextensive with "physical". We all think "love" is real, for example. But in what sense can we speak of it as material or physical? None, really. The most we can say is that it's a metaphysical interpretation of a selection of physical events. But we can't put it in callipers, or in a beaker, or heat it up with a bunsen burner.

[Immanuel Can]

From whence do you derive the fundamental precept, "We should make other people happy"?

You did not read my example. The reason I gave why we might think murder etc. was wrong was that ultimately it makes the murderer unhappy. Not-murdering is good because it is in their self-interest.

No, I read you correctly. I meant "people" as in including everyone: the perp, the victim, society, anyone. Who told us we were owed any "happiness"?

Remember, that you might disagree with this is besides the point. That people might find it hard to live by is besides the point. You asked for an example of how we could base a morality on non-theistic grounds. This is one. I did not claim it was the only morality possible - I do not claim it is the 'objective truth'.

No, it's really not. It's a prudential piece of advice, not a moral precept. "This will not work out well for X purpose," is a pragmatic, not moral claim. "Y is right, regardless of how that works out for purpose X" is a moral claim.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, do you believe that God's moral injunctions are reasonable so that reasonable people can agree with them?

All of God's injunctions as per The Bible? Or only some of them?

To answer your question, I would say that if we had perfect knowledge, perfect powers of reason, and a perfect moral nature, we would doubtless find the commandments of God unimpeachably rational. We would say, "Now that I see how it all fits together, those are just the commandments and actions I would take, were I God."

However, since we have none of those things, we often simply have to say that the ways of God are higher than our own understanding.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

However, since we have none of those things, we often simply have to say that the ways of God are higher than our own understanding.

I don't like fatalism very much.

Was the Incarnation of Christ the intention of God to make God's inscrutable reason comprehensible to us?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

However, since we have none of those things, we often simply have to say that the ways of God are higher than our own understanding.

I don't like fatalism very much.

I'm with you: but it's not fatalism. It's just a reasonable assessment of what it is possible to us to know, given that we are such small, time-and-space-bound creatures, with lamentably limited cranial capacity. We don't know everything about the infinite, and cannot. Perhaps we might say that we stand like a small child on the seashore, cup in hand, hoping to capture the ocean.

However, there's an important difference between this realization and fatalism. "Fate" has no good intentions toward us. God does.

Was the Incarnation of Christ the intention of God to make God's inscrutable reason comprehensible to us?

In part, yes: you can find that in Colossians 2:2. Christ is the revelation of "God's mystery."

That's one reason He's called "the Word," in the Bible; what we could not possibly understand about God by our own investigation has been made known to us by this "Word."

[Arising_uk]

Didn't say they couldn't. Just that they cannot justify or rationally defend their usage of it. ...

Of course we can as it's rational to behave in the manner that you wish others to behave towards you. But of course IC won't hear this as it offends his dogma and faith. That IC thinks it rational to believe in a 'God' knocked-up a couple of thousand years ago that no-one has been able to show exists is gob-smacking.

[uwot]

"Fate" has no good intentions toward us. God does.

I wonder if you have ever done the sums, Mr Can. From what you say, the number of people who fit your description of 'Christian' is vanishingly small. Even most people who call themselves christians don't qualify. Of the more than 7 billion people alive today, who, apart from you, is good enough for your god's heaven? If what you believe were true, the vast majority of people are going to suffer whatever you suppose your god intends for non-believers. How can you be so oblivious to claim that your god has good intentions toward us?

[Arising_uk]

... It's just a reasonable assessment of what it is possible to us to know, given that we are such small, time-and-space-bound creatures, with lamentably limited cranial capacity. We don't know everything about the infinite, and cannot. Perhaps we might say that we stand like a small child on the seashore, cup in hand, hoping to capture the ocean. ...

Or perhaps we might believe your 'God' and know we are nearly Gods, just the Tree of Life left to do - Genesis 3:22.

However, there's an important difference between this realization and fatalism. "Fate" has no good intentions toward us. God does. ...

Not really eh! Only towards those that will kowtow before 'it', the rest of us are to be largely exterminated and the survivors to be ruled over by christian quislings with a rod of iron.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Fate" has no good intentions toward us. God does.

Yes, I understand that.

Naturally, I'd love to believe in the powerful benign Providence of God. But the degree of suffering which many of His creatures have to undergo prevents me from trusting that supernatural God is all-good and all-powerful.

True, Christ suffered as much as many of God's creatures, so we may say that God suffered with us.

However none of us is JC ,and we are asked to take it on faith that earthly suffering will be more than compensated for after we die. It is indeed just that the saints be compensated and rewarded.There is nobody who has nothing of goodness in them, so presumably we will all be compensated, and looking to the parable of the workmen, we will all be rewarded according to our needs not according to what we deserve.

The parables of Jesus can be used by unbelievers in a supernatural God. The teaching and the life of Jesus can be used, as can the lives or teaching of other good men, as examples of how we create God on Earth. The creation, by us, of God on Earth is our only hope. The supernatural one is not a certainty and seems less probable as the years go by. This is to say that God is what we do, not what we believe.

I understand that Immanuel Can would object that we cannot be sure that what we create is anything like absolute good. That is true. We have to accept that what we take to be good is as uncertain as anything we take to be empirical facts. The only safeguard we have that what we mortals take to be good is good is that it complies with reason, and natural kindness and fairness.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Fate" has no good intentions toward us. God does.

Yes, I understand that.

Naturally, I'd love to believe in the powerful benign Providence of God.

So would anyone who's thinking sensibly. Good thing it's not unreasonable.

But the degree of suffering which many of His creatures have to undergo prevents me from trusting that supernatural God is all-good and all-powerful.

This is not a deal-breaker at all. If you think of God in a Determinist way, as the arbitrary Determiner of all that is, then yes, it's a problem. But if you believe that human beings have free will, and that they live in a free-will-permitting universe, then it's not really an issue at all. Evil and suffering are not the bestowments of God, but rather the byproducts of bad human choice making, and of a choice-permitting universe. God's role is actually to deliver us from the bad choice-making in which we have indulged.

Again, this fits very well with the account above...not so much with the Determinist version, though.

...looking to the parable of the workmen, we will all be rewarded according to our needs not according to what we deserve.

I'm unfamiliar with this parable, and given my personal level of familiarity with the Bible, that's surprising. I don't think it exists, nor is the application you take from it defensible. I know of no "parable of the workmen," nor any teaching that says we are rewarded "according to our needs."

I wonder if you mean the parable of the hired men who are given equal wages for going into the vineyards at different times of the day. (Matthew 20) But if you mean that, I think you're misreading the teaching derivable from it.

The parables of Jesus can be used by unbelievers in a supernatural God.

"Used"? How, and for what?

The only safeguard we have that what we mortals take to be good is good is that it complies with reason, and natural kindness and fairness.

If the last 350 years of moral philosophy have taught us anything, it's that "reason" doesn't tell us anything about morality. Reason will not tell us what "good" is, far less obligate us to any duty to care for "the good."

And I think that't the BIG lesson from modern ethics...if we miss that, then I would say we need more readings in modern ethics. In fact, the current state of ethics is "anti-ethics," or what's called the "End of Ethics" idea. Given a naturalistic, rationalistic approach, it's pretty clear that ethics is entirely dead. Really, it died when we abandoned Metaphysics.

[Dubious]

What you make very clear is that without the insertion of god in your argument there is no rationality in being either good or evil.

Yes, I would hope so. It certainly seems clear to me.

But let's say that god as presented in the OT & NT are merely human fabrications and its moral equations, in consequence, simply default to human ones, would you still insist that there is no rationality in any choice which amounts to either good or evil?

They (atheists) have no rational explanation for why actions are right or wrong. So it wouldn't do Theists any good to "devolve" to Atheism. As the Atheists here themselves adamantly insist, Atheism has no moral premises to offer.

What atheists here have you read who adamantly insist that atheism has no moral premises to offer? Aside which, why would a moral sense even require "premises" to justify itself in the first place and if so why??

If as an atheist I find that killing is wrong (in most instances) and you as theist confirms that view what makes you different from me except that I don't require "a premise" to reach that conclusion or by other endorsements contained in scripture! Subtract one from the other and one begs to find a difference. So what creates the difference without going circular and constantly repeating the same arguments?

...proclaiming "rationally" on good and evil - which as a theist you are evidently qualified to do - requires the irrational intervention of your biblical god denoting it's own rules and the ONLY thing you need to understand about those is to know that god commands it!!

The naive version of the Divine Command Theory is not the only Theistic ethical system. That DCT is mere legalism. It may reflect some religious ideas, but it is far from comprehensive, and certainly not an adequate characterization of a Christian ethic.

...so basically it's still all arranged by humans after all since gods's commands require only ONE mandate which humans are meant to follow, understood or not!

"By the deeds of the Law, no [person] will be justified in [God's] sight," says the Bible. So your version of DCT is not what it has in mind.

...and thus the bible remains the be all and end all of moral rationality. Subtract it from any moral decision and the moral equivalent becomes a non-rational choice or more apposite, one made unintentionally.

Trying to understand overwhelmingly absurd ideas that even rational theists would find difficult coming to terms with is not easy!

Since god is only a proposition - there being no proof or probability of such, instead, requiring belief as proxy to make up for the deficit - it follows that any argument which proceeds from it is merely another proposition which at best equals the merits of the one which preceded it. Its ONLY authenticity is to the person holding that belief requiring no further corroboration beyond one's personal suppositions.

So a justified conclusion would be, that which is purely suppositional can have no truth values assigned to it. This is simple day-to-day logic easily understood by those who aren't particularly adept at it. As such the challenges you repeatedly pose: "Just give me one moral precept that an Atheist, because of his Atheism, must follow", etc, etc., are mere supplements to suppositions which by it's inherent non-relevance becomes inconsequential and immune to response...any response. It would be self-defeating and contrary to logic if one actually strove to meet YOUR criteria; in short, a trap! No doubt you have cleverly figured it out! These supercilious demands that atheists justify themselves amount to nothing more than petty posturing to invert your biblical inferences into sustainable conclusions by posing non sequitur challenges.

[Immanuel Can]

But let's say that god as presented in the OT & NT are merely human fabrications and its moral equations, in consequence, simply default to human ones, would you still insist that there is no rationality in any choice which amounts to either good or evil?

Well, you don't need to take my word for it...do the experiment. Imagine that there is no God...now, give me one moral precept...just one, any one, that I am obligated to follow. Then explain, given the non-existence of God, why I must agree with that moral precept.

If there's none and no explanation for such, then once again, it's obvious that Atheism can't help us know what's moral.

They (atheists) have no rational explanation for why actions are right or wrong. So it wouldn't do Theists any good to "devolve" to Atheism. As the Atheists here themselves adamantly insist, Atheism has no moral premises to offer.

What atheists here have you read who adamantly insist that atheism has no moral premises to offer?

All of them. I have repeatedly been told by the Atheists here that they do not need to provide any account of Atheist morality, since, as they insist, Atheism only means non-belief in God. If you think otherwise, then your debate will have to be with them, not me: I agree with them.

Aside which, why would a moral sense even require "premises" to justify itself in the first place and if so why??

Ummm... premises are the building blocks of logic, the "why" behind the conclusion. An argument that has no premises behind it is simply arbitrary. And nobody needs to believe an arbitrary argument.

If as an atheist I find that killing is wrong (in most instances) and you as theist confirms that view what makes you different from me except that I don't require "a premise" to reach that conclusion or by other endorsements contained in scripture!

Well, what makes me different is that when your feelings change, you, as an Atheist, will having nothing to keep you from killing someone if you think you want to, and you believe you can get away with it. I will, because I will still know, regardless of my feelings, that God says it's wrong. Thus, my feelings do not limit my moral beliefs. Yours would, if followed logically. Mind you, I hope and trust you're better than to be consistent with Atheism on that.

Now, that's a pretty significant difference...not so apparent in outright murder, but much more apparent in things like abortion, theft, gluttony or lying. A Theist is not free to let feelings tell him when it's "okay" to do any of these things. Feelings are often wrong. If logical, Atheists would be ready to do these things if the inducements were sufficient and the fear of punishment sufficiently reduced. Theists have a reason not to.

The naive version of the Divine Command Theory is not the only Theistic ethical system. That DCT is mere legalism. It may reflect some religious ideas, but it is far from comprehensive, and certainly not an adequate characterization of a Christian ethic.

...so basically it's still all arranged by humans after all since gods's commands require only ONE mandate which humans are meant to follow, understood or not!

Not at all. i would argue, on the contrary, that the problem with DCT is that it fails to be prescriptive enough. It leaves one with the impression that only the...say, 10 things God explicitly mentions in the 10 commandments are "wrong," an everything outside of that is right, or at least permissible. But more sophisticated Theistic ethics have lots to say beyond DCT. I could get into a discussion with you about the difference between the letter and the spirit of the Law, but have you the inclination for that? Probably not, I'm guessing. But if you want to, I can.

Since god is only a proposition

Ooops. I see you're not familiar with logic. Both above and here, you show you are unfamiliar with the ideas of "premises" and of "propositions." I say this because first you asked why any were necessary, then used it as a synonym for...what? Maybe, "guess-making"? Maybe "supposition"? I can't tell. But I can tell you don't know what one is.

I don't want to be pedantic, but we won't be able to go forward unless I straighten this out for you. In brief, premises or "propositions" are needed for any logical syllogism. They form the first two stages of the minimal three required to form a rational argument.

Thus, when you say, "God is only a proposition," the right response is from a person who knows logic is, "Of course His existence is a proposition: that is, it's a reasonable basis upon which to found a logical conclusion."

- there being no proof or probability of such

This is NOT what "proposition" means.

...it follows that...

You're better not to try to use the language of logic if you don't know what either a proposition or a premise is. One thing all logicians learn in the 101 course is that nothing is possible to conclude from a claim with no premises, or which rests on no propositions.

So a justified conclusion would be,...

Without familiarity with logic, you probably can't actually "justify" a conclusion at all...except by accident.

Look, I hope this doesn't sound snobby, but honestly, I think you need a bit of instruction in syllogisms before you undertake such an operation as drawing firm conclusions for yourself. Otherwise, you're very likely to fall prey to what is known as a "logical fallacy." And this is the problem here: you're not sure what I mean when I say "premise" or "proposition," for example. But I'm sure it would be irritating to you for me to undertake to instruct you in this here, so perhaps you'd best look it up for yourself.

But maybe, to be helpful, I can point you in the right direction. Here you go: http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/basicconcepts.html