How To Tell Right From Wrong

[Immanuel Can]

I thought I would bring this to your attention, Immanuel Can viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16386 . Ask and ye shall receive.

Yeah, I saw it.

Did you detect an answer to that particular question of how Atheists get ground for morality there? I couldn't find anything remotely relevant to it.

Maybe something will show up on that strand later. Or on this one.

[artisticsolution]

Christian Rationalists believe that evidence is everything; that in principle, an average person plus data is adequate to prove the existence of God and to generate a relationship with Him. Nothing supernatural is required as a preliminary, and no faith has to be involved. On can be 100% convinced, based on the physical or logical evidence alone.

What physical/logical proof?

[Necromancer]

Did you detect an answer to that particular question of how Atheists get ground for morality there? I couldn't find anything remotely relevant to it.

I think the Atheists say maximal joy (of life). At least if one follows Richard Dawkins. Other than that, maybe anthropological/philantropical interest.

[Immanuel Can]

What physical/logical proof?

My word was "evidence."

If it helps you see their claim better, replace the phrase " adequate to prove" with "sufficient to demonstrate." That might be a better representation of their view, although they do seem to think that at the end of the day the truth would thereby be made compelling and conclusive even to a closed-minded skeptic.

Personally, I'm not sure they're right about that...in fact, I think they're not. But I'm not really of their camp.

But if you find a Christian Rationalist, maybe you can ask him/her.

[Immanuel Can]

I think the Atheists say maximal joy (of life). At least if one follows Richard Dawkins. Other than that, maybe anthropological/philantropical interest.

Two problems immediately ensue for that answer. The biggest is "why"? Why should we think that the universe, which Dawkins assures us is the product of nothing but chance, in some sense "owes" or "prefers" us to be joyful? Why shouldn't we guess, on the contrary, that we are in a "nature red in tooth and claw" battle for survival, in which "joy" has no particular place? In a Darwinian world, we should expect the latter, but never the former.

This is also why the second problem emerges. It's that on the basis of Darwin, Richard Dawkins himself claims that there is no morality. He writes,

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

So to follow Dawkins is simply to follow him into this anti-moral view of everything. And "joy," well, I don't know where you'd find a moral imperative for us to seek that in his description, do you?

Now, a third problem, one even more important that the other two, remains completely unaddressed by this possible response. That is, even if we suppose that human beings DO, as a matter of fact, seek "joy" or have some sort of "philanthropical interest," it remains to be shown that these have any MORAL dimension. As Hume argued, they are then just factual statements, and do not warrant any kind of value judgment, or contain any deontological or moral gravity. So as a description of a delusory motive for good behaviour, they might work. But they wouldn't provide anything to the moral skeptic that would show he or she owes anything to respecting those values.

As a legitimation for morality, therefore, both explanations fall considerably short of what is necessary.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why not this version?

Christians know that the way to Heaven by God's word is the 10 Commandments. For sins they suffer the Purgatory, for much sinful life they go to Hell.
Now, the modern 10 Commandments are core of 10 Commandments, the spirit of it plus modern Laws and Regulations.

So the essential Christian life is according to the geist of the Bible, including the Jesus thing as saviour, guide to the Bible, plus accordance to laws and regulations (see respective country). Also to reject evil behaviour.

In addition, Christians are guided by the seven Cardinal Virtues and the seven Cardinal Sins in being prepared for Heaven.

But one should know that religious life is one thing, including the objective (Kantian) ethics and objective ethics by itself another. For Atheists to adhere to?

Objective ethics has own premises, such as truth of the World (as aforementioned).

Now what? Do we agree?

I thought Jesus said follow me and you can forget the 10 cs.

The other thing you got wrong is that there in NO purgatory in the Bible. It's a Catholic fiction used to patch over a gap in its redemption theory.

I pretty sure all that "Cardinal" shite is Catholic additions.

[uwot]

Did you detect an answer to that particular question of how Atheists get ground for morality there? I couldn't find anything remotely relevant to it.

I'm surprised you missed it. Some atheists, myself included, believe that the morality of an action is provisional according to the intended outcome of the agent. If they deliberately act with the purpose of inflicting unjustifiable suffering, ie they do unto others what they wouldn't wish done to themselves, they are acting immorally.

[Necromancer]

So to follow Dawkins is simply to follow him into this anti-moral view of everything. And "joy," well, I don't know where you'd find a moral imperative for us to seek that in his description, do you?

I think, still, they go down the Utilitarian avenue that has its own reasoning of willing people (not entirely slaves to the selfish gene), that's congruent with maximal joy in many senses "so that we will not suffer much unethical behaviour, but rather one that's good for our children too, family to family."

I thought Jesus said follow me and you can forget the 10 cs.

The other thing you got wrong is that there in NO purgatory in the Bible. It's a Catholic fiction used to patch over a gap in its redemption theory.

I pretty sure all that "Cardinal" shite is Catholic additions.

I think it says nowhere in the Bible that you are not liable to the Old Testament. We still have "holy" Sundays. The Catholics define the Bible differently than the Evangelical-Lutherans. However, all is recognised Christian philosophy, also the "Cardinal" stuff. Good?

(BTW, I have "Philosophical Ethics - An Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (2nd ed. 1991) by Tom L. Beauchamp)

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think it says nowhere in the Bible that you are not liable to the Old Testament. We still have "holy" Sundays. The Catholics define the Bible differently than the Evangelical-Lutherans. However, all is recognised Christian philosophy, also the "Cardinal" stuff. Good?

(BTW, I have "Philosophical Ethics - An Introduction to Moral Philosophy" (2nd ed. 1991) by Tom L. Beauchamp)

Jesus said something like all you have to do is believe in me, not follow the commandments.
Actually there is no such thing as the decalogue. If you go to the bible where the rules are laid down you will find more than ten. Ten is a convenient number chosen by the early church.

If you want to insist on purgatory, 7 deadly sins and, (what was it) 4 virutes, then maybe you can cite them chapter and verse?

In fact I challenge you .

[Necromancer]

Challenge accepted.

The "Cardinal" (stuff)

"Relationship to the theological virtues
The "cardinal" virtues are not the same as the three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity / love (see 1 Corinthians 13). Together, they comprise what is known as the seven virtues, also known as the theological virtues." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_virtues
Galations 5:22-23. Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... atians%205.
The Purgatory

It will have to do with "doctrine": purgatory ˈpəːɡət(ə)ri/
noun
1. (in Catholic doctrine) a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going to heaven.
"all her sins were forgiven and she would not need to go to Purgatory" Source: Google.com by Purgatory meaning

Note: 1 edit. See citation from the Bible.

[Obvious Leo]

But if you find a Christian Rationalist, maybe you can ask him/her.

Enough of this Craigite shit. If you find somebody claiming to be a Christian rationalist then you should kick his arse into the middle of next week for making a mockery of our language. The term is an oxymoron.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm surprised you missed it. Some atheists, myself included, believe that the morality of an action is provisional according to the intended outcome of the agent. If they deliberately act with the purpose of inflicting unjustifiable suffering, ie they do unto others what they wouldn't wish done to themselves, they are acting immorally.

Wait a minute: you say that Atheists evoke a Christian standard? That's bizarre. Why would they invoke the Golden Rule of Jesus Christ, given that they don't believe what He said? And what would lead them to believe anyone else ought to believe what they themselves refuse to accept as authoritative? That's just self-contradictory. They've no association with the Golden Rule. And they've no answer as to why we are duty-bound to obey it.

"The outcome of the agent" is also obviously inadequate: because it is entirely indistinguishable from amoralism or egocentricity. What makes it a "moral" view at all, and why should anybody who doubts it think it's right? That's the problem.

And that brings up an essential point: I think these Atheists are misunderstanding the task in hand. Their opponents are not really the Christians (who do, after all, believe in some kind of morality), but the Nihilists, who believe in none at all.

It's the Nihilists that question all morality, and it's them that any system of morals has to refute. The true choice is between one's own morality and none at all -- the competition between culturally-different moralities is merely a secondary controversy, because for that one all sides have already conceded that SOME morality is at least objectively true. They may not agree on its nature, but they do agree on its existence.

Nihilism holds that morality is not even possible. And Darwinianism, as Dawkins says, is entirely on the side of Nihilism. So it's incumbent upon anyone who does believe in morality to say why Nihilism is wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

So to follow Dawkins is simply to follow him into this anti-moral view of everything. And "joy," well, I don't know where you'd find a moral imperative for us to seek that in his description, do you?

I think, still, they go down the Utilitarian avenue that has its own reasoning of willing people (not entirely slaves to the selfish gene), that's congruent with maximal joy in many senses "so that we will not suffer much unethical behaviour, but rather one that's good for our children too, family to family."

But that completely begs the question of what "unethical" means, and how we justify calling it "unethical." For why shouldn't we be slaves to our "selfish genes" as Dawkins et al would have it, since they really believe that they have truly described us when they say we are 100% predetermined by material forces -- just "dancing to our DNA," to quote Dawkins again?

[Immanuel Can]

But if you find a Christian Rationalist, maybe you can ask him/her.

Enough of this Craigite shit. If you find somebody claiming to be a Christian rationalist then you should kick his arse into the middle of next week for making a mockery of our language. The term is an oxymoron.

Ha. You're wrong on at least two counts. 1) It's not Craig I'm citing, and 2) Christian Rationalists do exist. I'm just not one of them. But I'm certainly not a Fideist either. The truth is that your understanding of Christian epistemology will allow you leverage only with a very narrow extreme, and has no reference to the majority of Christian epistemological views.

But you'll believe whatever you want, I can see that. So I guess that's all I can tell you.

[Necromancer]

So to follow Dawkins is simply to follow him into this anti-moral view of everything. And "joy," well, I don't know where you'd find a moral imperative for us to seek that in his description, do you?

I think, still, they go down the Utilitarian avenue that has its own reasoning of willing people (not entirely slaves to the selfish gene), that's congruent with maximal joy in many senses "so that we will not suffer much unethical behaviour, but rather one that's good for our children too, family to family."

But that completely begs the question of what "unethical" means, and how we justify calling it "unethical." For why shouldn't we be slaves to our "selfish genes" as Dawkins et al would have it, since they really believe that they have truly described us when they say we are 100% predetermined by material forces -- just "dancing to our DNA," to quote Dawkins again?

Thanks for your answers, Immanuel Can! I wish to take it no further. However, free for others... The Utilitarian grounding speaks of best action from rules, possibly, to maximise happiness without invoking any particular resistance to it like you do. (I believe in Deontology, the Kantian ethics.)