Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:06 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:55 am
The notion of God goes contrary to what we know about nature and the universe,
Who is "we"?
Okay, I won't speak for anyone else. Just myself.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:06 pm
According to the CIA factbook, not more than 4% of the world's population are outright Atheists, by their own self-declaration. Another 4% are agnostic. The rest are some form of "religious."
Whoever the "we" are who are "knowing," it's not more than 4% of the world.
And what, exactly, are the views of the other 96% regarding the role God plays in the world that they have everyday experience of? What are their views on what informs their morality? How many of those who are not from countries or even communities that indoctrinate their children in some religious belief or other say something along the lines of, "well I feel there must be some sort of greater power, but I don't know what it is"?
Anyway, those numbers are irrelevant to the point I was making. How many physics text books, biology text books, any scientific text books, explain, or even allow for, God's role in the world?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:06 pm
It's different for different people, I suppose. But we should ask why, no matter the audience, we even DO feel this thing called "shame." After all, if the empirical facts are that no moral standards are objective, are we just responding to our mal-conditioning inherited from our society? Should we just "get over" our feelings of shame, since they are mere social constructs, and now seem to plague us and make us unhappier than we would like?
Moral imperatives are subjective, but they can feel very objective. I firmly believe that they are subjective, yet my response to them is as if they were objective. If it were not so, it probably wouldn't work, would it? Just as the sensation of hunger makes it impossible to ignore my body's need to be fed, feelings of guilt, shame, compassion, etc., compel me to behave within a moral framework. The fact that morals are social constructs does not, as it turns out, make them any less compelling.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:06 pm
What I am, is a sinner whom God has saved. That doesn't mean I'm perfect. It just means I've realized that fact, and made the first steps to trying to do something about it. That doesn't make me better than anyone...arguably, worse, maybe. But it means that, by God's grace, I am heading in the right direction, no matter how far from the finishing point I started.
I am also a sinner, but I don't have a God to save me. I don't even know what you mean by "saved". How can you be saved from something that has already happened? I have to live with the knowledge of the things I have done wrong for the rest of my life, there is no getting out of it. I could try to rationalise them in such a way as to enable me to convince myself of some sort of justification for my actions, but that wouldn't work for me, although many people do seem to successfully do that. Anyway, the sheer unpleasantness of the feelings brought about by my past wrongs is a very strong motivation in deterring me from repeating them.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:06 pm
And yes, you can come up with moral directives. Anybody can. But ours are arbitrary, except to the extent they conform to the facts of God's character. God's moral directives are never arbitrary. They're always grounded in who He is.
I don't see any principal difference between my moral directives and those of God, and I believe that I have no less respect for my moral principles than you have for God's. You say that God's moral directives are not arbitrary, but that is merely an assumption on your part. You see, this is where you have the advantage. Whereas I have to justify and explain how I arrive at my conclusions, you are simply able to say, "well, God makes it so".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:06 pm
But "feel" is a tricky thing. We sometimes all "feel" things that are not true. So, I'm not saying that your assessment of guilt is not true; I'm saying we won't know whether or not it's true by referring to nothing more than "feeling."
Feelings need to be justified, in order for us to know what they mean. We need to know why we feel what we feel, and if that's related to reality.
I don't doubt your feeling. I don't even question your guilt, as you say it is there. I just ask, "What do you want to do about that?"
Yes, we do feel things that are not true, and I would venture that you feel that God exists more than you arrive at the conclusion via reason. In the case of morality, feelings do not need to be justified, they just need to be compelling enough to make us act on them. It is merely biology, but we need to feel that it is a great deal more than that, otherwise it would not be effective. I can't do anything about my guilt other than live with it. I won't construct a fantasy in order to relieve myself of the burden.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:06 pm
Atheism gives me the premises; I just point to the necessary conclusion from there.
No, you are constructing your own premises relating to atheism. And you are treating atheism like a belief system, when, in fact, it is quite the opposite of a belief system.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 5:06 pm
There are Atheists who follow through the logic of Atheism to its own conclusions.
Atheism is simply an absence of belief in God, beyond that there is no requirement to believe or disbelieve anything else, and no requirement for your conclusions to be consistent with those of other atheists. Some atheists believe that the human race is descended from an ancient race of extraterrestrial astronauts, so atheists are obviously just as capable of being illogical as theists. The only brush you can collectively tar atheists with is that of not believing in the existence of God.