Obama Nails his Faith [Archive]

Rodibidably

5th February 2009, 11:38 AM

Judge people by their actions, not by their beliefs.
I want to agree with this. But I'm not sure I can 100%.

Take for instance somebody who believes the earth is 6000-10000 years old. While in all other respects this person may be a "good" person. And this person may not share the other beliefs of the bible I have issues with (such as hating gay people, etc).
But I would have a hard time taking seriously somebody who has a belief so absurd, so out of touch with reality, so dogmatic, so frankly just wrong, that I am not sure I could ever see them in the same way that I see somebody who does not have such an absurd belief.

While I agree actions are MORE important than beliefs, I do think that some beliefs are so out of touch with reality that a person can be judged if they hold on to that belief in spite of the evidence.

The Atheist

5th February 2009, 01:40 PM

Judge people by their actions, not by their beliefs.

Hans

I am.

Standing up and making the deliberate comment: "It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose - His purpose." is an action. It shows that the person saying it believes a god has a purpose for him.

I'd rather a president act on the belief that he's there for the purpose of helping his fellow man.

kerikiwi

5th February 2009, 01:55 PM

I am.

Standing up and making the deliberate comment: "It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose - His purpose." is an action. It shows that the person saying it believes a god has a purpose for him.

.

Of course the person could be lying.

RobRoy

5th February 2009, 02:05 PM

I'd rather a president act on the belief that he's there for the purpose of helping his fellow man.

I'm curious, are you assuming that God's purpose for Obama is not "helping his fellow man"?

BenBurch

5th February 2009, 02:19 PM

If a President acted in exactly the manner that is defined by the fictional Christ's parables and teachings, few of us would find a problem with his actions even though we know there is no god.

kerikiwi

5th February 2009, 02:43 PM

Undesired Walrus

5th February 2009, 02:57 PM

If a President acted in exactly the manner that is defined by the fictional Christ's parables and teachings, few of us would find a problem with his actions even though we know there is no god.

I can't say that proclaiming that we should love our enemy would go down well with a majority of Americans.

And if George Bush had stood on the rubble of the Twin Towers and asked us to find it in our hearts to love Osama Bin Laden, he'd be impeached.

The Atheist

5th February 2009, 03:54 PM

I'm curious, are you assuming that God's purpose for Obama is not "helping his fellow man"?

Probably is, but I don't like the idea of someone who has to be told by their sky-daddy to do so.

If a President acted in exactly the manner that is defined by the fictional Christ's parables and teachings, few of us would find a problem with his actions even though we know there is no god.

I'd agree, although the responses in the meantime give the lie to "few of us".

BenBurch

5th February 2009, 04:00 PM

I can't say that proclaiming that we should love our enemy would go down well with a majority of Americans.

And if George Bush had stood on the rubble of the Twin Towers and asked us to find it in our hearts to love Osama Bin Laden, he'd be impeached.

IMNSHO; That would have been just the thing to say and it would have pretty much deprived OBL of his victory. That is a statement that would have made us friends in the Arab world, and likely would have gotten us enough cooperation to actually capture him and bring him to trial.

RobRoy

5th February 2009, 04:10 PM

Probably is, but I don't like the idea of someone who has to be told by their sky-daddy to do so.

Well, you're not just an atheist, you're The Atheist. I wouldn't expect you to like the idea. But if we're talking about how Obama is taking the messages from up above, I'd be willing to wager their pretty rationally received. At least that's been my impression of the man so far.

Undesired Walrus

5th February 2009, 04:14 PM

IMNSHO; That would have been just the thing to say and it would have pretty much deprived OBL of his victory. That is a statement that would have made us friends in the Arab world, and likely would have gotten us enough cooperation to actually capture him and bring him to trial.

Perhaps. However, I doubt most of America would agree.

If Bush had publicly offered the other cheek of the United States, rather than firebombing the caves of Afghanistan, treason -let alone impeachment- would be the likely outcome.

Undesired Walrus

5th February 2009, 04:17 PM

Probably is, but I don't like the idea of someone who has to be told by their sky-daddy to do so.

Why?

Gord_in_Toronto

5th February 2009, 04:21 PM

I've seen lots of posters trying to claim Obama as some kind of "pretend theist" who's really an atheist in disguise.

Let these words refute that idea forever:
Originally Posted by President Barack Obama
It was on those streets, in those neighbourhoods, that I first heard God’s spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose - His purpose.

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5669719.ece)

The link seems to take me elsewhere.

But, let me just say:
Many are called but few are chosen.

;)

Wowbagger

5th February 2009, 04:26 PM

It doesn't matter if the President believes in god or not.

What matters is if he would allow public policy to be highjacked by religious ideology.

Somehow, I doubt he would. Certainly not to the same extent as W.

Dunstan

5th February 2009, 04:27 PM

Nice use of "nails" in the thread title.

BenBurch

5th February 2009, 04:35 PM

Perhaps. However, I doubt most of America would agree.

If Bush had publicly offered the other cheek of the United States, rather than firebombing the caves of Afghanistan, treason -let alone impeachment- would be the likely outcome.

Not gonna happen. Impeachment of a president is difficult at best, and convicting him in the Senate? Especially when he was working the cooperation and law enforcement angle to the maximum? Not a chance.

Hell, he might have had Mossad and the Iranian Secret Police working together on this, and no telling where that would have gone. It certainly couldn't have made matters worse.

Because I wanted OBL arrested and tried. I did not want to have two separate wars to last 6+ years.

We could have gotten him with a pure special forces operation if we had obtained sufficient cooperation from other nations in that region by nationally adopting the post of crime victims seeking justice rather than badass cowboys ready to chew up some landscape.

Or do you forget the overture of sympathy from the leader of Iran at that time? And Gaddafi too. We needed a LEADER to capitalize on those openings. What we got was somebody who learned all would ever know about diplomacy from Rambo.

arthwollipot

5th February 2009, 04:39 PM

Why?Because people should work to help their fellow human beings because that's the right thing to do, and not because they are told to do so by an authority figure, fictional or otherwise.

Egg

5th February 2009, 04:52 PM

Undesired Walrus

5th February 2009, 04:55 PM

Because people should work to help their fellow human beings because that's the right thing to do, and not because they are told to do so by an authority figure, fictional or otherwise.

Perhaps so. But in both cases we strive to do what is right in order to personally gain something from it. Surely it is no less noble to do the right thing because you believe you will experience heaven. I'm not advocating religous belief here, nor attempting to denegrate secular acts of kindness, I'm just stating that is the way I believe it is.

LarianLeQuella

5th February 2009, 05:03 PM

Personally I don't have a problem with somebody believing in god, if it helps them in their lives.

I have two issues that REALLY piss me off though:
1) When theists try to use god or their religious beliefs to excuse their actions (god hates fags, and therefore so can I)
2) When theists try to force their religious beliefs and doctrine on others (creationism, etc)

From what I have seen of Obama, he does not seem to fit into either of these two groups, and I am quite happy about that.

While I think his belief in god is wrong, as long as he does not harm others with his beliefs, I could care less if he believes that jesus walked on water, mohammad talked to god, john smith read gold plates, l ron hubbard wasn't a complete nutbag, etc...

QFT. In the present US climate, I think this is a HUGE IMPROVEMENT!

Undesired Walrus

5th February 2009, 05:04 PM

We could have gotten him with a pure special forces operation if we had obtained sufficient cooperation from other nations in that region by nationally adopting the post of crime victims seeking justice rather than badass cowboys ready to chew up some landscape.

Yet a Special Forces Operation would surely be the very antithesis of turning our cheeks.

If Bush had -after the deaths of 3,000 people- said that America must turn their collective cheek and love the very man who had just slaughtered so many, I can't fathom that he would be in Office for very long.

I'm not saying such a strategy would be poor or would be clever, I'm just saying that it would not be a case where few of us would find problems with the President's actions.

BenBurch

5th February 2009, 08:12 PM

Yet a Special Forces Operation would surely be the very antithesis of turning our cheeks.

If Bush had -after the deaths of 3,000 people- said that America must turn their collective cheek and love the very man who had just slaughtered so many, I can't fathom that he would be in Office for very long.

I'm not saying such a strategy would be poor or would be clever, I'm just saying that it would not be a case where few of us would find problems with the President's actions.

Arrest, the goal in this hypothetical, is not slaughter. And you can love the man and hate the sin in Christianity.

slingblade

5th February 2009, 08:19 PM

Arrest, the goal in this hypothetical, is not slaughter. And you can love the man and hate the sin in Christianity.

Maybe you can.

The Atheist

5th February 2009, 09:01 PM

Well, you're not just an atheist, you're The Atheist. I wouldn't expect you to like the idea. But if we're talking about how Obama is taking the messages from up above, I'd be willing to wager their pretty rationally received. At least that's been my impression of the man so far.

I agree. I'm a fan, and I can tell you I was a fan long before just about anyone else in this place had ever heard of him.

And yes, you're right about my atheism, but it just feels like a leech on your skin. It doesn't particularly hurt, but it has a bad feel about it.

Why?

What he said:

Because people should work to help their fellow human beings because that's the right thing to do, and not because they are told to do so by an authority figure, fictional or otherwise.

Beautifully put.

The link seems to take me elsewhere.

The link's right, you just have to read through a lot of balls about Tony Blair first.

Some excellent comments from the mainly Brit readership, if you scroll all the way down.

Nice use of "nails" in the thread title.

Cheers! I try.

Rairun

5th February 2009, 09:28 PM

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't know why some atheists cling to the idea that there is "a right thing to do" without religion. If you think there is, you've stopped believing in god, but not in the whole paraphernalia he brought along with him. If you justify something you did by saying it was right, you are externalizing your values in the same way a religious person does. Unless you give those values some sort of universal status, it makes absolutely no sense to say a person "should" do anything other than what they want to.

arthwollipot

5th February 2009, 10:38 PM

Not gonna happen. Impeachment of a president is difficult at best, and convicting him in the Senate?I dunno. Bill Clinton managed it pretty easily.

What makes it "the right thing to do" in your opinion? Isn't your use of "should" suggesting some kind of purpose?No, there is a secular basis for morality. And it has nothing to do with "purpose" and more to do with the smooth running of a community.

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't know why some atheists cling to the idea that there is "a right thing to do" without religion. If you think there is, you've stopped believing in god, but not in the whole paraphernalia he brought along with him. If you justify something you did by saying it was right, you are externalizing your values in the same way a religious person does. Unless you give those values some sort of universal status, it makes absolutely no sense to say a person "should" do anything other than what they want to.Not true, and although it is slightly off-topic, I'll elaborate briefly.

As I said, there is a secular basis for morality. It's not an absolute (external) basis; it works purely for the mutual good of all of the citizens in the community. The fact that modern Christian morality shares some elements with this purely secular morality is no coincidence. The same tenets of morality work to ensure society runs smoothly, regardless of whether some people believe that these tenets are externally imposed by God or not. The morality exists regardless of what people think about it, and has come about by purely secular social reasons.

Rairun

5th February 2009, 11:12 PM

I dunno. Bill Clinton managed it pretty easily.

No, there is a secular basis for morality. And it has nothing to do with "purpose" and more to do with the smooth running of a community.

Not true, and although it is slightly off-topic, I'll elaborate briefly.

As I said, there is a secular basis for morality. It's not an absolute (external) basis; it works purely for the mutual good of all of the citizens in the community. The fact that modern Christian morality shares some elements with this purely secular morality is no coincidence. The same tenets of morality work to ensure society runs smoothly, regardless of whether some people believe that these tenets are externally imposed by God or not. The morality exists regardless of what people think about it, and has come about by purely secular social reasons.

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right? Basically, these two sentences would be equivalent:

1) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because it is the right thing to do, not because God told him to.

2) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because society told him to, not because God did.

SusanB-M1

5th February 2009, 11:32 PM

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right? Basically, these two sentences would be equivalent:

1) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because it is the right thing to do, not because God told him to.

2) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because society told him to, not because God did.
Mutual support and care were, surely, amongst the most important survival strategies which enabled the human species to flourish instead of becoming extinct hundreds of thousands of years before Christianity came on the scene.

Rairun

5th February 2009, 11:44 PM

Personally, I would rather have Obama help fellow human beings because that's what he wants to do. It doesn't sound as virtuous, but at least it's honest.

Also, I don't think the belief that God has given us a purpose necessarily means we're bowing down to an authority figure. I have written about this in length elsewhere, but I think that God can work as a metaphor for the resoluteness we sometimes feel when we make a decision. Sometimes we feel so strongly about an issue, and we are so sure of what we want, that it seems impossible to be any different from who we are. We realize that all things, including ourselves, are mere products of the laws of the universe. We feel that our desires and our dreams were created by something larger than any one of us. A secular person would identify this larger entity as the universe. A religious person could call it God. In that sense, it is irrelevant whether one believes in God or not.

Rairun

5th February 2009, 11:47 PM

Mutual support and care were, surely, amongst the most important survival strategies which enabled the human species to flourish instead of becoming extinct hundreds of thousands of years before Christianity came on the scene.

Sure, but I fail to see your point.

Egg

5th February 2009, 11:48 PM

No, there is a secular basis for morality. And it has nothing to do with "purpose" and more to do with the smooth running of a community.

As I said, there is a secular basis for morality. It's not an absolute (external) basis; it works purely for the mutual good of all of the citizens in the community. The fact that modern Christian morality shares some elements with this purely secular morality is no coincidence. The same tenets of morality work to ensure society runs smoothly, regardless of whether some people believe that these tenets are externally imposed by God or not. The morality exists regardless of what people think about it, and has come about by purely secular social reasons.

You're explaining why people help each other out in society, but I don't see why you state that it's "the right thing to do". From what you say, it's no more the right thing to do than for groups of humans to go to war with other tribes over resources. A lot of people seemed to take issue when they believed Bush was doing just that over oil.

UnrepentantSinner

6th February 2009, 02:04 AM

I think this sharp atheist/theist distinction is unrealistic. Perhaps living in a country of lukewarm theists helps me. There is not just theists or atheists, there is a whole continuous scale from fanatic theists to dogmatic atheists, and most people fall somewhere in between.

Judge people by their actions, not by their beliefs.

Hear Hear!

arthwollipot

6th February 2009, 04:31 AM

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right?They're hardly equivalent. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they're about as non-equivalent as it's possible to be.

Lonewulf

6th February 2009, 05:39 AM

Rairun

6th February 2009, 06:35 AM

They're hardly equivalent. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they're about as non-equivalent as it's possible to be.

Care to explain why? The only difference I can think of is that society exists, so it can actually attempt to punish you if you go out of line.

Er...

You ARE society.

Society IS you.

What is beneficial for members of society, is by its very definition, beneficial for you.

God is a third party by nature.

Are you serious? :| That's some heavily fascist **** right there.

Dave Rogers

6th February 2009, 07:51 AM

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right? Basically, these two sentences would be equivalent:

1) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because it is the right thing to do, not because God told him to.

2) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because society told him to, not because God did.

No, they're very much not equivalent. You should re-frame the second as:

2a) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because that would be to the benefit of society, not because God told him to.

What society claims to want, in the form of public opinion, and what is actually good for society, can at times be very different things. That, as I see it, is the basic reasoning behind representative rather than direct democracy.

Dave

Rairun

6th February 2009, 08:32 AM

No, they're very much not equivalent. You should re-frame the second as:

2a) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because that would be to the benefit of society, not because God told him to.

What society claims to want, in the form of public opinion, and what is actually good for society, can at times be very different things. That, as I see it, is the basic reasoning behind representative rather than direct democracy.

Dave

Alright, I accept this distinction, but you still fail to address my point. Even if we managed to define what "benefiting society" actually entailed, which is a very difficult task, promoting such benefits would only be right if you as an individual decided it was. You're only begging the question by transferring authority from public opinion to the more "enlightened" perspective of learned men.

slingblade

6th February 2009, 11:27 PM

Care to explain why? The only difference I can think of is that society exists, so it can actually attempt to punish you if you go out of line.

Yes. Other people can punish you if you go out of line.
Humans, including yourself, are social animals.

Are you serious? :| That's some heavily fascist **** right there.

Of course it is. :rolleyes: Suppose you define society for us, then, and tell us your place in the world, if not as a member of society?

YSM

7th February 2009, 01:36 AM

As I said, there is a secular basis for morality. It's not an absolute (external) basis; it works purely for the mutual good of all of the citizens in the community.

But what is good? What gives you, or any civilization on this planet for that matter, the authority to categorize something as good, or evil? Your premise that the survival and progression of our species is good is based in subjectivity, and it has weight only because the majority of people agree with you. This means that if tomorrow the majority of people suddenly thought heads was tails and tails was heads, then so be it. But surely that cannot be right? Fortunately for our species, (and coincidentally?) the majority of us do think murder, cutting in line, thievery, et cetera, are wrong without being told so by other human beings; this is called the law of nature. Most biologists believe that it was developed over time through the process called evolution because it aided in the survival of our species. However, you cannot get an ought from a cold unguided process like evolution (an is). That is to say you cannot derive ethics or moral obligation from evolution unless it is a tool of God.

The Atheist

7th February 2009, 06:47 AM

Most biologists believe that it was developed over time through the process called evolution because it aided in the survival of our species. However, you cannot get an ought from a cold unguided process like evolution (an is). That is to say you cannot derive ethics or moral obligation from evolution unless it is a tool of God.

No, but we can derive morality from humanistic principles based on the evolutionary success.

Great to see you finally make a post!

Lonewulf

7th February 2009, 08:10 AM

Are you serious?Yes.

:|

>:P

That's some heavily fascist **** right there.

Fail.

It's reality. Society, by definition, is made up of people. You, by definition, are a person. Think about it some.

Lonewulf

7th February 2009, 08:12 AM

But what is good? What gives you, or any civilization on this planet for that matter, the authority to categorize something as good, or evil? Your premise that the survival and progression of our species is good is based in subjectivity, and it has weight only because the majority of people agree with you. This means that if tomorrow the majority of people suddenly thought heads was tails and tails was heads, then so be it. But surely that cannot be right? Fortunately for our species, (and coincidentally?) the majority of us do think murder, cutting in line, thievery, et cetera, are wrong without being told so by other human beings; this is called the law of nature. Most biologists believe that it was developed over time through the process called evolution because it aided in the survival of our species. However, you cannot get an ought from a cold unguided process like evolution (an is). That is to say you cannot derive ethics or moral obligation from evolution unless it is a tool of God.

One of the few rules of humanity:

Almost everyone wants to live.

Almost everyone wants to see their children grow old.

It's one of the most universal facets of humanity. I can think of very few societies or geographical regions that has ever disagreed with this. The only question is, when should someone sacrifice their desire to live and see their children grow old?

The answer seems to be, "When it helps others do the same". At least, that's the ideal; history has shown that the ideal and the reality don't always mix.

Either way, it seems a real case of "Do Unto Others as You would have Done Unto You".

This also gets complicated when people start believing in the afterlife, of course...

Rairun

7th February 2009, 09:08 AM

Yes. Other people can punish you if you go out of line.
Humans, including yourself, are social animals.

Agreed. At the same time, there are plenty of behaviors that are not illegal, and that benefit the individual while harming the whole. There are also plenty of people who are skilled enough to circumvent the law for their whole lives.

Of course it is. :rolleyes: Suppose you define society for us, then, and tell us your place in the world, if not as a member of society?

I never said that we are not members of society. I said that the interests of society often don't coincide with the interests of the individual.

Fail.

It's reality. Society, by definition, is made up of people. You, by definition, are a person. Think about it some.

Fallacy of Division. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division)

Rairun

7th February 2009, 09:39 AM

No, but we can derive morality from humanistic principles based on the evolutionary success.

No, you really can't. Well, maybe you can derive morality from humanistic principles, since those principles are themselves moral, but you can't base them on evolutionary success any more than you can base an "ought" on an "is". I think I might even have to review my opinion that theists are misguided when they say that evolution is a religion. It certainly isn't when we are talking about science, but I didn't realize there were so many people who actually turn it into some sort of moral compass.

There are so many problems with this point of view that it's hard to even begin to untangle them. I just might, though.

Travis

7th February 2009, 11:04 AM

Rairun, what are you attempting to do here? Get us to accept that there is no objective morality and that true anarchy is the only way to go?

Rairun

7th February 2009, 11:07 AM

Okay, your points seem very convoluted to me, but I think I've managed to pick up a thread to untangle this:

Mutual support and care were, surely, amongst the most important survival strategies which enabled the human species to flourish instead of becoming extinct hundreds of thousands of years before Christianity came on the scene.

Although this is never quite stated here, I think that the underlying problem with all your arguments is a genetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy):

1. Mutual support and care were amongst the most important survival strategies that enabled the human species to flourish, so they must enable our species to flourish now.

2. A person who did not offer support to their group back then was left to their own devices, so that must mean that a person who does not support the group today will be left alone to die in the wild.

When it comes to #1, it seems to me that you guys have associated support and care--two things that improved the individual's quality of life back then--with evolutionary success. So you must think that the evolutionary success of a species always provides a comfortable life to each member of the species. But this is patently false: there are many scenarios in which individuals lead miserable lives that increase the survivability of the group.

This is undeniable. Many other species have experienced this, and it's possible that we will soon be forced to give up certain comforts in order to survive as a species. Please, don't say that we are willing to give up comforts to see our children flourish, and that their future survival is actually a benefit to us. It may be true for some people, but many of us don't even plan to have children. Many of us just don't care whether the world explodes or not, as long as we live a happy, comfortable life while we are alive.

As a matter of fact, our ability to survive as a species could be much improved under a dystopic government, if we were willing to submit. We could grant people no individual rights whatsoever, and they would only do what improved our chances to survive as a society. You'll probably react against this, but that's only because you've already associated mutual care and support in a "feel good" way with the survival of the species. If all you care about is evolutionary success, then that's really the only reason for that reaction, and it happens to be a genetic fallacy.

Regarding #2, I'm sure you can see the absurdity of the situation. It's obviously not true that it's impossible to be a successful parasite in our society today. There are people who take advantage of others all the time and get away with it. You may say that's still immoral, but then you have to ask yourself why. Because it will harm society? Right, but why should an individual care that he or she is harming society? Oh, right, because an evolutionarily successful society makes our lives better. Oh, but wait, that was true back then, but not now...

There's no way around it. The interests of the individual are not always the same as the interests of the whole. In fact, if we are going to be rigorous here, we have say that there is no such a thing as the "interests of whole" at all. Evolution is not a guided process--it doesn't care whether a species survives or not. A species is not a conscious entity either, not in the same way an individual human being is, so it can't have any interests of its own. What we have here are some individuals who think it's pretty for their own species to survive, and who try to turn their own preferences into a moral standard. That's all there is to it.

Rairun

7th February 2009, 11:23 AM

Rairun, what are you attempting to do here? Get us to accept that there is no objective morality and that true anarchy is the only way to go?

I'm trying to get you to accept that there is no objective morality. Period. I personally wouldn't enjoy true anarchy, but I admit that's only because of my own personal preferences. That's all it comes down to. It bothers me when people claim to be secular while keeping the self-righteous perks of religious morality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Rairun

7th February 2009, 11:34 AM

Just a minor correction. I said:

"2. A person who did not offer support to their group back then was left to their own devices, so that must mean that a person who does not support the group today will be left alone to die in the wild."

But it would be better if I had said:

"2. A person who did not offer support to their group back then made their group weaker, so their own survival was compromised. That must mean that a person who does not support the group today will also have their survival compromised."

Same difference, though. Our group is much larger today, so any damage an individual might cause will be mitigated. It won't really come back to haunt him, but if even it does, the consequences will be much smaller than the rewards he's already reaped.

The Atheist

7th February 2009, 01:15 PM

No, you really can't.

A doctrine can use whatever guidelines it likes to create a moral code, as has always been the case, which is exactly why theists claim a god gave them theirs.

I think I might even have to review my opinion that theists are misguided when they say that evolution is a religion. It certainly isn't when we are talking about science, but I didn't realize there were so many people who actually turn it into some sort of moral compass.

What would you suggest I use, a prismatic compass?

I actually figure that 4 billion years of evolution, which has successfully enabled me to sit here and debate the subject with you, is a pretty good compass for life.

Rairun, what are you attempting to do here? Get us to accept that there is no objective morality and that true anarchy is the only way to go?

It bothers me when people claim to be secular while keeping the self-righteous perks of religious morality. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There is no having and eating cake. Theists aren't always wrong.

Rairun

7th February 2009, 02:56 PM

A doctrine can use whatever guidelines it likes to create a moral code, as has always been the case, which is exactly why theists claim a god gave them theirs.

Of course, but then there is no way to distinguish which doctrine is "right". If you can't distinguish which doctrine is right, it makes no sense to say that a person other than yourself is immoral. It's just a self-important way of saying, "I don't like what you're doing."

What would you suggest I use, a prismatic compass?

I actually figure that 4 billion years of evolution, which has successfully enabled me to sit here and debate the subject with you, is a pretty good compass for life.

It is not, because it's not a compass at all. Once again, evolution has no direction nor purpose. That's your first mistake. Your second mistake is thinking evolutionary forces are static, and that what was good for our survival as a species yesterday is good for our survival as a species today. Your third mistake is thinking that what is good for a species (in terms of survival) is good for the individual members of that species (in terms of quality of life). Your fourth mistake is thinking there is a common objective individuals can work towards. There is not.

There is no having and eating cake. Theists aren't always wrong.

What can I say? In this case they are. You can read the reasons above.

By the way, you've ignored all the points I've made so far. Your last post didn't address a single one of them. You just repeated that evolution is a good moral compass. You didn't explain why.

The Atheist

8th February 2009, 12:08 AM

Of course, but then there is no way to distinguish which doctrine is "right". If you can't distinguish which doctrine is right, it makes no sense to say that a person other than yourself is immoral. It's just a self-important way of saying, "I don't like what you're doing."

Very good!

That's why we need to have a moral code, although the meaning of "moral code" is a bit pointless, since nobody cares about broken morals, so we have laws which enforce a moral code by default.

It's all actually quite simple.

It is not, because it's not a compass at all.

Yes, I do know that, which is why I was taking the piss.

You do realise a compass gives a direction only? It doesn't give position, latitude or distance from the pole.

Once again, evolution has no direction nor purpose. That's your first mistake.

Sorry, mate, but to have made that mistake, I would have had to have said that evolution has a direction or a purpose.

I didn't.

I merely pointed out that evolution has created humans and we have evolved into our current society. We are what we are, and I'd rather argue about realities. Pity you don't.

Please respond to what I'm saying, not what you'd like me to say.

Your second mistake is thinking evolutionary forces are static, and that what was good for our survival as a species yesterday is good for our survival as a species today.

Unfortunately, I didn't say that either, so that's 0 mistakes, so far.

Why on earth do you bother responding if you don't even read what I've said?

Aside from doubts that anyone could accurately tell what is required for our continuing success and survival, it's not even all that analogous to morals. As I said, it's useful as a starting point (the compass, geddit?). We can be 100% certain that we have evolved the ability to determine both our and our planet's future. Starting from that point, we create a morality, because as you did manage to notice, the alternative is anarchy, which would just be more of a nuisance than it's worth.

Your third mistake is thinking that what is good for a species (in terms of survival) is good for the individual members of that species (in terms of quality of life).

We seem to have entered bizarro world, because I haven't said that anywhere either. As my own take is simply "the greatest good of the greatest number", I wouldn't say it.

Next time, please do at least try to stay on track, there's a good chap. This constant attacking of things I haven't said is all a bit tedious.

Your fourth mistake is thinking there is a common objective individuals can work towards. There is not.

Now we've gone from bizzaro world to telepathy! You know what I'm thinking. Have you considered applying for the MDC?

By the way, you've ignored all the points I've made so far.

Apart from the totalitarian world you incorrectly described as dystopian, I didn't think you said anything worth mentioning. You're full of generalisations, assertions and as we see above, straight-out straw people.

Rairun

8th February 2009, 12:50 AM

Rairun

8th February 2009, 01:06 AM

[whole post]

I'm sorry for assuming those were actually your views. When you quoted arthwollipot and said, "beautifully put," I thought you shared his opinions on this matter. I also admit to misreading your post to YSM. Anyway, I still think I made valid points, because others here have said quite openly that what is good for society is good for the individual. I just mistook you for one of them.

Honestly though, even if we don't actually disagree here, I still can't see why you initially said you can base humanistic values on evolutionary success. Since it was a short comment, it sounded like you were making bolder claims than you really were. Now that you've explained your position, I'm left wondering why you even said it in the first place. I mean, it's obvious that every single thing we do is a result of evolution. In that sense, all behavior is based on evolutionary success. It's just a truism, and I don't see why it's even worth mentioning in the context of this discussion.

Nor do I see how you can think arthwollipot expressed a beautiful truth when he said that Obama should help people because that's the right thing to do. Obama will either help people because that's what he wants to do, or he won't because that's not what he wants. "Because that's the right thing to do" is no justification at all, because he will only think it's right if he's already inclined to do it in the first place, or if he's been convinced that there is in fact an external source of morality.

***

To be completely fair here, arthwollipot hasn't quite said that what is good for society is good for the individual, like lonewulf and slingblade have. But his posts did seem to point to the idea that morality exists without the individuals and institutions that enforce it, while paradoxically not having any external basis. If I'm not mistaken, that could only be true if all individuals intrinsically had the same communal values, in which case what is good for society would indeed be what is good for each individual.

politas

8th February 2009, 01:18 AM

If a President acted in exactly the manner that is defined by the fictional Christ's parables and teachings, few of us would find a problem with his actions even though we know there is no god.

Depends on the parables and teachings he followed. Jesus is not exactly a consistent character; a bit bipolar, perhaps. At least he isn't as outright malevolent and hateful as Yahweh, though.

Lonewulf

8th February 2009, 11:33 AM

Agreed. At the same time, there are plenty of behaviors that are not illegal, and that benefit the individual while harming the whole. There are also plenty of people who are skilled enough to circumvent the law for their whole lives.

I never said that we are not members of society. I said that the interests of society often don't coincide with the interests of the individual.

Fallacy of Division. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division)
Mayhaps it appears as a fallacy to you, but I don't see it as such.

However, I'm not entirely sure how one could state that one would want to live in a society that treated them poorly, or wanted to kill them.

Naturally, there are times when an individual needs to give up something to the society; taxes are one example, volunteering or even drafting into the military, when their services are utterly required, is another.

You called my idea "fascist". All of the fascists I can think of (Mussolini, Hitler, etc.) did a great amount of damage to a great amount of their population, while only favoring one particular part of that population for arbitrary reasons. What was done wasn't done for society, but for corrupt ideals, bad science, bad history ("Aryans out of Atlantis! Mwahahahaha!"), or personal gain.

Furthermore, other ideologies that claim to be "for the people", such as communism, has almost always done the most harm possible to the greatest amount of the population; Cambodia, Vietnam, Mao in China, the Soviet Union, etc.

Thus, the people that make up those societies, rarely want to cling to such ideals for long. The Soviet Union collapsed from economic pressure, as well as individual desire to just not stay with it, as it wasn't serving the population. Fascist regimes under Hitler and Mussolini may have remained stable, but I find that hard to believe, especially given how many assassination attempts were made against Hitler, including by some other members of the Nazi party.

So Fascism, which is what you called my statement, is not my idea of an example of a healthy society.

EDIT: I should give a bit more face time to China, but I find that an intriguing exception, as it has eastern culture, history, and values. It's hard to compare Western ideals with the more Confucius-based Eastern culture... somehow, the government structure of China has remained stable for quite a long time; it's growing more capitalist, but the government structure itself is more or less staying the same.

I admit that I'm no expert on China overall, so I'll leave the rest to the experts.

The Atheist

8th February 2009, 12:12 PM

Honestly though, even if we don't actually disagree here, I still can't see why you initially said you can base humanistic values on evolutionary success. Since it was a short comment, it sounded like you were making bolder claims than you really were. Now that you've explained your position, I'm left wondering why you even said it in the first place. I mean, it's obvious that every single thing we do is a result of evolution. In that sense, all behavior is based on evolutionary success. It's just a truism, and I don't see why it's even worth mentioning in the context of this discussion.

You can't see why I used evolution, but it's so obvious it's not worth mentioning? Which one should I answer?

Nor do I see how you can think arthwollipot expressed a beautiful truth when he said that Obama should help people because that's the right thing to do.

I was actually counterpointing that it's a lot better to think it's right because he's taking a humanistic view rather than a theistic one. After christ knows how many years of bible-thumpers, that's beautiful to me.

Certainly, in the cold analysis of objectivity and evolution, you can say there is no "right" thing to do, but as I said, we have society and we can either embrace it or leave it. If someone is unable to use cultural mores to form an idea of what constitutes good and bad, I can't educate them.

Another point seems to have passed you by completely. We have no idea what is and isn't advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, but it could well be that our unique ability to shape the world we live in is an evolutionary advantage.

Obama will either help people because that's what he wants to do, or he won't because that's not what he wants. "Because that's the right thing to do" is no justification at all, because he will only think it's right if he's already inclined to do it in the first place, or if he's been convinced that there is in fact an external source of morality.

People have been known to change their minds based on evidence.

But his posts did seem to point to the idea that morality exists without the individuals and institutions that enforce it, while paradoxically not having any external basis. If I'm not mistaken, that could only be true if all individuals intrinsically had the same communal values, in which case what is good for society would indeed be what is good for each individual.

There seems to be enough link between morals and instinctive behaviour that we can claim hard-wiring for at least some of it.

arthwollipot

8th February 2009, 06:21 PM

Care to explain why? The only difference I can think of is that society exists, so it can actually attempt to punish you if you go out of line.You're really not getting it, are you?

But what is good? What gives you, or any civilization on this planet for that matter, the authority to categorize something as good, or evil?The people within society determine whether it is good - by whether they are prosperous or suffering in poverty, whether they are healthy and clean or filthy and diseased, whether they are happy or whether they are bitter or resentful. A happy, healthy, prosperous society is what emerges when the society adopts a moral code that we in this thread define as "good".

Your premise that the survival and progression of our species is good is based in subjectivity, and it has weight only because the majority of people agree with you. This means that if tomorrow the majority of people suddenly thought heads was tails and tails was heads, then so be it. But surely that cannot be right?Such a scenario cannot, and will not, happen. Sure, societies can change - look at how Hitler changed Germany in the 1930s. But was that really that big a change? The leaders of Germany adopted a moral code that we now define as "evil" but did the entire country do so? I think not. I think most German civilians acted out of the fear of retibution rather than because they thought that the wholesale murder of Jews was "good".

Fortunately for our species, (and coincidentally?) the majority of us do think murder, cutting in line, thievery, et cetera, are wrong without being told so by other human beings; this is called the law of nature.It's far from being coincidental. These things make for a poor society. Poor society makes for unwealthy, unhealthy, unhappy people. It's a logical consequence of peoples' desire to be wealthy, healthy and happy that these things are considered "evil" by most members of our society.

In short, "good" morals make society work better.

Most biologists believe that it was developed over time through the process called evolution because it aided in the survival of our species. However, you cannot get an ought from a cold unguided process like evolution (an is). That is to say you cannot derive ethics or moral obligation from evolution unless it is a tool of God.Untrue. It's very easy for evolution to influence behaviour. We see altruism in social species all the time. Richard Dawkins' famous book The Selfish Gene is all about the evolution of social altruism.

Rairun

8th February 2009, 07:14 PM

You can't see why I used evolution, but it's so obvious it's not worth mentioning? Which one should I answer?

It's a bit like saying you can base humanistic values on gravity. All values are indeed "based" on gravity, in the sense that we wouldn't even exist if there was no gravity. That claim adds very little to the discussion, though. That's why I misunderstood it at first.

I was actually counterpointing that it's a lot better to think it's right because he's taking a humanistic view rather than a theistic one. After christ knows how many years of bible-thumpers, that's beautiful to me.

True enough. I do prefer a humanistic view in favor of a fundamentalist Christian one. It can be a little too self-righteous for my liking at times, but yeah, it's better.

Certainly, in the cold analysis of objectivity and evolution, you can say there is no "right" thing to do, but as I said, we have society and we can either embrace it or leave it. If someone is unable to use cultural mores to form an idea of what constitutes good and bad, I can't educate them.

It's a lot more complicated than that, though. Different groups within society disagree on what constitutes good and bad. It's not really a matter of educating anyone; almost everyone is aware of what is generally considered right and wrong by different groups. The issue is that people might just disagree with those judgments.

It's a very simplistic stance to say that we can either embrace society or leave it. In fact, I can name at least one military dictatorship whose slogan was exactly that: "Love us or leave us." If you take that mentality as prescriptive, you are advocating a society in which there is no room for dissent. If you mean it to be descriptive, you fail to account for thousands of individuals who are very much part of society, but who reject mainstream morality.

Another point seems to have passed you by completely. We have no idea what is and isn't advantageous from an evolutionary perspective, but it could well be that our unique ability to shape the world we live in is an evolutionary advantage.

No, it hasn't. My point was that even if we knew what was advantageous, there would be no obligations of any kind to do it. But I did say that it's a very hard task, if not impossible, to know what is advantageous and what is not.

And yes, of course, our ability to shape the world we live has actually been an evolutionary advantage up to this point. I don't think anyone would dispute that. It's possibly still an advantage. I just don't see how this is related to morality in any meaningful way, unless of course you decide it's important for your own personal moral code.

There seems to be enough link between morals and instinctive behaviour that we can claim hard-wiring for at least some of it.

Eh, once again that's complicated. Obviously all behavior, "moral" or otherwise, is a consequence of evolution. But there is enough variation between individuals to make the link between instinctive behavior and morality irrelevant. I can see how biology could create a basis for morality if, say, it were biologically impossible for a human being not to adhere to the golden rule. But this is not true. Some people just don't care about reciprocity.

The Atheist

8th February 2009, 08:00 PM

Different groups within society disagree on what constitutes good and bad. It's not really a matter of educating anyone; almost everyone is aware of what is generally considered right and wrong by different groups. The issue is that people might just disagree with those judgments.

Which is why we allow the majority to dictate which of those morals will be enforced and which won't. So far, democracy seems to work it out ok, while theocracies are still struglling when a woman can be raped, then stoned to death for adultery.

If there's another, viable alternative, I'd love to see it. You just can't please everyone, thank god.

It's a very simplistic stance to say that we can either embrace society or leave it.

Quite often, the simplest explanations are correct.

In fact, I can name at least one military dictatorship whose slogan was exactly that: "Love us or leave us." If you take that mentality as prescriptive, you are advocating a society in which there is no room for dissent.

Not at all, as thousands of ferals would attest to. In democracies, it's quite possible to live an alternative lifestyle and not take any part in society.

If you mean it to be descriptive, you fail to account for thousands of individuals who are very much part of society, but who reject mainstream morality.

Such as what? Paedophiles? Anarchists?

Some people just don't care about reciprocity.

Which is why we impose minimum standards

Rairun

8th February 2009, 08:13 PM

Rairun

8th February 2009, 08:23 PM

Such as what? Paedophiles? Anarchists?

Yeah, those would be examples, albeit ones that I don't like. But there others that I do support:

- Gay couples
- Incestuous couples
- Polygamous families
- Women who have abortions
- People who use drugs
- Parents who have important contacts and ask for their sons to be exempted from compulsory military service

Those are all examples from my country. I could go on.

Rairun

8th February 2009, 08:49 PM

Which is why we allow the majority to dictate which of those morals will be enforced and which won't. So far, democracy seems to work it out ok, while theocracies are still struglling when a woman can be raped, then stoned to death for adultery.

You say this as if I didn't agree. This has nothing to do with the way the whole argument first started. I have never said we can't have laws to punish and prevent certain kinds of behavior. All I said was that the concept of "doing the right thing" is sort of ill-devised. Originally, it had nothing to do with laws. As far as I know, if Obama didn't do things that helped his fellow men, he wouldn't be breaking the law. "Moral" was definitely not the same as "legal" in that context.

An amoral society is not lawless. I have never said this.

politas

9th February 2009, 02:14 AM

True enough. I do prefer a humanistic view in favor of a fundamentalist Christian one. It can be a little too self-righteous for my liking at times, but yeah, it's better.My reading of humanistic principles is that they reflect a desire to be self-righteous, rather than to act self-righteous.

It's a lot more complicated than that, though. Different groups within society disagree on what constitutes good and bad. It's not really a matter of educating anyone; almost everyone is aware of what is generally considered right and wrong by different groups. The issue is that people might just disagree with those judgments.And we have a methodology for dealing with those disagreements. Democracy and the Rule of Law.

Lonewulf

9th February 2009, 04:41 AM

Lonewulf,

I happen to share the values you seem to hold. I'm for a society in which individuals are as free as possible without harming the others too much. I just admit that this kind of society actually makes certain people unhappy--it's just not a place where they can fulfill their goals properly. If you want a very extreme example, it'd be a terrible society for a homicidal maniac to live in.

Homicidal maniacs tend to be in the minority anyways, and when they fulfill their ideals to the utmost, they harm both the society and other members of the population. Thus, no one has any real interest in giving them leeway.

In a dictatorship, this person could at least aspire to occupy a function that allowed him to repress and kill people systematically.

Which hurts both the population and thus, society.

A less extreme example would be conservative religious people, who would not be happy to live in a place where gay marriages and abortions took place.
Yes, this is a problem. But even if they lived in a democratic society where gay marriages and abortions took place, how much is their dislike outweighed by the positive benefits and contentment in the country? Yeah, other people are getting married and abortions are taking place, but yet, you have a bed, a roof, four walls, three square meals (maybe :p), and many other benefits. Which is why I doubt we'll see a major emigration into another country just over that one issue -- and thus, society (and the individual person) is not unduly hurt. And if the population rose up in rebellion against their government over this one particular issue... well... that WOULD be a surprise. A tad unbelievable, as well.

In the end, I have to recognize that the society I dream of would only be perfect for the kind of people I like, generally speaking.
The thing is, your neighbors the fundamentalists might agree with you on more issues than they disagree with you. There's always a foundation in western civilization, that can be agreed upon.

My desire to shape the world is just as valid as the conservative Christian's, which means I'll fight to have things my way, and they will fight to have things their way, and the strongest (the most influential) will win. There is no "right" or "wrong" here. It's an open war.Like I said, it's a war over a relatively minor issue, given the greater number of issues the both sides can agree on.

Anyway, I said that the idea that "what is good for the community is good for the individual" was fascist because it sounded just like what some would say to justify taking individual rights away.
A case of assumption and conclusion-jumping. You read far more into my statement than was ever implied.

The fact is, the more rights that are made available to the average person, within reason, the more it benefits society. Restricting people's rights to a large level tends to cause an unstable, discontent country, and thus causes problems -- it makes the society unstable, and the people less-than-content.

(Once again, China will have to sit on the side as a rather large exception to this rule...)

But yeah, I admit I was mistaken in calling it fascist, because in one way or another all forms of government repress those whose desires are too dangerous for the status quo, including democracy. My true contention was that it's kind of dishonest to say that what is good for most people is good for the individual, because it's not. Individuals often find themselves at odds with the rest of the herd. I don't think those individuals are "wrong" and we are "right". I don't think that what is good for us is good for them. There is a conflict of interests going on here, and I think the whole morality business only tries to conceal that fact.
You seem to define "what's good for..." as "Them getting exactly what they want all the time"...

As we seem to be operating off of two different definitions, I'm not sure how to continue.

Rairun

9th February 2009, 11:44 AM

I guess the bottom line is that I think "right" and "wrong" are charged words. So is "immoral". They strike me as something a priest would say. To me, it makes little sense to tell people that what they're doing is wrong if they are already aware of the consequences of their acts. For example, if you tell a conservative Christian that they're harming gay people by taking away their rights, they'll tell you that's preferable because it will help them to lead a virtuous life. There's no common ground in this instance.

When there is no common ground, saying something is right or wrong sounds like an appeal to authority. I realize that you can redefine those words in secular terms by creating general rules of conduct that are agreed upon by all members of society, but the point is that not everyone agrees. So when you tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, it sounds like an attempt to bully them into accepting other people's values as correct. And by "accepting" I don't mean just dealing with the fact that as a society we adopt those values--I mean implanting those aliens values in their heads, making them feel guilty because they are different. Let's face it, most people are not aware that right and wrong are supposed to be purely instrumental terms that have no objective reality.

That's the extent of my contention. I'm not particularly fond of psychological control. I think the law is there to punish people for behaving in ways we don't accept as a society, and that's enough. Bullying people into believing they are inadequate and lesser human beings because of their values is a whole different game. In other words, I agree with you when it comes to lawmaking. But the terminology used leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

The Atheist

9th February 2009, 01:06 PM

In other words, I agree with you when it comes to lawmaking. But the terminology used leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

There's such a thing as being too rational.

That's all you have to get past.

A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men.

Willy Wonka

arthwollipot

9th February 2009, 06:16 PM

When there is no common ground, saying something is right or wrong sounds like an appeal to authority. I realize that you can redefine those words in secular terms by creating general rules of conduct that are agreed upon by all members of society, but the point is that not everyone agrees.That's not a problem. I don't agree with every law on the books, but society averages out the individual opinions of specific people. It's a gestalt, a groupthink if you like. And through the process of democracy we elect the lawmakers that on average most people prefer.

I think the law is there to punish people for behaving in ways we don't accept as a society, and that's enough.That's only partially true. The laws also encourage people to behave in a manner that is consistent with the rest of society. Granted, they do this via the threat of punishment in some cases, but it's also through education and socialisation.

Bullying people into believing they are inadequate and lesser human beings because of their values is a whole different game.Excuse me? Where in this discussion has this been suggested, advocated, or for that matter even mentioned?

In other words, I agree with you when it comes to lawmaking. But the terminology used leaves a sour taste in my mouth.Get used to it. You may prefer to use language differently from the majority, but you won't succeed.

Rairun

9th February 2009, 07:00 PM

That's not a problem. I don't agree with every law on the books, but society averages out the individual opinions of specific people. It's a gestalt, a groupthink if you like. And through the process of democracy we elect the lawmakers that on average most people prefer.

I never said it was a problem when it comes to lawmaking. I was just saying that an appeal to authority, to an abstract idea of righteousness, is not something anyone intelligent would take seriously. So doing X is bad, wrong, immoral, you name it. So what? Give me a single reason why I should care that I'm immoral other than the possibility of being punished.

That's only partially true. The laws also encourage people to behave in a manner that is consistent with the rest of society. Granted, they do this via the threat of punishment in some cases, but it's also through education and socialisation.

That was included in what I said. My point was that legislation and our own personal preferences are enough for society to work. There is no need to appeal to concepts to which the majority of people grant metaphysical status, such as "right" and "wrong". Not only that, but my point was that some secular humanists seem to give those concepts metaphysical undertones, even if they deny it when asked about it directly.

This is the case when they say things like, "don't do this because it's wrong" or "I want him to do the right thing"--it makes absolutely no sense to say those things unless they redefine those words to mean "legal" and "illegal". Otherwise, they are just saying, "don't do this because I don't like it" and "I want him to do what I like." At the very most, they would be saying, "don't do this because the majority of people don't like it." Of course, wording things this way is a lot more humble, and it's unlikely that it will convince most people to change their behavior, since it doesn't take advantage of the metaphysical ignorance of others.

Excuse me? Where in this discussion has this been suggested, advocated, or for that matter even mentioned?

See my explanation above.

Get used to it. You may prefer to use language differently from the majority, but you won't succeed.

This isn't about me using language differently from the majority. It's about me choosing not to rely on metaphysically-laden words in order to con people into behaving in a certain way. I have no power to change anyone's use of language, but I still have the right to think it's lame.

politas

9th February 2009, 07:21 PM

I never said it was a problem when it comes to lawmaking. I was just saying that an appeal to authority, to an abstract idea of righteousness, is not something anyone intelligent would take seriously. So doing X is bad, wrong, immoral, you name it. So what? Give me a single reason why I should care that I'm immoral other than the possibility of being punished.There are perfectly rational reasons for much of 'morality' They are quite complex, though, and so "right" and "wrong" are handy terms to shortcut the discussion. If we define that actions are "right" when they promote or support a harmonious society where the majority are happy and/or content, and that actions are "wrong" when they undermine such a society, can you accept that "right" and "wrong" are convenient labels? This allows for real argument about whether particular laws or actions are "right" or "wrong" in a meaningful way that does not depend on an authority, and is also not restricted to personal likes and dislikes.

That was included in what I said. My point was that legislation and our own personal preferences are enough for society to work. There is no need to appeal to concepts to which the majority of people grant metaphysical status, such as "right" and "wrong". Not only that, but my point was that some secular humanists seem to give those concepts metaphysical undertones, even if they deny it when asked about it directly. Well, the concept of what's "best for society" is not so easy to determine, and individual conceptions largely depend on the society a person lives in. There's a feedback loop there that makes for unpredictable situations, like China. This is what leads to the somewhat metaphysical undertones, since the complexity of feedback loops affecting human behaviour is difficult for our brains to really grasp intuitively. And when you think about it, it would have to be so, or they wouldn't affect us the same way.

This is the case when they say things like, "don't do this because it's wrong" or "I want him to do the right thing"--it makes absolutely no sense to say those things unless they redefine those words to mean "legal" and "illegal". Otherwise, they are just saying, "don't do this because I don't like it" and "I want him to do what I like." Of course, wording things this way is a lot more humble, and it's unlikely that it will convince others to change their behavior, since it doesn't take advantage of the metaphysical ignorance of most people.Nonsense. "Right" and "wrong" are not the same as "legal" and "illegal". And particularly, under democratic theory, they can't be. Otherwise, there can never be debate about laws, something which democracy is explicitly designed to allow.

Rairun

9th February 2009, 07:52 PM

I'm going to quote your post out of order.

Nonsense. "Right" and "wrong" are not the same as "legal" and "illegal". And particularly, under democratic theory, they can't be. Otherwise, there can never be debate about laws, something which democracy is explicitly designed to allow.

I never said it was. You should read the whole paragraph. I said that the concepts of right and wrong only have real existence if they mean either:

(1) Legal / Illegal.

or

(2) Something that I or (at the very best) the majority of people like / dislike.

I said it makes no sense to give (2) as a reason to stop unwanted behavior, because no one who didn't care about harming people would take it seriously. Like:

"I want to harm people, is there a reason why I shouldn't?"
"Yeah, it harms them."

And if the person just wants to do X but is not aware of its consequences, is it not better to say:

"I want to do X, is there a reason why I shouldn't?"
"Yeah, it harms people in such and such way."

Instead of:

"I want to do X, is there a reason why I shouldn't?"
"Yeah, it's wrong."

Well, the concept of what's "best for society" is not so easy to determine, and individual conceptions largely depend on the society a person lives in. There's a feedback loop there that makes for unpredictable situations, like China

Could you explain what this has to do with anything? All I said was that legislation and individual preferences are enough for society to work. I agree that what's best for society as a whole is not easy to determine, specially since individual preferences are so diverse, but that's beside the point. My point was that the concepts of right and wrong are metaphysically-laden, and that most people do not take them to mean just (1) or (2).

There are perfectly rational reasons for much of 'morality' They are quite complex, though, and so "right" and "wrong" are handy terms to shortcut the discussion. If we define that actions are "right" when they promote or support a harmonious society where the majority are happy and/or content, and that actions are "wrong" when they undermine such a society, can you accept that "right" and "wrong" are convenient labels? This allows for real argument about whether particular laws or actions are "right" or "wrong" in a meaningful way that does not depend on an authority, and is also not restricted to personal likes and dislikes.

A harmonious society where the majority is happy is something I generally support as a political agenda, but again, "right" and "wrong" have metaphysical implications. You can try to redefine those words in a secular way, sure, but they only remain so convincing and emotionally gripping to most people because of the lingering metaphysical implications. Case in point, saying that Obama should help fellow human beings means pretty much that he should support a harmonious society; if "right" has been redefined as "that which supports a harmonious society", then adding "because it's the right thing to do" makes it a circular argument. It's redundant. A non-explanation. But it sure does help to convince those people who still believe in a metaphysical morality.

arthwollipot

9th February 2009, 09:21 PM

Puppycow

9th February 2009, 09:53 PM

I've seen lots of posters trying to claim Obama as some kind of "pretend theist" who's really an atheist in disguise.

Let these words refute that idea forever:

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5669719.ece)

Are you saying that "an atheist in disguise" wouldn't say such a thing?
Are you saying that Obama wouldn't lie about his faith for political reasons?

Fail. :p

Rairun

9th February 2009, 10:14 PM

How about when you do X, you are causing harm to others.

Do you really not care if you bring harm to others? Truly? Is the threat of punishment the only reason you do not murder, rape and steal? Be honest now.

I do care. No, the threat of punishment isn't the only reason why I don't murder, rape and steal. I thought I'd made that clear. In my early childhood, I developed some sort of aesthetic sense--I don't mean this in a frivolous way--that makes many things that are considered right beautiful to me. Appealing. I honestly don't know how much of an influence being told that certain things were right and others were wrong had on me. I'm guessing it was secondary, though. It probably had more to do with the way people acted around me than with what they said.

In any case, I'm not a saint either. I don't like harming people. Most of the time I'll go out of my way not to harm them. But I can't say I'm incapable of doing doing harm. I'm not incapable of not caring when I have stronger reasons to do otherwise. For example, the year I turned 18, I was lucky enough that the military was underfunded. No one was drafted. But had things been different, I would not have hesitated to go through my contacts and ask someone in an influential position to pick someone else. I fully realize it'd be unfair, but I would not be willing to waste a year of my life in the military. You could say it's wrong, that it's immoral. I don't care. I wouldn't be happy that I harmed another person, but I wouldn't feel guilty for a second. It'd have been deliberate.

arthwollipot

9th February 2009, 10:26 PM

I do care. No, the threat of punishment isn't the only reason why I don't murder, rape and steal. I thought I'd made that clear. In my early childhood, I developed some sort of aesthetic sense--I don't mean this in a frivolous way--that makes many things that are considered right beautiful to me. Appealing. I honestly don't know how much of an influence being told that certain things were right and others were wrong had on me. I'm guessing it was secondary, though. It probably had more to do with the way people acted around me than with what they said.

In any case, I'm not a saint either. I don't like harming people. Most of the time I'll go out of my way not to harm them. But I can't say I'm incapable of doing doing harm. I'm not incapable of not caring when I have stronger reasons to do otherwise. For example, the year I turned 18, I was lucky enough that the military was underfunded. No one was drafted. But had things been different, I would not have hesitated to go through my contacts and ask someone in an influential position to pick someone else. I fully realize it'd be unfair, but I would not be willing to waste a year of my life in the military. You could say it's wrong, that it's immoral. I don't care. I wouldn't be happy that I harmed another person, but I wouldn't feel guilty for a second. It'd have been deliberate.Okay, so why can't you assume that the rest of the people in society are more or less the same as you?

Rairun

9th February 2009, 10:42 PM

Okay, so why can't you assume that the rest of the people in society are more or less the same as you?

I assume many are, and that's one of the reasons why I have these opinions. I think reciprocity and impartiality are great for policymaking. I would hate to live anywhere where that wasn't the case. But as an individual, I care more about myself than anyone else (with very few exceptions), and I wouldn't hesitate to act "immorally" if I felt strongly enough to do it. I would kill a completely innocent person if that meant saving the life of someone who's important to me, in a ********** up "kill them or I kill her" scenario. I wouldn't feel guilty either. I'd feel bad I was put in such a terrible situation in the first place, but I wouldn't regret it. That it is "wrong" would be meaningless to me.

Gangularis

9th February 2009, 10:48 PM

The Atheist

9th February 2009, 11:30 PM

Are you saying that "an atheist in disguise" wouldn't say such a thing?

Correct.

Are you saying that Obama wouldn't lie about his faith for political reasons?

No.

I think it's obvious that Obama considers himself a true Christian.. but it's also obvious that he's not dogmatic about it, and he's very open, and not condemning because of his personal beliefs. I'm quite fine with that. Have people on this forum really been saying he's a fake christian, and an atheist in disguise??

Indeed people have. I think it's just a disconnect that they like him so much they want him to be an atheist, ergo, they try to believe he's just a liar.

I agree with you, I'd rather have an honest, non-dogmatic christian than a liar.

westprog

10th February 2009, 05:07 AM

My reading of humanistic principles is that they reflect a desire to be self-righteous, rather than to act self-righteous.

I think that's probably right.

But wouldn't it be preferable to have principles from people who were righteous?

And we have a methodology for dealing with those disagreements. Democracy and the Rule of Law.

Democracy means that if Bill has grown a field of wheat while Abe and Chuck were lying around, then Abe and Chuck can have a vote and take what they want. Rule of Law means that they write down that they are going to do it.

westprog

10th February 2009, 05:11 AM

I think it's obvious that Obama considers himself a true Christian.. but it's also obvious that he's not dogmatic about it, and he's very open, and not condemning because of his personal beliefs. I'm quite fine with that. Have people on this forum really been saying he's a fake christian, and an atheist in disguise??

Have a look at the threads asking if theists can be rational, or saying that Christians don't really believe what they claim to believe. There's clearly a problem for some atheists liking Obama. I stress the some. It might be a handful on this forum - and even here, I think it's a minority. They are forced to choose between someone who's delusional or a hypocrite.

politas

10th February 2009, 11:56 AM

Democracy means that if Bill has grown a field of wheat while Abe and Chuck were lying around, then Abe and Chuck can have a vote and take what they want. Rule of Law means that they write down that they are going to do it.As an absurd extreme, yes, that's true. Has it ever actually happened such? Do you have a superior alternative?

westprog

10th February 2009, 12:08 PM

As an absurd extreme, yes, that's true. Has it ever actually happened such?

Did you ever hear about a man called Adolf Hitler?

Do you have a superior alternative?

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

politas

10th February 2009, 01:00 PM

I'm going to quote your post out of order.Apparently in order to ignore the earlier points when addressing the later ones.

I never said it was. You should read the whole paragraph. I said that the concepts of right and wrong only have real existence if they mean either:

(1) Legal / Illegal.

or

(2) Something that I or (at the very best) the majority of people like / dislike.And I started my post with a perfectly rational third option, which you chose to ignore here. Explain why my alternative meaning is not valid before returning to your dichotomy.

Could you explain what this has to do with anything? All I said was that legislation and individual preferences are enough for society to work. I agree that what's best for society as a whole is not easy to determine, specially since individual preferences are so diverse, but that's beside the point. My point was that the concepts of right and wrong are metaphysically-laden, and that most people do not take them to mean just (1) or (2).The relevance is that the unintuitive complex action of the feedback loop explains the metaphysical feeling of "right" and "wrong". People intuitively understand "right" and "wrong", but they can't intuitively understand why things are right or wrong, so they look to metaphysical explanations. It's another example of the God of the Gaps.

A harmonious society where the majority is happy is something I generally support as a political agenda, but again, "right" and "wrong" have metaphysical implications. You can try to redefine those words in a secular way, sure, but they only remain so convincing and emotionally gripping to most people because of the lingering metaphysical implications.But since there really is no external lawgiver determining what is right and wrong, the people who imagine there is one are just plain wrong. Their senses of right and wrong come from the feedback loop, whether they understand it or not. I am not "redefining" the terms, I am explaining them, giving them them the real meaning they have always had, which has been clouded by irrational thinking.

Case in point, saying that Obama should help fellow human beings means pretty much that he should support a harmonious society; if "right" has been redefined as "that which supports a harmonious society", then adding "because it's the right thing to do" makes it a circular argument. It's redundant. A non-explanation. But it sure does help to convince those people who still believe in a metaphysical morality.It's the difference between merely following the feedback loop blindly, and determining with understanding how it works and choosing to actively support it and try to guide it.

As an analogy, it is similar to using gene-splicing to improve crop yields, rather than simply selecting effective seed for replanting.

Lonewulf

10th February 2009, 01:10 PM

Did you ever hear about a man called Adolf Hitler?

Er, Hitler wasn't democratically elected, just to let you know.

Rairun

10th February 2009, 04:09 PM

Apparently in order to ignore the earlier points when addressing the later ones.

I addressed everything.

And I started my post with a perfectly rational third option, which you chose to ignore here. Explain why my alternative meaning is not valid before returning to your dichotomy.

Your perfectly rational third option actually falls under (2). Like me, you've tried to identify the components in the concepts of "right" and "wrong" that we have no evidence for. Unlike me, you've assumed that there is such a thing as "the real meaning" of a word. See my explanation below.

The relevance is that the unintuitive complex action of the feedback loop explains the metaphysical feeling of "right" and "wrong". People intuitively understand "right" and "wrong", but they can't intuitively understand why things are right or wrong, so they look to metaphysical explanations. It's another example of the God of the Gaps.

All you're trying to do is explain how we have come to have a notion of what "right" and "wrong" mean. The process is exactly the same for any word out there. We see those words in use, we abstract something from all those instances, and we gain a pragmatical notion of where they fit and where they don't.

But since there really is no external lawgiver determining what is right and wrong, the people who imagine there is one are just plain wrong. Their senses of right and wrong come from the feedback loop, whether they understand it or not. I am not "redefining" the terms, I am explaining them, giving them them the real meaning they have always had, which has been clouded by irrational thinking.

But "right" and "wrong" are just words. You aren't giving them the meaning they've always had. Words are defined by usage, so you are just redefining them.

The intuitive feeling that certain things are right and other things are wrong may be caused by the feedback loop you describe, but that doesn't mean the words refer only to the presence of those feelings. People say they have "mystical experiences" all the time, yet it would be absurd to try to give the term "the real meaning it has always had." You could try to explain the phenomenon itself in secular terms, but the term "mystical experience" has no real meaning other than that defined by usage.

arthwollipot

10th February 2009, 07:15 PM

I assume many are, and that's one of the reasons why I have these opinions. I think reciprocity and impartiality are great for policymaking. I would hate to live anywhere where that wasn't the case.Well, we really don't have any disagreement here, do we? I just take it the one step further and call the behaviour that I believe to be helpful and conducive to promoting a stable society in which citizens are wealthy, healthy and happy to be good.

But as an individual, I care more about myself than anyone else (with very few exceptions), and I wouldn't hesitate to act "immorally" if I felt strongly enough to do it. I would kill a completely innocent person if that meant saving the life of someone who's important to me, in a ********** up "kill them or I kill her" scenario. I wouldn't feel guilty either. I'd feel bad I was put in such a terrible situation in the first place, but I wouldn't regret it. That it is "wrong" would be meaningless to me.Such situations never practically arise in the Real Worldtm but it's good to see that you've actually thought about it. I would think that this attitude is borderline sociopathy, but an extremely mild and mostly harmless version. I would not be immune to the guilt about taking another human life the way you describe.

Rairun

10th February 2009, 08:51 PM

Well, we really don't have any disagreement here, do we? I just take it the one step further and call the behaviour that I believe to be helpful and conducive to promoting a stable society in which citizens are wealthy, healthy and happy to be good.

Yeah, we agree. And I actually think "good" and "bad" are less wooey than "right" and "wrong", though not in all circumstances. I mean, I don't have any problems saying Chinese food is good or anything. It's clear I'm talking about my tastes that way.

Such situations never practically arise in the Real Worldtm but it's good to see that you've actually thought about it. I would think that this attitude is borderline sociopathy, but an extremely mild and mostly harmless version. I would not be immune to the guilt about taking another human life the way you describe.

I guess, though I've always associated sociopathy with lack of empathy. I can definitely empathize. Like I said, I would feel bad, but I don't think I would feel any worse about killing a person than if I were forced to watch them being killed. I'm not desensitized to human suffering. I just don't torture myself because of the decisions I've made. If I've decided I value someone's life more than another's, I take responsibility for that fact. Other than boredom, guilt is probably the only emotion I'll never quite understand.

politas

11th February 2009, 05:44 AM

Your perfectly rational third option actually falls under (2).Sorry, I don't see how. Can you actually explain how "what supports or promotes a harmonious society of happy contented people" falls under "what you like"?

Because I just don't see it. Not from the perspective of meaning, anyway. In practice, you and I may both like things that support or promote etc, etc, but that doesn't make the meaning superfluous. Nor does it give "what you like" the precision of meaning that my definition of "right" has.

Like me, you've tried to identify the components in the concepts of "right" and "wrong" that we have no evidence for. Unlike me, you've assumed that there is such a thing as "the real meaning" of a word. See my explanation below.There is a feeling that most people share which is the common usage of the word. My definition goes to the source of that feeling. As much as any words can have "real meaning", that would seem to fit.

All you're trying to do is explain how we have come to have a notion of what "right" and "wrong" mean.Well, yes, I am. Am I failing?

The process is exactly the same for any word out there.Well, no it isn't. It's only the same for words that like "right" and "wrong" seem to have metaphysical connotations, but have actual value in rational discussion. No similar process is required for words like "square" or "tree". It's only for those words for which people have an intuitive grasp of their meaning.

But "right" and "wrong" are just words. You aren't giving them the meaning they've always had. Words are defined by usage, so you are just redefining them.The meaning they have always had is the intuitive grasp. That's how they have been and are used. By explaining the intuitive grasp, I add precision and understanding to the definition.

The intuitive feeling that certain things are right and other things are wrong may be caused by the feedback loop you describe, but that doesn't mean the words refer only to the presence of those feelings.Well, there are certainly other usages of the words, but I thought we were talking about the specific usages related to morality.

People say they have "mystical experiences" all the time, yet it would be absurd to try to give the term "the real meaning it has always had." You could try to explain the phenomenon itself in secular terms, but the term "mystical experience" has no real meaning other than that defined by usage.Actually, I try to explain "mystical experiences" in rational terms. Sometimes religion can be a part of the explanation.