Penn's excellent statement about atheism vs. theism

[Dorian Gray]

Without any ado:
EAF2NuAI9EU

[fls]

Wow. That was fabulous. He totally captured the whole issue right there in 2 minutes and 56 seconds. We can shut down the R&P section of the forum now.

Yay!

Linda

[Cavemonster]

I think I'm going to challenge that last statement, that anyone who would not kill their own child at their God's request doesn't really believe in that God. It presupposses that it is impossible to disobey a God you believe in, which is just not true, depending on the characteristics you imbue that God with.

For instance, for any polytheist, they could believe in a number of gods, often motivated by human passions and limited knowledge, so if one such god ordered the death of your child, it doesn't follow that you must oblige.

Even for a single god, there are descriptions, like deism, Quakerism etc where the idea of a personal God making a specific request of an individual directly is nonsensical and on the order of asking "what if a circle was a triangle" If the god embraced by many of these people made such a request, or in many cases, any direct request, he would not, by definition, be the god they believed in.

[Dorian Gray]

But that's the point: He is talking about precisely the god you believe in.

[bokonon]

So in Mr. Jillette's mind, you're either an atheist or you're dangerous?

Laughable. Excellent only as an example of extreme polarized thinking.

[Delvo]

For instance, for any polytheist, they could believe in a number of gods, often motivated by human passions and limited knowledge, so if one such god ordered the death of your child, it doesn't follow that you must oblige.

Even for a single god, there are descriptions, like deism, Quakerism etc where the idea of a personal God making a specific request of an individual directly is nonsensical and on the order of asking "what if a circle was a triangle"Another way it wouldn't make sense is the version of God expressed by Riddick in "Pitch Black", in response to someone saying that just because he didn't believe in God, that didn't mean God didn't believe in him. Riddick mentioned a few bad things he'd seen in prison and some non-prison-related stuff like babies being strangled by their own umbilical chords, each one in the form of "Do you think I could see ___, and not believe?"... followed by "You've got it all wrong. I absolutely do believe in God. And I absolutely hate that **********."

[fls]

I think I'm going to challenge that last statement, that anyone who would not kill their own child at their God's request doesn't really believe in that God. It presupposses that it is impossible to disobey a God you believe in, which is just not true, depending on the characteristics you imbue that God with.

I don't think that's it. I think that it simply demonstrates that when push comes to shove, you don't really trust that this entity has greater knowledge or wisdom than you - i.e. you don't really believe in those qualities which would make something a god, rather than a fairly ordinary entity.

Linda

[fls]

So in Mr. Jillette's mind, you're either an atheist or you're dangerous?

Laughable. Excellent only as an example of extreme polarized thinking.

I don't think that's it. I think he's saying that deep down, most theists are really atheists. They trust in the idea of belief, but they don't really trust the subject of their belief. There have been numerous threads on this forum with respect to this idea.

Linda

[bokonon]

I don't think that's it. I think that it simply demonstrates that when push comes to shove, you don't really trust that this entity has greater knowledge or wisdom than you - i.e. you don't really believe in those qualities which would make something a god, rather than a fairly ordinary entity.

Linda
I could firmly believe that the entity is smarter and wiser than me, but that doesn't mean I'd obey any harebrained command that came out of the entity's mouth. You can't command me to kill my kid and expect I'll do it. Maybe you can convince me to kill my kid, if you're willing to share the knowledge and wisdom that led you to think it would be a good idea. Maybe you can kill my kid yourself, if you're going to get all omnipotent and all, and maybe I won't be able to stop you.

But just saying, "Kill the kid"? Kiss my meatballs.

[Cavemonster]

I don't think that's it. I think that it simply demonstrates that when push comes to shove, you don't really trust that this entity has greater knowledge or wisdom than you - i.e. you don't really believe in those qualities which would make something a god, rather than a fairly ordinary entity.

Linda

But perfect knowledge and wisdom isn't essential in all concepts of God.

For instance, a deist would believe that their God created the world and then refrained from interfering. If that god suddenly interfered by asking you to kill your child, it would violate the definition.

That's a bit like saying.
"Do you like spaghetti and meatballs?"
"Sure!"
"What if it was spaghetti and eyeballs instead?"
"That sounds pretty gross"
"Then you don't really like spaghetti and meatballs"

There are a number of conditions that define a god. Being the creator of the universe, or even just of human life is probably a bigger factor.

Or being in control of vast natural forces outside of the powers of humans.

The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent model isn't even explicitly guaranteed in the Abrahamic books and outside of Abrahamic religions it doesn't exist.

For instance, are Shinto practitioners, who believe small gods live in every part of nature, are they atheists? Is asking how they would react if a river god told them to kill their child a measure of their belief?

[fls]

I could firmly believe that the entity is smarter and wiser than me, but that doesn't mean I'd obey any harebrained command that came out of the entity's mouth. You can't command me to kill my kid and expect I'll do it. Maybe you can convince me to kill my kid, if you're willing to share the knowledge and wisdom that led you to think it would be a good idea. Maybe you can kill my kid yourself, if you're going to get all omnipotent and all, and maybe I won't be able to stop you.

But just saying, "Kill the kid"? Kiss my meatballs.

That's what I mean. You don't have to consider them omnipotent or unremittingly benevolent to have faith in them. But to have faith doesn't mean that you believe them when they agree with you. It means that you believe and trust them even when their advice and opinions seem nonsensical or wrong-headed. That under those circumstances you would choose not to trust them means that you don't really have faith, you have only been paying lip-service to the idea.

Linda

[tsig]

I could firmly believe that the entity is smarter and wiser than me, but that doesn't mean I'd obey any harebrained command that came out of the entity's mouth. You can't command me to kill my kid and expect I'll do it. Maybe you can convince me to kill my kid, if you're willing to share the knowledge and wisdom that led you to think it would be a good idea. Maybe you can kill my kid yourself, if you're going to get all omnipotent and all, and maybe I won't be able to stop you.

But just saying, "Kill the kid"? Kiss my meatballs.

Oh ye of little faith.

[fls]

But perfect knowledge and wisdom isn't essential in all concepts of God.

I agree. That is why the specification was for 'whatever you mean by God' rather than a particular kind of entity.

For instance, a deist would believe that their God created the world and then refrained from interfering. If that god suddenly interfered by asking you to kill your child, it would violate the definition.

Then you would ask for the origin of their faith. The point is that the thing that is used to supply the origin for their faith would be the same thing that suggested they kill their child.

That's a bit like saying.
"Do you like spaghetti and meatballs?"
"Sure!"
"What if it was spaghetti and eyeballs instead?"
"That sounds pretty gross"
"Then you don't really like spaghetti and meatballs"

It's more like:

"How do you know that you like spaghetti and meatballs?"
"They taste good when I eat them."
"What if spaghetti and eyeballs tasted good when you ate them? Would you like them as well?
"No, that sounds gross?"
"Then isn't whether or not you like something really about whether or not it sounds gross?"

There are a number of conditions that define a god. Being the creator of the universe, or even just of human life is probably a bigger factor.

Or being in control of vast natural forces outside of the powers of humans.

I use the definition within my sig, as I find that it is all inclusive and it excludes things whose presence would be considered quite reasonable.

The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent model isn't even explicitly guaranteed in the Abrahamic books and outside of Abrahamic religions it doesn't exist.

Exactly.

For instance, are Shinto practitioners, who believe small gods live in every part of nature, are they atheists? Is asking how they would react if a river god told them to kill their child a measure of their belief?

Well, you would have to ask them what it was that led to their faith in the first place. Whatever it was that led to that faith would be the thing that told them to kill their child.

Linda

[Sun Countess]

I often wonder what many modern Christians and Jews would do if confronted with the same request Yahweh made of Abraham. He was willing to kid his kid for his god, but it turns out god was just testing his faith. Is it real faith if you don't believe that your god is really the just, wise, and merciful god you've been worshipping all your life? Are people worshipping their maker because he's their maker or because he's worthy of worship because of those other qualities?

[joobz]

The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes a person can conceive of god requiring such a thing.

If you do not believe in a benevolent god (which many people claim), asking if you would kill your kid for him would be like asking what a square circle looks like. (at least in thier minds). It would fall on deaf ears.

The fact is god is simply the ultimate appeal to authority, excusing anyone for holding what ever morality they hold. While I think it is important to ask "What if god doesn't share your same sense of morality", don't expect much useful information to come from the question.

[westprog]

"Do you believe in God?"

"No."

"Do you believe in right and wrong?"

"Yes"

"Do you try to always do what you think is right?"

"Yes"

"So if you thought it was right to kill your child, would you do it?"

Same fallacy.

[Cavemonster]

fls,
Many theists of various sorts would say that the origin of their faith was observation of the universe.

So I ask you, if observation of the world suggested you kill your child, say for the following reason

Your child is is patient zero with an incredibly infectious disease that would likely wipe out human kind if it spread, you are given the choice between killing your child or letting the virus spread.

Does Penn's logic hold here? Either you trust in the science that shows you this and you're a child killing whacko, or you don't and you don't relly believe in science?

Penn's logic only applies to that individual's faith in the judgement and wisdom of their god, not in their belief.

[fls]

fls,
Many theists of various sorts would say that the origin of their faith was observation of the universe.

So I ask you, if observation of the world suggested you kill your child, say for the following reason

Your child is is patient zero with an incredibly infectious disease that would likely wipe out human kind if it spread, you are given the choice between killing your child or letting the virus spread.

Does Penn's logic hold here? Either you trust in the science that shows you this and you're a child killing whacko, or you don't and you don't relly believe in science?

Penn's logic only applies to that individual's faith in the judgement and wisdom of their god, not in their belief.

Yeah, I think that what he's referring to is to what extent your beliefs are based on faith and to what extent they are based on reason. If you look at our actions, we leave very little up to faith, if any at all. Even our 'miracles' hardly stray from reason - statues weap blood instead of sprouting wings and flying, or a leukemia patient survives rather than an amputee regrows a limb. It does look like our actions far more closely correspond to what we consider reasonable through our own experiences and knowledge, than they do to any articles of faith.

I've been 'asked' to kill my children on numerous occasions and have followed through with that request. Any time I tossed my baby in the air I trusted that it wouldn't continue to travel away from me, eventually leaving the safety of the earth's atmosphere.

Linda

[Beth]

So in Mr. Jillette's mind, you're either an atheist or you're dangerous?

Laughable. Excellent only as an example of extreme polarized thinking.

I totally agree.

I don't think that's it. I think he's saying that deep down, most theists are really atheists. They trust in the idea of belief, but they don't really trust the subject of their belief. There have been numerous threads on this forum with respect to this idea.

In other words, he's redefining Theism and Atheism to suit himself. You're right. Plenty of threads on this forum with respect to that idea.

I don't think that's it. I think that it simply demonstrates that when push comes to shove, you don't really trust that this entity has greater knowledge or wisdom than you - i.e. you don't really believe in those qualities which would make something a god, rather than a fairly ordinary entity.

No. This definition of god and faith/belief only works if you also assume that the person of faith believes that their god would only issue such an instruction for purposes they would support to the extent of sacrificing their own child.

That's what I mean. You don't have to consider them omnipotent or unremittingly benevolent to have faith in them. But to have faith doesn't mean that you believe them when they agree with you. It means that you believe and trust them even when their advice and opinions seem nonsensical or wrong-headed. That under those circumstances you would choose not to trust them means that you don't really have faith, you have only been paying lip-service to the idea.

Here, you redefine faith to suit your purposes. If you're not willing to sacrifice your child, then you don't actually have faith? That's not how most people I know would define faith in god.

In fact, this whole scenario strikes me as 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' kind of question. If they say yes, you can attack the believer as a monster willing to sacrifice their child. If they say no, you can attack them for being a hypocrite and not actually believing in their god. Cavemonster's scenario points that out by analogy. If you were unwilling to sacrifice your child because science told you that you must, if you refuse does that mean you don't believe in the wisdom/truth/validity of science? Or does it just mean you are a sane human being? I vote for the latter in both case.

I often wonder what many modern Christians and Jews would do if confronted with the same request Yahweh made of Abraham. He was willing to kid his kid for his god, but it turns out god was just testing his faith. Is it real faith if you don't believe that your god is really the just, wise, and merciful god you've been worshipping all your life? Are people worshipping their maker because he's their maker or because he's worthy of worship because of those other qualities?

The Christians I grew up among would have assumed it was the devil in disguise because the god they believed in would never make such a request of them so the asking of it reveals the entity doing the asking to be something other than god - i.e. the devil.

[Vortigern99]

I generally admire Jillette's criticism of theistic belief. But here his ignorance of Judeo-Christian doctrine is clouding his understanding of the dynamics behind his assertions.

First, God's injunction to Abraham to sacrifice his own son occurred chronologically prior to the revelation of the Ten Commandments, one of which is "Don't kill/murder (depending on your translation)." This means that at any point following the delivery of Mosaic law to the Israelites, such a request from the Allmighty could logically not have occurred, since it contradicts God's own covenant with his peoples.

Second, and furthermore, for Christians, the blood sacrifices formerly required of worshipers in ancient times have been removed and paid in full by Christ's willing self-sacrifice. There is now a double impossibility for the Judeo-Christian God to ever ask a worshiper to murder his or her own child.

We can therefore be certain, according to the doctrines of the religious systems under review, that God would not and could not ever make such a request. Thus we could ignore as deceitful or illusory any such request.

As to some other, non Judeo-Christian deity, we shall have to examine each on a case-by-case basis. Pagan gods, as Cavemonster noted upthread, can be capricious, selfish, and not necessarily to be trusted. Even if we believe in and revere them, we are not beholden to obey their every command. Perhaps we might believe that "they" (the Sky God, the Mountain God, the Sea God, whatever) might destroy us if we do not follow their orders, but it yet remains that we have a choice to obey or not.

For most parents, the life of their child comes before their own, so I expect that most pagans, if faced with such a command from their chosen deity, would rather die themselves than commit such an act upon their offspring.

So, Jillette's "excellent statement" is actually ill-informed, and performs logical contortions to arrive at a questionable and arguable conclusion.

[fls]

The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes a person can conceive of god requiring such a thing.

If you do not believe in a benevolent god (which many people claim), asking if you would kill your kid for him would be like asking what a square circle looks like. (at least in thier minds). It would fall on deaf ears.

The fact is god is simply the ultimate appeal to authority, excusing anyone for holding what ever morality they hold. While I think it is important to ask "What if god doesn't share your same sense of morality", don't expect much useful information to come from the question.

Well, when we get asked about whether or not we believe in God, it's usually in relation to the sorts of gods which suggest a change in behaviour or some sort of intent. We don't really get asked, "do you believe that relabelling the singularity at the point of the Big Bang "God" can be used to infer a morality?"

Linda

[Vortigern99]

In fact, this whole scenario strikes me as 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' kind of question. If they say yes, you can attack the believer as a monster willing to sacrifice their child. If they say no, you can attack them for being a hypocrite and not actually believing in their god. Cavemonster's scenario points that out by analogy. If you were unwilling to sacrifice your child because science told you that you must, if you refuse does that mean you don't believe in the wisdom/truth/validity of science? Or does it just mean you are a sane human being? I vote for the latter in both case.

Exactly. This is a false dilemma or false dichotomy, a logical fallacy which ignores the existence of other options apart from the two presented by the questioner.

One possible course of action -- other than killing your child or refusing a divine command -- is to appeal to God instead, to attempt to persuade him through compassion to not ask such a thing of you. Lot, for example, successfully argued with God over the lives of some of the residents of Sodom. God heard Lot's plea and granted some people (I forget whom) mercy based on Lot's compassionate intercession.

Thus, even if the Judeo-Christian God were to make such a request (which is doubly impossible according to the laws of the religion in question, but let's allow it for the sake of argument), a worshiper is allowed at least one other option than the two damning extremes offered up by Jillette.

[fls]

In other words, he's redefining Theism and Atheism to suit himself. You're right. Plenty of threads on this forum with respect to that idea.

I think he's looking at just what it is that people mean when they say that they believe in something

No. This definition of god and faith/belief only works if you also assume that the person of faith believes that their god would only issue such an instruction for purposes they would support to the extent of sacrificing their own child.

Again, this is meant to get at the issue of what it means to believe in something. If you distinguish between belief in belief and belief in the subject of that belief, it helps to clarify the issue.

Here, you redefine faith to suit your purposes. If you're not willing to sacrifice your child, then you don't actually have faith? That's not how most people I know would define faith in god.

I agree. And that was my earlier point. Most people really seem to believe in belief. And if you look at it from that perspective, their actions make much more sense than if they really believed in the subject of that belief. Otherwise, our actions wouldn't correspond so closely with reason, rather than faith.

In fact, this whole scenario strikes me as 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' kind of question. If they say yes, you can attack the believer as a monster willing to sacrifice their child. If they say no, you can attack them for being a hypocrite and not actually believing in their god.

I don't think this is an attack. I suspect the assumption is that the question would give most people pause. A shift in perspective can be useful to stimulate thoughtful consideration.

Cavemonster's scenario points that out by analogy. If you were unwilling to sacrifice your child because science told you that you must, if you refuse does that mean you don't believe in the wisdom/truth/validity of science? Or does it just mean you are a sane human being? I vote for the latter in both case.

Exactly. Most people will act according to their own reason and emotions.

The Christians I grew up among would have assumed it was the devil in disguise because the god they believed in would never make such a request of them so the asking of it reveals the entity doing the asking to be something other than god - i.e. the devil.

Exactly. To say that you have faith doesn't tell you anything about the subject of that faith. Whether it is God or the devil reflects your own judgment. And I will admit that it is those people who are willing to abdicate from their own judgment who do scare me more than those who don't.

Linda

[fls]

Exactly. This is a false dilemma or false dichotomy, a logical fallacy which ignores the existence of other options apart from the two presented by the questioner.

One possible course of action -- other than killing your child or refusing a divine command -- is to appeal to God instead, to attempt to persuade him through compassion to not ask such a thing of you. Lot, for example, successfully argued with God over the lives of some of the residents of Sodom. God heard Lot's plea and granted some people (I forget whom) mercy based on Lot's compassionate intercession.

Thus, even if the Judeo-Christian God were to make such a request (which is doubly impossible according to the laws of the religion in question, but let's allow it for the sake of argument), a worshiper is allowed at least one other option than the two damning extremes offered up by Jillette.

I'm not sure why you are insisting that the question follows the rules of the Judeo-Christian God, even though Penn specifically said it didn't.

But otherwise, I like the question because I would expect and hope for the reactions that have been demonstrated in this thread - my god wouldn't ask that of me, of course I wouldn't, it's against the rules of my religion, it's irrelevant to my god, etc. Those are normal and expected reactions. And what would be useful is to take those reactions and recognize, from them, that there is an element of meaninglessness to stating that you have faith in something. Because while I happily play with my children by tossing them in the air, poke them with needles and feed them toxic substances based on my beliefs, my actions demonstrate that I am drawing a line between reason and faith.

Linda

[bokonon]

First, God's injunction to Abraham to sacrifice his own son occurred chronologically prior to the revelation of the Ten Commandments, one of which is "Don't kill/murder (depending on your translation)." This means that at any point following the delivery of Mosaic law to the Israelites, such a request from the Allmighty could logically not have occurred, since it contradicts God's own covenant with his peoples.
So the command to Joshua to kill every man, woman, and child in Canaan (which came after the ten commandment injunction on killing) must have come from a pretender to the throne.

Jillette's "excellent statement" is actually ill-informed, and performs logical contortions to arrive at a questionable and arguable conclusion.
I agree with you here, but I think the flaw is in the notion "If you believe in something, you have to be willing to kill your kid for it," and if you're not, you don't really believe in it. If that's the bar that has to be hurdled, most people would be damn-near nihilists.

[fls]

I agree with you here, but I think the flaw is in the notion "If you believe in something, you have to be willing to kill your kid for it," and if you're not, you don't really believe in it. If that's the bar that has to be hurdled, most people would be damn-near nihilists.

I suspect that "if you believe in something you'd be willing to cross the street for it" doesn't really have the requisite impact. ;)

Linda

[Vortigern99]

I'm not sure why you are insisting that the question follows the rules of the Judeo-Christian God, even though Penn specifically said it didn't.

I'm not "insisting" on this at all; in fact I made a point, in my first post above, of discussing deities other than the traditional Judeo-Christian one. Moreover, if Jillette's line of reasoning does not include Yahweh, what meaning does his "excellent statement" have? Of what use is it to discuss an unknown divinity that no one worships, invented purely to make a statement that pertains to no one? The contradictions continue.

BTW, I want to make it clear that I am not a worshiper of the Judeo-Christian God. I happen to have studied the topic at length and am familiar with the iconography and some theology (mostly Catholic), but I am not a believer/adherent/follower of the faith in any of its denominations.

[Pardalis]

What's with the belly button POV?

[thaiboxerken]

I think Penn has a specific, biblical god in mind when he's asking the last question. After all, didn't the biblical god request such a thing in the old testament?

To me, he's simply saying that believers often believe as is convenient. If a believer can't conceive of their god every telling them to kill someone, or their child, then doesn't that show that their god is simply an echo, or a reflection of their own imagination. Their gods are of their own design.

[fls]

I'm not "insisting" on this at all; in fact I made a point, in my first post above, of discussing deities other than the traditional Judeo-Christian one. Moreover, if Jillette's line of reasoning does not include Yahweh, what meaning does his "excellent statement" have? Of what use is it to discuss an unknown divinity that no one worships, invented purely to make a statement that pertains to no one? The contradictions continue.

Your prior post demonstrated that the killing of a child is not a request that would arise from a Judeo-Christian god, because it wouldn't follow the rules of that god. But the question isn't about whether any particular god would ask us to kill our child. Of course they wouldn't. Most gods quite conveniently do not ask us to do things that we do not already agree to be useful.

The question is more like the De Finetti Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Finetti's_game). If you want to understand the strength of someone's belief, ask them what they would bet on that belief. Because realistically, we are willing to bet our child's life on our belief in science. We are willing to do things that according to all other appearances would kill our child, based on our trust.

BTW, I want to make it clear that I am not a worshiper of the Judeo-Christian God. I happen to have studied the topic at length and am familiar with the iconography and some theology (mostly Catholic), but I am not a believer/adherent/follower of the faith in any of its denominations.

I figured you were just showing off. :)

Linda

[Beth]

I think he's looking at just what it is that people mean when they say that they believe in something When he says that either someone believes in god enough to kill their own child at his command or they are an atheist as far as he's concerned, I interpret that as redefining Theism and Atheism to suit himself. You're saying he doesn't really mean it that way, that he's just saying it to spark thought by offending people, that's a reasonable way to interpret it too. He is, after all, well-known for doing just that sort of thing. :D

Again, this is meant to get at the issue of what it means to believe in something. If you distinguish between belief in belief and belief in the subject of that belief, it helps to clarify the issue. What it is supposedly clarifying? It just sounds like an extremist statement or a joke to me. BTW, 'a joke' strikes me as a good way to describe extremist statements.

We seem to agree on most of the remaining points, though I must not understand your opinion as well as I thought because am mystified as to why you think they support what I perceive as your POV.

I also don't understand how

"I've been 'asked' to kill my children on numerous occasions and have followed through with that request. Any time I tossed my baby in the air I trusted that it wouldn't continue to travel away from me, eventually leaving the safety of the earth's atmosphere"

is in any way analogous to an answer to Penn's question? Do you expect us to believe that it is your faith in science that allows you to do so without fear? Do you think that cave men were afraid to play catch with their babies for fear that gravity would stop working?

On the other hand, some friends of mine didn't do that with their infant baby. They worried about accidentally harming the child because of the lack of strength in the neck muscles that science had revealed. That seems to me to be demonstrating a faith or belief in science, but it's no where near the kind of sacrifice that Penn is claiming is necessary to show belief in god.


I don't think this is an attack. I suspect the assumption is that the question would give most people pause. A shift in perspective can be useful to stimulate thoughtful consideration. I think it is hard to interpret what he said as anything but an attack on anyone who considers themselves to have faith in any kind of god or religion. He's telling them he doesn't think they do. Or he thinks they're dangerous and he doesn't want them around. It's certainly no worse that the sort of statements made all the time about Atheists by Christians. In fact, it seems quite analogous to when a Christians says something to the effect that an Atheists either secretly believes in god or else they would have no morals, does that provoke a thoughtful response very often? Not in my experience.

Other the other hand, does that statement sound like an attack on atheists?
Does it sound like someone redefining Theism and Atheism to suit themselves?

They seem pretty similar to me. Perhaps the irony of it is actually his point. I don't know. I not sure what he actually believes and what he says just to get a reaction.

[Congruentruth]

Tell me to shut up if you like - but why is everybody postulating over a fictitious event which appears to be nothing more than Judea -Christian propaganda? I'm sure Goebbels cut his teeth on such chapters as a methodology for subverting human loyalty to a father figure.Perhaps this what Penn is intimating - the unconscious and non reasoning part of subversion?

[fls]

When he says that either someone believes in god enough to kill their own child at his command or they are an atheist as far as he's concerned, I interpret that as redefining Theism and Atheism to suit himself. You're saying he doesn't really mean it that way, that he's just saying it to spark thought by offending people, that's a reasonable way to interpret it too. He is, after all, well-known for doing just that sort of thing. :D

Why bring in the "offending people" idea? I find it hard to believe that you consider the idea of raising questions offensive.

What it is supposedly clarifying? It just sounds like an extremist statement or a joke to me. BTW, 'a joke' strikes me as a good way to describe extremist statements.

Belief in belief vs. belief in the subject of belief. Apparently this idea is non-obvious.

We seem to agree on most of the remaining points, though I must not understand your opinion as well as I thought because am mystified as to why you think they support what I perceive as your POV.

I also don't understand how

"I've been 'asked' to kill my children on numerous occasions and have followed through with that request. Any time I tossed my baby in the air I trusted that it wouldn't continue to travel away from me, eventually leaving the safety of the earth's atmosphere"

is in any way analogous to an answer to Penn's question? Do you expect us to believe that it is your faith in science that allows you to do so without fear? Do you think that cave men were afraid to play catch with their babies for fear that gravity would stop working?

I meant our knowledge about inertia to be taken into consideration, something I wouldn't necessarily expect of a caveman. But if you have trouble understanding that analogy, simply use one of my other examples. Parents will follow instructions to apparently poison their children in the name of science, and most of us would consider it quite reasonable for them to do so, when treating disease with toxic substances.

I think it is hard to interpret what he said as anything but an attack on anyone who considers themselves to have faith in any kind of god or religion. He's telling them he doesn't think they do. Or he thinks they're dangerous and he doesn't want them around. It's certainly no worse that the sort of statements made all the time about Atheists by Christians. In fact, it seems quite analogous to when a Christians says something to the effect that an Atheists either secretly believes in god or else they would have no morals, does that provoke a thoughtful response very often? Not in my experience.

Other the other hand, does that statement sound like an attack on atheists?
Does it sound like someone redefining Theism and Atheism to suit themselves?

It sounds like a reasonable question. I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me where my morals came from, or whether I might pray when faced with a life-threatening situation (i.e. the "no atheists in foxholes" statement). It seems like an obvious way to get to the truth of my non-belief. I suspect it would only be offensive if I found that I was unable to answer the question honestly.

They seem pretty similar to me. Perhaps the irony of it is actually his point. I don't know. I not sure what he actually believes and what he says just to get a reaction.

They seem pretty similar to me as well. And it seems like a question atheists are quite interested in answering based on the responses when this question arises here.

Linda

[rocketdodger]

I think the point here is that faith is an all or none proposition.

You either have absolute faith, or you have no faith at all.

Otherwise, what is the point of the term?

So Penn's sentiment is that if you don't have absolute faith, you don't have faith at all, and likely just go to church and bible study and pray or whatever theists do because of a mish mash of peer pressure, hope, hopelessness, boredom, etc, rather than an actual sense of service to a God you have absolute faith in.

And I agree 100% with this sentiment.

Most people do not *really* believe in a God. Not to the same extent they believe if you step in front of a bus you will get hurt, or that a dropped object will fall towards the Earth, or that an apple is not the same as an orange.

Furthermore, not to the same extent most of us believe in many invisible things. If you were about to be thrown out of a plane, would you want a parachute or a promise from a priest that God will save you? If you were sick, would you want medicine or prayer? Do you have the same confidence in God that you do in the fundamentals of mathematics? I would stake my life on the fact that 8 / 4 == 2. Would you stake your life on the details of the holy trinity?

No? Then sorry, you are not really a theist.

[JFrankA]

I saw Penn's question as the "other side of the coin" so to speak, of the theist's statement "There are no atheists in foxholes".

[Congruentruth]

I think rocketdodger has a good point with '"faith is an all or none proposition".
I believe as humans we are naturally and genuinely loyal to some thing or someone through freedom of choice.
Conditional choice such as this is the hallmark of a subversive agenda.

[Beth]

Why bring in the "offending people" idea? I find it hard to believe that you consider the idea of raising questions offensive. No, I don't consider the idea of raising questions offensive. I do, however, recognize that some questions are not asked to elicit information but are instead meant to be offensive. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is an example of such a question. I not sure if Penn's question falls into that category, but I thought perhaps that was what you meant by your previous comment.

Belief in belief vs. belief in the subject of belief. Apparently this idea is non-obvious.
Yes. I do not see how you get from "Either you're willing to sacrifice your child on your god's command or you are an Athiest" to wanting to clarify the subject of "Belief in belief vs. belief in the subject of belief".


I meant our knowledge about inertia to be taken into consideration, something I wouldn't necessarily expect of a caveman. But if you have trouble understanding that analogy, simply use one of my other examples. Parents will follow instructions to apparently poison their children in the name of science, and most of us would consider it quite reasonable for them to do so, when treating disease with toxic substances.

But that still isn't the same thing at all in that there is no reasonable expectation that their child will die as a result of the action. Thus I don't see it as being analogous for the same reason I don't find your previous example analogous. In neither case are the parent's being told to do something that they feel will result in their child's death.


It sounds like a reasonable question. I wouldn't be offended if someone asked me where my morals came from, or whether I might pray when faced with a life-threatening situation (i.e. the "no atheists in foxholes" statement). It seems like an obvious way to get to the truth of my non-belief. I suspect it would only be offensive if I found that I was unable to answer the question honestly. Yet, based on what I've read in other threads, many atheists on this board do feel offended at the underlying assumptions that such questions imply when posed in all seriousness. I would expect many theists to respond similarly if they felt Penn's question was being posed in seriousness and not as a joke.

They seem pretty similar to me as well. And it seems like a question atheists are quite interested in answering based on the responses when this question arises here.
Linda
Nice that we can agree on something! Certainly some people here are sincerely interested in disabusing others of their negative stereotypes of atheists and respond politely and thoughtfully to such questions. Just as some theists have done so in response to this question.

[westprog]

I think he's looking at just what it is that people mean when they say that they believe in something



I expect that a lot of Christians - to give one example - would believe in a God that wouldn't ask them to kill their child. Hence the contradiction.

[fls]

Yes. I do not see how you get from "Either you're willing to sacrifice your child on your god's command or you are an Athiest" to wanting to clarify the subject of "Belief in belief vs. belief in the subject of belief".

But that still isn't the same thing at all in that there is no reasonable expectation that their child will die as a result of the action. Thus I don't see it as being analogous for the same reason I don't find your previous example analogous. In neither case are the parent's being told to do something that they feel will result in their child's death.

It can be seen as either an indication of your level of commitment or the importance you place on the idea, or as an indication of the degree of trust you have in an entity. The idea of asking for a sacrifice to indicate your commitment to a cause is an old one. And realistically, there are circumstances under which parents will sacrifice a child for something considered of more importance (sacrificing an unborn child's life for the life of the mother, sending your child off to war, sacrificing one child in order to support additional children, etc.).

Or it can be seen a placing trust in that entity, that you are asked to do something which ultimately results in upholding the best interests of what you hold dear. If you had complete knowledge, it would be your best choice. We trust that injecting our child with toxins gives them the best hope of survival when we consent to chemotherapy, for example. It takes very little trust if we are asked to do something innocuous, like go to church or hand over a bit of money.

So the question becomes, do you place less importance on God than you place on the values and way of life represented by your country? Do you trust God less than you trust your doctor?

Yet, based on what I've read in other threads, many atheists on this board do feel offended at the underlying assumptions that such questions imply when posed in all seriousness.

I haven't really seen much of an indication from you that you are able to adequately judge whether atheists are offended or intend to give offense.

I would expect many theists to respond similarly if they felt Penn's question was being posed in seriousness and not as a joke.

It doesn't look like Penn's question was a joke. He isn't that unfunny.

Linda

[fls]

I expect that a lot of Christians - to give one example - would believe in a God that wouldn't ask them to kill their child. Hence the contradiction.

Killing a child seems to be used to indicate the strength of a particular idea (rather than meant to be a practical question). Isn't that why the story of Abraham is seen as compelling?

Linda

[SezMe]

What's with the belly button POV?
Sadly, that was my first reaction. Why do I have to be staring up his damn nostrils to hear his take on god?

[Beth]

It can be seen as either an indication of your level of commitment or the importance you place on the idea, or as an indication of the degree of trust you have in an entity. The idea of asking for a sacrifice to indicate your commitment to a cause is an old one. And realistically, there are circumstances under which parents will sacrifice a child for something considered of more importance (sacrificing an unborn child's life for the life of the mother, sending your child off to war, sacrificing one child in order to support additional children, etc.).

Or it can be seen a placing trust in that entity, that you are asked to do something which ultimately results in upholding the best interests of what you hold dear. If you had complete knowledge, it would be your best choice. We trust that injecting our child with toxins gives them the best hope of survival when we consent to chemotherapy, for example. It takes very little trust if we are asked to do something innocuous, like go to church or hand over a bit of money.


I agree with all of the above. The problem with your analogy is that what is being asked is not expected to be lethal to the child. It has risks, yes, but the expectation is that it will help not harm your child. Thus, to claim that doing so indicates a willingness to sacrifice your child at the behest of science comparable to sacrificing your child because god commanded it just doesn't work for me.

[bokonon]

I think it could arguably work if someone claimed to believe their child was assured of eternal life. In such a case, killing the kid would be less problematic than sedating the kid and cutting out his appendix would be to one who lacked such a belief.

[Beth]

I think it could arguably work if someone claimed to believe their child was assured of eternal life. In such a case, killing the kid would be less problematic than sedating the kid and cutting out his appendix would be to one who lacked such a belief.

You would have an arguable point if the original question posed included the assumption that the sacrificed child would be assured of eternal life. It doesn't.

[wollery]

The question is more like the De Finetti Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Finetti's_game). If you want to understand the strength of someone's belief, ask them what they would bet on that belief.I just read that wikipedia article, and the De Finetti game, as they describe it, makes absolutely no sense to me.

Someone claims to be reasonably certain that they have achieved a score of 100% on a test. You offer them a choice of selecting a ball at random from a bag with 95 red and 5 black balls. If they get a red ball they win $1 million. Alternatively they can wait, and if they have indeed got a score of 100% on the test then they win the $1 million.

If they choose to wait then they are offered a second test, this time with 85 red and 15 black balls, and again they win the million if they choose a red ball, or they can wait for the result of the test. This continues, presumably with the number of red balls being reduced, until the player takes the bet and selects a ball, at which point you've discovered their "subjective probability", i.e. their confidence level, that they got 100%.


But as it's written the probability of success drops with each round. If you weren't prepared to take the bet on the first round you'd have to be mad to take it on any subsequent round!

Am I missing something, or is the ball choice back to front?

p.s. This should probably be split, unless the answer is simply that the article got it the wrong way round.

[fls]

I just read that wikipedia article, and the De Finetti game, as they describe it, makes absolutely no sense to me.

Someone claims to be reasonably certain that they have achieved a score of 100% on a test. You offer them a choice of selecting a ball at random from a bag with 95 red and 5 black balls. If they get a red ball they win $1 million. Alternatively they can wait, and if they have indeed got a score of 100% on the test then they win the $1 million.

If they choose to wait then they are offered a second test, this time with 85 red and 15 black balls, and again they win the million if they choose a red ball, or they can wait for the result of the test. This continues, presumably with the number of red balls being reduced, until the player takes the bet and selects a ball, at which point you've discovered their "subjective probability", i.e. their confidence level, that they got 100%.


But as it's written the probability of success drops with each round. If you weren't prepared to take the bet on the first round you'd have to be mad to take it on any subsequent round!

Am I missing something, or is the ball choice back to front?

p.s. This should probably be split, unless the answer is simply that the article got it the wrong way round.

You mis-read it. They are offered successive draws if they chose not to wait.

Linda

[fls]

I think it could arguably work if someone claimed to believe their child was assured of eternal life. In such a case, killing the kid would be less problematic than sedating the kid and cutting out his appendix would be to one who lacked such a belief.

It could go either way. If it was to be considered a true sacrifice (that is, the child would not receive any specific benefit), then it indicates your level of commitment (for example, sending your child to war). If it was meant to provide benefit to your child, then it indicates your level of trust as to whether your god has your interests to heart. You may still think you believe in that god but it shows that your commitment to or trust in the idea falls short of ordinary demonstrations of those qualities. Which begs the question as to just what it is that makes you think your god is extraordinary.

Linda

[wollery]

You mis-read it. They are offered successive draws if they chose not to wait.

LindaOkay, I get it now.

Although, I have to say, I'd play 2 or 3 rounds, even if I was certain I got 100%. I mean, the chance of getting $1 million dollars on each of three rounds with 95%, 85% and 75% probability plus the $1 million for waiting on the 4th round is worth it, when weighed against just $1 million for waiting on the first round. And of course, each time you select a ball you are guaranteed another round, so you can just keep going, and hoping for luck to get you several million dollars.

This game only works if the player isn't aware that there will be subsequent rounds (which goes out of the window as soon as you start the second round) or is told that the game ends as soon as they win their first $1 million, which for most people would be the first round.


I get that it's a purely philosophical exercise, but I think it's actually pretty crap. Sorry.

[Cavemonster]

It could go either way. If it was to be considered a true sacrifice (that is, the child would not receive any specific benefit), then it indicates your level of commitment (for example, sending your child to war). If it was meant to provide benefit to your child, then it indicates your level of trust as to whether your god has your interests to heart. You may still think you believe in that god but it shows that your commitment to or trust in the idea falls short of ordinary demonstrations of those qualities. Which begs the question as to just what it is that makes you think your god is extraordinary.

Linda

Okay, but your examples of flu shots and tossing your baby are trivial measures of trust. A religious person could equally say that they risk their child's life by tossing them into the air and are assure God won't let the baby fall. That obviously doesn't fit the challenge well, so neither should your similar actions based on science.

To be really comparable, the sacrafice/risk would have to be out of the ordinary experience, or else the small ways in which religious people trust in their god to keep their kid's alive would be equivalent.

So I ask again, if all the measures you count on for knowledge about the world presented you with new information, either that killing your child would save billions of lives from painful death, or that some activity that you previously thought would kill your child is now know to be highly beneficial, would you risk it?

[fls]

Okay, I get it now.

We shall see. :)

Although, I have to say, I'd play 2 or 3 rounds, even if I was certain I got 100%. I mean, the chance of getting $1 million dollars on each of three rounds with 95%, 85% and 75% probability plus the $1 million for waiting on the 4th round is worth it, when weighed against just $1 million for waiting on the first round. And of course, each time you select a ball you are guaranteed another round, so you can just keep going, and hoping for luck to get you several million dollars.

I think you've misunderstood it again. One doesn't get a million dollars each round. One only gets one chance at a million dollars. The one chance comes only after you have elected to wait (after establishing the odds on the draws on which you wouldn't wait).

This game only works if the player isn't aware that there will be subsequent rounds (which goes out of the window as soon as you start the second round) or is told that the game ends as soon as they win their first $1 million, which for most people would be the first round.

I get that it's a purely philosophical exercise, but I think it's actually pretty crap. Sorry.

I agree that the version you have presented would be nonsensical. Try considering it in the way in which it was meant.

Linda

[Marduk]

Killing a child seems to be used to indicate the strength of a particular idea (rather than meant to be a practical question). Isn't that why the story of Abraham is seen as compelling?

Linda

I am firmly convinced that God told Abraham to kill Isaac for a laugh,
1. He wanted Isaac dead for real he could have done it himself
2. He had already arranged a goat barbecue
3. He doesn't ask anyone else to kill their own child after that because the joke had gone flat and Abraham didn't get it anyway.

so surely you shouldn't judge God for that, he was just showing that his sense of humour was several millenium ahead of humanities, this leads me to believe that God is in fact a stand up comedian who didn't make it in another dimension, he should have just tried a chicken crossing the road joke, that was about Abrahams level.
:p

[fls]

Okay, but your examples of flu shots and tossing your baby are trivial measures of trust.

I agree. They were meant to illustrate that we take our trust for granted, so much so that to mention it almost sounds silly. Or even that it does not really serve as an example of trust to ask of us something that we find easy.

A religious person could equally say that they risk their child's life by tossing them into the air and are assure God won't let the baby fall. That obviously doesn't fit the challenge well, so neither should your similar actions based on science.

I agree that a religious person often claims to attribute to God that which is obvious to someone using reason. What we are looking for are those places where reason and actions diverge, not where our claims would diverge.

To be really comparable, the sacrafice/risk would have to be out of the ordinary experience, or else the small ways in which religious people trust in their god to keep their kid's alive would be equivalent.

Can you give me an example of one of the small ways in which religious people trust in their god to keep their kids alive that isn't available to those who depend on reason?

So I ask again, if all the measures you count on for knowledge about the world presented you with new information, either that killing your child would save billions of lives from painful death, or that some activity that you previously thought would kill your child is now know to be highly beneficial, would you risk it?

I thought this question was meant to be rhetorical, since the answer is obvious. We do it all the time.

Linda

[Marduk]

Can you give me an example of one of the small ways in which religious people trust in their god to keep their kids alive that isn't available to those who depend on reason?


Jett Travolta
;)

[wollery]

We shall see. :)

I think you've misunderstood it again. One doesn't get a million dollars each round. One only gets one chance at a million dollars. The one chance comes only after you have elected to wait (after establishing the odds on the draws on which you wouldn't wait).

I agree that the version you have presented would be nonsensical. Try considering it in the way in which it was meant.

LindaIn that case the Wikipedia entry is extremely badly written.

It isn't a case of rounds with $1 million dollars on offer, but rather a case of pinning down the odds at which you feel the ball drawing is about as likely as you having got 100% on the test.

That much I understood, but the Wiki article implied that you could make the draw for the $1 million on each round

[fls]

In that case the Wikipedia entry is extremely badly written.

It isn't a case of rounds with $1 million dollars on offer, but rather a case of pinning down the odds at which you feel the ball drawing is about as likely as you having got 100% on the test.

That much I understood, but the Wiki article implied that you could make the draw for the $1 million on each round

I agree. That's my fault for looking for something accessible and not making sure it was also clear.

Linda

[Pup]

Just to look at this from a slightly different angle... There are of course people who do believe that god has specifically ordered them to kill a child or loved one and they follow through with it. Just google "god told him to kill" or "god told her to kill."

Needless to say, in most cultures, both atheists and theists treat these people as insane, criminals, and a risk to society. Is there any society or religion that accepts this as a testimony of faith and applauds it? I'm trying to think what other repercussions it would have if such a thing were accepted and rewarded.

[thaiboxerken]

Is it not a double standard to treat people who do "good" because "god" told them as saints and good people, but those who do "bad" because "god" told them as insane?

[Andrew Wiggin]

To see the truth in Penn's statement we just have to look at the way society actually DOES see those who kill their children because they believe that god told them to. We see them as being crazy and dangerous. A short search of the news shows that there have been plenty of folks who have killed their kids because they believe that their god told them to, and generally they end up with an execution or a long long stay behind bars with psych meds.

What we don't do, what even the 'good christians' don't do, is stand behind these folks and claim that there was actually a god, who actually talked to them, and therefore the action of killing their children was justified.

A.

ETA I got owned twice while googling stories and deciding not to be specific about cases.

[SezMe]

Needless to say, in most cultures, both atheists and theists treat these people as insane, criminals, and a risk to society. Is there any society or religion that accepts this as a testimony of faith and applauds it? I'm trying to think what other repercussions it would have if such a thing were accepted and rewarded.
Do honor killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) fulfill what you are looking for?

[Beth]

To see the truth in Penn's statement we just have to look at the way society actually DOES see those who kill their children because they believe that god told them to. We see them as being crazy and dangerous. A short search of the news shows that there have been plenty of folks who have killed their kids because they believe that their god told them to, and generally they end up with an execution or a long long stay behind bars with psych meds.

What we don't do, what even the 'good christians' don't do, is stand behind these folks and claim that there was actually a god, who actually talked to them, and therefore the action of killing their children was justified.

A.

ETA I got owned twice while googling stories and deciding not to be specific about cases.

Yes. It's the part where he says that as far as he's concerned, anyone with less faith than that is really an atheist, not a theist that I part company with him. It seems, as previously pointed at, the ironic counterpart to the belief among some religious people that deep down everybody really believes in god. Otherwise, they have no morals. In their opinion, either you don't have a moral code and are dangerous, or you're not really an atheist.

Only thing is, I don't know which way Penn means it. Is he serious and unaware of the irony of it? Is he making a point with the irony? Is he serious and aware of the irony?

Hmmm, make an interesting poll wouldn't it?

[Pup]

Do honor killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) fulfill what you are looking for?

It's actually pretty close to the same thing, with one difference though. In most cases, the victim could potentially avoid being killed by obeying the god (the rape victims mentioned in the article being an example of someone helpless to avoid it).

In other words, the emphasis is on punishment for wrong-doing and thereby keeping people from disobeying the society's rules, rather than killing merely because god "told you to." A non-theistic parallel might be a parent of a brutal murderer, who agrees that his adult child should receive the death penalty as a consequence of his actions.

It's a chilling example nonetheless, since the honor killings are all out of proportion to the activities. I guess the lesson that one could draw from the example of honor killings is that such a society is one in which strict obedience to (what many would consider to be) fairly trivial social rules, is placed ahead of (what many would consider to be) freedom and justice.

[Darat]

Without any ado:
EAF2NuAI9EU

So it's dead clever when a famous person says it but when I say it is barely makes a wave - life is so unfair!

I'm more than ever convinced that putting it as: "A person with a lack of belief in any god(s)." creates problems that can be avoided by defining it more along the lines of:

An atheist is a person who, when asked "Which god do you believe in?", responds with "None".

That helps place the emphasis on the fact that atheism is not a belief in its own rights and thus avoids that equivocation of "You only believe there is no god like I believe there is a god".

[Dorian Gray]

Exactly. This is a false dilemma or false dichotomy, a logical fallacy which ignores the existence of other options apart from the two presented by the questioner.

One possible course of action -- other than killing your child or refusing a divine command -- is to appeal to God instead, to attempt to persuade him through compassion to not ask such a thing of you. Lot, for example, successfully argued with God over the lives of some of the residents of Sodom. God heard Lot's plea and granted some people (I forget whom) mercy based on Lot's compassionate intercession.

Thus, even if the Judeo-Christian God were to make such a request (which is doubly impossible according to the laws of the religion in question, but let's allow it for the sake of argument), a worshiper is allowed at least one other option than the two damning extremes offered up by Jillette.
This is not true. The commandment is "You will not kill", not "We will not kill". Let alone (for some people) the very idea of going against god's will, and (for other people) the idea that you'd have to plead with the supposedly moral god not to murder innocent people or the idea that the supposedly omniscient god would have to test Abraham's faith instead of already knowing it.

And let's be honest: there are numerous examples of God killing people in the Bible, including once killing everyone except the people on the ark, so it shouldn't be that much of a stretch to think he'd do it again.

[Dorian Gray]

Your prior post demonstrated that the killing of a child is not a request that would arise from a Judeo-Christian god, because it wouldn't follow the rules of that god. But the question isn't about whether any particular god would ask us to kill our child. Of course they wouldn't. Most gods quite conveniently do not ask us to do things that we do not already agree to be useful. A cursory glance at any book of mythology or religious text will tell you that gods frequently ask murder of their believers, even if they have to call it 'testing your faith" or "smiting your enemies".

[Dorian Gray]

I meant our knowledge about inertia to be taken into consideration, something I wouldn't necessarily expect of a caveman. But if you have trouble understanding that analogy, simply use one of my other examples. Parents will follow instructions to apparently poison their children in the name of science, and most of us would consider it quite reasonable for them to do so, when treating disease with toxic substances. This is not analogous - these are not the same thing. When asked, for example, to treat cancer with radiation therapy, scientists/doctors are doing this based on years of empirical evidence and a track record of proven results.

Religion, on the other hand, is an example of blind faith, that is, faith with no empirical evidence whatsoever. If you're going to call throwing your kid in the air or giving radiation therapy to a kid with cancer "faith", then you may as well say everything is faith-based.

[Dorian Gray]

I expect that a lot of Christians - to give one example - would believe in a God that wouldn't ask them to kill their child. Hence the contradiction.But all Christians, by definition, believe in a god that not only would ask them to kill their child, but has asked it of a parent.

[Dorian Gray]

Killing a child seems to be used to indicate the strength of a particular idea (rather than meant to be a practical question). Isn't that why the story of Abraham is seen as compelling?

LindaIt is seen as God compelling Abraham to kill Isaac.

[fls]

A cursory glance at any book of mythology or religious text will tell you that gods frequently ask murder of their believers, even if they have to call it 'testing your faith" or "smiting your enemies".

But all Christians, by definition, believe in a god that not only would ask them to kill their child, but has asked it of a parent.

Well, this wasn't meant to be about what people specifically think their god would ask of them, if only to avoid red herrings. Try to get anyone to admit that their god would demand a blood sacrifice in this day and age. :)

Linda

[fls]

This is not analogous - these are not the same thing. When asked, for example, to treat cancer with radiation therapy, scientists/doctors are doing this based on years of empirical evidence and a track record of proven results.

Religion, on the other hand, is an example of blind faith, that is, faith with no empirical evidence whatsoever. If you're going to call throwing your kid in the air or giving radiation therapy to a kid with cancer "faith", then you may as well say everything is faith-based.

That is why, near the beginning of this thread, I made a distinction between belief based on reason and belief based on faith.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5078428#post5078428

Linda

[Maia]

Religion, on the other hand, is an example of blind faith, that is, faith with no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Well, to be fair, people do unspeakably stupid things all the time which don't make any sense, and which really don't have anything to do with faith in God or lack thereof. Case in point: not wearing seatbelts, not wearing sunscreen every single time you go outside, and smoking. There can't be anyone left in America who doesn't know just how likely it is that smoking will cause a horrible, lingering death. (Really not the best one to pick.) Not wearing a seatbelt all the time is incredibly stupid, but we all know that everyone doesn't wear one all the time. 80% of Americans claim to wear seatbelts; God only knows what the real figure is. (http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/seat-belt-usage)And I have got to be just about the only person in America who hasn't gone outside without at least 15 SPF sunscreen once, not even ONCE, in the last 20 years unless it was the dead of night. (Here's why, but come on, we all know this... (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/81384/sunscreen_you_might_not_think_you_need.html?cat=5) There may be some disagreement about exactly what we should all be eating or exactly how often we should all be exercising, but these three public health and safety measures are beyond obvious, and everyone knows them. However, it's likely that only the severely obsessive follow every single one scrupulously. ;)

To play devil's advocate (so to speak)... this could be part of the reason why people go along with doing stupid things for religious reasons, rather than exactly an issue of profound faith. I guess what I mean is that this is what blind faith means, but it's hardly very profound. They have to know deep down that what they're doing is not a good idea, but so do people who smoke, don't wear sunscreen,and don't always wear their seatbelt.

[SezMe]

Try to get anyone to admit that their god would demand a blood sacrifice in this day and age. :)
You haven't been following Dan'l's thread have you? Blood sacrifice tain't the half of it. :)

[blobru]

So it's dead clever when a famous person says it but when I say it is barely makes a wave - life is so unfair!

But he said it on youtube (all the while looking weary and disheveled as if from having to explain what was so-o obvious to him to others -- showmanship, all about the showmanship). ;)

Exactly. This is a false dilemma or false dichotomy, a logical fallacy which ignores the existence of other options apart from the two presented by the questioner.

One possible course of action -- other than killing your child or refusing a divine command -- is to appeal to God instead, to attempt to persuade him through compassion to not ask such a thing of you. Lot, for example, successfully argued with God over the lives of some of the residents of Sodom. God heard Lot's plea and granted some people (I forget whom) mercy based on Lot's compassionate intercession.

Thus, even if the Judeo-Christian God were to make such a request (which is doubly impossible according to the laws of the religion in question, but let's allow it for the sake of argument), a worshiper is allowed at least one other option than the two damning extremes offered up by Jillette.
This is not true. The commandment is "You will not kill", not "We will not kill". Let alone (for some people) the very idea of going against god's will, and (for other people) the idea that you'd have to plead with the supposedly moral god not to murder innocent people or the idea that the supposedly omniscient god would have to test Abraham's faith instead of already knowing it.

And let's be honest: there are numerous examples of God killing people in the Bible, including once killing everyone except the people on the ark, so it shouldn't be that much of a stretch to think he'd do it again.

Yeah, all things considered, Abraham is still a valid analogy for questions about the limits of faith.

In the chapter in Genesis before God asks Abe to sacrifice his son, He promises to found a great nation through his son's descendants [Genesis 21:12+]. The last thing Abe should expect after that promise is a command to kill his son! God's commandment pointedly contradicts this earlier promise (which was not only not to kill Isaac but to see to his success). Abraham would then, in context, be even more surprised than, say, Xtians who only believed God wouldn't demand their child be killed.

Of course, that's why the story of Abraham and Isaac endures: it frustrates attempts to wave it away in light of subsequent morality.

Well, this wasn't meant to be about what people specifically think their god would ask of them, if only to avoid red herrings. Try to get anyone to admit that their god would demand a blood sacrifice in this day and age. :)

Linda

It seems to be the consensus of this thread that Abraham should be regarded as a very bad example -- that no sensible believer in a similar situation would act as he did -- even though there's no reason to think a similar request, in contradiction to previous divine promises, couldn't be made today. And this in spite of God's extra blessings to Abe for having offered up his son at his command [Genesis 22:15+].

The straightforward moral of the story seems to be that God's commandments are always to be followed, even when they contradict everything one believes about God. However, that is not a moral many modern believers, who must value individual reason above absolute "faith" (in Abraham's sense at least) are comfortable with, hence the need to reason it away...

It's a hypothetical, of course: almost no one expects God to speak to her as 'directly' as He did Abraham. OTOH, Abraham & Isaac describes a God who isn't bound by the expectations of the faithful, so round and round we go.

The Bible: great lit; bad history; bizarre ethics.