An atheist decalogue
Bertrand Russell's 10 Commandments:
One: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Russell: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."
The Decalogue sets down the basis for an objective and universal morality. Russell, on the other hand, undermines any possibility of morality, but science as well, by establishing uncertainty as his foundation.
Two: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."
Russell: "Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light."
While the problem of graven images is somewhat mysterious, lacking any basis for distinguishing right from wrong, Russell is forced to resort to a demonstrably false justification for what would otherwise be a reasonable claim.
Three: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
Russell: "Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed."
Again, the commandment is clear, though its import is unknown. But it is still superior to Russell's, which again relies upon an observably false justification.
Four: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Russell: "When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory."
Russell scores a half-point here because he has the sense to limit his commandment to an exhortation, although he again sabotages his position with a false justification. We aren't even sure when the sabbath day is, or understand how to keep it holy.
Five: "Honour thy father and thy mother."
Russell: "Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found."
This commandment is the basis for civilization. Russell's is the road towards barbarism. Not only is the justification again false, but the commandment is intrinsically pernicious. Legitimate authority merits respect, it is only illegitimate authority that does not.
Six: "Thou shalt not kill."
Russell: "Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you."
This is Russell's first truly coherent point, but it can't compare in significance or rhetorical power to the original.
Seven: "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
Russell: "Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric."
And here the essential triviality of the atheist exposes itself again. Once more, the justification is observably false. The importance of inviolate marriages, on the other hand, is integral to sustainable societies, as is becoming more and more apparent in their increased absence.
Eight: "Thou shalt not steal"
Russell: "Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter."
Now Russell is just babbling. Intelligent dissent does not necessarily imply any agreement at all. And what percentage of the populace is "valuing intelligence as you should" likely to apply in any meaningful manner anyhow?
Nine: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Russell: "Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it."
It is a pity Russell has the need to produce a justification, even a fairly solid one, for an otherwise strong commandment. But that points back to the flaws in his first commandment and his failure to establish a moral warrant. Russell's commandment is literally stronger than the original, although the latter is usually taken to be metaphorical and more broadly applied than its literal meaning.
Ten: "Thou shalt not covet"
Russell: "Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."
So, envy is fine, so long as one is envying the happiness of those who are genuinely happy. This is a pernicious doctrine.
It is fascinating, is it not, to see that a crude and primitive Bronze Age people, working with considerably less information to hand, somehow managed to produce a moral code that is considerably superior in terms of fact, logic, structure, scope, and style than the code produced by one of the most elite and celebrated minds of the 20th century.
By taking God out of his equations, the atheist loses everything, because he destroys the foundation upon which so much of what he values is constructed.
The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:I don't necessarily disagree with all of these points, but it is remarkable to observe far they fall short of the original Decalogue, even though the original was produced with considerably less human history upon which to draw. Let's compare them, one commandment at a time.
- Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
- Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
- Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
- When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
- Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
- Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
- Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
- Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
- Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
- Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
One: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Russell: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."
The Decalogue sets down the basis for an objective and universal morality. Russell, on the other hand, undermines any possibility of morality, but science as well, by establishing uncertainty as his foundation.
Two: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."
Russell: "Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light."
While the problem of graven images is somewhat mysterious, lacking any basis for distinguishing right from wrong, Russell is forced to resort to a demonstrably false justification for what would otherwise be a reasonable claim.
Three: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
Russell: "Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed."
Again, the commandment is clear, though its import is unknown. But it is still superior to Russell's, which again relies upon an observably false justification.
Four: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
Russell: "When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory."
Russell scores a half-point here because he has the sense to limit his commandment to an exhortation, although he again sabotages his position with a false justification. We aren't even sure when the sabbath day is, or understand how to keep it holy.
Five: "Honour thy father and thy mother."
Russell: "Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found."
This commandment is the basis for civilization. Russell's is the road towards barbarism. Not only is the justification again false, but the commandment is intrinsically pernicious. Legitimate authority merits respect, it is only illegitimate authority that does not.
Six: "Thou shalt not kill."
Russell: "Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you."
This is Russell's first truly coherent point, but it can't compare in significance or rhetorical power to the original.
Seven: "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
Russell: "Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric."
And here the essential triviality of the atheist exposes itself again. Once more, the justification is observably false. The importance of inviolate marriages, on the other hand, is integral to sustainable societies, as is becoming more and more apparent in their increased absence.
Eight: "Thou shalt not steal"
Russell: "Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter."
Now Russell is just babbling. Intelligent dissent does not necessarily imply any agreement at all. And what percentage of the populace is "valuing intelligence as you should" likely to apply in any meaningful manner anyhow?
Nine: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Russell: "Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it."
It is a pity Russell has the need to produce a justification, even a fairly solid one, for an otherwise strong commandment. But that points back to the flaws in his first commandment and his failure to establish a moral warrant. Russell's commandment is literally stronger than the original, although the latter is usually taken to be metaphorical and more broadly applied than its literal meaning.
Ten: "Thou shalt not covet"
Russell: "Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."
So, envy is fine, so long as one is envying the happiness of those who are genuinely happy. This is a pernicious doctrine.
It is fascinating, is it not, to see that a crude and primitive Bronze Age people, working with considerably less information to hand, somehow managed to produce a moral code that is considerably superior in terms of fact, logic, structure, scope, and style than the code produced by one of the most elite and celebrated minds of the 20th century.
By taking God out of his equations, the atheist loses everything, because he destroys the foundation upon which so much of what he values is constructed.
Labels: atheism, philosophy, religion
178 Comments:
One of the most entertaining activities in the world is asking an atheist if murder is wrong, and if (when) they say it is, asking them why. They know it's wrong, but it's impossible for them to prove it using reason alone. The squirming which inevitably follows is delicious.
While reading those commandments, I kept thinking of this essay by James Kalb:
http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2013/07/25/out-of-the-antiworld/
We live not in a world of conservatives vs. liberals, but a world of right-leaning liberals vs. left-leaning liberals, where the only commandment is "Do Your Own Thing." Actually, you could probably expand the Ten Progressive Commandments into a slightly longer list:
1. Thou Shalt Do Your Own Thing.
2. Thou Shalt Not Forbid Others From Doing Their Own Thing.
3. Thou Shalt Not Think That Your Thing is Better Than Anyone Else's Thing, Nor Shalt Thou Make Others Feel Bad About Their Thing, Even If It's Clearly Inferior to Your Thing.
4. Declaring That One Thing Is Better Than Another Thing, Is The Only True Form Of Evil In This World. Those Who Do So Shall Be Shunned By The Warren.
That's all I've got so far. I couldn't get up to ten but, I think this list pretty much covers it.
Amethyst, and if we attach Terry Goodkind we can have Richard Rahl's thing rising. He does that a lot.
Again, the two laws of atheism (though many will deny it):
1. Might makes right.
2. Look out for Number One.
1 and 5 strike me as almost self refuting.
Well, when you take out God you cannot derive things from first principles. This out of necessity leads to a very fractured world view, it is in such a position very difficult to be coherent. These people always complain about theists just taking whatever faith they want instead of thinking it through but this is just projection for that is what they do.
Although being an atheist, I really liked this post.
Except for the last sentence, which is observably false. Atheists who believe in an objective and universal morality and who have values conducive to civilization exist.
The lack of moral warrant. Yes. I thought I was such an enlightened atheist once upon a time, turning my back on the faith of my fathers for Science and Reason, but never finding Morality, or Goodness, and when I sought answers to what atheist morals are, they turned out to be pale reflections or watery imitations of the JC moral code laid out in the 10 Commandments centuries ago.
The foray into atheism didn't last too long. Some people see that as a sign of my general decline in intellect and a desire to take the easy way out and let someone else do the thinking for me. They don't know that I've had to challenge myself intellectually, and think more deeply and passionately, than I have in a long time. The sleeper has awakened, and I'm no longer going through the motions of either life or faith.
Except for the last sentence, which is observably false. Atheists who believe in an objective and universal morality and who have values conducive to civilization exist.
It is not observably false. I agree that they exist, the problem is that they have no rational warrant for their belief in that morality. For example, can you give me even a single example the basis for any of those objective and universal moralities? If so, what is it?
It's a nonsense list, you can't proceed to the other nine since one renders them uncertain and therefore meaningless.
Amy; uncertain != meaningless
Their clumsy attempts give new life to the expression "If God didn't exiat , Man would have to invent him."
Not that it needed new life.
Deriving your moral values from an centuries old religious text is no more rational than deriving them from an decades old philosophical text (http://www.amazon.de/Grundlegung-Metaphysik-Sitten-Universal-Bibliothek-ebook/dp/B00AC4OH12/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375183154&sr=8-1&keywords=Grundlegung+zur+Metaphysik+der+Sitten)
VD wrote: ** I agree that they exist, the problem is that they have no rational warrant for their belief in that morality. For example, can you give me even a single example the basis for any of those objective and universal moralities? If so, what is it?**
I can give you a rational (in the sense of non-religious) basis for morality, but it's a bit complex. For instance, agreeing to the principal "Thou Shalt Not Murder." My reasoning is as follows:
1. I would prefer not to be murdered. Most other people would prefer not to be murdered, for reasons of biology. Those who don't care if they are killed generally don't survive long enough to pass on whatever defective genes or psychology gave them that attitude.
2. It is to my benefit to take whatever course of action minimizes the chances of my being murdered. This means, among other things, trying to get as many other people as possible to agree not to try to murder me. Minimizing my chances of being murdered also means that whatever genes or attitude caused me to take those actions that reduce my chances of being murdered have a much better chance of being passed to future generations.
3. Other people are unlikely, for reasons of biology (see #1), to agree not to try to murder me, if I am going around trying to murder them.
4. Therefore, it is to my benefit, to agree not to try to murder other people, or to the principal 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', so that other people will agree to it as well.
5. This mutual agreement on the part of myself and everyone else of not trying to murder one another will break down if too many people violate it; therefore it is to my benefit if I am 'good' and adhere to the principal 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' to help prevent the agreement from breaking down. It is also good, and too my benefit, to see to it that murders are investigated, and punished, to discourage people from violating this agreement and causing it to break down.
Deriving your moral values from an centuries old religious text is no more rational than deriving them from an decades old philosophical text
Incorrect. The rationality of the derivation completely depends upon what the text says. God's Game, God's Rules is impeccably rational. It makes no claims that are self-contradictory. There are no philosophical texts upon which an objective morality can be based of which I am aware that are not self-contradictory, as Russell's decalogue demonstrates here.
There are no philosophical texts upon which an objective morality can be based of which I am aware that are not self-contradictory, as Russell's decalogue demonstrates here.
What if there simply is no objective morality? Then the imperative for God vanishes, and we just have to do our best to craft moral systems that optimize theories of justice, human happiness, etc.
We aren't even sure when the sabbath day is
On what basis do you make that assertion?
I can give you a rational (in the sense of non-religious) basis for morality, but it's a bit complex.
No, you can't. I haven't read it yet, but I'm just telling you this before I punch holes in your attempt. Here are the errors:
1. "Most other people would prefer not to be murdered, for reasons of biology. Those who don't care if they are killed generally don't survive long enough to pass on whatever defective genes or psychology gave them that attitude."
This is false, based on the evidence of those who commit suicide long after they reach sexual maturity as well as those who are campaigning for legal euthanasia.
2. "This means, among other things, trying to get as many other people as possible to agree not to try to murder me."
This is false. An agreement not to try to murder you is not a material safeguard. By your logic, Hitler couldn't have invaded Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union. After all, he had signed agreements not to.
3. "Therefore, it is to my benefit, to agree not to try to murder other people, or to the principal 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', so that other people will agree to it as well."
This is false. It is to your benefit to be seen to agree. Whether you actually do so or not is irrelevant.
You simply cannot prove "thou shalt not kill" this way. The most you can even attempt to prove this way is "I may be able to reduce the chances of my being murdered if I am not observed to murder anyone".
On what basis do you make that assertion?
On the observation that different sabbath days are celebrated and different first days of the week are recognized.
By the way, Chelm, question for you. Have you ever read "My Name is Asher Lev" by Chaim Potok?
What if there simply is no objective morality? Then the imperative for God vanishes, and we just have to do our best to craft moral systems that optimize theories of justice, human happiness, etc.
No, in that case we don't have to do anything at all. If there is no objective morality, do what thou wilt with due regard for the policeman around the corner becomes the whole of the law.
Seneca understood this. Voltaire understood this. Nietszche understood this. Crowley understood this. Even Maugham understood this. None of them were Christians. How is it that so many non-Christians today do not?
VD wrote: "do what thou wilt with due regard for the policeman around the corner becomes the whole of the law."
Only if you exist in a vacuum where the normal laws of biology and psychology are nonexistent to the point that you assume that only yourself and the single police officer, out of all of humanity, are capable of and/or desire to perform any actions.
On the observation that different sabbath days are celebrated and different first days of the week are recognized.
I think if you look into it, you will see that even the Christian Church recognizes that Saturday is the sabbath (The seventh day of the week) - while Sunday as "The Lords Day" was instituted as a day of worship to 1. separate Christianity from the Jewish Religion and 2. to make Christianity more compatible with the Roman tradition of worship on Sunday. - Between Christianity and Judaism at least, there is no disagreement. - and since nobody else really cares about "the Sabbath" it should be enough.
- as to how to make it holy - There is recorded disagreement about this a very long way back, so I agree with that part of the statement completely.
Re: Asher Lev - I love that book. It was one of my favorites in High School. Deals with a lot of tough issues in Judaism.
No, in that case we don't have to do anything at all. If there is no objective morality, do what thou wilt with due regard for the policeman around the corner becomes the whole of the law.
Even the police have to operate under laws, which are built on legal theories and ideas of justice. Aside from that, there is also human conscience, which can be naturally explained as an evolved social brain function.
But I guess my main question is how does "do what thou wilt with due regard for the policeman around the corner" not describe our world almost exactly?
Only if you exist in a vacuum where the normal laws of biology and psychology are nonexistent to the point that you assume that only yourself and the single police officer, out of all of humanity, are capable of and/or desire to perform any actions.
You're not only completely wrong, you also appear to be demonstrating that you are not very well read in philosophy. That assumption is not involved and I don't see how you can claim that it is. What is your justification for claiming that?
"Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."
Including all ten of your commandments? They're not really commandments, then, are they, just strong suggestions.
How nice to start with a commandment that negates all the other commandments and also itself...
Re: Asher Lev - I love that book. It was one of my favorites in High School. Deals with a lot of tough issues in Judaism.
I'm going to post on it soon. What is your opinion of the description of the Ladover/Lubavitcher position concerning Gentile souls? Does Potok provide an accurate description of it? I would assume so, but I don't actually know.
Breaking news: Christian feels that Biblical commandments are superior to a secular philosopher's rules for teaching!
Certainly, a set of rules that state that Saturday (or is it Sunday) should be devoted to worshiping the One True (trademark) God (while making sure you don't do so while using an image of Him), is vastly more useful in teaching than a rule that says it is necessary to overcome opposition with rational argument rather than appeal to authority.
As they say in England (or in those Guinness commercials from a couple years ago), brilliant!
RE: Asher -
Let me look at it. Do you have a page number reference? Do you want me to post an answer here or send an e-mail?
the normal laws of biology and psychology are nonexistent
Since you posit their existence, what are the laws of biology and psychology? Are they quantifiable to any degree such as that of gravity?
Certainly, a set of rules that state that Saturday (or is it Sunday) should be devoted to worshiping the One True (trademark) God (while making sure you don't do so while using an image of Him), is vastly more useful in teaching than a rule that says it is necessary to overcome opposition with rational argument rather than appeal to authority.
Actually, you need to read it again. I gave Russell credit on that one, but limited credit due to the fact that he used a palpably false justification. It is not unreal and illusory to appeal to the authority of a mathematician, for example, in providing the student with information he is not presently equipped to argue. The teacher could certainly attempt to work through the proof of the irrationality of the square root of two, but it is neither unreal or illusory to simply appeal to the relevant authority.
Again, Abolition of Man by Lewis setsmforth the problem, but back to Bulverism. The only question that matters is if those old religious texts are TRUE. Or the philosophy book.
(I would note with no little irony that the SFWA is violating more or Russel's commandments than the original).
You may be able to derive a morality - Ann does what Lewis already refutes. But the difference is that the Tao starts with a claim of authority that cannot be reasoned. It would be nice if I wasn't murdered, and we didn't go around murdering each other, but in a particular instance when it might me more convenient or even ambiguous (voluntary manslaughter - is it murder or not), so the "commandment" can be thouht as good and true but the authority rejected - I write "2+2=5!" and am not zapped by a math god. Or I can rationalize the particular action is not murder. Reason can undo whatnit does.
And I'm more than suspicious about "murder" as the case. Can - or would (for it is the will that is defective) you instead derive monagamous marriage and virginity and that contraceptives are evil from reason? It has been done - Pope John Paul 2's theology of the body is much more philosophy. But it is not rejected because the logic is wrong, but the result inconvenient.
My point here is simple. Bloviate all you want about deriving a moral code from reason alone, because if you honestly did, you would find the traditional marriage with large family, virginity, chastity and the rest are what such a morality would require. And then you would have a stark choice - reject the truth and reason with an honest non serviam, or spend a lot of time and rationalizations as to why it might be wrong or not apply with words not even worthy of the trolls on this blog. Or accept it as the truth but see if you can convince anyone else - for murder, you would demand there is a claim on everyone else to practice and obey the moral law. Would you do the same for chastity?
The rationalization hamster can come up with two tablets, but neither will be a red pill.
Just in What if there simply is no objective morality? Then the imperative for God vanishes, and we just have to do our best to craft moral systems that optimize theories of justice, human happiness, etc.
You miss the point and contradict yourself. If morality is not objective, then why should 1. We do our best... 2.optimize justice, ... etc. By saying we must do our best to optimize justice, you are implicitly stating excellence and justice are objectively good and moral, but that is what you just rejected. That is Lewis' argument in Abolition. Is justice objectively or subjectively a virtue? If you say objectively, you believe morality is objective. If you say subjective, then it is mereely your personal whim, so people who act unjustly merely have different whimsey.
You know, I was far less concerned with the flaws in Russell's logic or reasoning or whatever it is you'd like to call it, and far more astonished at what a tedious, insufferable bore he shows himself to be. The man's company in his lifetime must have driven people to suicide. The whole passage reminds me of Orwell's hilarious exasperated rant against "fruit-juice drinkers, sandal-wearers" and a whole host of other types who just drove him up the wall.
While I disagree with Nietzsche's position on this, I must also admit that he provides the shortest, funniest, and most persuasive argument against Christianity that I've ever read:
"An eternal Peter -- who could stand him?!" How much worse would even a temporary Russell be.
By the way, if Bokonon is going to comment here, the very least he could do is write us a calypso.
I can give you a rational (in the sense of non-religious) basis for morality, but it's a bit complex.
It's also not objective -- hence the use of "I want" and "I prefer". There is no objective reason to base a society on your moral code rather than the bloodthirsty, death-obsessed ideas of the Aztecs.
Appealing to authority can be one of two things. The first is more argumentum ad balaculum where the authority has no expertise or is known for honesty, something like Gore on global warming or when the Actresses in farm movies testified in front of the Agriculture committee. Such authority is not an oracle of truth and honest judgment.
Yet in a dispute on length, an inanimate yardstick or tape measure is an authority.
There are honest human experts on many subjects and reliable sources. The usual test is when some things are answered truthfully "I don't know".
But it is reasonable to appeal to someone who knows more than the debaters, either asking for true knowledge, or even an opinion if it includes the "why" and the reasoning.
Since you posit their existence, what are the laws of biology and psychology?
They are two, and very simple:
1. There is no such thing as race.
2. There is no such thing as intelligence.
You miss the point and contradict yourself. If morality is not objective, then why should 1. We do our best... 2.optimize justice, ... etc. By saying we must do our best to optimize justice, you are implicitly stating excellence and justice are objectively good and moral, but that is what you just rejected. That is Lewis' argument in Abolition. Is justice objectively or subjectively a virtue? If you say objectively, you believe morality is objective. If you say subjective, then it is mereely your personal whim, so people who act unjustly merely have different whimsey.
I don't think it rests on the fact that the pursuit of justice is objectively good. I think the entire process has evolved naturally out of our own social instincts.
There is an in-between stance on morality that eluded Lewis, purposely or not, between objective and subjective, which is that which is human instinct or conscience. For Lewis that never seemed to be enough.
For a person who is defective in his social moral instinct, morality can be subjective, but that's only because this is a defective human being, a psychopath.
Let me look at it. Do you have a page number reference? Do you want me to post an answer here or send an e-mail?
Chapter 7, page 164 in the Penguin paperback edition. The reference is to the verse in Proverbs about the Candle of God. All I want at present is a simple Yes/No concerning if that is an accurate description of Hasidic or Lubavitcher teachings. I'd prefer to reserve the more substantive discussions for the post.
There is an in-between stance on morality that eluded Lewis, purposely or not, between objective and subjective, which is that which is human instinct or conscience.
No, there is not. There is nothing in between objective and subjective. It is one or it is the other.
"There is nothing in between objective and subjective."
Sure there is. It's called Tao.
In fact it's not only in between objective and subjective, it's outside of them as well.
"Sure there is. It's called Tao."
FFS...
Let me see if I can restate .'s point (pun intended).
You can come up with a perfectly rational morality, assume you can show that the psychology, health, prosperity would be optimized under it. That it is "true". How do you leap the chasm to the "good". For you can show there might be much more of anything - pleasure, justice, beauty - under such a system, but good is a different category than true, and you've already rejected the notion that pleasure, justice, and beauty are OBJECTIVELY good. At best an infinite regression, e.g. it maximizes justice? Why should we maximize justice over injustice? Most people prefer justice. Why should that preference count, and if they could be convinced to prefer injustice?
You must start with and/or assume something is objectively good before reason can derive a moral code.
I write complex software. A program with an error is not evil and one that works is not "good" in the moral sense. There is only utility, and that utility depends on the purpose, not moralÃty. Utility is not objective, it is subjective and situational.
Even the most magnificient ideas on utility cannot define an objective good. And the pretence usually creates something like the N.I.C.E. from That Hideous Strength.
For Lewis that never seemed to be enough.
That's because it isn't "enough". That simply makes it a biological impulse, which can be freely ignored if one wants.
And I'd love to see the scientific basis for the idea that all men (except for a few psychopaths) share the same "universal, objective" biological impulses when it comes to what they call "morality". Then you have to ask what percentage of humans have to share a given moral impulses before it becomes "objective".
WATYF
A Liberal
Since you posit their existence, what are the laws of biology and psychology?
They are two, and very simple:
1. There is no such thing as race.
2. There is no such thing as intelligence.
Excuse me, I asked for the laws of biology and psychology stated to exist, not negative assertions. For instance, if gravity did not exist there could be no law governing it.
Please, try again.
I absolutely love the posts having to do with why, in a Godless universe should any one individual be exhorted to behave in any particular way?
The atheist retort always seems to come down to ; being good is a good thing, and you want to feel good doing good don't you?
@Salt -- I think "A Liberal" meant that as a joke, and isn't really a liberal.
"being good is a good thing, and you want to feel good doing good don't you?"
As the hilarious Major Frank Burns once put it, "It's nice to be nice to the nice."
All I want at present is a simple Yes/No concerning if that is an accurate description of Hasidic or Lubavitcher teachings.
In that case, I would say proceed with caution. Potok is a critic of chassidism, not an advocate. (although a critic with great respect for and understanding of it)
I don't think it rests on the fact that the pursuit of justice is objectively good. I think the entire process has evolved naturally out of our own social instincts.
But are our "social instincts" good, evil, or a mix? Objective or subjective? Are they even "true" in the sense they give us accurate information on the real world?
We can optimize justice, but why OUGHT we do so. A hundred pragmatic reasons will not add up to one principled reason.
You suggest a middle ground. Can you state it?
We ought to do justice because it is objectively good.
We ought to do justice because ______
We ought to do justice because some people prefer it or its fruits.
Something that does not depend on personal preferences yet is not strictly objective. Because of our social instinct simply means social instinct is your personal preference.
If you appeal to something you prefer, it is subjective.
If you appeal to something which you claim has intrinsic or objective value, then it is objective.
Sure there is. It's called Tao.
In fact it's not only in between objective and subjective, it's outside of them as well.
The way of the garbage heap, you mean. The Tao is a pathetic attempt to create divinity without a divine being. In other words, a sense of purpose without a purposeful intelligence behind it.
This is why King Solomon's words about nothing new under the sun are so relevant to this post-modern era of "New Morality". In fact, there is nothing new about it, just more of the same recycled nonsense about man being without God and therefore without hope, purpose, or meaning.
VD says .."but it is remarkable to observe far they fall short of the original Decalogue, even though the original was produced with considerably less human history upon which to draw."
My question would be (not knowing the source of his list) - was he asked to produce a list of guidelines similar to the 10 commandments.
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind... Love your neighbor as yourself’
Note also Ayn Rand was an Objectivist and Atheist. (With rationalization hamster so she couldnhave an affair). But she did not try to derive that it was objective, it was taken as an axiom and the derivation made sense and corresponded to reality.
The New Atheists problem is to reject objective morality, and yet come up with reasons for the things they pick from a moral cafeteria as good and evil are something more than personal choices and try to convince everyone to follow.
In that case, I would say proceed with caution. Potok is a critic of chassidism, not an advocate. (although a critic with great respect for and understanding of it)
Yes, I gleaned that from the novel. All right, I posted it above along with some observations from another passage. I should be interested in your perspective on it, along with that of any other more or less observant Jews.
That's because it isn't "enough". That simply makes it a biological impulse, which can be freely ignored if one wants.
And of course, some people do want. Again, this just describes our reality.
You make it seem very simple. Of course, it isn't. I can contemplate plunging a knife into my own chest, knowing the stars won't wink out if I do so, and by your reckoning, then why shouldn't I do so? Or I can think of murdering a person who has trivially annoyed me. Why shouldn't I do so? Well, there are a million reasons, not least of which is the social proscription against doing so and also not least of which is my own moral instinct not to. Can I explain the exact cognitive neural basis for that? No, I can't. But I can hypothesize that one exists.
Ann Morgan wrote - "I can give you a rational (in the sense of non-religious) basis for morality, but it's a bit complex. For instance, agreeing to the principal "Thou Shalt Not Murder." My reasoning is as follows:..."
And what follows, whether you realize it or not, like it or not, sounds an awful lot like, "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31). There is nothing original in your reasoning. Any "original" road to morality generally leads to destruction and chaos. Even there you would not be original. Satan dreamed it all up long before you were born. As Solomon lamented, "There is nothing new under the sun." Since there is nothing truly new out there, better stick with what has been time tested and brought the best results.
The Tao is outside objective/subjective, but it claims to be objective. You can accept it or not, but only as Objective and in total.
We look at the universe and see the sun rises every day, and even can map things. We assume this continuity and objectivity - that we won't wake up one day and see two suns, or a green moon, or something. That is the world of magic where what we take for objective rules change and shift.
The Tao claims nothing different than what the natural world claims. There are laws to be discovered, which you will find are strictly obeyed. You cannot prove the physical constants will not change tomorrow, you take that as an axiom. The Tao says the same of morality - you might be able to discover more fractal detail and add decimal places to the laws, but they don't change.
The closest thing might be mathematics. It is discovered, but you first make assumptions you often don't even notice about the stability and continuity.
It's fairly easy to come up with a nature-based system that gives you objective morality without first assuming God as an arbitrary law-giver. (I mean fairly easy if you are as smart as St. Thomas Aquinas.) The trick is to create such a system without it having an inner tendency to culminate in God, or in some common ground for accepted gods like Zeus, such as an unmoved mover.
When you ask why a clever man like Bertrand Russell hashed things up so badly, and why other atheist philosophers also have done badly, consider that they were covertly aware of this looming danger, and they needed their systems not to add up too nicely.
Judging by results, it's hard to found a philosophical moral system that from the outset is broken enough, but not too broken.
We ought to do justice because it is objectively good.
We ought to do justice because ______
We ought to do justice because some people prefer it or its fruits.
I think it's a case of Douglas Adams's proverbial puddle. We find ourselves in our particular pothole of morals, ethics and justice because they work, because people tend to fight for their own positions, and so on. Later someone else comes along and says "it had to be...the hole fits us so perfectly. This hole couldn't have just formed. It must have been made!"
MOAR FAT CHICKS!
"...if you value intelligence as you should..."
Ahh, the old eugenecist just couldn't resist.
The Tao is outside objective/subjective, but it claims to be objective. You can accept it or not, but only as Objective and in total.
We look at the universe and see the sun rises every day, and even can map things. We assume this continuity and objectivity - that we won't wake up one day and see two suns, or a green moon, or something. That is the world of magic where what we take for objective rules change and shift.
The Tao claims nothing different than what the natural world claims. There are laws to be discovered, which you will find are strictly obeyed. You cannot prove the physical constants will not change tomorrow, you take that as an axiom. The Tao says the same of morality - you might be able to discover more fractal detail and add decimal places to the laws, but they don't change.
The closest thing might be mathematics. It is discovered, but you first make assumptions you often don't even notice about the stability and continuity.
Is it older than God?
And what is morality? What is evil? The Tao cannot substantively claim that what evil truly is nor can it do so for what is good.
What you have to understand is that evil is not natural. It is a perversion of what is truly good, not an opposing force to it.
Bertrand Russell live in a chaotic era--
WW1 the rise of socialism, and WW2 the rise of the nazis, and his ideas about morality kept changing.
For instance he was a pacifist During WW1 on the grounds of Thou Shalt Not KIll and he became a socialist sympathizer for a time and then he realized that WW2 needed to be fought.
He never learned to get along with women, having been married 3 or 4 times, and his chaotic sex life caused mental illness in his children.
I never read his writings on mathematics or economy but I am an atheist and his ideas about atheism don't speak for me. While all matter is supposed to be empty space, I merely claim there are no ghosts.
You make it seem very simple. Of course, it isn't.
No, I make it "seem" exactly what it is. Binary. Either there is an objective moral source outside of ourselves or there isn't. It is you who have to create numerous levels of invented "complexity" in order to rationalize your irrational view.
I can contemplate plunging a knife into my own chest, knowing the stars won't wink out if I do so, and by your reckoning, then why shouldn't I do so? Or I can think of murdering a person who has trivially annoyed me. Why shouldn't I do so?
There's no need to use such extreme examples. Let's use something a little more... historical. Let's say I have a biological impulse not to harm people, but then I'm all like, "You know, free labor would be awesome!". And I also notice a biological impulse that doesn't really like people who don't look like me (an impulse, btw, which science is currently confirming), so I'm like, "Maybe I'll find some people who aren't part of my group and make them work for me." And I tell a bunch of other people about how awesome that free labor would be and how those other people don't look like us (so what's the big deal?), and they're all like, "Hey, that's a great idea!". And so we go find someone weaker than us who looks different and we enslave them all.
Tell me why that's objectively "wrong"?
I had competing biological desires (the desire not to harm was overruled by the desire for free stuff and the lack of concern for people who don't look like me). Logically, I had MORE biological reason to enslave them than I had not to.
Well, there are a million reasons, not least of which is the social proscription against doing so...
...so, might makes right?
...and also not least of which is my own moral instinct not to.
Why is this "not the least of which"? Why does your biological instinct no to matter at all? Are you sure you're not assuming the premise? :Op
No matter how much you say, "That's just the way it is", you cannot get past the fact that a biological impulse is not "right" or "wrong". It just "is". I can't derive a "good" from my biological impulse not to murder any more than I can derive a "good" from my biological impulses to eat a lot of ice cream or have sex with women other than my wife.
You can't just selectively pick and choose biological impulses and call some of them "objectively good" or "moral" while calling others "subjective desire" and others "wrong desires". In reality, they're all just electrical impulses firing in a glob of cells in my head, with no more "meaning" or "objectivity" than the electrical impulses firing in my toaster or my cell phone.
Can I explain the exact cognitive neural basis for that? No, I can't. But I can hypothesize that one exists.
So... you have a blind belief in something which you have no basis for? Sounds like that silly "religion" nonsense.
WATYF
Scoobius got it.
I think it's a case of Douglas Adams's proverbial puddle. We find ourselves in our particular pothole of morals, ethics and justice because they work, because people tend to fight for their own positions, and so on
But that is the error. Customs, practices, culture and liturgy are NOT morals, ethics, or justice, though they can put on a mask or costume and pretend just as I can dress up as a fireman for halloween, but that won't make me a fireman. Perhaps they are truly morals, ethics, and justice, but that is the question being begged.
Justice has a specific meaning, but I can ask, "were women treated mor justly under the older Patriarchy, or modern Feminism". Few would actually bother to look up the definition of justice (either side), but would say the result they want is the just result.
Is it older than God?
And what is morality? What is evil? The Tao cannot substantively claim that what evil truly is nor can it do so for what is good.
This may be a semantic confusion. Tao is what C S Lewis labels the natural (moral) law. A law of nature, physical or moral cannot be older than Nature or creation.
Newton discovered 3 laws of motion within Nature. It would be nonsense to say those laws have no claim on objects in the real world.
The natural law is similar. When you say natural law cannot define good and evil, then what does? God, but only through revelation in an unclear manner subject to a lot of interpretation? Man's own emotion and intellect?
To me, the natural law is like a science reference with all the constants and equations. But it has Do unto others, don't lie, steal, or kill and such instead.
New Agers think if they only imagine hard enough, they can change reality on both. The traditional Christian view is although God is sovereign and merciful, he created both sets of Laws and does not usually make exceptions.
Incorrect. The rationality of the derivation completely depends upon what the text says. God's Game, God's Rules is impeccably rational. It makes no claims that are self-contradictory. There are no philosophical texts upon which an objective morality can be based of which I am aware that are not self-contradictory, as Russell's decalogue demonstrates here.
Are you referring to the 10 commandments when you say "God's rules, God's game"?
If you give the half point, state "that While the problem of graven images is somewhat mysterious, lacking any basis for distinguishing right from wrong,", it seems the whole set is only impeccably rational in the sense that it doesn't contradict itself. But it's not difficult to assemble 10 statements that don't contradict themselves, Russel's statements don't (of course his absolutes are wrong, as they always are), neither does the categorical imperative or the Code of Ur-Nammu.
"And so we go find someone weaker than us who looks different and we enslave them all." OT, but isn't it interesting that no one takes a good look at why a certain group is so weak that a large number of them can be carried off into slavery? Most civilizations or even tribal groups are capable of resisting repeated transportation to another continent over centuries. I always think of the effect of such a demonstration of weakness on the morale of the young men of the social group involved.
But maybe this isn't so OT. Would a coherent religion have held Africans together so they could have resisted enslavement? How many Muslims were among the slaves brought over to the New World, or to Arabia, for that matter? Is the lack of resistance in neo-Pagan Europe to their inundation by Muslims, Hindoos and others a proof of the power and necessity of sacred belief?
1. 1.Do not feel absolutely certain of anything
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I don't know which is more hilarious, the complete failure of critical thinking and self-awareness in the first commandment (as well as the fourth and fifth), or the cringe inducing attempts to be poetic.
"I command you not to respect authority!" - HAHAHA!
"Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."
If he was going to go down this path, he should have just stopped right there.
"Would a coherent religion have held Africans together so they could have resisted enslavement?"
They did not regard themselves as "Africans" any more than whites regarded themselves as "Europeans" rather than Frenchmen, Englishmen, Spaniards, etc.
Each tribe was coherent enough, and resisted enslavement as best it could. Each tribe took prisoners from enemy tribes and sold them to Europeans. Thus the African role in slavery was critical, even though whitey (as usual) gets all the blame.
I find it interesting and telling that standards of morality shift and sway according to the whims of progressive humanist "elites".
For instance in this contemporary post-Christian culture it's considered altruistic and good to drive the pregnant, underprivileged teen to the abortion clinic while lecturing her on global warming.
It's negative and bad to persuade her to carry the baby to term and explaining to her that the unborn baby is a unique and valued creation of God and to terminate the pregnancy is the equivalent to murder (despite the arbitrary nature of "mans law").
Morality and the laws of the living God are timeless and eternal.
Morality and the laws of man are whatever the collective or the elites happen to find appealing at any given point in time.
With out an external lawgiver man ultimately gives in to his base, depraved nature despite mans rationalizing and appeals to human authority.
@ amethyst
5. Go to therapy to heal from your parents telling you not to Do Your Own Thing
6. Killing is okay if it advances a future of everyone doing Their Own Thing
7. Having sex with whomever you feel whenever you feel is the height of doing Your Own Thing, as long as it's also their Own Thing.
8. Since some lack the resources to fulfill doing Their Own Thing redistribution of resources is necessary to actualize that goal for everyone.
9. It is not enough to allow others to do their Own Thing. One must heartily endorse anyone else's Own Thhing as wonderful and good.
10. If you are jealous of someone doing their Own Thing then it is likely that you are being prevented from doing Your Own Thing by inequality. More redistribution is in order.
@tz
You have not answered the question. You claim that the Tao is natural law, but you have not answered what is evil and what is good. Unless you can define it, you are just babbling about nonsense.
And unless you truly understand why it is necessary to have a natural law in the first place, you are no better than the atheist trying to create morality without God.
If you are familiar with C.S. Lewis, then you should read Out of the Silent Planet as these basic questions are answered.
"(of course his absolutes are wrong, as they always are)"
Good one.
"Each tribe was coherent enough, and resisted enslavement as best it could. Each tribe took prisoners from enemy tribes and sold them to Europeans. Thus the African role in slavery was critical, even though whitey (as usual) gets all the blame."
The European variety of slavery was kind by comparison. But one seldom hears about that. Or the fact that slavery is still widespread in Africa.
While a might-makes-righter myself, I've always thought there needed to be some overtly accepted objective rule to keep the masses in order. The uniformly Christian citizens of, say, Detroit, make me think the system might be improved upon.
Mormonism, on the other hand, appears to work wonders. Both morally and in terms of social mobility (as seen in that current social mobility map).
I'm not a fan of Russell myself, but I see no reason to say the original ten commandments were considerably superior to his. If you just want to put Russell down, you would be doing so quite effectively by saying that they are not worse, which is quite clearly true.
Also:
"By taking God out of his equations, the atheist loses everything, because he destroys the foundation upon which so much of what he values is constructed."
How does the third part of the sentence follow from the first? You define "God" to be the supreme being who created everything, so the part about losing everything is coherent, although wrong. But unless you assume that all human beings have the Judeo-Christian moral/value set somehow hardwired into their psyche, there is no reason to say that the atheist loses the foundation of his values(whatever they are) by rejecting religion.
On the observation that different sabbath days are celebrated and different first days of the week are recognized.
I know some religions make a big, big deal about this, but I've always figured God doesn't really care what day you pick, so long as you pick one.
As to these Replacement Commandments, in reading the first few, I thought to my self "Hey, if scientists were following those rules, science might not be in such rough shape these days." So, I say let's give them a shot, let them earn some cred! Start by applying them to Climatologists, immunization advocates, Wymyns Studiests, and Keynesians. See if those august personages can benefit from Russell's wisdom. I mean, if it can't help them, what change do the rest of us have?
"The Tao is a pathetic attempt to create divinity without a divine being. In other words, a sense of purpose without a purposeful intelligence behind it."
[smiles] Okay.
"The Tao is outside objective/subjective, but it claims to be objective. You can accept it or not, but only as Objective and in total."
The first rule of Tao Club is, DO NOT TALK ABOUT TAO CLUB!! /kidding
The most troublesome running theme of Russell's decalogue is that although he advocates truthfulness repeatedly, in each case he does so only by appealing to the notion that truth-telling is more personally convenient than lying, rather than by saying that truth itself is an objective good that should be sought.
And what happens when falsehood is more personally convenient, as is often the case in real life contra Russell's justifications? Well, left-wing atheists give us no shortage of examples.
An inquiring mind would like to know. What exactly, does an atheist value?
As many people have noted, it would be extraordinarily easy to improve on the 10 Commandments in the Bible. Here's a better set:
1. Treat others the way you would want to be treated
2. Attempt always to cause no harm
3. Reason ought to trump faith whenever possible
4. Always take responsibility for your actions
5. Don't pre-judge individuals or groups based on race, gender or sexuality
6. Live life as though this is your only one and nothing follows it
7. The strong and powerful ought to care for the week and powerless
8. Keep your promises
9. Love and care for your family
10. Your moral code must always be your guide. Form it carefully
You forgot to include "Be kind to puppies and kittens" and "Don't litter."
That last list is truly useless, except as a case study in how atheism and the intellectual legacy of mankind are incompatible. In particular, #6 scotches all the others, and #10 is self-contradictory.
Sheesh! Could there be any greater cry for attention.
"That last list is truly useless, except as a case study in how atheism and the intellectual legacy of mankind are incompatible. In particular, #6 scotches all the others, and #10 is self-contradictory."
Living one's life as though it is your only one and as though there is nothing that follows it does nothing to scotch "love and care for your family" as far as I can see. Perhaps you can explain. Or, more likely, you've not really thought about it. Maybe #11 should be "Think before you post something silly in a blog comment section".
"You forgot to include "Be kind to puppies and kittens" and "Don't litter."
Implied by #2
Attempt always to cause no harm
Dayam, no bacon?
Living one's life as though it is your only one and as though there is nothing that follows it does nothing to scotch "love and care for your family" as far as I can see.
Because you can't see very far.
to see that a crude and primitive Bronze Age people, working with considerably less information to hand, somehow managed to produce a moral code that is considerably superior in terms of fact, logic, structure, scope, and style than the code produced by one of the most elite and celebrated minds of the 20th century.
Because, of course, they didn't. When left to their own devices they started imitating their neighbors and worshipping decorative animals. If the commandments had simply been the product of the ancient Israelite imagination, they would have been indistinct from any other bronze age code.
Because you can't see very far.
Seconded.
"...it would be extraordinarily easy to improve on the ten commandments of the Bible..."
That is from the particular humanist perspective of Writers Gawking. The original 10 commandments were not intended to be dependent upon what man thinks is reasonable but rather they are to be a reflection of the nature of God and as a set of laws to be obeyed.
The "better set" cited reads like a nieve 12 year old child/atheist trying to sound smart and impress her fawning progressive leftist elders
2. Attempt always to cause no harm
If a developer buys several plots and turns them into luxury condos in a neighborhood of retired home owners then the next year the property taxes for those retirees will increase. Is such a developer in violation of rule 2? Or do you have some a priori notion of "harm" ala Betham and Mill?
George Carlin already covered this.
"That is from the particular humanist perspective of Writers Gawking. The original 10 commandments were not intended to be dependent upon what man thinks is reasonable but rather they are to be a reflection of the nature of God and as a set of laws to be obeyed.
The "better set" cited reads like a nieve 12 year old child/atheist trying to sound smart and impress her fawning progressive leftist elders"
Yeah, but it's still a better set, particularly given that the first 5 of the Old testament commandments are of no value and make little sense.
"Living one's life as though it is your only one and as though there is nothing that follows it does nothing to scotch "love and care for your family" as far as I can see.
Because you can't see very far."
Mr. Deuce....Appreciate your attempts here at whatever it is your are attempting. I mean, half the battle is showing up. However, I note that your objection to this particular commandment is not an objection at all but rather an unexplained, unsubstantiated collection of verbs, nouns and adjectives that on their own and without explanation, make little sense. Still, thank for showing up.
> I can give you a rational ... I would prefer not to be murdered.
What evidence do we have that this preference is at all "rational"? If someone else disagrees, on what basis can you say they're wrong?
> ...and we just have to do our best to craft moral systems that optimize theories of justice, human happiness, etc.
If there is no objective morality, why should I care about theories of justice, human happiness, etc? Isn't maximizing my own happiness enough?
> But I guess my main question is how does "do what thou wilt with due regard for the policeman around the corner" not describe our world almost exactly?
To the extent it's non-religious, it does.
> There is an in-between stance on morality that eluded Lewis, purposely or not, between objective and subjective, which is that which is human instinct or conscience. For Lewis that never seemed to be enough.
Of course it wasn't. Because it's not between them. It's encompassed in the subjective case. Unless you want to argue that human instinct and conscience have been the same in all people, times, and places. Which is demonstrably false.
> Well, there are a million reasons, not least of which is the social proscription against doing so and also not least of which is my own moral instinct not to.
And neither that social proscription nor your moral instinct are universal.
> Can I explain the exact cognitive neural basis for that? No, I can't. But I can hypothesize that one exists.
A simple perusal of history suggests that your hypothesis is incorrect.
> It's fairly easy to come up with a nature-based system that gives you objective morality without first assuming God as an arbitrary law-giver.
Which merely makes observed nature your god.
>......so, might makes right?
It always comes back to that, yes.
@WGAV,
Hate to break it to you, but "ought" and "attempt to" are not commands. Therefore you need to reword 2, 3, and 7.
Anyway, "Live life as though this is your only one and nothing follows it" negates ALL the other "commandments". If this is my only life, and nothing follows it, then the only imperative is immediate gratification.
1. Why should I treat others well if it conflicts with my immediate gratification?
2. Why should I not cause harm if it conflicts with my immediate gratification?
3. Why should I use reason if it conflicts with my immediate gratification?
4. Why take responsibility for my actions if it conflicts with my immediate gratification?
5. Why not pre-judge individuals or groups based on race, gender or sexuality if it conflicts with my immediate gratification?
7. Why care for the week and powerless? Fsck them. That DEFINITELY conflicts with my immediate gratification.
8. Why keep my promises? That DEFINITELY conflicts with my immediate gratification.
9. Why even have a family? That DEFINITELY conflicts with my immediate gratification.
10. Why even have a moral code? That DEFINITELY conflicts with my immediate gratification. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Writers Gawking, you can follow your alternate commandments to your hearts content but how do you persuade the dope-slinging, bitch slapping gang-banger, who is PERFECTLY HAPPY with his lifestyle (with all of it's inherent risks and dangers) to turn around follow your particular "commandments"?
Give up da bitches and da bling for what? So as to be a nice person?
To a great many that just sounds like entering wussified dullsville.
What's the incentive for a complete lifestyle reform but to get right with God?
1. Treat others the way you would want to be treated
So deep down you desire to be insulted on a blog?
2. Attempt always to cause no harm.
Animal brothels everywhere applaud you.
3. Reason ought to trump faith whenever possible
Eugenics advocates everywhere applaud you.
4. Always take responsibility for your actions
Unless you can blame Bush.
5. Don't pre-judge individuals or groups based on race, gender or sexuality
I only judge people by their religion, so I'm ok.
6. Live life as though this is your only one and nothing follows it
The baby boomers motto is now a commandment. Yay.
7. The strong and powerful ought to care for the week and powerless
I promise will only castrate the retarded for their own good.
8. Keep your promises
I promise I will only castrate the retarded for their own good.
9. Love and care for your family
Unless you don't want them, in which case you should chop the family member into bloody bits, suck him out of the womb with a vacuum and spit him into a sink.
10. Your moral code must always be your guide. Form it carefully
And feel free to change it whenever you like. It's just a guide, after all.
"Anyway, "Live life as though this is your only one and nothing follows it" negates ALL the other "commandments". If this is my only life, and nothing follows it, then the only imperative is immediate gratification."
Even if this were true, how does immediate gratification necessarily rule out also keeping your promises, for example. You are projecting. It's quite reasonable to rule out an afterlife or reincarnation and still still see the value in keeping one's promise.
See, the problem here is you seem to think immediate gratification is the only possible path if there is nothing to live for after you die. I don't see how that follows and neither do most people who realize that there is only one life and nothing after.
Gratification comes in many forms, doesn't it? Aren't you gratified to see your children live a happy and successful life? Aren't you gratified to have saved the money to rent that house on the beach for 3 months? Aren't you gratified to see your friends succeed? Aren't you gratified to see the suffering of others curtailed.
Well, maybe you aren't, but others are.
"Writers Gawking, you can follow your alternate commandments to your hearts content but how do you persuade the dope-slinging, bitch slapping gang-banger, who is PERFECTLY HAPPY with his lifestyle (with all of it's inherent risks and dangers) to turn around follow your particular "commandments"?"
I guess the same way the christian apologist would attempt to turn around and follow the commands in the Old Testament or the recommendations of Christ. How is that done?
I guess the same way the christian apologist would attempt to turn around and follow the commands in the Old Testament or the recommendations of Christ.
What commands? Be specific.
James:
Any of them will do.
> Aren't you gratified to see your children live a happy and successful life? Aren't you gratified to have saved the money to rent that house on the beach for 3 months? Aren't you gratified to see your friends succeed? Aren't you gratified to see the suffering of others curtailed.
No, no, maybe, and not particularly.
> Well, maybe you aren't, but others are.
And what difference does the gratification of others make to me?
Even if this were true, how does immediate gratification necessarily rule out also keeping your promises, for example.
A promise is an obligation for future action. Actually carrying out that action necessarily conflicts with immediate gratification at the moment in the future when the promise comes due. A promise to do something I am going to do anyway is meaningless.
Put another way, "I only promise to do exactly what I want at all times from this moment onwards, for the short span of my life" is the only type of promise you can expect from someone who thinks now is all there is and there is no afterlife.
It's quite reasonable to rule out an afterlife or reincarnation and still still see the value in keeping one's promise.
It may be expedient to keep one's promises in some circumstances, but it hardly rises to the level of a moral commandment.
See, the problem here is you seem to think immediate gratification is the only possible path if there is nothing to live for after you die.
It is not my problem. It is the inexorable logic of your philosophy. If there is no afterlife, then one must maximize pleasure in this, the only, life. And one must, as much as possible, bring that pleasure forward into the present, because if you defer gratification it might be denied to you before you receive it (e.g., you might die). A pleasure today is worth far more than the possibility of pleasure tomorrow.
Gratification comes in many forms, doesn't it?
Yes, which puts you in a poor position to command people to obey your rules, the breaking of which gratifies a lot of people immensely.
Aren't you gratified to see your children live a happy and successful life?
I am, but most Leftists aren't, which is why they don't bother to breed.
"And what difference does the gratification of others make to me?"
James you make a good point. Some of us are psychopaths, others not so much. You get on with not caring for others. No skin off the sane people's noses.
"A promise is an obligation for future action. Actually carrying out that action necessarily conflicts with immediate gratification at the moment in the future when the promise comes due. A promise to do something I am going to do anyway is meaningless."
This of course if "immediate gratification" is your main concern. On the other hand, it may just feel like immediate gratification to plan for gratification in the future.
"Put another way, "I only promise to do exactly what I want at all times from this moment onwards, for the short span of my life" is the only type of promise you can expect from someone who thinks now is all there is and there is no afterlife."
This is proven untrue on a daily bais. Millions of people who don't expect an afterlife don't act this way.
"It may be expedient to keep one's promises in some circumstances, but it hardly rises to the level of a moral commandment. "
And yet, it just did in my list.
"It is not my problem. It is the inexorable logic of your philosophy. If there is no afterlife, then one must maximize pleasure in this, the only, life."
Why? Why MUST one do this?
" And one must, as much as possible, bring that pleasure forward into the present, because if you defer gratification it might be denied to you before you receive it"
And what if one's pleasure comes from seeing your friends or family or children succeed and that you can help do this through planning. You need to broaden your idea of "pleasure" and dump this notion that "immediate gratification" is the only path to pleasure and happiness.
"I am, but most Leftists aren't, which is why they don't bother to breed."
This doesn't even make sense on the most rudimentary level.
p-dawg: One of the most entertaining activities in the world is asking an atheist if murder is wrong, and if (when) they say it is, asking them why. They know it's wrong, but it's impossible for them to prove it using reason alone. The squirming which inevitably follows is delicious.
Agreed. This thread of comments is full of such squirming. Of course they tell you it's not squirming they have a perfectly reasonable reason. It just seems like squirming because, you know, it's complicated.
It is not observably false. I agree that [atheists who believe in objective and universal morality] exist, the problem is that they have no rational warrant for their belief in that morality. For example, can you give me even a single example the basis for any of those objective and universal moralities? If so, what is it?
It seems to me that some moral statements are simply axiomatic. I don't have any rational reason to believe that it is better to be happy than to be unhappy, other than that it is self-evidently true. It's this same sort of intuition that tells me that 1+1=2.
From simple axioms like these (I have many more) and reason, I try to discover more moral truths (or mathematical truths, or truths in any other field of knowledge really).
You might find this chapter from a book by Micheal Huemer interesting:
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/5.htm
Your justification for morality ("God's Game, God's Rules") is only as rational as your arguments for the existence of the christian God and for the claim that the Bible is His Word. Do you have a rational warrant for your belief that those tales of talking snakes and virgin mothers are true?
Your justification for morality ("God's Game, God's Rules") is only as rational as your arguments for the existence of the christian God and for the claim that the Bible is His Word. Do you have a rational warrant for your belief that those tales of talking snakes and virgin mothers are true?
Incorrect. The justification is entirely rational and is not dependent upon my arguments. You are confusing justification with applicability, which depends upon God's existence, not my arguments for His existence. You can reasonably argue whether the justification is applicable or not, but not whether the connection of the justification to the morality is rational.
There is no need for any rational warrant for my beliefs concerning those tales; in this context, that is a category error. As a general rule, I don't recommend attempting to use terms that you don't fully understand just because someone else has used them.
As many people have noted, it would be extraordinarily easy to improve on the 10 Commandments in the Bible. Here's a better set:
1. Treat others the way you would want to be treated
Only idiots like Richard Dawkins are dumb enough to suggest this. I dealt with this particular idiocy in TIA. It means a man can break into Adriana Lima's house and hop into her bed so long as he doesn't mind her doing the same to him. It means a man can steal from the rich so long as he believes he wouldn't mind it if he was similarly wealthy.
It's a total non-starter as a moral system.
"It is fascinating, is it not, to see that a crude and primitive Bronze Age people, working with considerably less information to hand, somehow managed to produce a moral code that is considerably superior in terms of fact, logic, structure, scope, and style than the code produced by one of the most elite and celebrated minds of the 20th century."
Actually they didn't "produce" the decalogue, it was revealed to them. Sinful, finite minds would never come up with an objective moral standard that would stand in judgment of them.
Historically the Christian Sabbath was understood to be Sunday via the resurrection and congregating New Testament believers on the "Lords Day."
> You get on with not caring for others.
The gratification of others making no difference to me does not equate to not caring for others.
> It's this same sort of intuition that tells me that 1+1=2.
1+1=2 is not a matter of intuition. :)
Interestingly I had taken a look at this concept back in February while coming to a different conclusion.
http://aaroninvestigates.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/what-every-atheist-need-to-learn-from-the-bible/
If linking to one's own articles is not the thing to do feel free to delete and accept my apology.
In this case I just felt that I would end up writing an article in the comment section...
Thank you.
AAInvestigates.
Totally, idiots like Richard Dawkins and Jesus.
Mi
Oh, dear God, you are SUCH an idiot, Dipshit.
One: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Russell: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything."
The Decalogue sets down the basis for an objective and universal morality. Russell, on the other hand, undermines any possibility of morality, but science as well, by establishing uncertainty as his foundation.
Oh, dear God, you are SUCH an idiot, Dipshit.
"This is proven untrue on a daily basis. Millions of people who don't expect an afterlife don't act this way."
This proves nothing. Millions of people who don't believe in an after life do in fact behave abominably day after day. For millions of others it's the only the law that keeps their behavior in check.
"You get on with not caring for others. It's no skin off of sane persons noses."
Ah, but sane noses do get skinned by people not caring for others. A quick perusal through your local paper should tell you as much.
ChelmWiseman July 30, 2013 7:45 AM
Between Christianity and Judaism at least, there is no disagreement.
so far as i am aware, this is true.
for those of the Christian persuasion, i don't see how you can assert that there was any error in Sabbath dating until after the resurrection of Christ. to assert otherwise means that God was incapable of fulfilling OT prophecy ... which pretty much breaks every attribute and promise of God that's of any import.
so, we're left with the assertion that sometime in the last 2000 years the Jews AND Christians lost track of the holiest day of the week.
i'm not sure how seriously to take an assertion like that. you know, given how much Vox likes to troll the regulars around here.
to those who assert that "it doesn't matter" ...
1 - what is "the beginning of wisdom"?
2 - do you think that fear might, sometimes, be an element of respect?
3 - do you not think it odd that the VERY FIRST instruction in the Bible concerns Sabbath observance?
4 - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:8-11&version=KJV
CASE IN POINT:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/11/12/your-creation-museum-report/
CASE IN POINT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPxaav4fJEA
This of course if "immediate gratification" is your main concern. On the other hand, it may just feel like immediate gratification to plan for gratification in the future.
An atheist who is not concerned with immediate gratification is not acting in accordance with the logic of his philosophy. That such people actually exist doesn't alter the logic of their philosophy any more than the existence of Christians who sin alters the logic of their belief system.
This is proven untrue on a daily bais. Millions of people who don't expect an afterlife don't act this way.
Again, not every atheist acts in total accordance with the logic of their belief system, but this does not disprove that the logic of their belief system should cause them to behave this way.
And yet, it just did in my list.
Your stupid list is not a list of moral commandments, nor does it apply to anyone else but you.
Why? Why MUST one do this?
What else is there? Why would you do anything else but maximize your pleasure in this life?
And what if one's pleasure comes from seeing your friends or family or children succeed and that you can help do this through planning.
There is no logical reason for an atheist to do this.
You need to broaden your idea of "pleasure" and dump this notion that "immediate gratification" is the only path to pleasure and happiness.
For an atheist, a "path" to pleasure makes no sense, especially if getting on the path involves pain. The only thing that matters is pleasure NOW. I am amused that you are too dense to understand this basic point.
This doesn't even make sense on the most rudimentary level.
Evidently your brain is incapable of functioning on that rudimentary level.
What is the point of having children if you are an atheist? It is a lot of self-sacrifice and there is no payoff when you die and pass into oblivion. Who cares how your kids are doing when you're dead?
And we note that non-religious folk agree with this logic, since they have a much lower fertility rate than believers. The non-religious care about maximizing their "happiness", and kids conflict with that.
VD asked: For example, can you give me even a single example the basis for any of those objective and universal moralities? If so, what is it?
Choosing reproductive success over death, informed by the iterated prisoner's dilemma, with a longer rather than a shorter timescale.
I'm gawking at Phoenician and Tad. Or should I say, the same IP address.
"Only idiots like Richard Dawkins are dumb enough to suggest this. I dealt with this particular idiocy in TIA. It means a man can break into Adriana Lima's house and hop into her bed so long as he doesn't mind her doing the same to him. It means a man can steal from the rich so long as he believes he wouldn't mind it if he was similarly wealthy."
First, one can't base the quality of a moral system or its attributes on how a psychopath would respond to it.
Second, I knew you thought the bible got it wrong.
Sigh. A very interesting but tedious thread. Far worse on a full stomach. Also warning, your imagination might not be able to un-see the analogies. Proceed at your own risk.
@VD - Do unto others can be interpreted as either the specific act, or the intent, or the general principle. Raping a supermodel because you wouldn't mind being raped by a supermodel is not the crux. Would you allow yourself to be raped by Rozanne Barr, or (brain overload fault!) John Travolta (John Scalzi) in drag? (Is it bulimia when my stomach empties after having to force yourself to think about such things?).
@swiftfoxmark2
You have not answered the question. You claim that the Tao is natural law, but you have not answered what is evil and what is good. Unless you can define it, you are just babbling about nonsense.
And unless you truly understand why it is necessary to have a natural law in the first place, you are no better than the atheist trying to create morality without God.
You need a moral "natural law" because we all must "know" good and evil at some basic level simply to interact or go about our lives, not unlike we need to understand physical laws of nature to understand that the sun WILL come up tomorrow.
Examples of good and evil from the Tao is given in the appendix of Abolition of Man. If you wish a principle, I cannot state one with any brevity. I can attempt to do so if you insist, but I would appreciate if you would restate the problem such that I wasn't trying to figure out what you wanted.
(Rothbard tried in Ethics which is not a short work, but only used property rights as an exclusive axiom and went off the tracks and over the cliff).
In one sense I'm in complete agreement with Vox - God can write whatever rules he wants as how electrons WILL act in a magnetic field, or how humans OUGHT to act in a situation.
If you are familiar with C.S. Lewis, then you should read Out of the Silent Planet as these basic questions are answered.
I've read it, but without a passage or other link I'm unsure of what you are pointing to.
I use Weston and Divine to illustrate why Republicans are far more evil than Democrats, and I must thank Peter Kreeft although he might take the opposite view. Kreeft said "would you rather be (damned as the person who is the) torturer, or the tortured?" Democrats deny that the pre-born are alive so are murdering in ignorance, perhaps invincible or negligent ignorance, but they do not see "a blob of cells or tissue" as a person. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld with full will and intent do assassination, torture, and other grave evils with full consent and knowledge. Democrats are thus like Divine, who are merely greedy, yet their greed blinds them, but Republicans are like Weston who will employ any means to get to their end.
Do you vote for the "broken" party or the "bent" party? Democrats are broken, Republicans are bent. Lewis makes it clear "bent" is far more evil - malignant - than broken which is evil but benign. Divine would not commit genocide on Malcandara, but would take "Sun's blood". Weston would given any opportunity to do so.
One can fart in the wind and call it reason. One can appeal to authority and beg the question, but it still smells like poo, peut être?
"This proves nothing. Millions of people who don't believe in an after life do in fact behave abominably day after day. For millions of others it's the only the law that keeps their behavior in check."
You've entirely forgotten how you responded to my contention that millions of people who don't believe in an afterlife don't act on immediate gratification. Let me remind you by quoting you:
"I only promise to do exactly what I want at all times from this moment onwards, for the short span of my life"...is how you characterized how non believers will act. And yet we still have millions that DON"T act abominably. Now you claim that these people would pursue instant gratification no matter the consequences if now for the "law".
Again...you are making no sense.
Do you vote for the "broken" party or the "bent" party?
I vote for Stalin then. LOGIC SMELL LIKE DOOKIE!
This comment has been removed by the author.
"my contention that millions of people who don't believe in an afterlife don't act on immediate gratification"
PROOF, Mr. Farter?
Vox wrote: Only idiots like Richard Dawkins are dumb enough to suggest this.
Should we remove Luke 6:31 from our Bibles?
I dealt with this particular idiocy in TIA. It means a man can break into Adriana Lima's house and hop into her bed so long as he doesn't mind her doing the same to him. It means a man can steal from the rich so long as he believes he wouldn't mind it if he was similarly wealthy.
Your rebuttal isn't true to the original statement. The original formulation says "others", plural, while your response only deals with one person. Not only would it mean that you wouldn't mind if Adriana broke into your house and hopped into your bed, but that you wouldn't mind if I broke into your house and hopped into your bed. And we all know you'd never willingly have sex with a Calvinist.
To clarify, I don't think Vox has the simplistic definition of our Lord's words, only that the irrational New Atheists would employ a narrow or wide definition as it suited them.
I make a category distinction between persons and objects that they cannot easily make, so "I don't mind being treated as an object and not a person" could not be one of their objections.
A few weeks ago I responded to a Christian speaker who suggested "mowing someone else's lawn", and if they objected, taking it as suffering to be offered up. I pointed out that it was trespassing if they didn't ask first, and that is in itself evil.
Is it "do unto others" on your own terms, or on the terms of the others? Here you seen pride, or at least solipsism. But that is the key. If you would do unto others on THEIR, not your terms, it becomes clear why it is just.
"I want to impose good upon you" cannot be the interpretation.
"I wish to do good to you based first on the Tao's definition of good, and subordinate to that, what you (the "other") think is good" I think is the correct interpretation. Humble one's self. Like Blessed Theresa of Calcutta did for the poor in the streets.
my contention that millions of people who don't believe in an afterlife don't act on immediate gratification
Gratification need not be "immediate". They often act on slightly longer time horizons (Vox's genius to say time preference determines the level of civilization).
People might not eat their seedcorn, but often start oppressing and stealing (to use the correct term) from farmers.
If they expect to live another 40 years, it changes what is "in their own interest". So they might steal from their yet unborn grandchildren (note the massive debt in the system).
Thus they would act to maximize gratification of their expected remaining lifetime, not the immediate moment. I cannot find a majority behavior that contradicts this revised statement. And I weep for them.
If I may be so bold, I think VD's point was that Do unto others is not a sustainable jumping off point for a moral code. (I haven't read TIA though.) Rather it is instructive to note that the greatest commandment is: Love The Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and the second is like it. Love your neighbor as yourself.
If one follows the first, then there is no conflict in VD's point about the second.
@ Writers Gawking At Vox and Meh
You don't know what pleases me, do you.
Are you a masochist? I'm sure there is no shortage here of those who would like to gratify you with as much immediacy as practical even to excess if that is the case.
OTOH, maybe you are pleased by slowly torturing kittens to death.
@ Eric Wilson
I think VD's point was that Do unto others is not a sustainable jumping off point for a moral code.
It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. (see math).
It, the "Golden Rule" is an extension of the Silver Rule, "do no harm", as Lewis points out in Abolition
(Maybe we need a Voxiversity on Abolition).
The first question to ask is what do you want to be done to you. If you are dying of cancer, would you want to be saved with chemo even if it meant a lot of suffering? Would you want it to be imposed against your immediate will though would be thankful in the long term?
The rule is technically correct, but very subtle.
For the atheists, I would worry about a construct, "Would I like someone to assassinate me before I said something even more stupid?".
To go back to the rule, what if you basely desire something unwise and destructive? Does the rule say "others" should not permit you to destroy and harm yourself? Of that they should respect your will in the matter?
tz
I agree with you as opposed to VD from what I know of your respective positions.
As far as Abolition, I recently read it after Ilk advice, and I must say, it's decidedly one of the best books I've read. I would absolutely love a Voxiversity on it.
Eric Wilson wrote: If I may be so bold, I think VD's point was that Do unto others is not a sustainable jumping off point for a moral code.
Well, Vox can say for himself what his point was. However, "do unto others" is a sustainable beginning for a moral code. It's really trivially, trivially simple. Morality is nothing more than goal-directed behavior. Actions that we think lead to a goal we call good; actions which lead away from a goal we call bad. Once we have to search a state space for paths to a goal then computer science takes over. Long story short, the state space for life is so huge that fixed rules simply don't work. Heuristics are needed. The heuristic that biology used to wire our brains is the iterated prisoners dilemma and we can show that cooperation over longer time periods works better then defection. (You'll note that the Decalog can be summarized as "don't defect against God; don't defect against your fellow man; the positive expression is "cooperate (i.e. love) one another").
(I haven't read TIA though.) Rather it is instructive to note that the greatest commandment is: Love The Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and the second is like it. Love your neighbor as yourself.
The math is the same.
If one follows the first, then there is no conflict in VD's point about the second.
Except, of course, that that isn't what Vox said.
Except, of course, that isn't what Vox said.
I understand. Hopefully he will clarify.
"What is the point of having children if you are an atheist? It is a lot of self-sacrifice and there is no payoff when you die and pass into oblivion. Who cares how your kids are doing when you're dead?"
If I were you, I would abandon this line of reasoning. Not that I support Gawker in any way, but this line of thought is a complete dead end.
For Exhibit A, I give you the largest, most advanced, and historically functionally atheist nation in the world: China. For most of their history, the Chinese have been functional atheists. Sure they had their folk religions, but those aren't religions in any meaningful way; and some of them were/are Buddhists, but Buddhism is just a refined version of atheism; and lots of them were just plain atheists. And yet, boy oh boy, lots of personal sacrifice, and LOTS of children.
There's really no point in trying to argue with Gawker's absurd list: it has all the moral and intellectual dignity of a letter to Santa Claus.
@tz: I wouldn't try to get my understanding of Tao from CS Lewis. Also, the existence of Tao does not in any way deny or displace the existence of God. The two are not mutually exclusive. Also, a tin... teardrop.
Remember "The" sabbath, not "A" sabbath. The day honors him as the creator and it is the seventh day. It has nothing to do with the resurection and never will. As far as how to observe it, very simple....rest. Now, that is clearly what it says. Begin rationalizing noncompliance in 3..2...1....Go!
Incorrect. The justification is entirely rational and is not dependent upon my arguments. You are confusing justification with applicability, which depends upon God's existence, not my arguments for His existence. You can reasonably argue whether the justification is applicable or not, but not whether the connection of the justification to the morality is rational.
There is no need for any rational warrant for my beliefs concerning those tales; in this context, that is a category error. As a general rule, I don't recommend attempting to use terms that you don't fully understand just because someone else has used them.
I'm sorry if it came off as nonsense. :) English is not my first language.
Indeed, I meant to question the applicability of your justification.
1+1=2 is not a matter of intuition. :)
How do you know it's true then?
"For most of their history, the Chinese have been functional atheists. Sure they had their folk religions, but those aren't religions in any meaningful way; and some of them were/are Buddhists, but Buddhism is just a refined version of atheism; and lots of them were just plain atheists."
Proof positive that a culture is able to thrive without a belief in a supreme being. Thanks, Scoob!
James Dixon wrote: 1+1=2 is not a matter of intuition. :)
Actually, it is. In discussing first order logic and the Peano axioms, which are the basis of all mathematics, Scott Aaronson in "Quantum Computing Since Democritus" wrote:
   Writing down these axioms seems like pointless hairsplitting – and indeed, there is an obvious chicken-and-egg problem. How can we state axioms that will put the integers on a more secure foundation, when the very symbols and so on that we're using to write down the axioms presuppose that we already know what the integers are?
   Well, precisely because of this point, I don't think that the axioms and formal logic can be used to place arithmetic on a more secure foundation. If you don't already agree that one plus one equals two, then a lifetime of studying mathematical logic won't make it any clearer! --pg 10.
Go away, Phony, you're insufficiently tall for the ride. I didn't mind your incessantly juvenile insults, but you're literally too stupid to join the discourse. Your failure to read the SFWA bylaws was bad enough, but your inability to understand that Orac was talking about ethics and not science was the last straw.
You've shown you can't master even the simplest concepts, so you can't comment here anymore. Go back to Whatever or some other low-IQ warren that is more your level.
@scoobius dubious
The Tao of eastern mysticism and the Tao Lewis describes in Abolition are close but different and distinct. I will use "Tao" in referring to the latter in that I do not want to write a half-paragraph describing "C.s. Lewis description of natural law in Abolition..." and would hope you are capable of understanding what I am referring to.
@VD - we either need a bigger village or fewer village idiots.
@James Dixon 1+1=2 is not a matter of intuition.
See Bertrand Russel's agonizing long (which he was surprised and depressed at) proof of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica - it seemed he was more nonplussed than able to handle a single plus.
@sd - Chinese are more like Deists rather than Atheists. They acknowledge much without God being personal. TAoM notes the Tao has much from Confucius and Lao Tzu.
It is possible to know and obey the commandments without knowing the nature or existence of the commander. God promises blessing to those who obey without much more qualification.
" And we all know you'd never willingly have sex with a Calvinist."
Not that he'd have a choice, amirite?
> How do you know it's true then?
Because it's defined that way.
> Actually, it is. In discussing first order logic and the Peano axioms...
The numbers one and two (in whatever form they first existed), predate all of that, and 1+1=2 was as true when they were first conceptualized as it is now. It's called counting. We've been doing it for a long time. We've come up with all kinds of fancy explanations for it in the meantime, but it's still based on counting.
@p-dawg
" And we all know you'd never willingly have sex with a Calvinist."
Not that he'd have a choice, amirite?
Great expectorations - while laughing. And praying for the integrity of my vascular system.
The concept of "being predestined to have sex with a Calvanist" just caused at least 30 seconds of apoplexy.
Don't text and drive.
Before this is over I will have filled my laundry list for the sacrament of reconciliation.
I don't know if I should express gratitude.
The numbers one and two (in whatever form they first existed), predate all of that, and 1+1=2 was as true when they were first conceptualized as it is now. It's called counting.
I think it is in the other thread, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica which shows how difficult it really is.
It is one thing to see personally in a single instance that 1+1=2, but a different thing entirely to prove it from first principles and that no other result can arise.
Vox, please, start an intern-as-troll fund. I'd contribute.
We need a Peano tuner, lest the music of the spheres not be harmonious.
> It is one thing to see personally in a single instance that 1+1=2, but a different thing entirely to prove it from first principles
The first principles are counting. 1, 2. You have one cow. I have one cow. Together we have two cows. Once you understand what one and two are, there is no other possibility. If there were, they wouldn't be one and two. That's what I mean by "it's defined that way". The proof, difficult or not, is entirely an intellectual exercise which demonstrates the validity of your mathematical system. Any system which gives another result isn't valid.
Any model of chemistry which claims that water at normal human temperatures isn't wet is wrong. Any model of mathematics which claims 1 doesn't = 2 is wrong (or at least bears no relationship to our reality).
@James Dixon: Bertrand Russel used many pages.
It is different and distinct to see something as "common sense" v.s. a rigorous mathematical proof. Although we all see 1+1=2, consider if 1+1 might equal 1 or 3 or something else. Some things are coincidence, others have a cause.
If I roll dice 100 times and every time I get 7, can I say that a set of rolled dice will ALWAYS add to 7?
If I have a bull and you have a cow, there may be three.
Again, that is the distinction - logic needs to be traced so as to eliminate the possibility of chance. To find a root-cause. To prove it such that there is metaphysical certainty.
If I were you, I would abandon this line of reasoning. Not that I support Gawker in any way, but this line of thought is a complete dead end.
For Exhibit A, I give you the largest, most advanced, and historically functionally atheist nation in the world: China. For most of their history, the Chinese have been functional atheists. Sure they had their folk religions, but those aren't religions in any meaningful way; and some of them were/are Buddhists, but Buddhism is just a refined version of atheism; and lots of them were just plain atheists. And yet, boy oh boy, lots of personal sacrifice, and LOTS of children.
Sorry dude, big giant FAIL here.
Buddhism most definitely does NOT believe that this is the only life and nothing follows it. Buddhism asserts that we experience a continual cycle of rebirth over many lifetimes - which is pretty much the opposite of the modern SWPL "this is all there is" viewpoint. Buddhists hope to LIBERATE themselves from the constraints of pleasure and self-gratification over the course of many lifetimes; modern Western atheists seek to WALLOW in pleasure and self-gratification during the course of a single lifetime. The imperatives of each philosophy are thus diametrically opposed.
And, of course, the atheistic degenerate ChiCom leadership has struggled mightily to suppress the impulses created by centuries of Buddhist tradition...
Excellent!
'Fraid you're gonna have to take back your 'FAIL' and eat it with a fork and spoon, Meh.
Think of it, you say it yourself:
"a continual cycle of rebirth over many lifetimes..."
At the end of which there is, of course, a terminus.
"Buddhists hope to LIBERATE themselves from the constraints of pleasure and self-gratification over the course of many lifetimes"
At the end of which there comes the reward of sweet, sweet nuthin' (cue Doug Yule). Think of it as one single VERY long lifetime, with many ups and downs -- just like real life, only a lot longer: atheism stretched out over miles, like a giant piece of taffy. The end result is the same as the SWPL's, it just takes longer.
Granted it's a morality, but it is of course a constructed one, that is to say an earthly one, a human one: Siddhartha had no external revelation from beyond, he just sat under a tree until he figured it out. Why do you think this Indian philosophy of Nothingness went over so big in China? Because it seemed very familiar to the Chinese. Because they already had their own home-grown (and fully non-revealed, fully man-made) philosophy of Nothingness. Because it suited their naturally atheist temperament.
You're the one who posited, a priori, that the logic of atheism MUST lead to hedonism, pleasure and instant gratification. But this (ultimately) atheist religion, which terminates not in the Beatific Vision but in Nothing, sought, as you say, to deny those pleasures. Therefore Exhibit A stands, and your a priori assumption is falsified by real-world evidence.
C-minus, more or less, with a bump up a half-step for an aggressive counter-attack, plus the element of surprise. Too bad it wasn't enough, but let's go ahead and say C-plus.
logic of atheism MUST lead to hedonism, pleasure and instant gratification
Therein lies the rub. It's inevitable, assuming that the atheists are logical.
Traditionally, Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends as follows: Bodhisattva (an enlightened being destined to be a Buddha, but purposely remaining on earth to teach others), Pratyeka Buddha (a Buddha for himself), Sravka (direct disciple of Buddha), heavenly beings (superhuman [angels?]), human beings, Asura (fighting spirits), beasts, Preta (hungry ghosts), and depraved men (hellish beings).
Consider well then your motives and intentions. Remember that man is characteristically placed at the midpoint of the ten stages; he can either lower himself abruptly or gradually into hell or through discipline, cultivation and the awakening of faith rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha.
That's an interesting atheism.
The fact that there is an afterlife at all, and that they're working toward a happier afterlife is intriguing as an example of atheistic belief. Whether or not it's eternal. Though I don't see where they say it isn't.
It certainly means that this life isn't all there is for them, for they have many more that they're working towards.
It could still be atheism of course, if there's no God, but it's very interesting that an atheists conside these perfectly acceptable beliefs.
At the end of which there is, of course, a terminus.
You could say that about Christianity too if you're creative. After all, God is the Alpha and Omega. If He's the last, we can't be.
Salt: you wrote: **Since you posit their existence, what are the laws of biology and psychology? Are they quantifiable to any degree such as that of gravity?**
Basically, that dead organisms don't reproduce. If you have a defective set of genes or a defective mindset that increases the chances of your dying, it decreases your chances of passing on those defective genes and/or mindset to the next generation.
If you can show me an example of a dead animal reproducing (absent drastic technological intervention such as cloning), I'll be happy to hear about it.
Vox Day wrote: **The most you can even attempt to prove this way is "I may be able to reduce the chances of my being murdered if I am not observed to murder anyone".**
True, but you've actually made my argument for me. Here's a question and an answer. Q: What is the best way to make a bed appear under extensive forensic examination as if you have slept in it for 8 hours? A: To actually lie down in it and sleep for 8 hours.
That being the case, the best way to ensure that you are not observed to murder anyone, is to actually NOT murder anyone. You cannot be observed performing an action, if you never perform it.
Ann wrote: **Only if you exist in a vacuum where the normal laws of biology and psychology are nonexistent to the point that you assume that only yourself and the single police officer, out of all of humanity, are capable of and/or desire to perform any actions.**
Vox Day wrote: **You're not only completely wrong, you also appear to be demonstrating that you are not very well read in philosophy. That assumption is not involved and I don't see how you can claim that it is. What is your justification for claiming that?**
Vox, you proposed a sort of hypothetical morality in which a person would do whatever they liked, having only to worry about the 'policeman around the corner'. This would require that the person live in a vacuum, where only he and the policeman were capable of or desired to perform any actions. The reason why is, simply because a policeman may be unaware of or unwilling to punish you for a crime, that does not mean that if you go around, say, raping and murdering a woman every night, that you will not eventually find yourself strung up by an angry lynch mob made of people other than the policeman. Therefore, a morality based only on worrying about what the policeman might do is absurd, there are numerous other consequences to your actions, and numerous other people who may retaliate against you, that you have to worry about.
When you shoot yourself in the foot with the first shot, dancing on the issues beyond that is unworkable. He doesn't lead to barbarism. Barbarism needs no laws or direction, it just is, much like wealth in it's truer form. Trying to cage either merely disables the notion if successful - or is ignored and trampled if not successful in containing. Heh.
I'm not even really interested in what some fob thinks, or what the majority of fools regard as wise or sage. And yet even I can smell one less than me a mile away. When people speak like this it means they know less than us know nothings. Far less. The only good thing about Darwin's theory is that it involves these people... when they try to apply their thinking to the mob they created.
Fucking Yum!
One point here is that the concepts of 'good' or 'evil' really only have meaning in terms of living (or conscious) beings. You can't really do 'good' or 'evil' to a boulder, it really doesn't make any difference to the boulder at all whether it exists in it's current state, or you paint it bright pink, or smash it into pebbles or launch it into outer space. Neither can a boulder be said to be 'good' or 'evil'. A boulder may do something you happen not to like, such as being in the middle of a feild you want to plow, or falling on your head in an avalanche, and you may regard this as an 'evil' set of circumstances, but the 'evil' applies accurately only to your opinion, not to the boulder itself.
Now... if another person drops the boulder in your feild or on your head, that might be accurately said to be 'evil' on their part.
> Bertrand Russel used many pages.
Because he was trying to prove the validity of his mathematical theory.
> It is different and distinct to see something as "common sense" v.s. a rigorous mathematical proof.
Of course. They're different.
> If I roll dice 100 times and every time I get 7, can I say that a set of rolled dice will ALWAYS add to 7?
You won't even get to 7 if you can't count, so you'll never develop those dice.
> If I have a bull and you have a cow, there may be three.
No, there may not be. There may become three, but there are only two.
> Again, that is the distinction - logic needs to be traced so as to eliminate the possibility of chance.
There is no chance with one and two. There is only the definition of what one and two are.
> To find a root-cause. To prove it such that there is metaphysical certainty.
Certainty can exist whether it is proven or not.
Therein lies the rub. It's inevitable, assuming that the atheists are logical.
It is not merely logical, it can readily be observed in practice.
At the end of which there is, of course, a terminus.
The difference being, you don't get to it automatically, no matter how you behave, as in the secular atheist philosophy. You only get to it as a "reward" for continuous, successful striving for spiritual betterment that involves the denial of self-gratification. Thus, the incentives in the two systems are diametrically opposed.
Buddhism is not "atheistic" at all, by the way. They believe in all sorts of supernatural beings. That aside, the idea that a system of gradated reincarnation is "atheist" is a fundamental error. If you believe in a "soul" at all, you are simply not in the same category, philosophically, as the modern American secular liberal.
Huh, you're right. I forgot that 'theism' isn't 'monotheism'.
Once you understand what one and two are, there is no other possibility. If there were, they wouldn't be one and two. That's what I mean by "it's defined that way".
And it's what I meant when I said that I know it to be true by intuition. It is a first principal; it doesn't require any proof.
> And it's what I meant when I said that I know it to be true by intuition.
That's a different usage of intuition than I'm familiar with, but I'll accept that.
> It is a first principal; it doesn't require any proof.
True. But if you can prove it, it demonstrates that your mathematical system is valid, at least in that respect.
At the end of which there comes the reward of sweet, sweet nuthin' (cue Doug Yule). Think of it as one single VERY long lifetime, with many ups and downs -- just like real life, only a lot longer: atheism stretched out over miles, like a giant piece of taffy. The end result is the same as the SWPL's, it just takes longer.
No, no, no!
This is the classic ignorant Westerner's view of Buddhism.
The end-goal of Buddhism is not "nothingness" in the sense of extinction and obliteration. The end-goal is to become a being of pure consciousness who had no further need to be reborn.
SWPL materialism asserts that consciousness is a function of the material brain and is annihilated forever when the material brain dies.
Buddhism asserts that consciousness exists independently of the physical body, and ultimately can exist eternally without the body.
Two more different philosophies can scarcely be imagined. To state that they ultimately amount to the same thing is profoundly erroneous.
Ann Morgan,
One point here is that the concepts of 'good' or 'evil' really only have meaning in terms of living (or conscious) beings. You can't really do 'good' or 'evil' to a boulder, it really doesn't make any difference to the boulder
Not so much.
It doesn't matter to the boulder, perhaps, or even a tree, a squirrel, or a cockroach. However, one can do evil to these, or more through these. Assume all else save humans are neutral, neither good nor evil, or capable of doing either. Fine. But ill intent on the part of a human actor, even upon a neutral object, can still evil.
Stomping bugs for destructive pleasure, defacing a unique rock face to deny others the pleasure it provided, burning a creature alive just for spite, all evil. There are greater and lessor evils, but... While the boulder, for example, wouldn't care, God would know the intent. By the way, there is no good or evil without God. And I think it can be safely assumed that either He knows our intent or will know it for judgment.
@Ann Morgan: "Now... if another person drops the boulder in your field or on your head, that might be accurately said to be 'evil' on their part."
Why could it accurately be said to be evil? By what definition of the word "evil"? Also, if it *might be* said to be evil, that isn't a very tough standard to meet. Anything *might be* said to be evil. What conviction you have in your beliefs, to include such obvious weasel words.
As an aside, I present this thread as evidence for my initial comment. It's been great!
Doom: In the case of defacing a unique boulder to deny others the pleasure of looking at it, this is evil, but the evil is not done to the boulder (which doesn't care what it looks like) but rather, to other people. So you are introducing living beings again. This is also the case with stomping on bugs for pleasure, or burning animals alive, the bugs and animals do care to whatever degree their intellect allows as to whether they are alive, or in pain. It is not evil, for instance, to stomp on bubble wrap for pleasure. Assuming, of course, that you have not stolen the bubble wrap from someone else, and they need it for their mail order business.
p-dawg - I specify that someone dropping a boulder in your field or on your head *might* be evil, because in order for it to actually be evil, it requires a prerequisite EITHER of their actually knowing that the feild they are putting the boulder in belongs to you, or that the boulder is going to land on someone's head, OR an extreme degree of carelessness and stupidity on their part, such as just going about dropping boulders out of an airplane and not caring where they land.
There are circumstances in which someone dropping a boulder on your head might not be evil, for instance, if you sneak into a rock quarry, deliberately hide when someone drives by warning everyone to clear the area, and 30 minutes later, blasting is done, and a boulder flies onto your head, that is not evil on the part of the explosives expert. He exercised reasonable care, and had no way of knowing what he was doing, and you have no-one to blame but yourself.
The jealous, angry God demands child sacrifice while condemning murder. If your God is so moral why can't he follow his own rules?
If your God is jealous then what does he have to be jealous of? If something is greater than he then why called him Almighty?
If the Bible is the most important text ever written and your immortal soul is at stake why is it written in an amorphous, ambiguous language of which the reader can draw nearly any interpretation from?
Why has literally every nation, people, and era derived their own interpretation of what the literal word of God means? Why is your interpretation the correct one?
Why does Jesus speak in parable and allegory and yet the bible is considered literal?
If Christ called his followers to be humble why so much arrogant certainty over his teachings?
Why would a loving, merciful God condemn a person to an infinite amount of suffering for a finite amount of sin?
Penrose asked: Why would a loving, merciful God condemn a person to an infinite amount of suffering for a finite amount of sin?
Because it isn't a finite amount of sin. A person isn't condemned for what they've done; a person is condemned for what they are.
Heaven is the place where everyone not only confesses that Jesus is Lord, but is delighted that He is Lord. Living in such an environment would make a lot of people miserable and God will not let misery infect heaven.
Only changed people can endure heaven.
You might ask, "well, can't they be changed once they see heaven and realize their mistake?" Maybe. But the very act of waiting once it has been explained to you is an act of defiance against God. That's just further evidence of unsuitability for heaven.
Next, you might ask, "well, then, why not just annihilate them so that they are no longer aware of their misery?" He could. Maybe He will. The evidence isn't as clear as we would like on the matter, IMO.
Penrose wrote: The jealous, angry God demands child sacrifice while condemning murder. If your God is so moral why can't he follow his own rules?
Because there isn't one set of rules that is binding on both God and man. God makes the rules for us; that certainly doesn't mean that He has to follow them. For example, if you're referring to the command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, God was certainly capable of raising Isaac from the dead. And, in fact, there's evidence that Abraham thought this is exactly what God would do.
If your God is jealous then what does he have to be jealous of? If something is greater than he then why called him Almighty?
Nothing is greater than He, which is why He describes Himself as "jealous". He is to be the be-all and end-all of our lives. Our highest focus is to be on Him. Nothing hard about that, at all.
Why has literally every nation, people, and era derived their own interpretation of what the literal word of God means? Why is your interpretation the correct one?
Why has every generation of Americans had a different opinion about what the text of the US Constitution means? Why was the Supreme Court divided, by 5-4, over the second amendment was about the right of the individual to carry arms? It isn't only because of the text; it's because of people. We don't like being limited in our options.
Nevertheless, we agree that "Jesus died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; was buried and rose the third day according to the Scriptures."
Why does Jesus speak in parable and allegory and yet the bible is considered literal?
Huh? The Bible is a complex book. Parts of it are literal, parts of it are poetry, parts of it are drama, parts of it are parable and allegory.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted. Rules of the blog
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home