Can theists be rational?

[yy2bggggs]

Why do you say you have no choice? You are making a choice to disagree with God saying homosexuality isn't sin that people need to repent of.

You're not just putting the cart before the horse--you're forgetting the horse.

 

[Paulhoff]

God loves us all and hopes we come to this perfect place in our heart to accept not reject him.

You have not proved this so-called god in the first place. One does not reject nothing because there is nothing to reject.

Paul

 

[L The Detective]

Why do you say you have no choice? You are making a choice to disagree with God saying homosexuality isn't sin that people need to repent of. I understand we all need to love one another but this does not mean I have to love the sin. True some of us struggle with horrible types of sin but it's better to come clean and confess we need help and forgiveness for it. God loves us all and hopes we come to this perfect place in our heart to accept not reject him.

Well, technically the reason I don't believe in the Christian God is because I don't believe there is any real evidence for it. So it's a question of truth, not moral disagreements.

But putting that aside, if I were to make my choice of religion based solely on which religion has morals that I agree with, I could still not choose Christianity. It has too many morals that I find to be reprehensible.

Can I ask you a question? You yourself choose to have faith in God, correct? Do you find it easier to have faith if you agree with the morals of the Bible? If you disagree with the Bible's morals, would that make your faith harder?

 

[Beth]

Well I suppose the same question could be asked about ANY delusion. The simple fact is that people see or experience things that aren't there, sometimes. Many aren't crazy, mistaken or lying. They're just delusional. How would you go about proving or disproving that ?

I don't think you can. That's why I think the hypothesis is not a falsifiable one.

 

[Paulhoff]

http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Paul

 

[westprog]

This is flat-out wrong. First off, "nearness to waking" is a term you just cooked up. How do you determine if you're "near" waking up or not ?

Because you wake up.

Second, I've noticed that my dreams don't make sense without waking up for a good while later (hours, sometimes). I suspect I'm not the only person on Earth with such experiences.

And you'll also find many people who never notice inconsistencies while they are dreaming.

And if some people, at least in some circumstances, notice the inconsistency there, you'd expect we might spot those in a simulation, to say nothing about the people who are studying the mechanics of the whole thing.

Might, maybe, possibly. Depending on how the simulation is designed and implemented. Or maybe the experience would be the same as for those people who dream and accept whatever they are dreaming.

 

[westprog]

How so?

Linda

Any given codified moral system would have to balance rights and wrongs in such a variety of complex situations that we would never be sure if it was truly sensible or not.

 

[fls]

Any given codified moral system would have to balance rights and wrongs in such a variety of complex situations that we would never be sure if it was truly sensible or not.

And yet that describes the legal/justice system in Western civilizations. Are you dismissing the entire history of jurisprudence?

Linda

 

[Belz...]

I don't think you can. That's why I think the hypothesis is not a falsifiable one.

Marvelous! You've just more-or-less said that psychology isn't a science.

 

[Belz...]

Because you wake up.

Since your conception of time in dreams is dubious I find it hard to believe that you could consistently tell me how far from waking up, time-wise, you realised anything was wrong with the dream-world.

And you'll also find many people who never notice inconsistencies while they are dreaming.

There has to be a name for that particular kind of fallacy. I've NEVER, EVER said that all or most people notice. I said SOME. SOME people notice under SOME circumstances. In fact, I said it in the very post you were replying to. It's enough that SOME do in order to make my point.

Might, maybe, possibly. Depending on how the simulation is designed and implemented. Or maybe the experience would be the same as for those people who dream and accept whatever they are dreaming.

Which would lead right back to saying that SOME people will notice, especially if they're looking for it. Unless the simulation is perfect or near-perfect it seems unlikely that they won't.

 

[westprog]

And yet that describes the legal/justice system in Western civilizations. Are you dismissing the entire history of jurisprudence?

Linda

A legal system is not expected to be perfect or comprehensive. A legal system doesn't even address most human behaviour. A complete moral system, however, should be capable of evaluating everything that a person might do.

 

[Beth]

And yet that describes the legal/justice system in Western civilizations. Are you dismissing the entire history of jurisprudence?

Linda

Are you claiming it's a rational system?

Marvelous! You've just more-or-less said that psychology isn't a science.

Er, no, that doesn't follow from what I said. You've made me curious though. Do you consider psychology a science?

 

[L The Detective]

Any given codified moral system would have to balance rights and wrongs in such a variety of complex situations that we would never be sure if it was truly sensible or not.

I don't think that a moral system has to do that, actually. I think it merely has to establish basic principles, which we can use to judge complex situations. It is expected that there would be a certain amount of interpretation going on, and there's never going to be a judgment that is absolutely correct. These are abstract concepts, they can never be as certain as math.

Keep in mind this applies to any morality you receive from a "divine being," as well. In the sense that, even if the divine being is the one who sets the basic principles, it's still up to you to interpret how to use them in complex situations.

Take the situation with the plane. The principle here seems simple... we want to save lives. But the application of that principle is complicated, because if the plane crashes into the building, people will die, but if we shoot the plane down with a missle, there will be collateral damage and people will still die. However, we try to make the judgment call that is closest to our principal, so we make the choice we think results in the least amount of death.

Does this make sense to you?

A legal system is not expected to be perfect or comprehensive. A legal system doesn't even address most human behaviour. A complete moral system, however, should be capable of evaluating everything that a person might do.

I don't think it's possible for a moral system to address "everything" a person might do. If by "everything" you mean there should be a rule for every possible action, well obviously that's impossible. If by "everything" you mean that there should basic principles which we can use to evaluate all human behavior, I don't think that's the case either.

For example, take an action like picking your nose. Why would this need to be addressed by a system of morals? There are plenty of "neutral actions" that don't need to be addressed.

 

[fls]

A legal system is not expected to be perfect or comprehensive. A legal system doesn't even address most human behaviour. A complete moral system, however, should be capable of evaluating everything that a person might do.

A legal system is expected to be sensible or reasonable, though.

As L The Detective pointed out, one can approach this by judging actions against a set of principles, rather than prescribing actions.

If one considers the choice made by those on the fourth plane, to crash rather than allow the terrorists to strike their target, one can find a real world application of moral principles that start with the perspective of the individual (the passengers) compared to an absolute perspective (the terrorists).

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

If a police officer, in the process of attempting to eliminate the threat from a group of terrorists, accidently kills an innocent guy, is that death considered justified? Is that your question?

As far as I can tell, it could be. But I'm completely confused as to what your point is.

Linda

I'm thinking of a scenario where terrorists hijack a plane, with innocent passengers aboard, to deploy it as a 9/11 type of weapon. May authorities shoot down the plane as a last resort?

 

[Belz...]

Er, no, that doesn't follow from what I said.

Well, I did exaggerate a bit. However, if claims of delusion are unfalsifiable, I suppose anything that doesn't involve obvious symtoms is unfalsifiable and this makes psychology dubious.

However, proving that something is a delusion, beyond reasonable doubt, is easy: if the thing they claim to see doesn't exist, they're delusional.

You've made me curious though. Do you consider psychology a science?

Mostly, though there seems to be a lot of woo in it.

 

[fls]

I'm thinking of a scenario where terrorists hijack a plane, with innocent passengers aboard, to deploy it as a 9/11 type of weapon. May authorities shoot down the plane as a last resort?

I think that it is possible to form an unreasonable answer to that question and a reasonable answer. The use of an absolute moral standard allows that the actions of some people are closer to that standard than others, which also allows that the plane should not be shot down. That is, it is more moral to allow the terrorists to use the plane as a weapon, since their actions are closer to that absolute standard. The use of a symmetrical standard would allow the shooting down of the plane as a last resort to be considered a reasonable moral action compared to allowing the plane to be used as a weapon.

Linda

 

[westprog]

I don't think that a moral system has to do that, actually. I think it merely has to establish basic principles, which we can use to judge complex situations. It is expected that there would be a certain amount of interpretation going on, and there's never going to be a judgment that is absolutely correct. These are abstract concepts, they can never be as certain as math.

I think there is a difference between a moral system, which is how we try to decide what to do, and a moral standard, which is something which our moral system tries to aspire to.

Keep in mind this applies to any morality you receive from a "divine being," as well. In the sense that, even if the divine being is the one who sets the basic principles, it's still up to you to interpret how to use them in complex situations.

The divine being sets the moral standard - or, in a different way of looking at it, he is the moral standard. That doesn't make devising, or interpreting, a moral system easy though. It's still a matter of making judgements, and it's hard to find a set of rules that give an unambiguous answer in every case -typically because there's a conflict between different principles, whether the principles are decided in order to achieve some aim (greatest human happiness, stable society, etc) or according to some supposed moral standard.

Take the situation with the plane. The principle here seems simple... we want to save lives. But the application of that principle is complicated, because if the plane crashes into the building, people will die, but if we shoot the plane down with a missle, there will be collateral damage and people will still die. However, we try to make the judgment call that is closest to our principal, so we make the choice we think results in the least amount of death.

Does this make sense to you?

It does, up to a point - but choosing the least amount of death isn't as easy as it sounds. Say a pram with twins in it accidentally rolls onto the road. There's a car coming around the bend. Are we allowed to shoot the driver?

I don't think it's possible for a moral system to address "everything" a person might do. If by "everything" you mean there should be a rule for every possible action, well obviously that's impossible. If by "everything" you mean that there should basic principles which we can use to evaluate all human behavior, I don't think that's the case either.

For example, take an action like picking your nose. Why would this need to be addressed by a system of morals? There are plenty of "neutral actions" that don't need to be addressed.

I think that we need to have a moral system which can evaluate every action, even if only to determine if it's morally neutral.

 

[L The Detective]

I think there is a difference between a moral system, which is how we try to decide what to do, and a moral standard, which is something which our moral system tries to aspire to.

Well, if by "moral standard" you mean "a perfect moral system," then I agree that is what we aspire to, even though it is probably impossible. But if you are saying we should try to get as close as we can, then I agree.

The divine being sets the moral standard - or, in a different way of looking at it, he is the moral standard. That doesn't make devising, or interpreting, a moral system easy though. It's still a matter of making judgements, and it's hard to find a set of rules that give an unambiguous answer in every case -typically because there's a conflict between different principles, whether the principles are decided in order to achieve some aim (greatest human happiness, stable society, etc) or according to some supposed moral standard.

Yes, I agree. What I was trying to say is that this is true, regardless of whether the principals are "divine" or not. It's equally as difficult to interpret them in complex situations, either way.

It does, up to a point - but choosing the least amount of death isn't as easy as it sounds. Say a pram with twins in it accidentally rolls onto the road. There's a car coming around the bend. Are we allowed to shoot the driver?

Then we agree. I don't think it's easy, either.

I think that we need to have a moral system which can evaluate every action, even if only to determine if it's morally neutral.

I would say that "morally neutral" is the default assumption.

 

[kurious_kathy]

You have not proved this so-called god in the first place. One does not reject nothing because there is nothing to reject.

Paul

God has left tons evidence of his existence in all kinds of ways and it's up to each man to search for him with all their heart and mind. It's not my job to proove anything, Jesus already has proven his deity! It's your own fault if you are blind to it.

I believe it is important for everyone to get honest with themselves and then they can start being honest with God. He will forgive our sins but we must receive Jesus first!