Atheism and Christianity: a Third Way?

[verum]

Principles like altruism do seem to be built into our biological nature

In which case it is not true altruism.If we are programmed to act thus we are not being altruistic.

Now to get to your main point. Say we have a society where raping and killing infants is the norm. I would assume that some posters on here would say that in such a place, raping and killing infants is moral. Imagine that I agree with them and live in such a society. Would my decision to rape and kill an infant be meaningless? Surely it would be meaningful in my society. Perhaps I believe the strong should consume the weak, or perhaps I believe that the Goddess Venushtarcatyl is pleased by my act and will bless my family, or perhaps I will horrify my enemies who will keep their babies away from me. How is it meaningless?

I didn't say such a decision would be meaningless. I said that for a moral relativist in the sense I am using the term to have meaningful morals is illogical.

None of what you say is about morals as I ( and most people ) understand the term.I said originally that "these terms are ultimately meaningless in this context. "


Verum

 

[Germaine]

Andyandy-I've missed one thing. You say 'choose a number on the real number line and I can choose a number between it'. How can you choose a number between one other number? Surely you choose a number between two other numbers. If a boundary (of zero width) is drawn (theoretically) on a number line, there is nothing 'between' it.

 

[andyandy]

Andyandy-I've missed one thing. You say 'choose a number on the real number line and I can choose a number between it'.

i meant choose two numbers

 

[verum]

But that is not moral absolutism - merely a weight of numbers consensus. I agree most people's personal interpretation of morality converges - that's not surprising as we're governed by bell-curve biological compunction and semi-standardised socetial influence.

For the umpteenth time I am not arguing that numbers mean truth. I am just pointing out that a philosophy that goes against what most people believe and no-one really practises is unlikely to be true.

I chose to say that he presented himself as a prophet because as i'm sure you're aware there was significant debate amongst the early church as to whether he was indeed divine, or simply a divinely led prophet. Aruis and Anthanasius represented the two main schemes of thought - Aruis for the created order, and Anthanasuis for the divine. The proposed trinity solution resulted in the Greek Orthodoxy schism and is certainly open to interpretation given the NT texts.

No, you are wrong. They both accepted He was God; they disagreed over whether he had always existed.."There WAS when he was not"; avoiding the word "time" Arius attempted a claim that He was born before time. The orthodox saw this was irrational. You are also wrong about the East/West schism. This was NOT to do with the deity of Christ..more to do with the Papal claims and the filioque clause in the Credo. Wrong again: there was no "proposed trinity solution"; The deity of the holy Spirit was not then part of the deal.

verum, how does an absolutist resolve the paradox?

****ed if I know. But then again, the only way you can resolve it is to say your drawing of the line would be "arbitrary", which happens to be what I have been saying all along.Dictionary definition: arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, not by necessity, reason or principle.

Let's take the subject of abortion. Correct me if I'm wrong ( I know you will )but : can't we say a baby exists at delivery? Presumably we can use SP to demonstrate that a baby exists from the moment of conception ( a happy co-incidence regarding the teaching of the Roman Church).But isn't there the same problem for you? Where would you draw the line?Wherever you draw it, by your own admission it has to be an arbitrary point. Then why not draw it a second before birth? For someone who admits their moral views are arbitrary, what is the point of debating moral issues at all? Whatever can the words "right" aand "wrong" mean to such a person? Denuded of all objectivity they can only refer to arbitrary preferences, like our fondness for certain foods or music...


When I started this new thread I had hoped a few Christians would come out of the woodwork and give their views, even if they were diametrically opposed to mine. Sadly no-one has done so yet,and while I am grateful for such a response as I have had from the many atheists around here ( I certainly haven't been ignored ) I find it frankly difficult to reply to the large number of posts . I've been managing 9.30 posts a day and I'm tired. I'm going to have a day or two off and see if anyone is still here when I get back.

Verum.

 

[andyandy]

1. I'm not sure this issue belongs to 'Absolute Morality' so I don't propose to specify an answer. You may think this is a cop-out.

I think it's integral to concepts of absolute morality, so yes, it is a bit of a cop out

2. Neat proof but I'm slightly worried about the subtraction. Have you got the more rigorous proof or a reference to it?

i suppose your "worries" stem from the bottom of the wiki page which discusses Richman's Dedekind cuts of decimal fractions which seeks to undermine proof through considering certain commutable structures which don't include subtraction? I can't see why else you would be worried by subtraction - it's a pretty standard operation.

The reals are normally derrived through either Dedekind cuts (in which one defines a partition of the rationals into two non-empty sets and then defines the reals as the set which includes all Dedekind cuts) or through cauchy seqences (where R(reals) is obtained by adding to Q (rationals) points that correspond to the Cauchy sequences of rational numbers that do not converge in Q)...

Richman circumvents the problem by simply redefining his terms such that when the Dedekind cuts are made, they contain both an open and closed upper bounded set - which i don't find especially relevant - one can undermine any proof through redefing ones' terms - I can "prove" that 1/0 is a possible operation simply by defining 1/0 = 0+ - it doesn't mean it actually is....

3. This 'Planck Level' is very small but isn't a boundary of zero width anyway?

But how does one achieve a zero width boundary with continuous data? It is only possible if spacetime is discrete.

 

[andyandy]

For the umpteenth time I am not arguing that numbers mean truth. I am just pointing out that a philosophy that goes against what most people believe and no-one really practises is unlikely to be true.

Why? There is no logic to this premise beyond a weight of numbers consensus - largely by those who have been religiously indoctrinated to believe it.

No, you are wrong. They both accepted He was God; they disagreed over whether he had always existed.."There WAS when he was not"; avoiding the word "time" Arius attempted a claim that He was born before time. The orthodox saw this was irrational. You are also wrong about the East/West schism. This was NOT to do with the deity of Christ..more to do with the Papal claims and the filioque clause in the Credo. Wrong again: there was no "proposed trinity solution"; The deity of the holy Spirit was not then part of the deal.

Perhaps I'm misremembering - I need to read The History of God again

****ed if I know. But then again, the only way you can resolve it is to say your drawing of the line would be "arbitrary", which happens to be what I have been saying all along.Dictionary definition: arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, not by necessity, reason or principle.

so your entire logical system for morality is based upon ****ed if I know....If you can't resolve the paradox then where is your absolute morality? You are happy to criticise the moral relativist for admiting to drawing an arbitrary line, and yet have no answer as to what you would do yourself. And surely we don't need to descend into an argument by dictionary? Arbitrary means based upon ones' own feelings or perceptions rather than on objective facts, principles - you don't need to jump on that and say "Aha! Therefore that must mean moral equivalence for everything - I knew it!" One can indeed look at the objective evidence to get to a approximate division, but the final division itself must be arbitrary. With the case of sexual consent, objective biological and psychological evidence leads me to a ball park figure of 15-18 years old - and given the evidence am happy with the arbitrary dividing line drawn at 16. How can you argue that there is an absolute dividing line between T and F when you can't resolve how a division should occur?

Let's take the subject of abortion. Correct me if I'm wrong ( I know you will )but : can't we say a baby exists at delivery? Presumably we can use SP to demonstrate that a baby exists from the moment of conception ( a happy co-incidence regarding the teaching of the Roman Church).But isn't there the same problem for you? Where would you draw the line?Wherever you draw it, by your own admission it has to be an arbitrary point. Then why not draw it a second before birth? For someone who admits their moral views are arbitrary, what is the point of debating moral issues at all? Whatever can the words "right" aand "wrong" mean to such a person? Denuded of all objectivity they can only refer to arbitrary preferences, like our fondness for certain foods or music...

would you argue that a women taking a morning after pill is as morally culpable as a women who performs a self abortion 9 months pregnant? Of course the line one chooses to draw is arbitrary, the fact that this makes you uncomfortable doesn't make it false. You've chosen an issue for which you already hold absolute opinions for (life begins at conception) how about the age of sexual consent? At what age is it morally acceptable for someone to have sex? - (or get married and have sex if you want to bring christian morality into this) if you have no answer to the paradox, you have no absolute morality to defend. "****ked if I know" isn't a very convincing argument upon which to base an ideology.

I'm not convinced you've taken the time to read the Stanford article on morality, so here's a much more concise introduction to relative morality

 

[The Atheist]

I have been told by a well-known mountebank on here that there are other Christians on this forum( so far I have met none )but that they are ashamed to be seen in my company because of the pathetic nature of my arguments, which are out of date and long ago proven to be false.

Wonder who that was....

"Mountebank", eh?

That's very close to being sig-worthy, if only for its uniqueness. Nice one!

 

[The Atheist]

Mr. Clingford, on the other hand, is a very reasonable Christian. There are people here with great knowledge of the Christian Bible--actually lots of them.

I'm told Myriad is a Christian--he's also very smart and logical. Darth Rotor, I believe, as well.

Those are indeed the three main ones. I think it's fair to say that they are respected pretty universally, despite being on the "other team".

jjramsey, CEO Esq and ichneumenwasp seem to be the non-theist biblical experts.

Andyandy is never abusive, always substantial.

I'm beginning to wonder about Andy. He's just too damned "nice". I gotta find a way to get a mean streak going in that man!

I actually think he's a christian in disguise. Never trust those guys who post orang-utans as avatars.

Can we have a look at "free will" next please, Verum?

 

[andyandy]

I actually think he's a christian in disguise. Never trust those guys who post orang-utans as avatars.

Rumbled! I'm actually The Great Prophet Pongo (God's chosen creatures are orangutans not puny homo saps) , sent to work on the JREF forum to make sure God's got plenty of incriminating evidence to ensure all you atheists all go to Hell....

TA, God's preparing somewhere extra special for you

 

[Cosmo]

Andyandy-
2. Neat proof but I'm slightly worried about the subtraction. Have you got the more rigorous proof or a reference to it?

Try this one:

x = 1/3 = 0.3333333..

3x = 1

3(0.333333..) = 1

QED

 

[andyandy]

Have you got the more rigorous proof or a reference to it?

rigourous proofs do require quite a bit of analysis - the wiki page is a decent introduction, and the fraction version given by Cosmos or the earler version using c are normally sufficient...but i've dug out my Analysis and Integration theory text book which devotes a chapter to the proof...it is quite heavy going but this is a taster;

first we start with a sequence of rational numbers denoted by {a_n} which serves as a mapping of the natural numbers into the rational numbers...and a sequence {a_n} is said to converge to the rational number a written

[latex]$ lim_{n \to \infty} a_n = a [/latex]

if for any rational number [latex]$ \epsilon > 0 [/latex] there is an integer N such that
n > N implies |a - a_n| < [latex]$ \epsilon [/latex]

once you have your cauchy sequence you can use it to construct a real number - say of a non negative decimal written as

[latex]$ a_o.a_1a_2....a_n... [/latex]

to which each decimal is attributed a sequence of rational numbers called the nth truncation of the decimal...

[latex]$ x_1 = a_0 + \frac{a_1}{10}, x_2 = x_1 + \frac{a_2}{10^2} [/latex]

the sequence of which ({x_n}) is a cauchy sequence....

The cauchy sequence of truncations therefore converge to a rational number iff it contains a repeating decimal, (which uses the property of sequence convergence as n tends to infinity....)

A much abridged version - it takes up 8 pages in the text

 

[kellyb]

In which case it is not true altruism.If we are programmed to act thus we are not being altruistic.

I disagree. As biological organisms, we can be programmed to have a variety of responses to different situations. We are also cognitive beings who can decide what "kind of person" we want to be. We can think and choose.
By nature I am an omnivore, but I choose to not eat other mammals. (I have my reasons there). It's a conscious choice that's probably a redirection of a "herd altruism" instinct.

I'm also an atheist who's mostly a moral absolutist. I just have to think really hard about stuff sometimes and gather a whole lot of facts to find the absolute at times.

Don't feel a need to respond to this post, by the way. I won't feel ignored if you're feeling overwhelmed.
Oh, and most the Christians actually hang out in the other forums, I think. For some strange reason, they apparently don't really like debating religion (at least not here). I can't for the life of me imagine why.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By nature I am an omnivore, but I choose to not eat other mammals. (I have my reasons there). It's a conscious choice that's probably a redirection of a "herd altruism" instinct.

I know this is tangential to the topic at hand, but just recently I've been hanging out with a small local group of atheists, and we discovered that a disproportionately high number of us are vegetarians. In a restaurant, our table had maybe 12 people, and 4 of us turned out to be vegetarians.

 

[Germaine]

Andyandy-Aaargh!!! I've forgotten all my University Maths (Analysis at any rate). I bow to your superior knowledge on that.

However it seems that almost everyone here agrees that in most moral issues there is a boundary-arbitrarily chosen by the relativists or believed to be fixed by the absolutists. As far as I'm concerned we can't get much further on this so that's me done on this topic!

 

[VanillaCone]

One solution of the Sorites paradox involves setting a fixed boundary and I suppose this is what the law does here i.e. it's not illegal for a 30 year old to have sex with a 16 year old but it IS illegal for a 30 year old to have sex with a 15 year old (15 years and 364 days....). Not altogether satisfactory but how else do you do it? As for morality, is there anyone who would deny that it's immoral for a 30 year old to have sex with a 3 year old? What about 4 or 5 or.....? There is something absolute here. Are we just arguing about where we draw the line?

When I think about the morality of sexual intercourse between any two people, I see it in terms of an absolute and unmovable line that, if crossed, renders the act immoral. But that line has nothing to do with relative age, or with age at all. The line exists between mutually gratifying sex and exploitative sex in which one participant experiences gratification at the physical or emotional (short-term or long-term) expense of the other.

The's nothing remotely relativistic about that line; the relativism comes into play when a society attempts -- as it must -- to translate an abstract moral concept into a legal standard for which the burden of proof can be satisfied. The "arbitrary" statutory age for consensual sex really isn't arbitrary. It's an approximation of the age at which the balance shifts from the likelihood of exploitative sex to the likelihood of mutually gratifying sex. Since different cultures have different ideas about such things, the standard varies from place to place. That's not moral relativism. (ETA) It's merely a product of the inexact science of trying to fit a moral peg into a legal hole.

 

[andyandy]

When I think about the morality of sexual intercourse between any two people, I see it in terms of an absolute and unmovable line that, if crossed, renders the act immoral. But that line has nothing to do with relative age, or with age at all. The line exists between mutually gratifying sex and exploitative sex in which one participant experiences gratification at the physical or emotional (short-term or long-term) expense of the other.

The's nothing remotely relativistic about that line; the relativism comes into play when a society attempts -- as it must -- to translate an abstract moral concept into a legal standard for which the burden of proof can be satisfied. The "arbitrary" statutory age for consensual sex really isn't arbitrary. It's an approximation of the age at which the balance shifts from the likelihood of exploitative sex to the likelihood of mutually gratifying sex. Since different cultures have different ideas about such things, the standard varies from place to place. That's not moral relativism. (ETA) It's merely a product of the inexact science of trying to fit a moral peg into a legal hole.

if you want to vote for moral absolutism then how do you determine the divide? You can't decouple such considerations from time as the passage of time is what marks a shift from when an individual can participate in "mutually gratifiying sex" and when that sex is exploitative. If an immutable line exists where is the zero width line between T and F?

 

[The Atheist]

TA, God's preparing somewhere extra special for you

That's why I love christians who tell me I'm going to hell - I always pass comment that satan will welcome me as one of his own.

A much abridged version - it takes up 8 pages in the text

Argggh! I wish I understood any of that.

It's times like these when I wish I'd followed in the steps my maths teacher at high school wanted - I was his maths prodigy up to form 6 when I left to pursue further education in drinking and sex.

 

[VanillaCone]

if you want to vote for moral absolutism then how do you determine the divide? You can't decouple such considerations from time as the passage of time is what marks a shift from when an individual can participate in "mutually gratifiying sex" and when that sex is exploitative. If an immutable line exists where is the zero width line between T and F?

I already explained where the divide lies -- between a mutually gratifying act and an exploitative act. Describe to me an "immoral" sexual encounter, in the context of the two (or more I guess) participants involved, that is inconsistent with the above.

Age comes into play only because the age of the younger participant, and the relative difference in age, can provide clues as to the likelihood exploitation has occurred. For instance, a prepubescent child cannot, biologically, derive pleasure from sex. Therefore, no adult who has sex with a prepubescent child could argue reasonably that the sex was "consensual" or healthy for the child.

However, that does not mean all sex between two postpubescents is by definition consensual or moral. An obvious example is forced rape. Answer me this: What on earth does age have to do with the immorality of rape? The rapist could be 15 and the victim 50, but so what?

We have made age relevant in our legal system because it's extremely difficult to prove intent in a court of law. It is possible, as some rape prosecutions are in fact successful. But those cases are also extremely painful and humiliating for the victims, who often describe the experience as akin to being raped a second time.

Therefore, if we set a legal age standard below which the likelihood of exploitative sex is far more likely, we can base the law around the age standard, make it an open-and-shut case and spare the victim hurtful accusations that she -- because it's almost always a female victim -- "asked for it" or was otherwise complicit in her own victimization.

But there's always that occasional case that doesn't fit the mold, such as the Letourneau case in which the "victim" was under the legal age of consent, but at the same time was clearly a willing participant who enjoyed the relationship. Was it immoral? It was certainly illegal, and from that standpoint alone some would say therefore immoral. Others still claim it was exploitation -- the kind in which the child "thinks he wants the sex" but is in actuality a victim. And to that I say, "Get real."

 

[andyandy]

I already explained where the divide lies -- between a mutually gratifying act and an exploitative act. Describe to me an "immoral" sexual encounter, in the context of the two (or more I guess) participants involved, that is inconsistent with the above.

*sigh*

How do you propose that an individual crosses that line between being able to participate in a mutually gratifying act and an exploitative act? That there is *an instant* A in which it's exploitative and *an instant* B in which it's not? And that gap between those two instants doesn't actually exist? You can not decouple time from a shift between two differing mental/physical states - it requires that time passes to get you from one to the next!

Age comes into play only because the age of the younger participant, and the relative difference in age, can provide clues as to the likelihood exploitation has occurred. For instance, a prepubescent child cannot, biologically, derive pleasure from sex. Therefore, no adult who has sex with a prepubescent child could argue reasonably that the sex was "consensual" or healthy for the child.

This is not an argument for absolute morality - but at what age a society should set the legal limits.

However, that does not mean all sex between two postpubescents is by definition consensual or moral. An obvious example is forced rape. Answer me this: What on earth does age have to do with the immorality of rape? The rapist could be 15 and the victim 50, but so what?

We're not talking about rape - nor was the suggestion made that considerations of time are relevant in deciding every moral dividing line.

We have made age relevant in our legal system because it's extremely difficult to prove intent in a court of law. It is possible, as some rape prosecutions are in fact successful. But those cases are also extremely painful and humiliating for the victims, who often describe the experience as akin to being raped a second time.

Yes - i agee. This is however irrelevant to absolute morality.

Therefore, if we set a legal age standard below which the likelihood of exploitative sex is far more likely, we can base the law around the age standard, make it an open-and-shut case and spare the victim hurtful accusations that she -- because it's almost always a female victim -- "asked for it" or was otherwise complicit in her own victimization.

I agree. This is also irrelevant to absolute morality.

I'm getting tired of asking the moral absolutists the same question and not getting any answers, but one more time. If you believe in moral absolutism in which there is an instant A in which an act is immoral and there is an instant B in which an act is moral, at what point between those two instants does the dividing line exist? You can not pretend that time does not exist. Time does exist. It is required to get you from A to B. The dividing line must exist if you believe in moral absolutism. Does the absolutist subscribe to a planck level divide? That we can draw a line to the level of 5.3x10^-44 seconds? Or does the absolutist simply ignore this because they are unable to reconcile this problem with their own absolutely held beliefs?

It is not the burden of the moral relativist to prove their position - moral relativism simply requires that an individual draws judgements - and that his judgements are influenced by biology and society. This is not a remarkable claim. The burden is on the moral absolutist to prove their position - that there is an immutable,objective line, distinct from human consciousness which actually exists and divides moral from immoral. This is a truly remarkable claim which requires recourse to something akin to the supernatural. I have yet to see any remarkable evidence to support that remarkable claim.

 

[andyandy]

It's times like these when I wish I'd followed in the steps my maths teacher at high school wanted - I was his maths prodigy up to form 6 when I left to pursue further education in drinking and sex.

sex and drinking probably gave you more enjoyment that partial differentials and sums to infinity ever could