Can theists be rational?

[Herzblut]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Linda

Hey, I was hoping to read something about animal rights in that Charter! Well, OK, it seems your morality has still no place in any really existing law.

First, I was pretty amazed about the first sentence declaring "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". I wasn't aware Canada was so religious.

When paging through I was looking for something, and finally I found it:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Now, fundamental justice, what is that? I mean, a supreme charter refers to something even higher, what can that be? Is that defined in legal terms somewhere?

 

[Herzblut]

I agree. But I suspect it is the source of Herzblut's "inviolable human dignity". You need a Magic Sky Daddy to declare humans uniquely different, because there's not really an empirical or logical basis for the idea.

It's plausible that humans treat humans different from non-humans, such idea evolves naturally, biologically. For instance, a human cannot procreate with a non-human.

 

[fls]

Hey, I was hoping to read something about animal rights in that Charter! Well, OK, it seems your morality has still no place in any really existing law.

I thought about including another link to those laws governing the treatment of animals, but I wasn't sure whether you were really interested in treating this seriously (and therefore didn't want to put a lot of effort into it).

First, I was pretty amazed about the first sentence declaring "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law". I wasn't aware Canada was so religious.

I was surprised by that too when I first found out about it - if only because Canada isn't particularly religious. I guess it's a hold-over from olden times. There was probably some dialogue about it at the time, but I wasn't paying attention.

When paging through I was looking for something, and finally I found it:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Now, fundamental justice, what is that? I mean, a supreme charter refers to something even higher, what can that be? Is that defined in legal terms somewhere?

It refers to the administration of justice. It's explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_justice#Section_24

Linda

 

[fls]

It's plausible that humans treat humans different from non-humans, such idea evolves naturally, biologically. For instance, a human cannot procreate with a non-human.

Yes. I think that the reason we wish to consider humans as having inviolable dignity is because we are humans.

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

I thought about including another link to those laws governing the treatment of animals, but I wasn't sure whether you were really interested in treating this seriously (and therefore didn't want to put a lot of effort into it).

But animal protection and animal right are different things. No animal has got a right to life, for instance. Animals can be killed and eaten up, even in Canada, can't they?

I was surprised by that too when I first found out about it - if only because Canada isn't particularly religious. I guess it's a hold-over from olden times. There was probably some dialogue about it at the time, but I wasn't paying attention.

Yeah, Canada is a pretty secular society, isn't it? The preamble of our Constitution starts with "Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,..." where "man" is mentioned also, at least.

It refers to the administration of justice. It's explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_justice#Section_24

I see, but it's not a simple concept for me. In a concrete situation, is the police entitled to kill somebody, or not? By what kind of principles is that governed in terms of Fundamental Justice?

 

[fls]

But animal protection and animal right are different things.

How so? We wouldn't protect them if we didn't think they had some rights, and rights are useless if they don't entail the duty to protect or something.

No animal has got a right to life, for instance. Animals can be killed and eaten up, even in Canada, can't they?

Yum. Canadian beef.

Yeah, Canada is a pretty secular society, isn't it? The preamble of our Constitution starts with "Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,..." where "man" is mentioned also, at least.

Oh well. At least Canada includes women.

I see, but it's not a simple concept for me. In a concrete situation, is the police entitled to kill somebody, or not?

Yes.

By what kind of principles is that governed in terms of Fundamental Justice?

Fundamental Justice does not govern those situations.

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

How so? We wouldn't protect them if we didn't think they had some rights, and rights are useless if they don't entail the duty to protect or something.

Property is protected by Law, that doesn't give my car any rights.

Oh well. At least Canada includes women.

Germany as well. Blame the translation if "man" doesn't mean "humans".

Fundamental Justice does not govern those situations.

But the Charter claims it does. Any dismissal of the right to life must follow Fundamental Justice. Can police kill a felon, for instance, if that would imply the death of an innocent guy, but save the life of multiple innocent people?

 

[fls]

Property is protected by Law, that doesn't give my car any rights.

In that case, the protection applies to the owner.

But the Charter claims it does. Any dismissal of the right to life must follow Fundamental Justice. Can police kill a felon, for instance, if that would imply the death of an innocent guy, but save the life of multiple innocent people?

I don't understand your scenario. Where does the innocent guy come from?

Linda

 

[Herzblut]

I don't understand your scenario. Where does the innocent guy come from?

He might be passenger in a plain hijacked by terrorists.

 

[fls]

He might be passenger in a plain hijacked by terrorists.

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

 

[kurious_kathy]

That's great, I believe the same thing. I believe we need to help others to find the truth. It just happens that my truth, that God is an illusion and that we can live happily without him, is the complete opposite of yours. But that doesn't mean you should stop trying! Good luck to you. I'll be doing my best, too!

God is not an illusion, he plants eternity in the human heart. Do you believe when we die we will either go to heaven or hell? I certainly do! And as for the OP topic there is nothing irrational about my belief!!

 

[fls]

God is not an illusion, he plants eternity in the human heart. Do you believe when we die we will either go to heaven or hell? I certainly do! And as for the OP topic there is nothing irrational about my belief!!

<Linda slips Kathy a fiver under the table.>

 

[L The Detective]

God is not an illusion, he plants eternity in the human heart. Do you believe when we die we will either go to heaven or hell? I certainly do! And as for the OP topic there is nothing irrational about my belief!!

Regarding God, I disagree. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, and I realize that you do. As for the OP, while I don't see your belief in God as rational, that doesn't mean you yourself are not a rational person. The fact that we are talking here in this forum proves you have the capacity for rational thought. That doesn't mean you are immune to irrational ideas, and of course the same also applies to me. I believe it's important to protect ourselves from those ideas by analyzing them.

If, on a fundamental level, your beliefs are partly supported by an emotion, by a desire to hold them, then that is what I would call an "irrational idea." In my opinion, this is what allows fundamentally flawed ideas to take root and grow.

 

[Paulhoff]

God is not an illusion, he plants eternity in the human heart.

Your so-called god is an illusion, it seems that you know what it does without any proof.

Paul

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well I'm not much of an apologeticist but I do believe we need them to help explain things well to those who are truly seeking the truth.

To me all this different apologetics stuff presents itself rather as intended and suited for people seeking confirmation.

The reality is the truth has been here all along but people just aren't open to find it enough! Christians do have answers to the really tough questions in life, but someone must be open to what they have to say. Here's another link from Charlie Campbells website "On Evidence For God and Why Evil and Suffering" http://www.alwaysbeready.com/images/library/campbell-charlie/studies-topical/whyevil/whyevil-a.htm

See my previous post. (The very one you have been responding to.)

 

[Belz...]

Well, I can at least place a subjective personal probability on that event at below 0.0000001.

Why not 50-50 ? I mean, it could be, and it could not be. That's the rationale behind the "50-50" estimate about god, whenever it's mentioned, right ?

Could it be because you already know that Middle-Earth and Conan are supposed to be made-up ? What if I told you that I know for a fact that god is made-up ? Shouldn't we look at the evidence, instead of making "subjective personal probability" pronouncements ?

Of course, when you realize there IS no evidence...

Because no sane rational person that I know of has claimed that Middle earth or the Hyborian world actually exist.

Claims make no difference. You can't substantiate a god claim without corroborating evidence.

There exists weak anecdotal subjective evidence for the existance of God. Thus, God has more evidence. As for the Bible, I believe bibles exist. Don't you?

I'm pretty sure you knew that "bible" was compared to the actual book "The Lord of the Rings", not god or Gandalf.

Indeed. I gather you now agree that we are not able to discern any difference. Is that correct?

Correct. Although I can easily imagine the difference if we're talking about the Christian god, if we're just talking about a generic "god", I'd have to admit that I couldn't tell the difference. Hence Occam.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be the difference between what you think of as being you (God) and a reference to the collection of various atomic particles that comprise your physical body (Universe). At least, that's how I think of Pantheism.

Lost me.

Useless? I'm not so sure about that. But useless and non-existant are two different questions.

More-or-less, but when we're talking about a being who supposedly created all that is, if he's useless, then it might damn well be important to the question of his existence.

I discussed this at length in a thread with Linda. I'll try and hunt up some of those posts if you're really interested.

I would, since I discuss the 50-50 thing above.

 

[Belz...]

God is not an illusion, he plants eternity in the human heart.

Is that supposed to make any sense ?

Do you believe when we die we will either go to heaven or hell? I certainly do! And as for the OP topic there is nothing irrational about my belief!!

There is nothing irrational about the idea that an imnipotent and all-good, perfect sky-god created a flawed universe with humans being his sole "chosen" race in a cosmos so vast as to make their existence seem meaningless, erected a set of divine laws that look suspiciously like they were written for the societies of their era, ordered the massacres of hundreds of thousands of people, including sacrifices of young virgins for his own benefit, and faked his own death on a cross to "save" humanity from sins he himself invented and promised eternal torment and suffering for ?

You think that sounds rational ?

 

[Belz...]

Okay, westprog...

About the simulation thing, I had a thought this morning.

You were saying that the inconsistencies in the simulation might not be spotted by people within the simulation. How about dreams ? Admitedly, the inconsistencies are more numerous and obvious (perhaps), but we can often spot them easily. So... even if, within the dream itself, it's supposed to make sense that your house is suddenly floating above Washington DC or that you're having a discussion with George Lucas back in 1977, and even if you're not exactly in the most lucid of states, you can tell these things don't make sense. And that's just you.

Billions of people, now ? As I said, it'd have to be a perfect simulation, which I don't believe in. Only reality, in principle, is perfectly consistent.

 

[westprog]

Atheism doesn't provide much of anything, as it's not a belief system. You must mean secular philosophy.

I mean that if you start with an acceptance of atheism, then it's difficult to come up with an objective single standard for morality.

But the theistic foundations for morality, though they sound good on the surface, seem to suffer all the same, and the foundation sounds like the appropriate area to describe the problem. You run into odd issues such as bootstrapping moral behavior (why do good things? Because God commands it! But are you motivated to do what God commands because you want to be good, or for pain avoidance--the latter of which isn't really moral?), the Euthyphro dilemma , etc.

Even conceding the issue of the existence of god(s), the standard apologetics for a theistic basis for morality aren't satisfying at all.

Then perhaps the "standard apologetics" should be replaced with something else.

 

[fls]

I mean that if you start with an acceptance of atheism, then it's difficult to come up with an objective single standard for morality.

We don't have an objective single standard for velocity, but we still seem to manage to get people to the moon. What relevance does your objection have to the discussion?

Linda