Can theists be rational?

[yy2bggggs]

Which is a meme.

Which is another meme.

My claim is that this value we place on human lives is a cultural and societal idea, a meme. MLK succeeded by affirming the value of African Americans to whites. He basically sold them on the idea that African Americans have a value similar to whites and hence should be treated fairly and hence this meme overwhelmed and won out againts the meme that AA were of lesser worth.

Yeah, but this sort of ignores the pitch to the sell. MLK Jr's strategy was simply to show what was going on to the world--to expose injustices to those in denial. It worked because people have an innate tendency to empathize.

Which does not invalidate my claim. Memes are not universal.

Well, seeing as how memes are universal, I assume you mean that particular memes aren't universal. But empathy is. If morality were meme based, we should expect almost total buy-in. That is not what we see. I don't doubt memes are there, nor do I doubt for a second that they have influence... I just have major issue with the suggestion that they are at the heart of morality--that morality is based on memes. There's another basis for morality besides memes--the memetic environment, you could say.

Not really, it is what I'm arguing for. An us vs them mentality is a learnt behavior.

Yeah, like language is a learned behavior. Us vs them is about as universal as it gets. It's not so much a matter of whether or not we have us vs them mentality--it's a matter of where we draw the line (and even this is a bit simplistic--we draw multiple fuzzy lines).

It invalidates or depreciates the value of other "outside groups".

And there are almost always "outside groups". Consider how you'd react to actions that harm other animals--say, chimpanzees. Dogs. Chickens. Plants (I have to mention tomatoes for some odd reason). Plush toys.

In effect, a threshold or value that is placed on acting morally is completely subjective

What do you mean by completely subjective? It sounds like you mean something that I would disagree with, but it also sounds like you mean something that is inconsistent with something you say later, so I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean.

in the sense that it is a learned behavior

...with a neurological basis (and you even grant, genetic basis)

that affects an entire societal group

No it doesn't. It almost never affects an entire societal group. You're going to have a particularly hard time convincing this apostate that it does.

along with an individual. This threshold may be partially internal(genetics which play a role in sociopathic behavior) and environmental.

We all are influenced by said genetics. We're all human. There are almost certainly alleles that affect moral tendency, but let's not ignore the non-competing genes as well.

Before you can even get to memes, you need language. We get a severely rich language because we're a heavily social species. We get morality from being a heavily social species as well. Nature's playing a much bigger role than you let on.

 

[westprog]

I'm not sure where this discussion of morality came from

Herzblut asked what difference it made if the world was a simulation and I said that it might mean that someone was watching you all the time and he said, I don't care if someone's watching me, my sense of morality is internal and I said where do you get it from then and so it developed.

OK, back to work.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Herzblut asked what difference it made if the world was a simulation ...

Well, yeah, which explains how the topic came up (and I've read that part), but then it started getting discussed... and it's a bit of a side track. I don't quite mind, but it'd be nice if this weren't buried on the end of a 2500 post thread.

 

[L The Detective]

Fruit is a concept invented by people. But we can't just call an elephant a fruit. The reason that we think that human beings have value is because we know that we have value ourselves. It's a reasonable extrapolation that other people have value too.

Hmm... well, I don't think I can agree with you that "fruit" is a concept invented by people. I wouldn't even call "fruit" a concept, I'd call it a label. I'd say it's a label for observable phenomenon.

I see what you're saying about human beings, and how we "know" we have value. But I think to put it the way you're putting it is slightly misleading. It's not that we "know" we have value. "Value" is a concept invented by us in the first place. By definition, I think we "decide" we have value, and since it is in our own interest for our life to be valuable, we "decide" that our lives have the maximum value possible. So it's not that we "know" our lives are valuable, it's that that is the obvious conclusion, given that we ourselves define our value for ourselves.

I don't think that it's wrong to say that human beings have an absolute value. But if that is accepted, we have to accept the implications that come with it.

I have to disagree with you here, but it's only with that word "absolute." Everything else you've said I agree with. In my opinion, ideas can't be absolute.

Not even math is absolute. For example, it is not absolute that 2+2=4. It depends on what rules you're using, and 2+2=4 only if you're using base 10. If you change the rules to base 2, 2+2 becomes 22. What I think this illustrates is that ideas aren't absolute, it depends on how you define the rules, on which your ideas are based.

 

[L The Detective]

What are you suggesting? That we only act morally towards those things that pass a certain threshold of value? And that we arbitrarily assign a value to humans that passes that threshold and withhold that value from everything else?

How would you counter the idea that value varies and that some humans could potentially fall below that threshold?

That's a good question. Perhaps, morally and logically, you have to accept that how a person values thier own life automatically supersedes your own estimation. Of course, there will still be people out there who will make decisions on the value of your life, but I think that's not a logically justifiable position.

 

[Belz...]

I've addressed everything you said in detail. My posts in reply to you probably equate to a substantial magazine article now.

Well, then. I should've said "I rule that possibility out" right off the bat. Would've spared you the trouble.

 

[Herzblut]

Then the question is - do human lives have intrinsic value, or is it a matter of what we assign to them?

We assign intrinsic value.

I can say "my own human dignity is intrinsic", and then universalize. In how far human life must be protected follows from the presumed untouchable human dignity. But I don't want to derail this thread too much...

 

[kurious_kathy]

Perhaps that kind of description of god doesn't make sense, but the answer is to use a different description. If god is capable of creating the universe, why would he be unable to interact with it? Why would he seal himself off from it? A god that can create can clearly change what he has created.

Hi Westprog, are you a Christian? I see it says you are a theist but I want to narrow it down more if you would care to share. I am a Christian but I cannot say I understand everything about our supernatural God other than he doesn't want people to deny him and perish.

God does intervene in our lives but most cannot see with spiritual eyes to know this. I do know this but it is often unexplainable. If something is unexplainable we humans tend to try to disreguard it because we cannot explain it rashinally but that doesn't mean it isn't real.

 

[Paulhoff]

I am a Christian but I cannot say I understand everything about our supernatural God other than he doesn't want people to deny him and perish.

Really, you don't know everything, you sure don't write that way.

Paul



Get humble before your so-called gold sends you to hell.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Really, you don't know everything, you sure don't write that way.

Paul



Get humble before your so-called gold sends you to hell.

Well I do know what a person who has true saving faith should know, but that does not mean I know everything LOL. God has given me some spirtual insights and some I must say are difficult to deal with beause most have not experienced what I have to obtain it. What would you do if God let you experience for one minute what it would feel like to die outside of Christ? You can't probably even try to know this but I have experienced it and it's not good. One second after you die you will be overtaken with a feeling of dread and then you'll know you should have listened to all those crazy Christians God sent your way to speak truth into your life! I am NOT kidding!!

 

[Paulhoff]

It must be fun to be self-delusional, tell yourself anything you want to hear and then believe in it. Go for it KK.

Paul

 

[kurious_kathy]

It must be fun to be self-delusional, tell yourself anything you want to hear and then believe in it. Go for it KK.

Paul

I am not deluding myself Paul, this is for real and God is not a liar. We really can trust the Bible. Have you ever read "Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible" by Erwin Lutzer? If not I would like to recommend it. In fact I just met a brother in Christ who gave me hope for you skeptics. His name is Charlie Campbell. He was like many of you until someone gave him the answers to why we should believe in God and the Bible and now he has a whole ministry dedicated to answering the tough questions skeptics ask. Maybe it takes a skeptic to reach a skeptic? Anyways here's a link and there are some great articles and books available! Check it out... http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=46

 

[yy2bggggs]

...I cannot say I understand everything about our supernatural God other than he doesn't want people to deny him

Why not?

 

[Belz...]

I am a Christian but I cannot say I understand everything about our supernatural God other than he doesn't want people to deny him and perish.

Which is odd, considering he's omnipotent and all.

 

[Paulhoff]

I am not deluding myself Paul, this is for real and God is not a liar.

Sorry KK, your idea of a so-called god is not true. I don't have anything to do with a childish idea of a so-called god. I've gone to Philadelphia' Children’s Hospital to give blood etc. and seen horrible things and heard the screams, how can one even begin to make excuses for a so-called god after that. That is plan out and out UN-rational.

Paul

 

[fls]

There is no satisfactory solution.

Isn't the search for a satisfactory solution part of the point of this thread? One of the arguments for theism is that it provides a basis for morality which we would otherwise lack. I think L The Detective and I are looking for a rational basis for morality, a satisfactory solution.

We tend to assume that other human beings have about the same value to themselves as we do to ourselves. We aren't to sure about animals. We don't regard carrots or rocks as being in the game at all.

We don't really attach the same value to other human beings, though. We feel differently about different people. There's not much point to a morality that pretends otherwise - it won't be empirically grounded, for one.

Linda

 

[fls]

Actually that sounds about right. The value we place is subjective and is based on societal memes hence the lack of value placed on African Americans in the 18th century and the general lack of value placed on everyone who was not a noble in the dark ages.

Even today, KKK and white supremacists place a lower value on non-whites than on whites.

I don't believe there is anything to counter. There ARE some people who fall below that threshold set by society. An example would be child molesters but unfortunately, any undesirables also can be a victim such as the homeless, drug addicts and atheists.

I agree that this is realistic, which is why a morality based on assigning value (even if you pretend to assign the same value to everyone, in the face of reality), doesn't serve as a rational approach. How would you condemn someone's actions if they simply explained that your value was low?

Hence the importance of teaching and spreading the values that you deem desirable.

I disagree. I don't think the idea of majority rule is a rational approach as it necessarily leads to inequality.

Linda

 

[Belz...]

That is plan out and out UN-rational.

Leave the United Nations out of this!

 

[Herzblut]

We don't really attach the same value to other human beings, though. We feel differently about different people. There's not much point to a morality that pretends otherwise - it won't be empirically grounded, for one.

Equal, irrefutable human value is the basis of human rights and democracy. It is the basis of Western civilization.

We agree, there's no point to a morality that cannot be implemented in real societies by making it universal law. What real societies have implemented your kind of morality so we can have a look at?

 

[fls]

Equal, irrefutable human value is the basis of human rights and democracy. It is the basis of Western civilization.

Well, except for slaves, and women, and non-land-owners, and...

We agree, there's no point to a morality that cannot be implemented in real societies by making it universal law. What real societies have implemented your kind of morality so we can have a look at?

You first.

Linda