Stimpson wrote:
What do you mean "from an atheist's perspective"? Unless you are going to claim that drawing conclusions about the nature of reality from intuitive and emotional feelings, is rational, what I have said is applicable. Incidentally, I know many Theists who would agree with me. They just disagree with me about whether there are rational reasons to believe in God, and do not claim to believe in God for emotional or intuitive reasons.
This is what I mean when I say “from the atheist’s perspective.” From your perspective, my belief in God is irrational. For me, it is a completely rational, you just don’t agree on my rationality of it.
I do not "arrive" at remorse at all. There is no conclusion involved. There is no reasoning or logic involved. I feel the emotion of remorse. That is a fact. I don't have to give myself permission to do it, any more than I have to give myself permission to feel pain when I cut myself.
This is crucial point where we must arrive at a objective conclusion based on evidence. I say you arrive at remorse you say you don’t. Either we do or we don’t. My argumentation is based on this premise, I first have to show that your premise is wrong.
How do you figure? It is certainly not something that I decided to do. I am sure that it is a combination of instinct and learned responses, but then, so is feeling afraid when I see spiders. That isn't rational either. I know that the spider is harmless. It doesn't matter. I don't have to give myself permission to feel afraid. I don't want to feel afraid. I don't have any choice.
Ok, I’ll will do my best to try to show you that your premise is incorrect.
The fact that we can automate behavior does not mean it is a necessary or natural response. We can always override the automation (which we created in the first place). Let’s take “the afraid of spider example”, There was a time that you were not afraid of spiders. You decided to start feeling afraid of them after an analysis of information. Once the decision was made, you automated the response.
But you can override the automation, and not be afraid of spiders anymore. I’m sure you know stories of people who were afraid of the dark and then not.
I’m also certain that you know that there are strategies for overcoming phobias (which is by definition irrational fears)
Remorse is a learned behavior. Remember, when we say we feel bad, that is just a representation of a mental state. We have arrived at that mental state voluntarily. Now, that you have read the whole thread, you have seen my examples showing a rearrangement of the outside information can and does change our mental state.
Now, because we have automated this mental state to appear when certain information is present, does not mean it out of our volition. Normal people can always override their mental states or can decide what mental states to hold. Isn’t this what maturity is all about.
What does being able to feel remorse have to do with the belief that feeling remorseful is appropriate? I feel remorse in some circumstances. Whether I think it is appropriate or not appears to be completely irrelevant.
You come to this conclusion because we are using different premises. I can decide when it is appropriate to get angry, meaning I have control of my mental states. Deciding the appropriateness of an emotion is a sign that can control them. If this were not the case, I would have emotions haphazardly triggered by the outside world. Although, there have been cases where people can control their laughter in serious event, most of us do control it (even if we suddenly have the urge to) because it would be inappropriate to have laugh.
Since when do you need permission to get angry. I get angry without any good reason, from time to time, too. Emotions are like that. The question is, how do you act on those emotions? Do you allow emotions to dictate your actions and beliefs? That is what would be irrational.
You give yourself permission to get angry, and, although you can choose not to control your mental states, you can certainly control them.
A poster correctly pointed out that a mental state constitutes and action, but if you mean an action that can be perceived by others, yes, you can have mental states without actions. But it is impossible to have actions without mental states. And please consider that if there are no actions associated with the mental state and this one is negative, you could concede it is unnecessary, even undesirable to have, irrational.
We aren't. We are responsible for our actions.
This is your paradigm. But it is an odd one. All actions (your context of actions) or lack of them are associated with mental states. The whole penal doctrine is based on this premise. You are simple mistaken in believing you can separate the two. And you are responsible for your mental state.
Prosecutors first look at what was going through the offenders mind before, during and after the commission of a crime. *Intent* is an essential component of typifying a crime. This is because we are responsible for our mental states.
And, I’m surprised you would take this position. Have you ever read any pop psychology book? Or did anyone ever told you you could control your temper, or decide to make the best of it (or see the glass half full instead of half empty)
See above. What is irrational is allowing your emotions to dictate your actions.
Our mental states dictate our actions. The problem here is that we might not have labels for all of them, and maybe we mislabel many for lack of accuracy. We might say we love someone but don’t know to what degree. All we are doing is articulating vaguely an approximation what other mental states are.
Why are number 1 and 3 irrational?
Even if you don’t agree with me, you can see the logic.
All morality is, is a set of rules for behavior which are based on a set of values. If you have values, and set up rules for behavior for yourself that are designed to serve those values, then those rules are a code of morality
I could not have said it better. So morality is useless and unnecessary because each individual’s values are different and there is no way to uphold the code.
And what is the purpose of having a code, if it can’t be enforced. This is my point. I don’t know if I can make it any more clear than this.
Morality doesn't control people at all. People control themselves.
This is why I have singled out atheists, because this is exactly what you believe. To you, morality is unilateral, to me it is bilateral.
I know you don’t accept that it is bilateral, and that is the point of this thread, I’m not arguing that it is. For the sake of argument (or to prove my point) I’m accepting the premise that morality is unilateral.
A religion (or anybody, for that matter), can attempt to use morality to control other people, by convincing them that the code of morality being presented serves that person's values, even though it does not. This is exactly what many religions try to do. Rather than instilling values, and then encouraging reasonable debate on what the best way to serve those values is, religions demand that their followers submit to the authority of the religion to tell them what the best way to serve those values is.
Man, I’m so glad you are in this debate because now we are really discussing the meat of the thing. Yes, I understand exactly what you are saying and I’m saying your model does not work. This is the whole point.
You think that the correct route is to instill values (the correct values) into people so that when they (of their own volition) acquire these values, the will set a code for themselves that is not only consistent with their values but will translate to the common good.
What I’m stating is that that system does not work simply because there is no way to enforce the code. It is the equivalent to moral anarchy (each making his or her own rules that are unenforceable) So, it serves absolutely no purpose for me to set a rule that can and will be broken by everyone else.
That is why you get ridiculous things like people who value human life and happiness, torturing and murdering other people in the name of God. They have been convinced that actions that run completely contrary to their values, are actually the proper way to serve their values.
Suppose, you were speaking to another atheist (that I were one). The problem here would not be that people murder other’s because god said so, the problem is that there is no system to stop it. What I individually value becomes irrelevant. What become relevant is that we must make sure bilateral and coercible laws are in place to uphold the values that contribute to the common good.
If you lived in the era were this was common place, would your morality have any relevance? And it has not relevance today. I’m sure you know that there are states in the US where atheists are prohibited by law to hold public office (this is terrible in my opinion). It does not matter what you value or your moral code, the legal code blows it away.
If I were an atheist, I would put all my efforts into creating social and legal norms consistent with my values. Otherwise, having them is no more than a preference (choosing chocolate instead of vanilla)
If anything, this just demonstrates my point. This has nothing to do with atheism. What it has to do with is whether people have a reason for holding a code of morality. Your reason may be fear of God. A Buddhist's reason may be Karma. What makes you think that other (non-buddhist) atheists don't have reasons? How can you assert that "an atheist has no reason for morality", and then turn around and clarify that Buddhists have a reason, and one which has nothing to do with God?
Sure, you can have all the reasons you want, but you have to admit they would be of a substantial different quality than mine (or a Buddhist). It is not the same to uphold a moral code for the common good than to uphold it just because I feel like it.
What, are you claiming that only supernatural beliefs can qualify as reasons to hold a code of morality? Even if that is the case, it once again illustrates that this has nothing to do with atheism. Perhaps you should be attacking materialism instead?
You can demonstrate that is more profound than that, the morality does hold qualitatively more weight than preference.
After all, your arguments are also equally applicable to people who believe in God, but simply don't believe that He cares what we do, or will punish or reward us for anything
Yes, I agree, and I made this clarification too.
In fact, there have been religions which believe exactly that. There have also been religions where the way a person is judged by the gods has nothing to do with morality, but instead with specific actions. For example, in the Norse mythology, you got into Valhalla by dying in combat. Morality didn't even enter into it.
I think a generalization is fair here. It addresses the majority of posters here. And you are the only one who has brought the objection up, and it is not your case.
It makes a difference to me. How do you know my motivations? If I say that I would feel guilty not returning the money, and that adhering to my value system IS the motivation for returning the money, on what basis do you conclude that I have "absolutely no motivation" for returning the money? The fact that YOU can conceive of no reason to return the money, absent a promise of future happiness/avoidance of eternal fire, is of no probative value with respect to MY motivations.
The point is that your motivation to return it and another’s motivation to keep it is *qualitatively* the same. It is simply a matter of preference. You do it, consistent with your values and another consistent with his. Absolutely no difference of impact.
When I say motivation, I mean, the reason why we say we hold values. The reason why we set up a code of conduct for ourselves.
If it’s just going to be a matter of preference (like chocolate over vanilla) it makes no sense to set it up.
ArmchairPhysicist wrote:
You're reading what you want to read, not what is being stated. You presented a syllogism and requested that the flaws be found. The first flaw is that you have presented a false dilemma, specifically that there are only two choices (either discard all things irrational or accept all things irrational).
Again, you are changing the premises. What you present is a false dilemma. I have presented no such thing.
In those terms I would equate to say Although it is totally impossible to eliminate all irrational beliefs, “if you have discarded this unnecessary irrational belief based you can perfectly discard this unnecessary irrational belief.
But if the syllogism is the problem. Let’s try another approach. Would you agree with this statement?: Once I know something is unnecessary and irrational I should discard it.
Atheism does not mean logician, and by stating that atheists are atheists because of logical reasons you have completely misrepresented the target group. You could just as easily say that Catholics support sex with young boys, so they should obviously support homosexuality; this misrepresents Catholics and draws a conclusion based on flawed information.
If my assumption is wrong that atheist’s are so because they have decided deities are an irrational belief. Then, you can correct me.
If you are an atheist, is your choice based on rational analysis?
So, you have used your flawed information (atheists are logicians) to support your conclusion (two irrational options are equally undesireable). The conclusion simply doesn't follow the two statements, which is yet another flaw.
No, my assumption has been atheists believe it is irrational to conclude that deities exist.
Conceeded, but your very accurate statement is more a characteristic of amorality than of immorality which is a disorder and not a trait common to even a small minority of humans.
Yes, you have hit it in the nail. What I’m proposing to atheist is amorality. Why would it be a disorder?
And now we are in the area to be. The problem is that atheist are never immoral. They never break their code. Have you read the examples given of admittedly bad behavior? Man, atheist do consider themselves the most moral of all humans, one might think.
The reason is simple, the rules are auto imposed.
How is this different from anyone else? Specifically, how is this necessary for Christians in a way that isn't necessary to everyone else?
I posted this before but I will do it again
There three big reasons why I should feel remorse and you shouldn't.
1. I believe that God has set up a system where I will pay for all I have done here on earth.
2. I believe that in the afterlife, the amount of rewards I will receive will be in direct proportion to my deeds.
3. I believe God examines my heart and he determines if my remorse is sincere as to constitute part of the payment of my penalty.
Note: It isn't your conclusion that I dispute, but the presentation. You haven't shown anything that is exclusive to atheists, other than the lack of a belief in a deity.
To me, generally speaking, atheists do not believe in a supernatural system of reward and punishment. Or a supernatural system where a count is kept on human actions for any purpose.
To me, this is the whole purpose of remorse and morality. I might be mistaken (do to my Christian bias) in concluding that these systems are associated with the belief in a god, and I did make the exceptions I thought were appropriate.
I believe my generalization is valid.
Loki wrote:
I think I have to bow out of this ... I can't figure out what you're saying.
Ok.
If you can't express your ideas as a simple logical proof, then I don't think I can debate them with you.
I will understand this to mean that if I can’t be coherent to you, you wont be able to debate with me. That sounds reasonable.
This is really a side-track I think (so maybe it needs it's own thread), but don't you think your morality is also at least partially a "personal thing"? Is abortion immoral? Why, or why not? Can you honestly say that in your life you have *never* changed you mind about the "morality" of anything? In other words, when you were a child you thought 'X' was moral/immoral, but as a young adult, or as a parent, you have come to view 'X' as the opposite?
What is a personal thing to me is my understanding of the code. My understanding will always be personal. The code will not. There is difference and a distinction.
I live in a country where every law is codified. It has many advantages over *common law*, (as a matter of fact, most law now is going the way of codification) One of them is that you can go to the specific norm and it is unmovable.
This does not mean it has it’s problems, one is interpretation. Even though the legislators try to be as precise as possible, sometimes this is not accomplished, so an interpretation thing comes about. And this also happens when new situations arise that the codified law did not contemplate.
But even with all of this, the norms are objective and referential.
This is how I view morality. I might be wrong in my interpretation but once I’m sure of the correct interpretation, I know I can’t be wrong about following the rule.
Take, monogamy. If anyone were to follow this rule, they would not go wrong for 2,000 years up to now or 2,000 more years.
Even if there is a "universal moral code" laid down by god, don't you, as a single fallible human, have to try a 'discover' this code? Do you accept that under some circumstances that human slavery is morally correct?
Yes, I do. But you are now introducing the element of hierarchies. Like I think it is morally correct to kill someone in certain circumstances, even though the code says it is immoral to kill.
Do you believe that sex outside of wedlock is *always* immoral? Is human cloning immoral? Is IVF treatment of infertile women immoral? In each case, how have you come to your decision on the morality of the issue? How do you know your current opinion of the morality of (for example) IVF is actually part of the "universal moral code"?
If we were to explore the hierarchy, then you would see that there are no inconsistencies. The proof of this is that most legal systems are not inconsistent, even with the complexity of the structure. And yes, I might not have all the answers but this is why I have a relationship with God, to guide me in understanding His code.
ShottleBop wrote:
You didn't answer the question.
You previously stated that, because one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law, it is impossible for ANY illegal act to be moral:
Yes, I stated this with the knowledge that there are (right now in the world today) universal human right laws that would make the statement always true.
As it stands today, It is impossible that one obeys the highest human law and not be moral.
Then, you accused me of playing games and created a fictitious scenario where my first premise would not apply ( a trap??).
I decided to address the question because it would serve well to our discussion.
But now, we are going on a tangent.
I asked you if, in the circumstances above, it would be immoral to provide assistance to a Jewish person. I have considered your answer very carefully, as requested, and I don't see any answer to it; you sidestepped it entirely.
I focused my answer on the topic.
What I read between the lines in your response is an unstated conclusion that violating the law would be MORAL--i.e. that you were backing off your prior assertion. You state that, while an atheist could anticipate no reward for having violated the law (by acting MORALLY)--and thus would have no reason to act morally, a Christian could anticipate receiving a reward from God for having acted morally--and thus would be more inclined to violate the law.
To be consistent with your prior assertion, you would had to conclude that it was immoral to violate the law, and that the Christian who violated the law would have had one more black mark to answer for on his or her day of judgment.
The inconsistency in the response is due to you changing the scenario. Listen, it is not hard to see that in many countries violating the law is the moral thing to do.
Christians do it all the time, there are many countries where proselytizing is illegal, yet Christian do it.
