So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So that will mean that people who are good at reasoning should be more moral than those who aren't so clever, shouldn't it?

1) That does not follow logically from what I said.
2) Reason is not the exclusive domain of the intelligent. It is accessible to all.

Quite. Reasoning is a prerequisite for the formation of a moral system. There is not, however, a linear corralation between reasoning capability and how well someone follows a moral system.

 

[John_Geeshu]

Stenger is a physicist at the University of Hawaii. His conclusion that the scientific method suggests there is no intelligence behind life, the universe and everything are derived from his knowledge of cosmology and physics. His latest book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis -- How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist" has compelling arguments using objective facts about the universe that explicitly rule out a transcendent intelligence. I can't do better than that without quoting lengthy passages from the book, but the book is not all that expensive and I'd like to see someone, anyone, make an attempt at refuting Stenger's arguments. I can't, but that is in part because I don't have the background in physics to level the playing field. However, I cannot fault his logic.

 

[plumjam]

What you need to understand is the distinction between fact and fiction.


My assessment about Superman being morally superior to Hannibal Lecter is my subjective assessment. I can only hope that you’re subjective assessment is similar.

you can only check the objective nature of the chair by measuring your description of it against other peoples descriptions

if 99% agree with you you conclude the chair as you described it exists.. if 99% disagreed with you you'd start to wonder

if 99% agree that Lecter is less moral than Superman that is an indication of the objective moral truth of such a statement.
if 99% say that Superman is less moral than Lecter you'd start to wonder

the fact that one is perceived visually, and the other both visually and morally makes no difference whatsoever

 

[godless dave]

Visual perceptions can be objectively checked and duplicated. You and I may both see the chair as blue, and wonder if it really is blue. But with a spectrometer, we could not only objectively determine if the chair was blue, but exactly what shade of blue it was. We could each measure the chair;s dimensions, using the same methods and units, and see if we get the same measurements. You can't do any of that with morality.

 

[plumjam]

Stenger is a physicist at the University of Hawaii. His conclusion that the scientific method suggests there is no intelligence behind life, the universe and everything are derived from his knowledge of cosmology and physics. His latest book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis -- How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist" has compelling arguments using objective facts about the universe that explicitly rule out a transcendent intelligence. I can't do better than that without quoting lengthy passages from the book, but the book is not all that expensive and I'd like to see someone, anyone, make an attempt at refuting Stenger's arguments. I can't, but that is in part because I don't have the background in physics to level the playing field. However, I cannot fault his logic.

Well, one man's take on it.
There is also John Polkinghorne who was a quantum physicist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

He seems to have arrived at conclusions diametrically opposed to Stenger.

 

[plumjam]

Visual perceptions can be objectively checked and duplicated. You and I may both see the chair as blue, and wonder if it really is blue. But with a spectrometer, we could not only objectively determine if the chair was blue, but exactly what shade of blue it was. We could each measure the chair;s dimensions, using the same methods and units, and see if we get the same measurements. You can't do any of that with morality.

you would still have to rely on our perceptions of the spectrometer being the same / very similar, so you're no further along the road

 

[delphi_ote]

Let's say you've lived at least a couple of decades, you've examined the options, and you've arrived at Christianity.

Well.
Here you are.

What do you do now?
Let's say you then spend a few years trying to rescue other humans from what you (not they) regard as sin.

Ok. Then what?

What can you do that is positive?
Are there any specifically Christian 'values'?
Are there any specifically Christian charities that endeavour to improve the plight of individuals?
(I don't think I've heard of any. Whereas non-religious charities there are thousands.)

Well, it's up to you. What next?
Preferably positive.

So why is plumjam avoiding my question?

 

[plumjam]

Anyway chaps, I'm taking a break from this thread.
Don't forget that God loves you

 

[John_Geeshu]

yes, but is it your experience of life that people who are better at reasoning are more moral than those not as adept at reasoning?

it certainly isn't mine

people who have highly developed consciences are people who have highly developed consciences
people who are good at reasoning are good at reasoning

I don't see any strong connection at all.

1) What would my experience have to do with it? Surely you're not arguing that because it is your experience, or indeed anyone's experience that those with better reasoning skills are more moral has anything to do with whether or not they are good at moral thinking?

Besides, being moral and being a good moral thinker are entirely different things. One can reach a moral position, by whatever method one chooses to employ, and then one can do something entirely different because the first option does not sit well with them.

What is your objection to reason being the most important part of good moral thinking? And what is your argument against reason being the most important part of good moral thinking?

 

[Tricky]

You also think that modern Sweden is better than Nazism, morally speaking. If someone were to come along and tell you they feel Nazism more moral would you describe this person as more, less, or equally as moral as you?

You might feel you were more moral than them. They might feel they were more moral than you. Both of you would have reached the opposite moral conclusions by examining your consciences.

Your own morality (and mine) are subjective, relative and situational. That you picked up some of your moral system (but thankfully not all) from a single religious text changes that not at all.

Based on what I've seen here, your morality has what I would subjectively consider to be significant errors. It is not unlikely you feel the same about mine.

 

[Darat]

Anyway chaps, I'm taking a break from this thread.
Don't forget that God loves you

Which one?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

you can only check the objective nature of the chair by measuring your description of it against other peoples descriptions

if 99% agree with you you conclude the chair as you described it exists.. if 99% disagreed with you you'd start to wonder

if 99% agree that Lecter is less moral than Superman that is an indication of the objective moral truth of such a statement.
if 99% say that Superman is less moral than Lecter you'd start to wonder

the fact that one is perceived visually, and the other both visually and morally makes no difference whatsoever

No, if 99% agree that Lecter is less moral than Superman, then the overwhelming majority think that Lecter is less moral than Superman. It does not bring an “objective moral truth” into existence any more than 99% of the population believing in god would make such a being true, or make the pink spaghetti-monster true.

We can act as if there is an “objective moral truth”, we can think that there is such a thing as an “objective moral truth”. We can hope for such a ting as well. It still doesn’t make it true in the objective sense. Connotations are not the same thing as denotations.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Which one?

I hope it's Aphrodite who loves me. I heard she's good at it.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

I hope it's Aphrodite who loves me. I heard she's good at it.

True, but I here that her concept of morality is nothing like you would expect. So -

You might be in for a wilder ride than you bargained for.

 

[Darat]

I hope it's Aphrodite who loves me. I heard she's good at it.

Knowing my luck it would be Wu Tien Bao.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I hope it's Aphrodite who loves me. I heard she's good at it.

Hathor? (sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll)

 

[John_Geeshu]

Well, one man's take on it.
There is also John Polkinghorne who was a quantum physicist

He seems to have arrived at conclusions diametrically opposed to Stenger.

Well, more than one man's take on it, but essentially I find no fault with your first statement. Since you have not considered Stenger's arguments you might want to take a look. The reason I suggest this is because your argument is diametrically-opposed to Stengers, and without reading Stenger you won't be able to understand why he makes the argument about disproof of God that he does.

One of the many strengths of reason -- to draw on our other discussion -- is that it tells us that if we are arguing from a false premise, our conclusion is less likely to be correct.

 

[slingblade]

Well, I'm not particularly a Christian, but I'd prefer that to the secular society. My whole upbringing through education/the media/ popular culture in this secular society has had behind it the rarely explicitly stated assumption that life and the universe is basically meaningless.
It took me years to see that that was what was actually happening, and to move beyond that.

Well, that's sad for you. I don't see any reason why a secular society has to tell an equivalent lie to religion, and prate that life and the universe is meaningless. Especially when, insofar as I've seen, the non-religious do tend to find great meaning in life and the universe. Just not the same meaning, exactly, that the religious find.

Look, I'm pretty messed up. I can't claim to have a stable or healthy relationship with most aspects of life. But I know that even if I can't figure it out right now, there is meaning to my life. That it is the meaning I choose to give it is kind of a problem at the moment, yeah, because I'm severely depressed. Yet I take hope from the fact that when I do get better, the meaning for my life will come from within me. It won't be thrust upon me by other people who don't really have my best interests at heart.

I understand that the true meaning of life is to live it so that you do the most good, not just for others, but also for yourself. Live the best life you can live, do the most you can do. Appreciate, enjoy, experience, and feel....all of it, or as much as you can.

Life is here, life is now. I spent so many of my years concentrated on "somedays," on "eternity," on "forever," that I missed today entirely. I tried so hard to obey, to follow, to be approved, that I neglected to live.

If I truly felt this life, this universe was meaningless, I wouldn't have cried out for help. I'd have just left. But there is meaning here, and I want it.

As I get better, I'll find it. That's not a belief. That's a simple fact, and I don't even need to contemplate a god to know it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, that's sad for you. I don't see any reason why a secular society has to tell an equivalent lie to religion, and prate that life and the universe is meaningless. Especially when, insofar as I've seen, the non-religious do tend to find great meaning in life and the universe. Just not the same meaning, exactly, that the religious find.

Look, I'm pretty messed up. I can't claim to have a stable or healthy relationship with most aspects of life. But I know that even if I can't figure it out right now, there is meaning to my life. That it is the meaning I choose to give it is kind of a problem at the moment, yeah, because I'm severely depressed. Yet I take hope from the fact that when I do get better, the meaning for my life will come from within me. It won't be thrust upon me by other people who don't really have my best interests at heart.

I understand that the true meaning of life is to live it so that you do the most good, not just for others, but also for yourself. Live the best life you can live, do the most you can do. Appreciate, enjoy, experience, and feel....all of it, or as much as you can.

Life is here, life is now. I spent so many of my years concentrated on "somedays," on "eternity," on "forever," that I missed today entirely. I tried so hard to obey, to follow, to be approved, that I negelected to live.

If I truly felt this life, this universe was meaningless, I wouldn't have cried out for help. I'd have just left. But there is meaning here, and I want it.

As I get better, I'll find it. That's not a belief. That's a simple fact, and I don't even need to contemplate a god to know it.

I don't understand why subjective meaning in one's life is so much less appealing to people like Plumjam than an imaginary objective meaning. Just because meaning and morality can be shown to have evolved like anything else in the universe does not make it any less real or satisfactory.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Knowing my luck it would be Wu Tien Bao.

I'll have to Google that.

Hathor? (sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll)

There is a God for all of that at once?