• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Watch the Richard Dawkins v. John Lennox debate

westprog said:
I don't like being stuck with the red hot poker. But I have a poker and you don't, so it is right for you to be stuck with the poker, and wrong for you to try to grab the poker off me.

There are all kinds of possible moral codes. The Golden Rule works when the two have similar circumstances. When one is weaker, or more brutal than the other, it fails.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. For starters, that's not the golden rule. The golden rule requires you to put yourself in the position of the weaker person? (that is how empathy works) How would you like to be treated if you were the weaker person and the other person had a hot poker?

When Mussolini was no longer in power (when he was the weaker person) he was executed and strung up upside down. Had he simply followed the golden rule he might not have suffered such a fate.

It works just fine.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
No it doesn't. For starters, that's not the golden rule. The golden rule requires you to put yourself in the position of the weaker person? (that is how empathy works) How would you like to be treated if you were the weaker person and the other person had a hot poker?

When Mussolini was no longer in power (when he was the weaker person) he was executed and strung up upside down. Had he simply followed the golden rule he might not have suffered such a fate.

It works just fine.
Click to expand...
Well said. And your example highlights the important distinction between the golden rule and other moral precepts. It's utility can be verified historically (evidence based). The only premise it requires is that you must assume that your position/status in life is subject to change.
 
Last edited:
I think a general coda for morality is "maximize happiness"; minimize suffering. I notice most humans (and dogs) seem very happy when they please others or make them laugh or think or learn... and they are unhappy when others suffer or are disappointed in them.

This is an easy feedback to encode in genes-- smiles and laughter of others releases dopamine and serotonin... suffering of others causes us to suffer. Our cultures mold these tendencies and our rules and laws codify them. We also evolved to imitate authority figures in our lives and so much of our morality is learned via such imprinting I imagine.

But what I can't imagine is why anyone thinks an invisible guys is necesary for this. I know the meme is that religion is necessary for morality. But if that were true, atheists would be the most immoral by measures, and yet they are not. Atheists are not more likely to cause suffering in others... they may, in fact, be less likely as a group because their morality is more internalized and not based on what an invisible judge is thinking.
 
articulett said:
I know the meme is that religion is necessary for morality. But if that were true, atheists would be the most immoral by measures, and yet they are not. Atheists are not more likely to cause suffering in others... they may, in fact, be less likely as a group because their morality is more internalized and not based on what an invisible judge is thinking.
Click to expand...
When I was growing up I honestly thought that pedophiles, murderers, sociopaths, etc. were atheist. I honestly thought that a good predictor for anti-social behavior and immorality was a lack of a belief in god.

I was so certain in this belief that I was floored when I found out that this was erroneous.
 
RandFan said:
When I was growing up I honestly thought that pedophiles, murderers, sociopaths, etc. were atheist. I honestly thought that a good predictor for anti-social behavior and immorality was a lack of a belief in god.

I was so certain in this belief that I was floored when I found out that this was erroneous.
Click to expand...

I think I thought this too. I mean, it's one of those things you pick up with "successful" indoctrination. In retrospect I realize that such "bad guys" are more likely to be "male" than they are to be "non-theists"--but since maleness doesn't "cause" those behaviors... neither could atheism. Correlation is not causation. Even if more atheists were involved in these crimes it would make no more difference than the fact that more males are involved in these crime.

But it took me a while to think this through. I wonder how many people still think this well into adulthood? Sometimes I wonder if the apologists are afraid of what will happen if everyone stops believing in their god... and then I wonder if they are really worried about how they would act if they stopped believing-- not everyone else... and then I think maybe I better encourage them to believe just in case they become murderers, pedophilies, and so forth if they lose their faith.

But mostly I'd rather not know what supernatural things people "believe in". I assume all people are rational until they give me evidence that they are otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I find it very telling that Lennox's argument regarding morality is nothing but an argument from final consequence.

1. If god doesn't exist, there would be no ontological good and evil and no punishment after death.
2. That wouldn't be a good world to live in.
3. Therefore god exists.
 
Egg said:
There are plenty who would disagree and Lennox claims his faith is based on evidence. Whether there actually is any evidence and the quality of that evidence wasn't covered in this debate and is besides the point. It's not that it's not important, it's just that it is the subject of a separate (and probably very lengthy) discussion.
Click to expand...

But that is EXACTLY the point: I need only to redefine what an evidence is, and voila ! Tada ! I am now basing my faith on "evidence". And this is the CORE of the debate here IMNSHO. People pretend they are basing their faith on evidence (or REALLY think those are evidence), but if when skeptic scratch the surface, all you find is a series of wish-washy claim based on PERSONAL feelings, or downright uncheckable stuff.

Faith is NOT based on independently verifiable evidence. I have YET to see somebody showing me one of those. The dictionary definition is correct. The problem is the "evidence" aren't really what skeptic or scientific would call evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom