Why you believe what you believe II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and now rÃ*an's gonna sum me up in a nutshell ...

What's that? I think you're a nut?

Nah!!

OK, here's my "nutty" summation
(sorry it took so long, had some things come up in RL - the nerve!)
(not that you've been waiting with bated breath or anything!)

You said if you had to pick some type of label, "agnostic" would be the closest. However, it looks like you're living your day-to-day life basically as an atheist; would you agree? (IOW, you're not reading the Bible, praying, going to church, etc.) So I think practically speaking, you're living an atheistic life (altho open to the possibility of God existing).

I see you're online, so I'll wait for a bit to see if you agree with this.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What's that? I think you're a nut?

Nah!!

OK, here's my "nutty" summation
(sorry it took so long, had some things come up in RL - the nerve!)
(not that you've been waiting with bated breath or anything!)

You said if you had to pick some type of label, "agnostic" would be the closest. However, it looks like you're living your day-to-day life basically as an atheist; would you agree? (IOW, you're not reading the Bible, praying, going to church, etc.) So I think practically speaking, you're living an atheistic life (altho open to the possibility of God existing).

I see you're online, so I'll wait for a bit to see if you agree with this.

yes and no... i don't give an awful lot of thought to god or a creator on a daily basis... but then again, if there is a god he might very well be more of an observer... maybe all these books, prayers, institutions, etc. are just human creations and there is a god, but he's never communicated with us at all

the way i see it, a believer is sure there is a god... an atheist is sure there is not a god... the agnostic says, maybe yes, maybe no, maybe it's one of we've already defined or maybe its something completely different... maybe there's even more than one

or maybe god isn't all that concerned about humans on earth at all and he sees other things in the universe as much more impressive creations

but basically, yes... it doesn't effect me one way or another much day to day

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i don't give an awful lot of thought to god or a creator on a daily basis...

with the somewhat HUGE exception of my posts here almost every day

[inked]

nor to mention the active evangelisation of a - gnosis. For a person who claims not to be able of knowing, brownjenkins sure is positive in his assertion of a - gnosis.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

nor to mention the active evangelisation of a - gnosis. For a person who claims not to be able of knowing, brownjenkins sure is positive in his assertion of a - gnosis.

not 100% sure... just haven't heard a convincing counter argument yet

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the way i see it, a believer is sure there is a god...

Well, I think you would call me a "believer", and I'm not sure there is a god. I think that the available evidence points that way more than the other way, tho, and it points that way strongly enough for me to choose to follow the tenets of Christianity. And the more I've lived, the more the evidence piles up, IMHO, for Christianity's being true, and other worldviews being false. But I could very well be wrong.

with the somewhat HUGE exception of my posts here almost every day

LOL!

[Rían]

wow - how to sum up ...

I have two problems with your stated beliefs, brownie. One is in the realm of the head, and one in the realm of the heart. I don't see how you've explained them away, either. I think they still exist, and I'll try to point them out here, and see if you agree. If you agree, you'll either have to ignore them or adjust your worldview.

1. Head : I continue to have problems with your idea of change being an absolute. Besides the obvious logical flaw contained in that statement (i.e., if change is an absolute, then the very statement "change is an absolute" must be subject to change), you've still come up with what you think are absolutes - e.g., that we need to act for the good of society.

I've mentioned various heinous acts, and am sad to see that you don't react with moral outrage (altho I suspect that you do inside, because you mentioned you'd prob. kill someone that hurt your kids), but at least you DO say that they're not right because they're not good for society. This, of course, implies that you think society is good for some reason. What is your reason? If we have come about thru completely natural processes without any intent on the part of a creator, what makes our existence good? If we just vanish when we die, why is it bad to kill someone for selfish gain? They won't know any different, and those that love them will end up vanishing, too, so their pain doesn't matter.

You tried to remove even the idea that killing (for selfish gain) was wrong, but were only able to do this by saying that could only be the case if somehow scientists were able to do away with death. However, as Lizra's siggy says, let's "live in the real world!" Let's assume that death is final. And why is death bad, btw? If a person dies, then apparently you think they're just gone. So how is death bad?

I'm going to quote some passages from R. C. Sproul:

Those philosophers who came after Kant, most notably Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900), understood Kant's point: that nearly all of those who do not affirm the existence of God nonetheless try to live according to some ethical standard and so are actually living on borrowed capital (that of the theists). Kant's heirs - the nihilists - rightly saw this fault in the "man on the street," and they argued, as did Kant, that we cannot have both. We either have God and meaningful morality and meaningful lives, or we have no God, and all of life is meaningless, without any trace of hope.

What do you think about this? Do you agree that a person that doesn't believe in God but yet has a moral standard is living on "borrowed capital" (i.e., morality is NOT a LOGICAL deduction from a worldview that does NOT have God).

(note that I'm talking about a LOGICAL deduction. I don't deny that people are moral! But that is easily explained by the Christian worldview )

Here's a second quote:

It is not enough to live "as if" God exists, said Nietzsche. That's like Alice in Wonderland. The fact that the alternatives to theism are grim (no justice, no absolutes, etc.) is no reason to assume the existence of God. ... As Nietzsche fully understood, once God is seen to be dead, natural rightsl, morality, and the idea of progress become total shams. ... The greatest contribution of the nihilists is their pointing out the clear-cut consequences of what life would be without the existence of God. They reject half-hearted, compromise positions that hesitate to embrace either full-orbed theism or total nihilism.

Do you agree with Nietzsche's position?

[Rían]

Here's more :

Rarely do philosphers embrace pure nihilism, opting instead for an intermediate position. But as they seek to find positions somewhere between theism and nihilism, they always borrow capital from one or the other pole. ... The secular humanist somewhat naively wants us to deny the existence of God, presume our beginnings to be a result of chaotic chance (rendering both our origin and our destiny meaningless), and yet still calls us to fight for human rights and dignity. ... Secular humanism rests on pure sentimentality; it merely feels good to protect human rights and dignity. But such persons are intellectual cowards. They don't have the stomach to go where their atheism drives them: full-fledged nihilism. ... What does human dignity matter if we are all cosmic accidents?

What do you think of this?

[Nurvingiel]

Just because we're accidents does not mean we don't matter! (Assuming for the sake of this argument, that we are.)

Why would life not have value in and of itself, just because it happened by chance?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Just because we're accidents does not mean we don't matter! (Assuming for the sake of this argument, that we are.)

Why would life not have value in and of itself, just because it happened by chance?

What makes us valuable, if there are no absolute standards?

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Rian

I've mentioned various heinous acts, and am sad to see that you don't react with moral outrage (altho I suspect that you do inside, because you mentioned you'd prob. kill someone that hurt your kids), but at least you DO say that they're not right because they're not good for society. This, of course, implies that you think society is good for some reason. What is your reason?

Hmmm...I think "society" seems good to us (humans) because it is composed of humans. We want to protect ourselves. Society is not just plain "good"...we interpret it that way, because we ARE society.

Originally Posted by Rian

If we have come about thru completely natural processes without any intent on the part of a creator, what makes our existence good? If we just vanish when we die, why is it bad to kill someone for selfish gain?

Our existance isn't anymore "good" than anything else. We think it's "good" because we value our own life. Self preservation is an instinct for survival...not "goodness". It is bad to kill someone for selfish gain because that gives the message that it is ok for someone to kill YOU for selfish gain....and you wouldn't want that happening!

Originally Posted by Rian

Let's assume that death is final. And why is death bad, btw? If a person dies, then apparently you think they're just gone. So how is death bad?

Death isn't "bad"....it's sad...to those left behind. (And if someone dies that you read about and admire....even though you never knew them, you might think it sad.) But death is good! Our bodies wear out...we need to die. When we die young and unexpected, those who care are sad....but death is not a BAD thing...it is just the inevitable ending of life.

As far as that quote...I think it's a bunch of hooey! I can have morals without instruction/permission from some "GOD". As I see it...in the real world...there obviously is NO god...and yet....we have morals! Take it for what it's worth.
added...Those quotes are so much hot air! I'm too busy to bother with my interpretation right now (and you probably aren't interested...sorry! )
People do what is in their own best interest and we have come about our so called "morals" in a very long drawn-out, complicated, round-about way, over eons of time. Making up god stories is helpful for this...but it's not neccessary....IMO.

[hectorberlioz]

I would like to join this discussion if I had more time to use computers...maybe I'll write it out back home and bring it with me next-time. It'll be a slow session with me though...probably will have to wait ages before I reply.

Nurv and Rian (and anyone else willing to), I'd like you both to read a book called "Socrates meets Jesus" by Peter Kreeft. In it, Socrates doesnt actually meet Christ, its more of a journey with logic through the various views of christianity (and others, though not to such an extent.)
For instance, Socrates will discuss with people like Berth Broadmind who believe that Jesus died only "spiritually" at the cross etc...you may end up thinking this book is one-sided, I cant prevent that. But I got alot out of it.

[hectorberlioz]

As far as that quote...I think it's a bunch of hooey! I can have morals without permission from some "GOD". AS I see it...in the real world...there obviously is no god...we have morals...take it for what it's worth.

But, why can you have morals without a God? Why are morals here, do you think? Why and how do you think they came about?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Our existance isn't anymore "good" than anything else. We think it's "good" because we value our own life. Self preservation is an instinct for survival...not "goodness". It is bad to kill someone for selfish gain because that gives the message that it is ok for someone to kill YOU for selfish gain....and you wouldn't want that happening!

Why not? Is your life "good" somehow? But in the first sentence, you said our existence ISN'T anymore good than anything else. So if you kill a fly, why is it bad to kill a person, if they're not anymore good? Why wouldn't I want myself killed if once I was dead I wouldn't realize I was dead, anyway?

(you don't need to answer these - I know you don't usually like to "think" as much as I do )

Death isn't "bad"....it's sad...to those left behind.

Don't you think sadness is somehow "bad"? If not, why do you try to avoid it yourself and avoid it for those you love?

....but death is not a BAD thing...it is just the inevitable ending of life.

But something that is inevitable can be good or bad, don't you think? I think death is an affront to life, which is good.

As far as that quote...I think it's a bunch of hooey! I can have morals without instruction/permission from some "GOD". As I see it...in the real world...there obviously is NO god...and yet....we have morals! Take it for what it's worth.

I have no problem with atheists having morals. The Bible says that ALL people have morals, and this is what I see around me. IOW, even if an atheist thinks God doesn't exist, if HE does in fact exist, the atheist's belief that He doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that He does exist.

So assuming the Christian worldview to be correct, one would EXPECT all people, atheists included, to have a strong moral sense, and this is exactly what we see.

Assuming the atheistic worldview to be correct, one would NOT EXPECT to see a strong moral sense in all people ... YET WE SEE THIS. This leads me to conclude that in the area of what we can observe of people and morals, the Christian worldview is much more likely to be true.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i've asked a few times for alternative explanations to why people act as they do... i.e. name some of these "absolutes"... but have yet to be given an example

I don't understand this - I thought you had been given several examples But I'll name a few - malicious lying, malicious killing, malicious stealing, malicious hurting, malicious defrauding. Now these might "look" a little different thru the ages (i.e., people 2000 years ago didn't usually get put on trial for grand theft auto, since cars didn't exist!), but it's the heart goal that's important. (and I say "malicious" to indicate purposeful, mean intent). Do you think those qualify as absolutes?

in the end it's about survival... not a question of good or bad or absolutes... to me, the proof of what was "bad" (which i put in quotes because it is a relative term) is what has not survived the test of time... autocracy, prejudice, genocide, intolerance... while they certainly still exist today, they are no where near as pervasive as they once were... and i think as time goes by they will be even less so

Why is survival so important? (a serious question)
If being kind to others does not survive the test of time, does that mean being kind is "bad"?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't understand this - I thought you had been given several examples But I'll name a few - malicious lying, malicious killing, malicious stealing, malicious hurting, malicious defrauding. Now these might "look" a little different thru the ages (i.e., people 2000 years ago didn't usually get put on trial for grand theft auto, since cars didn't exist!), but it's the heart goal that's important. (and I say "malicious" to indicate purposeful, mean intent). Do you think those qualify as absolutes?

we've been down this road before... how about lying to save another's life? or your own? killing innocents in wartime with the greater goal of eliminating an enemy that, if left in place, would cause even more deaths? stealing to feed your starving family? or self?

you qualify with "malicious"... the very meaning of which is completely relative

from this post

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

back to absolutes... some christians take "thou shalt not kill" literally... i.e. killing is never okay, and taking a human life is solely up to god... i'd think that most take the modified, "killing is okay when self-defense is involved"... which is basically the same as saying that killing is okay if your own society's survival and prosperity depends on it

one could call this an absolute, at least in today's world... the problem is, "self-defense" has such a wide and variable definition that it renders the "absolute" undefinable... it would be hard to hold a tribal society of 6000 years ago who killed a neighboring society over a limited resource like food during times of famine to the same moral scale as a situation like saddam's iraq when it invaded kuwait for basically monetary gain well beyond what was needed to keep iraq's society alive

by the same token, many see our current invasion of iraq necessary to contain a future threat, even though innocents will (not may) die in the process... i.e. it is morally justified... i don't want to argue that point in this thread... but, suffice it to say, there are also many people who do not think it is justified

"self-defense" is completely relative... so, effectively, "it is okay to kill if in self-defense" is also relative... there is no absolute

that's one example of what i mean

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why is survival so important? (a serious question)
If being kind to others does not survive the test of time, does that mean being kind is "bad"?

i think i gave a pretty good reason for that in my last two posts

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

we've been down this road before... how about lying to save another's life? or your own? killing innocents in wartime with the greater goal of eliminating an enemy that, if left in place, would cause even more deaths? stealing to feed your starving family? or self?

you qualify with "malicious"... the very meaning of which is completely relative

How is the meaning of "malicious" "completely relative"? Can malicious mean "with kind and loving intent"?

Now someone might make an incorrect assessment if someone else's act is malicious or not, but I don't see how the meaning of the word is "completely relative". It means "having, showing, or caused by malice (active ill-will; desire to harm another)"

I better not address anything else until this point is cleared up, because we need to agree on basic word meanings or else talk is meaningless!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

How is the meaning of "malicious" "completely relative"? Can malicious mean "with kind and loving intent"?

Now someone might make an incorrect assessment if someone else's act is malicious or not, but I don't see how the meaning of the word is "completely relative". It means "having, showing, or caused by malice (active ill-will; desire to harm another)"

I better not address anything else until this point is cleared up, because we need to agree on basic word meanings or else talk is meaningless!

the key is in your use of the word assessment... one only has to look at the current iraqi conflict to see how differently reasonable people can view killing... many see it as justified, many do not... i could give examples, but i think you know what i mean

as i said before, if you say "killing in self-defense is okay", but the definition of "self-defense" is fluid... then it isn't exactly an absolute... sure, you could come up with examples that almost everyone would consider "self-defense"... but that only makes them true because everyone currently agrees with them... not because they are universal absolutes

[inked]

brownjenkins,

"a more common core of morals, compromise positions that everyone can live with as opposed to absolutes that everyone must live with"

What is this common core of morals of which you speak?

What is the compromise position that everyone can live with as you intend it?

How would the latter differ from what you perceive as "absolutes that everyone must live with"?

The only absolute that I have been able to elicit or observe from your answers is the one of brownjenkins assertions: "there are no absolutes",
"everything is relative", "everything changes", and "advance towards". But the absolute which is asserted in these (rather inconsistent) assertions is browniejenkins point of view. Period. And as I have pointed out before, there is no reason to accept browniejenkin's any more than, or in lieu of Sadaam's, or Albert Sweitzer's. When I note this you throw it off onto society which gets us not one whit further than you allege that the source of morality in God does. And calling it instinct does not move us any closer because instinct is the name for "we know not why". It's really rather circular reasoning in which you engage while accusing others of having no evidence. Absolutes mentioned in general are said to have altered or proposed to have altered when the prohibition against murder has not changed from Hammurabi's Code, through the Mosaic accounts of the Commandments, or Canada's Charter. Name one society which has said murder was a good and practiced that in a thorough fashion which was tolerated by all surrounding societies and all members of that society itself.

The very notion of "advance" requires movement from a point towards a goal. All goals are not relative. Goals are fixed points. Your fixed point is browniejenkins assessment of the good on no discernable basis. When you die, if you are indeed the source of the definition and its author, it dies with you. So what gives any permanency to your ephemeral vision (at best scarcely over 100 years in duration)?

If you indeed mean that this process is to maximize the "good" to the most people, I submit you are indeed borrowing from absolutists. In fact, it is only the existence of the generally acknowledge absolutes which give your relative scale any hope of proportion or existence. Your denial of that does not change the fact. On your argument there is not one bit of reason to oppose Stalin or Hitler or the Mob or your family's attacker, or the man who intends to take your life for his own vision of morality.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'd like to think that humanity will eventually advance to the point where actions are taken with long-term "goods" in mind...

You mention "advance" ...

If my goal is to end up in New York, and I start in California, I know that if I'm in Illinois that I have advanced towards my goal. I know that if I'm in Hawaii that I have gone the wrong way (altho I might change my mind and decide to visit Hawaii rather than New York!)

How can you have a concept like "humanity will eventually advance", if everything is subject to change? What are they advancing towards, if there are no absolutes?

back to absolutes... some christians take "thou shalt not kill" literally... i.e. killing is never okay, and taking a human life is solely up to god... i'd think that most take the modified, "killing is okay when self-defense is involved"... which is basically the same as saying that killing is okay if your own society's survival and prosperity depends on it

I don't think that's a valid example. Did you see Rad's post (a native Hebrew speaker) commenting on the meaning of that commandment? It's "murder". I think the meaning was obvious in the context, and it's only recently that people have had any confusion on the issue. I don't think the concept was "modified"; I think it was corrected, as the word meaning changed nuances over time. It's usually the people that haven't read the Bible that get confused on this. There are many examples of taking a life in the Bible that were considered just and fair, altho it was NEVER condoned to do it with a wrong attitude (i.e., it was considered a tragic necessity to deal with a wrong done.)

one could call this an absolute, at least in today's world... the problem is, "self-defense" has such a wide and variable definition that it renders the "absolute" undefinable... it would be hard to hold a tribal society of 6000 years ago who killed a neighboring society over a limited resource like food during times of famine to the same moral scale as a situation like saddam's iraq when it invaded kuwait for basically monetary gain well beyond what was needed to keep iraq's society alive

Again, I think it's a heart issue, and every person is accountable to God for what they've done. He knows people's hearts. As Lewis points out in one of his books, a man taking your seat on a train on purpose would make you angry; a man taking your seat on a train by accident would NOT, altho the action is identical.