Quote from: SigmundIn no way is it irrelevant. I know that bad things might happen to, or because of, my child. I also know that it's possible he/she could live a relatively happy and productive life, or even become a hero and live to a ripe old age basking in accolades and adoration. An all-knowing god would know for certainty which it would be.

Correct.  Imagine your friend who had the hard life.  If you could travel back in time and prevent them from ever being born, would you do it?

Quote from: SigmundEven without omniscience, a god would know that if bad things were to happen at all, then at least some of it's "children" would suffer because of them because we would all be it's "children". Also, just because "prevailing social views" do not consider parents cruel, doesn't mean they aren't.

That's what I'm asking.  And I'm curious if anyone else shares your perspective.

Quote from: SigmundI do not agree with you. It is certainly not irrelevant. It might be the same universe, but humans and god would not be basing the choice on the same amount or quality of information.

I think that all of the relevant information is on the table that needs to be.  You acknowledge as much when you agree that you have a similar assessment concerning bringing children into the world below.

Quote from: SigmundPlus, I do argue that for many people having a child is no choice at all. For many people it's either an accident, or simply a biological drive to preserve the species. If you have ever known a woman who absolutely HAD to have a child, and considered no amount of money or effort too great, then you would know what I'm talking about.

Are you making an argument that humans are not free moral agents and can't control themselves?

Quote from: SigmundFinally, I also already said that I do, for the most part, consider it a pretty cruel and selfish thing to do... bringing a child into this world.

Fair enough.  I'm curious if other people agree with you.

Quote from: SigmundThe first sentence could never apply to any human being I've ever known or heard of. It does not relate at all to a parent's choice, it talks about the "creator", an entity that can be described as "all-powerful", which rules out the entire human race.

Your statement implied that if things are messed up for a person and a being can do something about it but doesn't, then that being doesn't love the person.  There are cases where humans do not intervene in the lives of those they love because the cost of intervention is worse than the benefit.

Quote from: SigmundAs for the second sentence, I don't recall using the word "irresponsible" in relation to the rest of the sentence. I do recall saying that a god incapable of making the world better than it is couldn't be omnipotent, which is a bit different than "irresponsible".

Your quote was, "Or perhaps this god does love me, but isn't able to do anything about how fucked up it's creation is, revealing itself as irresponsible."  That sentence is copied from your post dated "02-10-2007 08:21 PM".

Quote from: SigmundBecause it's all we have. Because it's hard-wired into our systems, just like it is most every other living thing.

No, really, it's not.  Psychopaths have no compulsion to behave morally even though they can understand prevailing morals.  They might make up about 4% of the population.  Other animals also have no compulsion to behave in ways that humans are hardwired to behave or consider moral.  There is an excellent scene in David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly that deals with that point.  Something that not even every human has is not a very solid foundation for objective morality.

Quote from: SigmundYou seem to be holding the bible up as proof of the divine, as many christians do, when in fact it is nothing of the kind.

Remember, if the Bible is true then Jesus' claim about people listening to but not hearing the word also has to be true. (i.e. Scripturaly it can't be the case that scripture converts everyone indiscriminately.)

QuoteChicken Soup for the Soul, Message in a Bottle, Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Cars... all these and more have inspirational effects on people. This in and of itself does not make the media in any way "true". Just inspirational.

Still, no one lives for ever or reads every book so it's a good idea to rely on the recommendations of people you trust. In your list for example, I've read everything that was recommended to me.

QuoteWhere can I find documented proof of a "miracle of christ"?

Here's a good primer on Michele Di Ruberto, Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints.

QuoteWhy does the 2000 years of the christian church carry more weight than the even longer histories of other religions?

'Cause seven other religion years is one Catholic year? j/k Seriously though, good question. The idea is not just that the Church is old but that she has integrity. Religions that flip flop or schism too much create a history that's a liability.

QuoteHow can I know she was "holy"? I do not dispute that she was very kind, compassionate, and helpful. Is this all it takes to be "holy"? Does that mean Ty Pennington and the Extreme Home Makeover crew are "holy" too?

Holy as in: dedicated to and set apart for a religious purpose? The Extreme Home Makeover shows I watched were dedicated to Sears.

QuoteSince Shakespeare wrote fiction, why is his work in any way relevant to this discussion? The Bard is no more relevant than Stephen King, Tolkien, or Danielle Steel.

Many of the stories in the Bible are fiction, but the point is that in literature the text exists to communicate the subtext. Without those texts their subtexts are lost.

QuoteThe bible, however, is presented as being written (through "divine inspiration") by god itself.

With either author you can read their works to get a sense of who they are. You don't have to have faith in Denmark and Jerusalem or Hamlet and Jesus to do that.

QuoteOtherwise, I could write a "bible" too and contend that it was divinely inspired and who could prove me wrong?

There's the rub: you'll find it hard going without the history and credible group of followers to back your claims.

QuoteThere's nothing to convince me to believe that the authors of the bible were writing anything but common stories. In fact, based on other sources I have checked out that are apparently from the same time period there is plenty of evidence to support the belief that the bible as currently presented is at best incomplete and at worst in large part a deliberate deception.

When I was growing up the bible was false because Camels didn't migrate to Egypt until after Moses, then they found camels and the Bible is true again. Then they proved that the gospels were plagerized and the bible was false, but now that's false and the bible is true. Certainly the bible's history is not as tidy as some would like, but it's no pushover either.

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that this is a turtles all the way down argument.  That's what psychopaths illustrate.  If you remove the emotional component that forces people to care about things like resolving conflicts or a concern for security, those things suddenly don't matter.  In other words, you can build an extravagant utilitarian argument around these things that explain why they are important, but it will be build upon assumptions that are just as irrational.  What objective and purely rational reason do we have to care if we live or die, kill or save, reproduce or go extinct?  The universe certainly doesn't care and almost every rational theory of how the universe will end suggests that nothing we do will ever have any lasting meaning or consequences.  So, purely rationally, what's the point and why should we care?  Or are the psychopaths the only ones who are free from irrational constraints on their behavior?
...
Keep digging deeper.  What's the entirely rational core behind human rights and justice?  Why are any of those things important?  And when you come up with an answer, ask if it's entirely rational or build on feelings and irrational beliefs.  Then dig deeper and so on.  You'll find that it's turtles all the way down.

The universe's indifference to human suffering has no relevance for the question of whether concepts like 'justice' or 'human rights' are 'rational', 'meaningful', or 'objective'.  Why would you think this?  

Also, simply because emotions are important in order to motivate people to behave morally does not mean that morality is not in some meaningful sense 'rational' or 'objective'.  Indeed, even if morality is in some sense based on the emotions, it doesn't follow that morality cannot be evaluated and regulated by means of critical reason, or have something like 'objective' standing, at least for all human beings.  Turning to meta-ethics, whether one's some kind of (neo-)Kantian, naturalist realist, or expressivist/ quasi-realist about moral discouse, it seems that one can discuss and use concepts like 'human rights' and 'justice' without regarding them as 'fictions' or 'irrational'.

Furthermore, simply because something is 'based on emotions' doesn't mean that any 'irrational belief' is involved.  I like Guinness, I know that I like Guinness -- how is my positive attitude towards Guinness, and my belief about that attitude, entangled with any false beliefs?  Likewise, even if I thought that morality involved apropriate emotional responses to situations (say, something like what Hume and Smith thought), I could still use reason to know determine what morality consists in, critically evaluate it, and even reform it.

Anyhow, this question seems somewhat tangential to the subject of the thread.

Quote from: John MorrowNo, really, it's not.  Psychopaths have no compulsion to behave morally even though they can understand prevailing morals.  They might make up about 4% of the population.   ...
Something that not even every human has is not a very solid foundation for objective morality.

Well, I don't know what you mean by 'foundation', but the fact that 4 percent of people lack moral emotions doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on whether morality can be considered 'rational' or 'objective' in any way.  It just means that, with respect to morality, some people are deficient in terms of appropriate pyschological motivation (just as some people are colour-blind, are prone to depression, etc.).

Quote from: JimBobOz... Mill was a utilitarian, meaning that he was concerned with achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; there is, in pure utilitarianism, no distinguishing between means to the end of happiness, except insofar as the means achieve the ends...

Well interpreting Mill can be a tricky matter.  While he certainly thought that he was a utilitarian, there does appear to be some tension between his utilitarianism and the views he advanced in On Liberty, so much so that interpreters sometimes distinguish between 'Mill-the-utilitarian' and 'Mill-the-liberal'.  I've always found his utilitarianism rather unconvincing, but On Liberty inspiring.

Quote from: JimBobOz...
 JS Mill was full of shit.

Relax, man.  I just included the quote because I liked it and think it's spot on.  I didn't mean to endorse utilitarianism or Mill's views more generally.

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, I don't know what you mean by 'foundation', but the fact that 4 percent of people lack moral emotions doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on whether morality can be considered 'rational' or 'objective' in any way.

Yeah, actually it does.  Why?  Because it shows that if you eliminate the irrational emotional response that makes normal people care about morals, rational thought, alone, will not and can not take the place of that response and produce moral behavior.  

At the core of every philosophical moral model is the assumption that people care about the foundation assumption (e.g., Utilitarians assume that people care that others are happy, Libertarians assume that people care about liberty, etc.).  If a person doesn't care about the foundational assumption, the whole thing falls down and that's exactly what happens with psychopaths.  Moral arguments that are quite effective with people who do care and ineffective on psychopaths, even when they are very intelligent and rational individuals.

Or would you like to argue that unreasoned emotional responses are somehow rational?

Quote from: AkrasiaIt just means that, with respect to morality, some people are deficient in terms of appropriate pyschological motivation (just as some people are colour-blind, are prone to depression, etc.).

Whatever label you want to put on it, the "pyschological motivation" is not rational but irrational.  It's an emotional response.  And any morality that is built upon that irrational core is not, itself, rational.  

Yes, it's a deficiency, but what they lack is irrational capacity, which should have no bearing at all on their morality if morality is rational, any more than being color-blind would affect my ability to enjoy listening to music if I claim that enjoyment of music is based entirely on listening to it and not vision.

Quote from: AkrasiaThe universe's indifference to human suffering has no relevance for the question of whether concepts like 'justice' or 'human rights' are 'rational', 'meaningful', or 'objective'.  Why would you think this?

Upon what rational, meaningful, or objective foundation can you build concepts like "justice" or "human rights"?  Does either concept make any sense if you don't presuppose that individuals do or should care?

Quote from: AkrasiaAlso, simply because emotions are important in order to motivate people to behave morally does not mean that morality is not in some meaningful sense 'rational' or 'objective'.

Yeah, actually it does.  It means that without the emotional context, moral arguments carry no weight.  It's what that essay refers to as moral violations and conventional violations.  Without the emotional component, everything is a conventional violation and all morality is indistinguishable from mere social rules such as not talking with your mouth full.

Quote from: AkrasiaIndeed, even if morality is in some sense based on the emotions, it doesn't follow that morality cannot be evaluated and regulated by means of critical reason, or have something like 'objective' standing, at least for all human beings.

Ah, but "something like 'objective'" is not really objective.  It requires the emotional response to have any meaning, thus without the irrational emotional basis, it all falls down.  At it's core, it's all irrational.

Quote from: AkrasiaTurning to meta-ethics, whether one's some kind of (neo-)Kantian, naturalist realist, or expressivist/ quasi-realist about moral discouse, it seems that one can discuss and use concepts like 'human rights' and 'justice' without regarding them as 'fictions' or 'irrational'.

No, you can't.  Not unless the person you are discussing those concepts with shares the same irrational emotional response that you do, at which point you are mutually pretending that something that's simply a shared irrational emotional response is really some sort of objective truth.  Isn't that what you said was a bad thing?  If, on the other hand, you try to have your argument about "human rights" or "justice" with a psychopath, they'll laugh at you because it will all be meaningless to them.

There is an article that talks about police officers trying to convince a suspected mass murderer to tell them where his other victims were buried.  They used conventional moral arguments that appealed to his humanity and sense of justice (e.g., it would bring closure to the families of his victims).  Didn't work because he didn't care.  Then they learned how the psyhopathic mind works and tried a different tact.  Knowing that many psychopaths are narcissists, they told him that compared to other mass murderers like John Wayne Gacey, he was a nothing -- a small-fry amateur.  Then he started bragging about the other people he killed.

So if the person doesn't care about the foundational elements of the moral argument, the moral argument is meaningless to them.  That means that the argument carries no intrinsic objective weight without a shared irrational understanding.  That's a pretty flimsy foundation to build on, don't you think?

Quote from: AkrasiaFurthermore, simply because something is 'based on emotions' doesn't mean that any 'irrational belief' is involved.

It means that, at its core, it's irrational.  If you believe it's rational, that's where the "irrational belief" comes in.

Quote from: AkrasiaI like Guinness, I know that I like Guinness -- how is my positive attitude towards Guinness, and my belief about that attitude, entangled with any false beliefs?

It is if you start telling me that Guinness is objectively good or that your enjoyment of Guinness is rational.  Similarly, if you tell me that your morality, based upon irrational feelings, is objective or entirely rational, you are fooling yourself.  Put another way, do you really think moral philosophy is really not all that different from two role-players arguing whether Hero or GURPS is the objectively better system?

Quote from: AkrasiaLikewise, even if I thought that morality involved apropriate emotional responses to situations (say, something like what Hume and Smith thought), I could still use reason to know determine what morality consists in, critically evaluate it, and even reform it.

Yes, but ultimately you'd be defining the irrational, not explaining it.  And any attempt to rationally reform something that's at it's core irrational seems pretty irrational, does it not?

Quote from: AkrasiaAnyhow, this question seems somewhat tangential to the subject of the thread.

No.  Not really,  Part of the point of this thread is whether atheists and philosophers are more rational in their beliefs than religious people.

Quote from: AkrasiaRelax, man.  I just included the quote because I liked it and think it's spot on.  I didn't mean to endorse utilitarianism or Mill's views more generally.

And by focusing on whether Mill was a true utilitarian or not, you neatly avoid contending with my questions:

• If a belief about something which is not true, a "false belief" is not "delusional", then what is? How do you distinguish "false beliefs" from "delusions"? And if you can't, you are saying that religious people - having what you call "false beliefs" - are delusional?
• What is the test of the truth of a belief? In science, the test is whether that belief - "hypothesis" - explains the data, whether it gives you good results. So if a religious belief gives the people good results - make them happy and well-socialised - isn't that belief in fact "true"? Isn't the test of the worth of something the results it gives?
• So if a "false belief" makes people happy, is it not in some sense a "true belief"? "If it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid"?
• If the test of the truth of belief is not the results it gives (happiness, social integration, etc), then what is?

I realise that in all discussions, when you want to look smart it's best to avoid the questions you have no answers for, and move the discussion into areas you have answers for - Aquinan philosophy, or whatever - but discussions will be more productive of truth and understanding - which you've said, quoting Mill, are your aims - if you contend with the questions actually raised. Otherwise, just go write an essay.

So, again:

If by "false belief" you don't mean "delusional", then what do you mean? What is the test of the "truth" of beliefs, if not the results those beliefs generate (happiness, misery, social integration or disintegration, etc)? If the test is the results, then in what sense is a belief which creates happiness "false"?

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  Imagine your friend who had the hard life.  If you could travel back in time and prevent them from ever being born, would you do it?

I'll go ahead and say yeah, despite knowing that the question is ultimately pointless because it presents an impossible situation, one that I know is impossible rendering my answer ultimately empty because unless it were to actually happen, I don't truely know how I would choose.

QuoteI think that all of the relevant information is on the table that needs to be.  You acknowledge as much when you agree that you have a similar assessment concerning bringing children into the world below.

I do not agree.

QuoteAre you making an argument that humans are not free moral agents and can't control themselves?

In respect to procreation, yes. Although there are and have been individuals who have been able to go their entire lives without experiencing sexual activity, they are a vast minority.

QuoteYour statement implied that if things are messed up for a person and a being can do something about it but doesn't, then that being doesn't love the person.  There are cases where humans do not intervene in the lives of those they love because the cost of intervention is worse than the benefit.

Yet again you try to compare a limited human perspective with the perspective of this hypothetical omniscient and omnipotent god. What I'm saying is that a triple O god would have all the tools needed to create a world where things would never be messed up for anyone... ever. A human can screw up by intervening because they don't, and perhaps can't, have all the information they need to make the truely best choice. They have limited perspectives, personal experiences which color their perceptions, emotional baggage of their own. A perfect god would suffer none of these limitations.

QuoteYour quote was, "Or perhaps this god does love me, but isn't able to do anything about how fucked up it's creation is, revealing itself as irresponsible."  That sentence is copied from your post dated "02-10-2007 08:21 PM".

Ok, so what you're saying is that by bringing a child into the world, despite knowing that the world can royally suck and not being able to do anything about it, is irresponsible, and that this can apply to human beings... yeah, I'll agree with that. We do it anyway because we are irresponsible quite often. Plus, we have children because to not have children rubs our base instincts of preservation of the species the wrong way.

Quote from: John MorrowNo, really, it's not.  Psychopaths have no compulsion to behave morally even though they can understand prevailing morals.  They might make up about 4% of the population.  Other animals also have no compulsion to behave in ways that humans are hardwired to behave or consider moral.  There is an excellent scene in David Cronenberg's remake of The Fly that deals with that point.  Something that not even every human has is not a very solid foundation for objective morality.

Yes, it really is. Psychopaths are deviants who are damaged and in need of help. The vast majority of animals on the planet at least have an instinctual sense of value for their own lives, and a great many value the welfare of other members of their social community. I doubt animals do anything based on "morality" ever, they do things because they know on an instinctual level that it's the best chance they have to survive and perpetuate the species. I believe many people do things for much the same reason. Also, I would submit there are very few things that every human has. If that's to be the criteria for what is "moral", then that list is going to be very short.

Quote from: malleus arianorumRemember, if the Bible is true then Jesus' claim about people listening to but not hearing the word also has to be true. (i.e. Scripturaly it can't be the case that scripture converts everyone indiscriminately.)

I don't get the point here apparently.

 

QuoteStill, no one lives for ever or reads every book so it's a good idea to rely on the recommendations of people you trust. In your list for example, I've read everything that was recommended to me.

Ok, still don't see how being inspirational somehow makes something true.

 

QuoteHere's a good primer on Michele Di Ruberto, Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints.

Saw nothing there that would persuade me, even if I were to grant you the existence of "miracles", that these miracles were "of christ". Perhaps they were "of Odin", or "of Yosemite Sam".

 

Quote'Cause seven other religion years is one Catholic year? j/k Seriously though, good question. The idea is not just that the Church is old but that she has integrity. Religions that flip flop or schism too much create a history that's a liability.

While that may be true, I know of at least a couple religions much older than christianity who haven't flip flopped or schismed too much and still persist today with a number of adherents approaching or perhaps even surpassing those of christianity. Why are these not more valid because of their greater longevity?

 

QuoteHoly as in: dedicated to and set apart for a religious purpose? The Extreme Home Makeover shows I watched were dedicated to Sears.

Granted, MT would defintely considered herself to be dedicated to a "holy" cause, while the EHM crew certainly doesn't. Still, what is there to convince me that she wasn't just deluded, despite her benevolence and great works?

 

QuoteMany of the stories in the Bible are fiction, but the point is that in literature the text exists to communicate the subtext. Without those texts their subtexts are lost.

Actually, a great many protestant christians I know believe the bible to be the literal truth. Otherwise, I agree with you here. I still don't see anything that convinces me that god exists, but I do see that the bible has some value in communicating wisdom through storytelling.

 

QuoteWith either author you can read their works to get a sense of who they are. You don't have to have faith in Denmark and Jerusalem or Hamlet and Jesus to do that.

While this may be true, it still doesn't alter the fact that Shakespeare wrote what he and everyone else knows to be fiction, while the bible tries to convince me that it's descriptions of god and all are true.

 

QuoteThere's the rub: you'll find it hard going without the history and credible group of followers to back your claims.

While this may also be true, it still can be done. One can either be possessed of vast personal charisma, or one can ride the coat-tails of an already established religion.

 

QuoteWhen I was growing up the bible was false because Camels didn't migrate to Egypt until after Moses, then they found camels and the Bible is true again. Then they proved that the gospels were plagerized and the bible was false, but now that's false and the bible is true. Certainly the bible's history is not as tidy as some would like, but it's no pushover either.

Yet the very reason the bible was compiled was due to disagreement about whether Jesus was divine, with the church split even then. So why isn't the eastern orthodox interpretation valid? Plus, were books omitted by the council of Nicea? Who can truely say anymore?

I'm not responding to several points because either (A) we simply aren't going to see eye-to-eye on them and/or (B) I think you are being morally consistent, even if I don't agree with you.

Quote from: SigmundIn respect to procreation, yes. Although there are and have been individuals who have been able to go their entire lives without experiencing sexual activity, they are a vast minority.

Both birth control and sterilization make it possible to have sexual activity without reproducing in most cases.  It's what's allowed the birth rate in the Western world (including Japan) to drop so low.  It's not as if everyone has suddenly taken a vow of celibacy.

Quote from: SigmundWhat I'm saying is that a triple O god would have all the tools needed to create a world where things would never be messed up for anyone... ever.

What would such a world look like or be like to live in?

Quote from: SigmundOk, so what you're saying is that by bringing a child into the world, despite knowing that the world can royally suck and not being able to do anything about it, is irresponsible, and that this can apply to human beings... yeah, I'll agree with that.

I don't personally feel that way but it seems to be the logical extension of the positions that you've expressed.  That you accept them tells me that you are being consistent.

Quote from: SigmundYes, it really is. Psychopaths are deviants who are damaged and in need of help.

That's a moral judgment that, in fact, many psychopaths would disagree with.  Their "damage" is that they lack any emotional compulsion to behave morally.  In other words, they are what people become without that irrational little part of their brain that compels them to want to be good.  And they look at everyone else and think they are irrational fools.

Quote from: SigmundThe vast majority of animals on the planet at least have an instinctual sense of value for their own lives, and a great many value the welfare of other members of their social community.

Really, they don't, if for no other reason than the vast majority of animals on the planet are insects and fish, many of whom have no "social community" worth speaking about and they are quite willing to eat even their siblings.  Even many of the more intelligent mammals exhibit behavior that is amoral or immoral by human standards.  And then there are animals like bees that value the lives of their community above their own (they die when they sting) because the vast majority of bees also don't reproduce.

Quote from: SigmundI doubt animals do anything based on "morality" ever, they do things because they know on an instinctual level that it's the best chance they have to survive and perpetuate the species.  I believe many people do things for much the same reason.

If the animal is not a social animal, it's instincts and "morality" are often very different than human instincts.  And, ultimately, it doesn't make morality rational.  In fact, it pretty much acknowledges that it's instinctual.

Quote from: SigmundAlso, I would submit there are very few things that every human has. If that's to be the criteria for what is "moral", then that list is going to be very short.

Correct.

Quote from: John MorrowYeah, actually it does.  Why?  Because it shows that if you eliminate the irrational emotional response that makes normal people care about morals, rational thought, alone, will not and can not take the place of that response and produce moral behavior.  
...
Whatever label you want to put on it, the "pyschological motivation" is not rational but irrational.  It's an emotional response.  And any morality that is built upon that irrational core is not, itself, rational...

Why are you assuming that 'emotional responses' are necessarily irrational?  This is a flawed assumption.  Many of our emotions might be either arational or even necessary for proper reasoning.

If certain emotional responses are necessary for good reasoning and decision-making (e.g. see Antonio Damasio's Descartes' Error), then your alleged challenge to moral theory as 'irrational' because it involves 'emotional responses' is a complete non-starter. Furthermore, there is no reason why moral philosophers cannot incorporate this fact into moral theory.  Indeed, many leading contemporary moral philosophers are doing precisely this.  In meta-ethics, expressivism/quasi-realism is based on precisely this kind of analysis of moral discourse, and yet does not yield the kind of moral scepticism that you seem to endorse.

Quote from: John Morrow... it's a deficiency, but what they lack is irrational capacity, which should have no bearing at all on their morality if morality is rational...

Regarding the psychopaths that you seem to find so fascinating, it seems rather easy to say simply that such individuals, because of the absence of the relevant 'moral emotions' in them, are simply impaired when it comes to moral reasoning.

In short, you're assuming that emotions are fundamentally irrational, and that emotions and reason are fundamentally distinct.  Both assumptions are wrong, and so your alleged challenge to moral theory (including concepts like 'human rights' and 'justice') is consequently wrong.