If absolute morality exists then Atheism, since it denies an Absolute Ground for absolute morality, is therefore false.
1.) Do you agree?
2.) Why?
3.) Are you a Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, etc.?
Cause and effect
1 week ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
1.) No
2.) Because the existance of absolutes does not dependent upon the existance of the supernatural or divine.
3.) In practice, an atheist, but in principle an agnostic, etc.?
1) No
2) Observation of humanity and its historical development makes it clear that "morality" is no more and no less than a learned means of coping with societal relationships and interaction. i.e. "Do unto others..." only has meaning if one must deal with others whose response to our own activities may yeild negative outcomes. There is no need for "absolutes" in any of this. One simply learns that modification of his/her "selfish" responses usually yields better or less unwanted outcomes.
3) An agnostic who has studied ethics, anthropolgy, and history.
I think that this is a bogus question, a trick question, and I think that the last two commenters didn't answer truthfully.
Something similar would be, "If unicorns exist then the Bible is on a more solid footing than if they don't."
1) agreed?
2) why?
3 what are you?
Well, I think that it's true that since the Bible mentions unicorns that it would put the book on a more 'factual basis', but any Christian would be hard pressed to answer this , yes or no, like that because they might have other reasons to believe that this doesn't affect the Bible either way!
The question is, if absolute morality exists then that implies the existence of 'supernature'(i.e. God or Gods)???
The other part of the question is asking if Atheism means, in part, denial of an Absolute Ground for absolute morality, right???
Why don't you simply ask, "If there's a God(or Gods) then atheism is 'false'?
Is there falsity or truth in questioning the reality of the supernatural, really?
So this brings up what it is you're meaning BY falsity in this case.
I don't happen to believe that there is a doctrine Atheism or a 'philosophy' Atheism which necessarilly includes any denial or acceptance of 'absolute morality' or 'Absolute Ground' as such. (if there is such a doctrine or philosophy, I certainly don't know of it.)
I have to turn tables on this to see if the reverse makes sense.
"If absolute moraliy doesn't exist THEN atheism, since it denies an Absolute Ground for absolute morality, is therefore true."
I, even as an atheist have trouble agreeing with this even. It seems convoluted and unclear.
I think that your last two commenters are disagreeing that this is a fair and straightforward question and not answering 'the question' as such.
And I don't blame them a bit.
Absolute morality does not exist. In fact, even Yaweh, your God, demonstrates an astounding amount of immorality in the Bible.
As humans, we try to seek what is best for us in a moral doctrine and adhere to it, but it varies from locality to locality.
The Golden Rule is excellent, but it's just common sense, and if you need a God to tell you about it and to follow it then you're kind of remedial, no? Besides, previous Gods also stated it before Jesus even lived... Tammuz and Mithras and others. Jesus was a copycat, apparently.
Your quiz is utterly bogus and reveals your Christian bias. Did you know that you had one?
See, Christianity uses a technique to neuter the logic circuits of the believers, to make them inable to accurately judge truth from falsity, reality from fantasy.
It's really simple, too. It simply gives the believers two or more related concepts that are mutually exclusive, that cannot both be true at the same time in any rational world. And then they demand that the poor person believe both at the same time, or else. Or else they'll be 'evil' and will go to hell. So, out of fear and shame, the believer forces themselves to believe both concepts. For example, "God is Love, and if you disagree He'll send you to a Devil's Hell after you die where you'll fry in agony until the stars go out..." Nice.
So how does one wrap their mind around such a thing? Well, they force themselves to believe the concepts *in spite of the fact that they go against all logic and reason.* After enough of this, the person's ability to *descriminate* fact from fancy is neutered. This is necessary, since belief in an illogical God is required here in order for the religion to thrive.
Also, asking honest, open questions of yourself and of your religion is forbidden. Naturally. Since the answers would destroy the person's gullibility, er, faith.
An if/then statement is a hypothetical statement. A since/therefore statement is a statement asserting truth. The statement I posted involves both. I asserted that atheism denies an absolute ground for absolute morality, but I did not assert that absolute morality exists; knowing that people do not believe it does, I asked IF (thus placing it in the subjunctive mood) it does, then is such and such the logical consequence of this. When, therefore, I ask “do you agree”, I’m essentially asking if my logic is sound, not whether the if/then statement (which, being hypothetical, has been removed from the question of truth) is true.
Does it take guts to confront a hypothetical statement, which concludes something contrary to what one believes while admitting the logic of the hypothetical is sound? Sure. But it’s also a good way to prove that “biases” don’t affect you, that you can see logical connections despite the throe of passions. “If Jesus sinned, then Christianity is false.” I’m a Christian, Jesus Christ is everything to me, but I can look at that hypothetical statement and say Yes, I agree with the logic of that statement. However, if you were to say, “Since Jesus sinned therefore Christianity is false,” then I would disagree with the assertion of truth claimed in that statement, the assertion upon which the subsequent logic rests. The difference is clear to me.
About the opening statement, therefore, it’s not relevant to answer my follow-up question “no” unless you disagree with the logic of the conclusion, which you may do, in part, by challenging the assertion involved – Ryan, to his credit, disagrees in this way. It shouldn’t matter whether or not you think objective morality exists, the question is IF it does then is atheism false. I appreciate people taking the time to post, but if I were to answer the hypothetical “If Jesus sinned, then Christianity is false” by going off about the bias of the question, the motives and mental capacity of the questioner, or simply asserting that he didn’t, then, though I might be satisfying my own “biases”, the simple fact is I would not be addressing the actual question. So, before I go on to address Ryan’s point does anyone else want to take a shot?
Happy Thanksgiving,
Jesse
Oh, neat trick!!! You 'got' us!
You're good.
What if there exists a specific set of morals that is optimum to all occassions, is perfectly balanced, and benefits all? We haven't found it yet. And if it does exist it is merely the optimum of all moralities, the best case. Where does God come into this?
Oh, sorry, I phrased that incorrectly.
Your logic is not sound, for the reason given above in my previous post. If I were to guess why you seem to think that it may be sound, I'd say it's due to a bias on your part. You want it to be true, in other words. Instead of being able to approach the question dispassionately, you are looking to prove something in advance.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, belatedly.
Plus, if it were true that an absolute morality (what the hell IS that, even?) existed, and if it were true that it pointed to the existence of a guiding force of some kind, and if that force were a deity, then it could be any deity. Any one we've ever worshipped, but more likely one we haven't even thought of yet, one that we can't even conceive of with our puny minds that anthropomorphize everything, even that which we can't understand. If anyone were to out of hand assume that said deity were Yaweh, it would be a grave error in judgement and logic, no?
Jesse, here's a hypothetical for you.
If humanity has had thousands of religions, possibly well over ten thousand, with about six hundred being extant and still active today, implying literally hundreds and hundreds of separate gods and goddesses that we've believed in at one time or another, and if all or even many of the people that believed/believe in them were just as 'faithful' to their gods as any christian is in Jesus/Yaweh, just as certain that they were right, that they alone were right, and if many of them also have their sacred texts which state categorically that they are the one true faith etc...
Does this not cast today's fervent defender of Christianity as just another deluded schmoe among millions? For to someone that is not a christian and not of any other faith, they truly all look exactly alike. They do. They're all equally ridiculous, basically. And they all have their fanatics and their apologists.
So what I guess I'm asking is, what's your god got that all the other gods don't have? What salient feature makes christianity the right one among all the myriad religions down through the ages?
And don't say a resurrected son named Jesus because I'll counter with Mithras like you knew I would.
what's your god got that all the other gods don't have?
Thomas Aquinas
BTW: A more serious answer from James Chastek would be "holiness".
Aquinas and Holiness? Yes, I guess you could say that. Of course it doesn't distinguish christianity from any other faith or god, but at least it's an answer.
I would add that another distinction is that there have probably been more great thinkers that devoted their entire lives and all their energy to deciphering and apologizing for christianity than any other faith.
What a waste.
Post a Comment