|
Post by himself on Oct 23, 2011 20:45:35 GMT
Atheist faith? At one time believers used to accuse non believers of lacking faith - not of possessing it. To be faithful is to hold true to a standard. When a man and woman pledge to remain faithful to each other, they are said to be betrothed, that is, be-truthed. To be a faithful follower of your high school's football team is to "be true to your school." A faithful friend is one who holds true to your cause. Of course, atheists have faith. Any mathematician worth his salt knows that not every true statement within a system can be proven from its axioms. That is, the set of true statements is larger than the set of provable statements. Therefore, something must be accepted on faith, even if it is only Euclid's parallel postulate.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 23, 2011 22:51:57 GMT
The seem more worried that Craig might appear to win - not really the same thing. Atheist faith? At one time believers used to accuse non believers of lacking faith - not of possessing it. I am reminded of a fairly popular joke amongst those of us who are subject to the British rail transport system - trains have been cancelled due to leaves on the line - must be the wrong kind of leaves! Atheists must just have the wrong kind of faith! Sorry, I missed this before. The word faith can be used in many different ways. All I was saying was that many atheists portray themselves as "brights", "rationalists", etc, over against us christians who are delusional, faith-heads, irrational, etc. But the reality seems to me that we are all human and none of us (thankfully) is merely rational, but a mixture of many things. I used "faith" as one of those other things, meaning, something that goes beyond rationality. I thought the behaviour of many people towards Craig is not rational, and illustrates my point. That was all.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 24, 2011 9:30:40 GMT
I'm struggling to think of a sociocultural background where these moral prejudices would have people consider murdering babies a good thing. I can't see that society lasting very long. Tim, do I take it that you would see killing babies to be wrong in virtually any circumstance, and you would be as opposed to anyone who said otherwise as you are to WL Craig? Yes. I have read Craig's article and other things he's written justifying the atrocities described in the OT. I haven't read Dawkins on the matter so can't comment on his fairness or otherwise. My beef here is with Craig and his defence of some pretty vile acts. I'm struggling to think of a sociocultural background where these moral prejudices would have people consider murdering babies a good thing. That pretty much describes a whole swathe of ancient societies, particularly Bronze Age ones like the Assyrians, who were notorious for their violence. Even the Greeks and Romans had no qualms about infanticide. Sure. But I was talking about a society where a stranger could come into a home, pick up a child and smash its brains out and the child's parents and family would simply shrug and get on with their day. Matko came up with the silly claim that this kind of society could exist. I can't think of a single example. This doesn't appear to me as valid in the light of contemporary thinking on the origin of morality, which is naturalistic and reductionist in orientation. Yes, how silly of me. Of course the idea that ethics are simply ways we humans have developed to live co-operatively and communally is patently ridiculous. No, the only possible explanation is that they are the whims and dictates of an invisible Semitic desert deity. This explains why morality is consistent and unchanging and why all the theists on this board are, of course, slave-owning polygamists.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Oct 24, 2011 9:54:21 GMT
Sure. But I was talking about a society where a stranger could come into a home, pick up a child and smash its brains out and the child's parents and family would simply shrug and get on with their day. Matko came up with the silly claim that this kind of society could exist. I can't think of a single example. That is a silly claim indeed. Why did Matko come up with it in the first place? It doesn't reflect any society described in the OT, and thus has no apologetic value for Jewish or Christian purposes. On a related note, I wonder how Jewish religious scholars address the OT atrocities. Has anyone looked into this?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 24, 2011 10:23:06 GMT
Sure. But I was talking about a society where a stranger could come into a home, pick up a child and smash its brains out and the child's parents and family would simply shrug and get on with their day. Matko came up with the silly claim that this kind of society could exist. I can't think of a single example. That is a silly claim indeed. Why did Matko come up with it in the first place? It doesn't reflect any society described in the OT, and thus has no apologetic value for Jewish or Christian purposes. He seemed to be saying that if there was no invisible being as the ultimate source of morality and ethics developed from the need to live co-operatively and communally such a bizarre society could possibly develop. Glad you agree it was a very silly claim. I'm guessing much the same way as Craig - "The Amalekites were 'wicked', the Israelites were the instruments of Yahweh and Yahweh is good even when he is ordering things which are self-evidently evil, like the massacre of babies." And donkeys. Yahweh had something against Amalekite donkeys, apparently. They must have been wicked donkeys. Or something.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Oct 24, 2011 12:14:13 GMT
On a related note, I wonder how Jewish religious scholars address the OT atrocities. Has anyone looked into this? All I've heard is that if you give 10 Rabbis a topic on the OT to discuss, you'll get 11 different opinions, and they have absolutely no problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Oct 24, 2011 12:21:47 GMT
Yahweh had something against Amalekite donkeys, apparently. They must have been wicked donkeys. Or something. Is this the part where we all make 'bad ass' jokes?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Oct 24, 2011 13:16:06 GMT
Tim, do I take it that you would see killing babies to be wrong in virtually any circumstance, and you would be as opposed to anyone who said otherwise as you are to WL Craig? Yes. I don't know if it is as clear cut as all that. Consider for example the case of World War II when the allies considered area bombing of cities and the deployment of nuclear weapons to be justifiable as part of the war effort. Naturally such actions would entail the destruction of men women and children in horrific and in-humane ways but, but this would be counteracted by the greater good of defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If you - as I do - hold that these actions did shorten the war and ultimately save lives then you have to admit the principle that killing babies isn't wrong in every single circumstance - distasteful though it may be. Course this isn't relevant to the OT example but it does show how difficult ethics can be. Sure. But I was talking about a society where a stranger could come into a home, pick up a child and smash its brains out and the child's parents and family would simply shrug and get on with their day. Matko came up with the silly claim that this kind of society could exist. I can't think of a single example The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Action T4 in Nazi Germany where some parents went along with the state's actions in having their disabled children put down by lethal injection. I believe most of the parents were deceived or pressured into doing it but some knew what was going on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 16:43:19 GMT
Sure. But I was talking about a society where a stranger could come into a home, pick up a child and smash its brains out and the child's parents and family would simply shrug and get on with their day. Matko came up with the silly claim that this kind of society could exist. I can't think of a single example. This wasn't clear for your sentence. You said, "I'm struggling to think of a sociocultural background where these moral prejudices would have people consider murdering babies a good thing." I interpreted this as personal incredulity towards a society that permits infanticide in any conceivable way, so I responded accordingly. Now, as I and Sankari showed, infanticide has been praticed in stable human cultures, and there were clear reasons that motivated such behaviour. Ethics isn't like mathematics and logic; there are no self-evident moral truths. And even if one is charitable for the sake of argument and grants that infanticide is trully immoral, you still aren't able to derive a prescription from it, because an "ought" can't be derived from an "is". Tim, do you read what I write? I wrote that, "Our sense of morality is definitely innate and hardwired." Our evolved nature guarantees that something we call "morality" will always exist, will always accompany humans. It is something independent from religion and would continue on even if the very next moment all religions disappeared. That philosopher for centuries do coherent ethical discourse without recourse to religion or God is another confirmation of this. However, my position is that all these attempts to ground morality in reason are futile. In the end morality can't be rationally justified. It comes from nonrational sources.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Oct 24, 2011 16:57:06 GMT
my position is that all these attempts to ground morality in reason are futile. In the end morality can't be rationally justified. It comes from nonrational sources Indeed attempts to rationalise it can produce very strange results: Peter Singer From Wikipedia; Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Oct 24, 2011 17:25:03 GMT
I don't know if it is as clear cut as all that. Consider for example the case of World War II when the allies considered area bombing of cities and the deployment of nuclear weapons to be justifiable as part of the war effort. Naturally such actions would entail the destruction of men women and children in horrific and in-humane ways but, but this would be counteracted by the greater good of defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If you - as I do - hold that these actions did shorten the war and ultimately save lives then you have to admit the principle that killing babies isn't wrong in every single circumstance - distasteful though it may be. Course this isn't relevant to the OT example but it does show how difficult ethics can be. And that's before we reach the subject of abortion, which most atheists are perfectly comfortable with. Killing babies has always been OK. It's only the rationale that changes.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 24, 2011 20:00:00 GMT
This wasn't clear for your sentence. I thought it was already clear enough, given the context. And I've clarified further since. Your infanticide example was not relevant. Neither is firebombing babies in Dresden or the Nazis killing retarded kids. Your claim that a society where people could stroll into a home and dash out an infant's brains with no-one batting an eyelid could develop if ethics are simply agreed rules for communal living and divinely ordained laws is nonsense. Now you're going to quibble about what I meant by "self-evident"? Seriously? Really? Gosh? It's almost as though religion and "gods" have nothing to do with it and it's just humans trying to find ways to live together isn't it? It can come from some non-rational sources. Or it can be based on reason. And what is hard or even perhaps inpossible to do is reduce it to wholly to some fundamental rules that everyone agrees to. People's positions on these things vary - people being what they are. Ethics also change as the societies and cultures that form them change. This is the case with religious moralities as well, which why none of the theists here are slave-owning polygamists. All of which is more evidence that these ethics have zero to do with any imagined "gods". It's a human thing, pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 24, 2011 21:04:38 GMT
Tim, do I take it that you would see killing babies to be wrong in virtually any circumstance, and you would be as opposed to anyone who said otherwise as you are to WL Craig? Yes. Someone else has already mentioned Peter Singer, who I also had in mind. Peter believes that infanticide and even genocide might be justified in the present day (see FAQ), because he believes that, according to the definition he uses, babies are not ‘persons’. That means if his ideas were adopted, infanticide could happen today. I understand his reasons, and I judge him to be a compassionate man, but terribly terribly wrong on this point. And presumably, given your answer, you would agree with me on that? Then you will know that Dawkins' quotes don't fairly represent Craig's views. Craig does not advocate or support infanticide. He was asked a question about practices 3000 years ago, and began his discussion by affirming: “These stories offend our moral sensibilities …. the intrinsic value of human beings, the importance of dealing justly rather than capriciously, and the necessity of the punishment’s fitting the crime.” He affirms that “The command to kill all the Canaanite peoples is jarring” because it is contrary to christian values. He then goes on to try to explain why such a command might be justified in the context of the time – I think unsuccessfully. And I think his ‘divine command’ theory of ethics could, in someone else’s hands, lead to terrible things. But he never suggests anything other than that these practices would be wrong today; in fact he says: “I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder”. So Craig is defending a more horrendous action than Singer defends, but it was 3000 years ago and an action he finds repugnant and unjustified today. On the other hand, Singer’s thought could result in infanticide today whereas Craig’s could not. Singer is more of a danger to human life today than Craig is. I think both are wrong, as you do. But Dawkins has made a fuss about Craig's views, which he has misrepresented by selective quotation, yet is willing to 'share a platform' with Singer, whose views on current behaviour are actually more alarming than Craig's. And then so many other people have quoted Dawkins without understanding the inconsistency and unfairness in what he said. So let me conclude with two clarifications: 1. I believe Craig is wrong, but not nasty as you and others have claimed, for he is opposed to infanticide and genocide. I believe Singer is wrong, more dangerous than Craig because he supports infanticide in some cases, but in many respects a compassionate man. I believe both can and should be opposed by reasoned argument, not by smear and outrage, especially not based on half truth. I suggest as gently as I can that you have fallen into that trap, for good though inadequate reasons. 2. I believe Craig's side have behaved badly towards Dawkins. He has the right to debate or not debate with whoever he wishes, without being 'shamed' into agreeing and without being called a coward. They should just point out that they believe his arguments are poor and it is a pity he is not willing to subject them to critical scrutiny, and leave it at that. I also believe Dawkins' responses have been nasty, devious and unfair. I think he would have been better to have simply declined with dignity.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Oct 25, 2011 8:44:42 GMT
Well said UnkleE.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Oct 25, 2011 10:54:46 GMT
I don't know if it is as clear cut as all that. Consider for example the case of World War II when the allies considered area bombing of cities and the deployment of nuclear weapons to be justifiable as part of the war effort. Naturally such actions would entail the destruction of men women and children in horrific and in-humane ways but, but this would be counteracted by the greater good of defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. If you - as I do - hold that these actions did shorten the war and ultimately save lives then you have to admit the principle that killing babies isn't wrong in every single circumstance - distasteful though it may be. Course this isn't relevant to the OT example but it does show how difficult ethics can be. And that's before we reach the subject of abortion, which most atheists are perfectly comfortable with. Killing babies has always been OK. It's only the rationale that changes. How do you know most atheists are comfortable with abortion?Has any comprehensive study concluded this?Perhaps you are only speaking anecdotally,in which case I can reply anecdotally,that it seems to me that most people who have considered this topic at all are far from 'comfortable' with it,atheists included.Although why there would be an atheist position at all here is a complete mystery .
|
|