|
Post by sankari on Oct 25, 2011 12:23:27 GMT
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. Fine, let's climb aboard the quibblemobile and kick out the word 'comfortable.' Choose a word or phrase you'd prefer to describe the fact that most atheists believe abortion should be legal. Got one? Great, let's move on. Yes I'm assuming most atheists believe abortion should be legal. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. Historically, atheists have tended to be pro-choice rather than pro-life. I'd certainly be interested to see a list of atheist organisations which have lobbied to criminalise abortion. I did not refer to an 'atheist position.' I said 'atheists.' Obviously the rationale will differ from person to person. Hence, 'It's only the rationale that changes.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2011 19:10:42 GMT
This isn't my claim, so please stop forwarding it. No, I don't pull out such conclusion. That morality is innate by itself doesn't tell anything else -- unless you couple it with other assumptions. Are you suggesting that theism and innatism or evolution are incompatible? Reason doesn't produce morality. The source of morality is our biological heritage. One thing that one must have constantly on one's mind is that if the evolutionary history of humanity had taken a different turn, our morality would look unrecognizable. Morality isn't derived from a set rules grasped by our intellects. People don't even act that way in real life. You're too anthropocentric in your thinking. Humans aren't their own moral lawgivers. Here's an article on from where morality comes: www.victoria.ac.nz/staff/richard_joyce/acrobat/joyce_is.morality.innate.pdfAnd here's an article on what possible ethical consequences of that fact are: www.victoria.ac.nz/staff/richard_joyce/acrobat/joyce_metaethics.empirical.sciences.pdf
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 26, 2011 9:42:04 GMT
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? Absolutely. I've always found Singer's ideas odd to say the least and those two positions in particular aren't just odd, they are as you say totally wrong IMO. And I'm hardly alone amongst atheists in thinking so. I'm sorry, but I think it's actually your representation of Craig's views that is distorted. He just goes to his usual enormous rhetorical lengths to defend it in this case. No, he does not. At no point in his lengthy defence of this horrid little bit of folklore does he talk about the "context of the time" or anything like it. The only "context" he gives is that this brutal and indiscriminate massacre was not any old Bronze Age atrocity but happened to be one ordered by God. And that, he argues, makes it okay. In a classic case of the way Craig regularly doesn't even understand the argument he's refuting, he asks rhetorically what the problem with the story is meant to be: Now before attempting to say something by way of answer to this difficult question, we should do well first to pause and ask ourselves what is at stake here. Suppose we agree that if God (who is perfectly good) exists, He could not have issued such a command. What follows? That Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? That God does not exist? Hardly! So what is the problem supposed to be? The problem is that this story isn't consistent with what modern Christianity claims about their "God", but is perfectly consistent with stories of ancient Middle Eastern deities who acted like bloodthirsty ancient Middle Eastern despots. Therefore this is one of many clear indications that this "God" of modern Christianity is just another ficticous, invented deity like Baal or Marduk or Zeus. But Craig doesn't seem to grasp this. He goes on to argue against the idea that the story undercuts any moral argument for God's existence. Then he concludes that the only remaining problem must be: if God could not have issued such a command, then the biblical stories must be false. Either the incidents never really happened but are just Israeli folklore; or else, if they did, then Israel, carried away in a fit of nationalistic fervor, thinking that God was on their side, claimed that God had commanded them to commit these atrocities, when in fact He had not. In other words, this problem is really an objection to biblical inerrancy. He then goes on (of course) to defend Biblical inerrancy by arguing that his "God" could behave in this barbaric way. The rest of his argument is simply that "God has the right to take the lives of the Canaanites when He sees fit" largely because ... well, because he's God. Nowhere does he say anything about it being right "in the context of the time", as you've claimed. He does nothing of the sort. He says it was right in the context of it being ordered and approved by God, using the usual circular "it's good because he's God, so there" argument. That's nice. But irrelevant. Craig still defends the massacre of babies and does so with a pathetic argument. No, you have misrepresented Craig by claiming something that is simply nowhere to be found in his argument. Dawkins is right - Craig DOES defend this atrocity as being a good thing. And he does defend the slaughter of babies by the pathetic justification that they would be happy in heaven. Craig deserves to be excoriated for these feeble nonsense. No, I haven't. What you've claimed about Craig's argument is simply wrong. Go read his article again. There is nothing there about "the context of the time". You've imagined that and then based your defence of him on it.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Oct 26, 2011 9:45:01 GMT
This isn't my claim, so please stop forwarding it. You made it. Anyone can go back and read you doing so. Of course not. Your problem is that the clear fact that morality is a human way of working out how to live communally, as you have to admit, means that any attempt to get your "God" involved is another case of you guys tacking your deity on the end of something that doesn't require him at all. Something you people have been increasingly forced to do over recent centuries.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 26, 2011 16:26:20 GMT
This isn't my claim, so please stop forwarding it. You made it. Anyone can go back and read you doing so. Matko's claim was just that a "different kind of sociocultural background that would then emerge would have also inculcated you with a different set of moral prejudices than the ones you now hold". It can be seen below. Ummm, sorry, but Christianity could have died in the dust in the Third Century like a lot of other odd little Middle Eastern mystery cults and I'd still be perfectly capable of seeing that killing babies is a rather nasty thing. I don't know, Tim; history is very unpredictable. I different kind of sociocultural background that would then emerge would have also inculcated you with a different set of moral prejudices than the ones you now hold. It comes down to: there have been differing opinions on infanticide in various societies. An uncontroversial claim, it seems. He claims nowhere that people in other societies would have said that infanticide is good, a part that you add in the post quoted below: I don't know, Tim; history is very unpredictable. I different kind of sociocultural background that would then emerge would have also inculcated you with a different set of moral prejudices than the ones you now hold. 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. Morals being perfectly practical and rational things, not dictates handed down by invisible beings, after all. The "claim" was introduced by you in that post. Do you agree that it is not Matko's? Great that this discussion has given the petty cowards another excuse to smite my karma though. Very "Christian". I'm sure your Jesus will forgive that small-minded vindictiveness. Well, if you find smitten karma that troublesome, I'll gladly help increasing your karma till it is higher than Babylon's Tower. Yes I'm assuming most atheists believe abortion should be legal. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption. Historically, atheists have tended to be pro-choice rather than pro-life. I'd certainly be interested to see a list of atheist organisations which have lobbied to criminalise abortion. It is certainly a minority position (cited in this article by Zuckerman). I can only think of the Atheist & Agnostic Pro-life League as a non-theist group that opposes abortion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2011 1:25:01 GMT
Your problem is that the clear fact that morality is a human way of working out how to live communally, as you have to admit, means that any attempt to get your "God" involved is another case of you guys tacking your deity on the end of something that doesn't require him at all. In a sense that's uncontroversial, but I don't see this as any kind of problem. Moral discourse is certainly possible without recourse to God; however, giving rational ground for a secular ethical theory is what is here problematic. And given the number of proposed ethical theories up to this point, human can't even agree on what kind of morality ought we follow. Not even that is settled. It is a problem for the secularist to find reasonable morality outside God, because if he goes to ethics for an advice, there he'll only find contention and controversy.
|
|
endrefodstad
Bachelor of the Arts
Sumer ys Icumen in!
Posts: 54
|
Post by endrefodstad on Oct 27, 2011 5:22:03 GMT
It is a problem for the secularist to find reasonable morality outside God, because if he goes to ethics for an advice, there he'll only find contention and controversy. Because contention and controversy cannot be found in theology? I'm not sure that is an especially strong argument for an appeal to tradition line in this case.
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Oct 27, 2011 7:51:44 GMT
Just in case any haven't read the article in question, it can be found here: www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767Quoting from that briefly, the idea that causes me greatest unease is the idea of divine command theory: While acknowledging that Craig is by no means endorsing wrong-doing, this does seem to negate using a moral basis for discerning God's will. If it is possible for God to command you to do things which in the absence of his direct command would be a sin, how can you use the generally accepted idea of sin - deceit, murder, theft, adultery - to judge whether an action is right or wrong?
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Oct 27, 2011 8:32:06 GMT
While acknowledging that Craig is by no means endorsing wrong-doing, this does seem to negate using a moral basis for discerning God's will. If it is possible for God to command you to do things which in the absence of his direct command would be a sin, how can you use the generally accepted idea of sin - deceit, murder, theft, adultery - to judge whether an action is right or wrong? (1) The "generally accepted" ideas hold in 99.99999% of cases - specific punishments meted out on God's behalf are described very specifically as such, and stand in contrast to both the Law which was followed day-by-day, and the way that most other nations were treated by Israel during the Exodus (who were either displaced - fair enough in a largely nomadic part of the world - or plain ignored). (2) Isn't this also a case of graded absolutism? Killing other people is wrong. Lying is also wrong - at least until the Nazis come calling, and you've got some Jews hiding in your cellar. What would the alternatives be, if the Amalekite civilisation and culture were allowed to continue, and their acts went unpunished? Transient cribblings at the moment - I'll have another look at this when I'm back home from work...
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Oct 27, 2011 10:25:43 GMT
Graded absolutism - doing something that may be considered wrong for the greater good - I can just about get my head round (though I keep getting flashbacks to Hot Fuzz every time I see the phrase "the greater good" ;D). Where I am somewhat hazier is how the extermination of a culture including those too young to have absorbed the culture and even their livestock can be seen as "the greater good".
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 27, 2011 21:01:41 GMT
Tim, it seems there is much that we agree on and (I think) two things we disagree on.
We both disagree with both Craig's and Singer's views, we agree and that infanticide, genocide, killing, etc are generally wrong, both back then and now.
So our disagreement turns on two matters:
1. Did Craig consider the context of the time - you vehemently state that he didn't.
But you say "The problem is that this story isn't consistent with what modern Christianity claims about their "God"" you are referencing what I was saying. Craig is asking: killing is wrong today and contrary to christian thinking, so how could it be 'right' back then?
As soon as a person contrasts then and now, and tries to understand or explain why there might be a difference, they are looking at the contexts of then and now.
So I'm not sure why you are arguing otherwise.
2. Your emotional response
Singer believes newborn babies (and other people) are not 'persons' in his definition, and so concludes that infanticide may be morally justified TODAY in some circumstances. Craig believes mass killing isn't justified today but that it was justified in that circumstance back then. Craig is justifying a greater evil but wouldn't repeat it today. Singer is justifying a smaller evil (perhaps), but he would allow it today. We both disagree with both views, but you criticise Singer's view with a couple of mild sentences, yet go to extended lengths and strong language to criticise Craig. Why? I would have thought both deserve approximately equal criticism, with Singer seen as more dangerous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2011 23:44:04 GMT
Because contention and controversy cannot be found in theology? I'm not sure that is an especially strong argument for an appeal to tradition line in this case. I'm not appealing to theology of any kind. I'm looking this from the position of the divine command theory, where God is the highest possible moral authority. A perfect being such as God can never be wrong, so reason demands that ethical prescription from such a being can't be faulty and must be followed. Where I am somewhat hazier is how the extermination of a culture including those too young to have absorbed the culture and even their livestock can be seen as "the greater good". The Amalekites were a nomadic group that terrorized ancient Israel for approximately 200 - 400 years during which they had ample time to repent. They were a threat and danger to all the neighboring nations. Chances were given, but to no avail. The good here is personal security of the Israelites, who couldn't put up anymore with violence directed at them and their kin. What they did to the younger ones was mercy killing. The only other viable option was to left them to die slowly in the desert, not having a necessary infrastructure, or to make them slaves, which was forbidden by law. The Amalekites would have accepted such a resolution, for the cultures of that time preferred quick deaths over adverse situations like life as slaves or long death through starvation.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Oct 28, 2011 2:43:43 GMT
I guess in those days it was kill or be killed, which reduces the ethical options somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 28, 2011 5:04:21 GMT
I'm looking this from the position of the divine command theory, where God is the highest possible moral authority. A perfect being such as God can never be wrong, so reason demands that ethical prescription from such a being can't be faulty and must be followed. The problem I have is not with the theory - if God is perfect and if he chooses something then of course by definition that choice is perfect. The problem is with our human perception of God and his divine commands - how easily we may get it wrong, with terrible consequences. I think, philosophically, it's a matter of epistemology rather than ontology. I guess in those days it was kill or be killed, which reduces the ethical options somewhat. And here, the problem (for me) isn't that God has the right to make this choice, but rather the fact that he asked violent people to carry out his choice.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Oct 28, 2011 6:51:05 GMT
And here, the problem (for me) isn't that God has the right to make this choice, but rather the fact that he asked violent people to carry out his choice. Stop me if this sounds pedantic, but was it really a case of asking violent people, or rather a case of asking regular people to do something violent? Would the deed be any more moral if God had done it Himself?
|
|