A World without Religion?

[ThinkingSapien]

I can see why the other poster was so keen on getting the definition down, to avoid the conflation just witnessed above.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a pretty serious misinterpretation of what I wrote. I believe a good person must do good things, by definition. That is, if they don’t, they are no longer a good person. Why? Because a good person is one who does good things.

Excellent. I like your acknowledgement and use of the word “must”.

And when you say this, what you are saying is that we are obligated, as moral agents, to do what is right and avoid what is evil.

Now my question to you is: can a moral person ever disobey her well formed conscience?

I do not believe that people are inherently compelled to do anything,

This is very Catholic.

let alone follow some “truth.”

This is self-refuting, Animal.

For here you are expressing a “truth” that “no one is compelled to follow some ‘truth’ and no one is compelled to do anything.”

I can see why the other poster was so keen on getting the definition down, to avoid the conflation just witnessed above.

You’re using that word in a way that makes me think you don’t really know what it means.

But I, too, am keen on getting definitions down. That’s always a good thing.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Excellent. I like your acknowledgement and use of the word “must”.

And when you say this, what you are saying is that we are obligated, as moral agents, to do what is right and avoid what is evil.

Now my question to you is: can a moral person ever disobey her well formed conscience?

For clarity, I explicitly reject the existence of any obligations for “moral agents”, as well as the existence of objective morals.

And for more clarity, when you say “moral agent” I take that to mean “a thing with moral agency” (something with a sense of right and wrong). However when you say “moral person” I take that to mean something like “good person.” Am I reading you right?

This is self-refuting, Animal.

For here you are expressing a “truth” that “no one is compelled to follow some ‘truth’ and no one is compelled to do anything.”

If nobody is compelled to do anything, then clearly nobody is compelled to do anything, then it follows trivially that nobody is compelled to follow some truth. Quite the opposite of self refuting, one follows directly from the other.

You’re using that word in a way that makes me think you don’t really know what it means.

But I, too, am keen on getting definitions down. That’s always a good thing.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflate

(1.b)

You are, in my view, conflating two definitions of “must.” In one definition, must is an obligation- a parent telling a child he must clean his room. The other is a definition requirement- a triangle must have three sides. The child will not cease to be a child if he does not clean his room, and nobody will scold a triangle for having four sides- the two meanings are distinct. I say a good person must do good things, lest they cease to be a good person. You seem to want the former to mean the latter.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You are, in my view, conflating two definitions of “must.” …]

There’s lots of words that can be used to mean a spectrum of things. Because of this when used in a declaration there’s a spectrum of interpretations that people might apply which may be different than the intended usage of the speaker. There’s plenty of words like this in English. But you may encounter some of them more frequently in these forums than you might in everyday conversation.

For example, “believe in” or “trust in” can be used to label

• A proposition that one has evaluated as true
• Something thought to exist
• A position that embodies one’s values
• Confidence

These might seem like small differences, but I’ll let you figure out on your own how someone could use these phrases to mean one thing but interpreted to mean something else.

Should/shall also have spectrum’s of meanings. I personally prefer to avoid using these words. If you decide to use them my advice is to make sure that your usage is well known.

 

[Midwest88]

youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5QG3MUTtg

Richard Dawkins in this 9 minute interview says a world without religion would have as a high a moral ground and be better than a world with religion.

Agree or disagree? Your thoughts?

Disagree. It’s like saying if we all just got along, gained empathy, “forgive & forget”, and learned how to love that the world would be a better place. Talk about pseudo-psychological babble.

 

[Bradski]

Disagree. It’s like saying if we all just got along, gained empathy, “forgive & forget”, and learned how to love that the world would be a better place.

Yeah, sounds horrifying. Who on earth would want to live in a place like that.

Edit: You were being sarcastic…weren’t you?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Yeah, sounds horrifying. Who on earth would want to live in a place like that.

Edit: You were being sarcastic…weren’t you?

I think it was more of a “thank you Captain Obvious” sort of statement, which is fair I think. Dawkins doesn’t give the most nuanced version of some of his arguments here (only talks about it for less than a minute) so it comes off as pretty simplistic. A more full argument is that religion doesn’t add anything- you can teach morals without a spiritual overlord finding who’s naughty or nice. Clearly you won’t be 100% effective, but you won’t be at a serious disadvantage compared to faith based teaching.

 

[Porknpie]

You think that you couldn’t give any reasons why someone shouldn’t kill? If you kill someone, Porky, then they’ll be dead. Bereft of life. They will cease to exist. I can’t believe that you don’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion (‘well, you might say he’s dead, but that’s just your opinion!’). Are you a Python fan by any chance…?

Bradski, let’s just say, for sure, that the person is definitely, positively…dead.

But, my response could be “so what” if I take that life with my own hands, in any imaginable ways possible. So what if they cease to exist. What makes it right or wrong? Because you said so? Based on what? Based only on one’s opinion or what is legal?

History has had… and continues to have problems with morality based on what is legal.

Examples:

Was Hitler right in what he did? It was “legal” to kill the Jews, or anyone else that he didn’t like. And he did so.

Similarly, in our culture, we are killing unborn human beings, unborn human life. That life ceases to exist. All because it is legal.

Python fan…well I love a good slapping fish dance.

 

[PRmerger]

I selected that example because I am sure that most readers in this forum would evaluate his course of actions as immoral.

Egg-zactly. Including you.

An example of someone whose actions were seen by himself and possibly one of his communities as being “moral” that don’t agree with the evaluation of the user goes to support the statement “They said that unless the two people communication have significant overlap in their moral systems than to describe a person as “moral” might not carry much meaning.”

We are agreed. He, and possibly his religious community, believe he was moral.

We know he wasn’t.

This example was pointed in the fact that you were giving an example of a person who thinks he’s acting morally…

when he actually wasn’t.

Objectively speaking.

It limns my point quite nicely :tiphat: : you and I know that some things can be objectively immoral (or moral)…despite the opinions of others.

Unless you want to say, publicly here on the CAFs, that you believe that since a man thinks he’s acting morally that he actually was?

 

[PRmerger]

A more full argument is that religion doesn’t add anything- you can teach morals without a spiritual overlord finding who’s naughty or nice. Clearly you won’t be 100% effective, but you won’t be at a serious disadvantage compared to faith based teaching.

Religion adds objective morality to our apologia.

So when you as an atheist present arguments to a Muslim who slays his daughter, all the Muslim has to say is, “Well, my truth is different than your truth. And what you find wrong may not be the same as what I find wrong.”

And you have to say (unless you subscribe to the existence of objective morality and absolute truth): yep. I guess you’re right. I guess it is moral for you to murder your daughter since you think it’s ok.

 

[PRmerger]

For clarity, I explicitly reject the existence of any obligations for “moral agents”, as well as the existence of objective morals

Fair enough.

Then you have to posit that the Muslim father who kills his daughter was acting morally.

See how treacherous the denial of objective morality is?

 

[PRmerger]

And for more clarity, when you say “moral agent” I take that to mean “a thing with moral agency” (something with a sense of right and wrong). However when you say “moral person” I take that to mean something like “good person.” Am I reading you right?

Yep. Pretty much.

If nobody is compelled to do anything, then clearly nobody is compelled to do anything, then it follows trivially that nobody is compelled to follow some truth. Quite the opposite of self refuting, one follows directly from the other.

And yet here you are proposing a truth that any logical person should follow, yes?

AnimalSpirits is positing, “It is true that no one is compelled to follow some truth”.

Is that really your position?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

You do see how reasonable readers here would have some cognitive dissonance with your position?

 

[PRmerger]

You are, in my view, conflating two definitions of “must.” In one definition, must is an obligation- a parent telling a child he must clean his room. The other is a definition requirement- a triangle must have three sides. The child will not cease to be a child if he does not clean his room, and nobody will scold a triangle for having four sides- the two meanings are distinct. I say a good person must do good things, lest they cease to be a good person. You seem to want the former to mean the latter.

They are both applicable, interchangeably, Animal.

Any person who wants to assert something that is consonant with truth MUST (as an obligation) conform to what is presented in reality. She also MUST (as a definition requirement) conform to what is presented in reality.

 

[inocente]

Fair enough.

Then you have to posit that the Muslim father who kills his daughter was acting morally.

See how treacherous the denial of objective morality is?

And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

“My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

“You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

Judges 11

 

[PRmerger]

And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”

Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

“My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”

“You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

Judges 11

Not sure what you are proposing by citing a few bible verses?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It limns my point quite nicely :tiphat: : you and I know that some things can be objectively immoral (or moral)…despite the opinions of others.

Thanks for moving the goal post away from getting me to adopt that ambiguous statement with on obligation. Now, on objective morality we’ve had a few discussions on that too. If you want to continue a discussion on that please review our previous discussions on the topic first so that we don’t reenact our previous conversation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”…]

 

[PRmerger]

What do you think inocente means by citing those verses?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for moving the goal post away from getting me to adopt that ambiguous statement with on obligation.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, TS. I rarely use it.

Now, on objective morality we’ve had a few discussions on that too. If you want to continue a discussion on that please review our previous discussions on the topic first so that we don’t reenact our previous conversation.

I don’t need to review. My memory is quite good with things I read.

Point: you believe in objective morality.

Otherwise, you would not have presented the example of a man who thinks he’s being moral by slaying his daughter, in order to show that he actually wasn’t being moral.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Religion adds objective morality to our apologia.

So when you as an atheist present arguments to a Muslim who slays his daughter, all the Muslim has to say is, “Well, my truth is different than your truth. And what you find wrong may not be the same as what I find wrong.”

And you have to say (unless you subscribe to the
existence of objective morality and absolute truth): yep. I guess you’re right. I guess it is moral for you to murder your daughter since you think it’s ok.

I’d say it’s moral from his point of view and immoral from mine. I can disapprove of something very strongly, as I do with thinking that it violates some objective rule of the universe.