If God does not exist, then everything is permissible

[TEPO]

Your life has whatever purpose you want to give it.

But what about the human being as opposed to the grass-hopper? Do you say that any form of life can choose whatever purpose it wants?

If you think about it, every life on earth seems to serve a “duty” towards the survival of another form of life -except the human being. It seems apparent that the human being is the end-product of life on earth… We are the perfect finished product, as life here cannot exceed the superiority of the human being…

So why not assume that everything on earth was arranged / created for us? For us to develop to the highest level possible? But what is the highest level?

The secular society today has NO goal for the future… The only future plan for America is growth, which contains no human aspect at all. The only group on earth that has a goal (who will openly share it) is the Catholic Church… We have a plan of reform that includes implementing unnatural things such as compassion for no reason, charity out of the blue, or love of ones neighbor without expecting anything in return…

Explain to me where “values” like these could have developed biologically, traditionally, or through society… These ideas are “unnatural”, and make no sense biologically where evey action creates a counter action… With true love in charity, there is only giving with no receiving unlike bribery. True Love is supernatural… Love comes from God. We are here to love.

 

[Sair]

If life were finite, why would the length matter? I find that very short sighted of you

Fair enough, but I see nothing in your ideology which resembles an imperative for anyone to do anything, or for it to matter, if you’re right about the nature of things, whether you are perfectly content, wallowing in misery and aimlessness or not. Let me know if you find anything that makes it actually reasonably worth doing anything in particular according to your beliefs!

It matters to me. It matters to the people who care about me. Their welfare and happiness matter to me. That’s just the way things are, the way humans’ instincts and emotions work. Does your life only matter to you? Do the effects your life has on other people’s lives mean nothing to you, only that your own life should last forever?

Throughout human history, even down to individual families, the effects brought about by the lives and actions of one generation always affect the lives and actions of subsequent generations. Time is change. Everything and everyone is subject to time, and therefore change.

But have you ever noticed how long a minute seems to be when you’re in pain?

Happiness is what makes it worth doing things. Why does this matter so little to you? I find it a much more tangible motivation than an undetectable god and an ill-defined and unsubstantiated afterlife.

 

[Sair]

**Sair: **

Warpspeedpetey’s claims are baited. He plays stupid to suck you into an argument for which you have to discredit claim after claim until it’s determined that we can’t know anything by the epistemic standards that we hold for Religion. It’d like a bad joke, but more than anything, it’s off topic.

Warpspeedpetey, if it sounds like a fairytale, it probably is. If you want to talk about morals and permissibility, let’s.

Thanks, VoR - it’s nice to see that I’m not the only one who suspected that was the case (although I must admit that before I read your post, I was sitting here armed with a Bible, ready to quote some verses…)

Clearly there is a certain attitude to morality (not exclusive to Warpspeedpetey, I imagine) that says anything god does is good, regardless of whether it seems good to us, or whether it results in suffering. That kind of mindset is generally impenetrable to rational argument - especially when it consists of both trusting and ignoring, by turns as it’s convenient, the only piece of evidence we have for the morality of the Biblical god!

 

[AntiTheist]

If you think about it, every life on earth seems to serve a “duty” towards the survival of another form of life -except the human being. It seems apparent that the human being is the end-product of life on earth… We are the perfect finished product, as life here cannot exceed the superiority of the human being…

That’s not what the best evidence available to us actually says. Take a little time to study evolutionary biology – after reviewing the evidence, it would be difficult to come up with a more backwards conclusion than “the human being is the end-product of life on earth.”

So why not assume that everything on earth was arranged / created for us?

Because, since I actually care about the truth – and that regard for the truth is itself a value judgment – I don’t go around assuming things without sufficient evidence. If you want to go around assuming stuff just because it makes you feel good, then go for it, but that sure says something about your values, and I won’t have any part of it.

The only group on earth that has a goal (who will openly share it) is the Catholic Church

This is one of many sweeping claims you make that is simply unsubstantiated. I think you’ll find that a great deal of groups – both secular and non-secular – have ideals and concepts of a “better” future.

We have a plan of reform that includes implementing unnatural things such as compassion for no reason, charity out of the blue, or love of ones neighbor without expecting anything in return…

Explain to me where “values” like these could have developed biologically, traditionally, or through society… These ideas are “unnatural”, and make no sense biologically where evey action creates a counter action

Altruism has a survival advantage for a group, and we can determine these things by observing the behavior of other social animals, who practice a form of “compassion” within their societies. There most definitely is a biological urge towards selfless behavior because it aids the chances of the group surviving (and thus, of individual members surviving).

Over time, these urges became codified in laws (since people saw how effective they were) and in the mores of societies, passed on in instructions and internalized in individual members of society.

There is nothing remotely supernatural or “unnatural” about being nice to others. As I said, we see other social animals practice kindness and compassion. Conversely, we have very few examples in solitary animals. The evidence would seem to very strongly imply that compassion has its origins in biology.

Again, we reach the truth by observing reality and evidence, instead of ignoring evidence and choosing beliefs based on what makes us feel good. Now, if you don’t value truth, you are free to do this, but you’re going to have a tough time in debates and discussions, where truth and reality tend to persuade.

 

[Sair]

Whether or not others agree with your values is irrelevant to any individual in deciding how he should behave. If you like helping people then that’s what you should do but if my preference runs to eating them then, while you can pass laws outlawing it, you can only do so on the basis that you don’t like it, not that it is wrong. Your arguments against doing a thing seem based on whether the results of certain actions are inimical to the kind of society you personally prefer. Would you consent to live in a society where all the rules determining what you could or could not do were determined by majority vote?

I’m wondering if you’d really like to live in a world where everyone claimed for themselves the same freedoms you claim for yourself. Do you have one or two basic tenets on which your world view view is founded? Such as, “Each person can and must create his own moral system?”

Ender

There’s a really glaring flaw in the argument that without a god, or some authoritarian moral law external to humans, everyone would and should just do what they like, when they like.

The flaw is that it completely discounts reason and emotion, two inescapable aspects of the human animal.

Let’s take the case of cannibalism. Now, it’s quite probable there were some ancient tribes who practised ritual cannibalism - the consuming of the organs of deceased tribe members in order, they believed, to preserve the powers or the soul or the wisdom of the deceased. That kind of cannibalism isn’t morally problematic, although it is generally considered unacceptable in modern Western societies (not least because of the experience of mad cow disease…)

However, I suspect the kind of cannibalism to which you were referring consisted in catching other humans and eating them, against their will. Note that phrase - “against their will”. That is important, and forms the basis of many moral judgements that we make in our own lives.

Each of us has preferences, things that we would like to be able to do, conditions in which we would like to live. Most people, be they religious or secular, deny that it is right to deprive others of the opportunity to obtain their preferences, without reasonable cause. Such a reasonable cause may be that one person’s preferences consist in harming others, and preventing them from obtaining their preferences. This is why we generally incarcerate violent criminals. There aren’t many people, I’d wager, who, if put on the spot, would seriously admit that they thought their own ordinary preferences were more important than others’, to the extent that they would feel justified in denying others’ preferences simply to fulfil their own. There is a reason that people who lack the capacity for empathy are generally referred to as psychotic or sociopathic - they are the ones who indulge their (often violent) preferences without regard for others.

To get back to the example of cannibalism - let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I have cannibalistic tendencies, and feel unhappy if I can’t express them. What makes it wrong for me to express them? The fact that in fulfilling them, I would cause greater suffering than I am experiencing by not indulging them. I would simply have to ask myself, “what if someone wanted to eat me?” in order to realise why it would be wrong for me to eat someone else.

That was an extreme example, and not one I think many people would ever encounter. But the principle is the same for all moral decisions. We deliberate, we weigh up the consequences of our actions. Sure, emotion takes over at times, and we do things we might not have done if we had given them prior consideration with a cool head. But in that case, we have to face the consequences of our actions - as we always do.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thanks, VoR - it’s nice to see that I’m not the only one who suspected that was the case (although I must admit that before I read your post, I was sitting here armed with a Bible, ready to quote some verses…)

go ahead and qoute. i have a Bible too. we have traded dozens of posts. he isnt telling you anything you dont know.

Clearly there is a certain attitude to morality (not exclusive to Warpspeedpetey, I imagine) that says anything god does is good,

of course, the source of morality is G-d. not people. people can have opinions, G-d has the authority. the authority of the creator over the created.

would you really want a world where everybody just created and act on their own moral system? i think it would be chaos.

regardless of whether it seems good to us, or whether it results in suffering.

well, i dont see how a human can judge G-d. we simply dont know what he does. as to the suffering i dont know of anything G-d did that caused unjust suffering.

That kind of mindset is generally impenetrable to rational argument -

i dont think so. i demonstrate the technical refutation in the thread “the POE doesnt exist”. it is an entirely rational position.

what doesnt seem rational to me. is for a person to say that their opinion of right and wrong can trump the opinion of an omniscient being. that is obviously false, but it is the basis for all POE arguments. its irrational.

why cant people simply admit that they dont know what G-d does, they are not omniscient and therefore their opinion is an inadequate measure by which to judge the Almighty?

especially when it consists of both trusting and ignoring, by turns as it’s convenient, the only piece of evidence we have for the morality of the Biblical god!

let me just ask you straight out.

do you know everything that G-d knows? if not, then how is your opinion of G-ds actions valid?

the answer is that it cannot be. not under any rational scheme.

 

[Sair]

But what about the human being as opposed to the grass-hopper? Do you say that any form of life can choose whatever purpose it wants?

If you think about it, every life on earth seems to serve a “duty” towards the survival of another form of life -except the human being. It seems apparent that the human being is the end-product of life on earth… We are the perfect finished product, as life here cannot exceed the superiority of the human being…

So why not assume that everything on earth was arranged / created for us? For us to develop to the highest level possible? But what is the highest level?

And people say atheists are arrogant…

The secular society today has NO goal for the future… The only future plan for America is growth, which contains no human aspect at all. The only group on earth that has a goal (who will openly share it) is the Catholic Church… We have a plan of reform that includes implementing unnatural things such as compassion for no reason, charity out of the blue, or love of ones neighbor without expecting anything in return…

Explain to me where “values” like these could have developed biologically, traditionally, or through society… These ideas are “unnatural”, and make no sense biologically where evey action creates a counter action… With true love in charity, there is only giving with no receiving unlike bribery. True Love is supernatural… Love comes from God. We are here to love.

The fact is that economists value growth - they think economic wealth is the best way to guarantee freedom and health and happiness for all. Many others dispute that, but there is no doubt that economics is still human-centred. Without any kind of economic growth, we would all still be living at subsistence level, as many people still are in developing nations. Economic growth does have benefits in terms of survival and quality of life - it’s just that some people don’t recognise any upper limits.

 

[Sair]

what doesnt seem rational to me. is for a person to say that their opinion of right and wrong can trump the opinion of an omniscient being. that is obviously false, but it is the basis for all POE arguments. its irrational.

why cant people simply admit that they dont know what G-d does, they are not omniscient and therefore their opinion is an inadequate measure by which to judge the Almighty?

let me just ask you straight out.

do you know everything that G-d knows? if not, then how is your opinion of G-ds actions valid?

the answer is that it cannot be. not under any rational scheme.

At the risk of derailing the thread - although I’ll try to keep this within the context of a discussion of morality - the only source we have for the moral opinions of the Judeo-Christian god is the Biblical texts. Everything else is based on interpretations and expansions of the Biblical text. If the Biblical god acts in ways that cause suffering and ways that seem, to most human judgement, execrable (like hardening Pharoah’s heart, for the purposes of demonstrating his powers by drowning the Egyptian army) then we are left with a few choices. One, which I and many others have taken, is to reject the Biblical account as legend created by humans, for human purposes. The other options are either to conclude that the Biblical god is not wholly benevolent, or to come up with some reason why this god’s actions were justified or somehow not evil. The latter has been the source of some breathtaking apologetical gymnastics.

Humans always make our own moral judgements. We can’t do anything else, even if we are interpreting morality from a supposedly divine source. It makes no difference that none of us could claim to know everything a hypothetical omniscient being knows - we are still going to make our moral judgements based on our own knowledge and experience. If I have found no benefit to myself or to others from acting according to the Judeo-Christian god’s values, as laid out in Bible/Church Fathers/Catechism/priestly interpretation, that is my judgement to make. It is every person’s judgement to make. Because we are social animals, we make these judgements in relation to those who share our lives. That is the way humans are.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

At the risk of derailing the thread - although I’ll try to keep this within the context of a discussion of morality - the only source we have for the moral opinions of the Judeo-Christian god is the Biblical texts. Everything else is based on interpretations and expansions of the Biblical text.

the Magisterium is supposed to interpret the text, thats its purpose. but i dont know about any expansions. what are you refering to?

If the Biblical god acts in ways that cause suffering and ways that seem, to most human judgement, execrable (like hardening Pharoah’s heart, for the purposes of demonstrating his powers by drowning the Egyptian army) then we are left with a few choices.

pharoahs heart was hardened not changed. the purpose was to punish the egyptians for their enslavement of the Jews. we killed hundreds of thousands over the same issue here in the States. i wouldnt think you would have a problem with that one.

One, which I and many others have taken, is to reject the Biblical account as legend created by humans, for human purposes.

except there is no convincing evidence for that.

The other options are either to conclude that the Biblical god is not wholly benevolent, or to come up with some reason why this god’s actions were justified or somehow not evil. The latter has been the source of some breathtaking apologetical gymnastics.

it doesnt require breathtaking apologetics, only the **simple admission that one does not know **what G-d does, as i pointed out in the POE thread, there is even a technical demonstration for this lack of knowledge.

Humans always make our own moral judgements. We can’t do anything else, even if we are interpreting morality from a supposedly divine source. It makes no difference that none of us could claim to know everything a hypothetical omniscient being knows - we are still going to make our moral judgements based on our own knowledge and experience. If I have found no benefit to myself or to others from acting according to the Judeo-Christian god’s values, as laid out in Bible/Church Fathers/Catechism/priestly interpretation, that is my judgement to make. It is every person’s judgement to make. Because we are social animals, we make these judgements in relation to those who share our lives. That is the way humans are.

none of this gets around the fact that people lack the necessary knowledge to judge G-d.

the gist of the argument here is that since we can only make moral judgments based on insufficient information, its ok to do so. thats like saying its ok to drive drunk, because their isnt a cab available.

the honest position to take would be to say “i dont know” . because, you literally do not know what G-d knows and cant therefore come to a valid conclusion about G-ds activities.

you cannot judge G-d by your standards any more than a monkey can judge me by his.

 

[Benadam]

Treating others as you would have them treat you is the natural human foundation of permissable behaviour. This is natural to us as long as the maternal environment our awareness developes within is nurturing eneough that our ability to form human bonds is not impaired. As the society we identify with encompasses larger communities we begin to treat all people like they were ourselves. This entirely human experience forms a moral ethic that can be viewed as independent of religion or God… Atheists will claim it is the law that is written on our hearts by nature and that there is no need to believe it has a divine source.

That it exists at all is a cruel paradox unless we as humans tend towards an objective end external to the ,material realm. There comes a point that without a meaningfull end we are forced to admit we trancended nothing because the meaning of human life is no more than to continue to exist.

 

[AntiTheist]

That it exists at all is a cruel paradox unless we as humans tend towards an objective end external to the ,material realm.

I don’t see how it’s a paradox at all, let alone a “cruel” one. As I noted earlier, all social animals display a degree of compassion and kindness towards one another. This drive towards empathy – which obviously manifests more strongly in some individuals than others – is completely natural and aids the survival of the species – it’s not one bit at odds with life, nature, or the physical world. Not one tiny bit.

There comes a point that without a meaningfull end we are forced to admit we trancended nothing because the meaning of human life is no more than to continue to exist.

Well, of course we “tracended” nothing; the whole idea of transcendence is one giant farce. We’re natural creatures. Our “meaning” is whatever meaning we give ourselves while we’re alive.

 

[Sair]

the Magisterium is supposed to interpret the text, thats its purpose. but i dont know about any expansions. what are you refering to?

The Catholic catechism is rather longer than the New Testament - unless it’s repeating everything a few times, it obviously contains an expansion of Biblical content. The writings of early church fathers incorporated Greek philosophical thought that had no place in the Bible - it was therefore an expansion of Biblical content.

pharoahs heart was hardened not changed. the purpose was to punish the egyptians for their enslavement of the Jews. we killed hundreds of thousands over the same issue here in the States. i wouldnt think you would have a problem with that one.

The point is that it was God setting Pharoah up to act in ways that would cause suffering to Pharaoh’s people - drowing armies, killing firstborn sons… He was not merely sitting back and punishing - he was intervening to make the situation worse.

except there is no convincing evidence for that.

There is no convincing evidence - no corroboration from any other sources - that anything described in the Torah actually happened. There is not even any evidence that King David and King Solomon - never mind Moses or Abraham - existed as real people, any more than there is evidence that King Arthur was a real person.

it doesnt require breathtaking apologetics, only the **simple admission that one does not know **what G-d does, as i pointed out in the POE thread, there is even a technical demonstration for this lack of knowledge.

none of this gets around the fact that people lack the necessary knowledge to judge G-d.

the gist of the argument here is that since we can only make moral judgments based on insufficient information, its ok to do so. thats like saying its ok to drive drunk, because their isnt a cab available.

the honest position to take would be to say “i dont know” . because, you literally do not know what G-d knows and cant therefore come to a valid conclusion about G-ds activities.

you cannot judge G-d by your standards any more than a monkey can judge me by his.

We have no choice but to make judgements based on insufficient information - especially if, as you say, it’s impossible for us to know God’s mind. The trouble with setting up God as an inscrutable entity is that this conception not only makes your god immune to judgement, but completely immune to detection - so we have no choice but to act according to our own limited knowledge, and make the best we can of it.

Your hypothetical drunk driver has far more evidence of the dangers of drunk driving than any of us have for God’s mind and morals, according to your argument - so is therefore better placed to make a circumstantial judgement than the person deciding whether to believe that what the Bible or the Church tells him about God’s morality is actually the case.

At the end of the day, living as if we have insufficient knowledge of God looks pretty much identical to living as if there is no god - which is what atheists do.

 

[Sair]

Treating others as you would have them treat you is the natural human foundation of permissable behaviour. This is natural to us as long as the maternal environment our awareness developes within is nurturing eneough that our ability to form human bonds is not impaired. As the society we identify with encompasses larger communities we begin to treat all people like they were ourselves. This entirely human experience forms a moral ethic that can be viewed as independent of religion or God… Atheists will claim it is the law that is written on our hearts by nature and that there is no need to believe it has a divine source.

That it exists at all is a cruel paradox unless we as humans tend towards an objective end external to the ,material realm. There comes a point that without a meaningfull end we are forced to admit we trancended nothing because the meaning of human life is no more than to continue to exist.

All animals that tend towards social organisation must find ways to be accommodating. Even solitary animals have to negotiate mating. Any social interaction carries with it the need for accepted signals and behaviours. As has been mentioned in a few other posts, altruistic behaviour has definite group survival benefits.

Scientists who have observed play amongst wild wolves have identified particular signals that wolves use to distinguish play from non-play behaviour, and what’s more, have seen consequences meted out to individuals who do not observe the rules of play - such individuals are generally ostracised by others in the pack. You can see much the same basic interactions occurring in school playgrounds.

The point is, no matter how it manifests, social behaviour necessitates mutually accepted regulations. This is what morality comes down to. It is a common human understanding, as you point out, that it is unacceptable to treat others in ways that we would not wish to be treated ourselves. That understanding is fundamental to our ideas of justice and fairness.

The one thing I don’t understand, concerning the arguments of many on this thread, is the notion that human consciousness must be eternal in order to have any meaning. Why must we think this is the case? Does the fact that we are subject to time and change mean that what I do today ceases to matter tomorrow? You claim that moral actions are unimportant if their consequences only last for a finite period, but that seems to ignore many things that are fundamental to human social interaction. I don’t want to spend the next 50 years or more in isolation from my fellows - I value companionship and the pleasures it entails. Therefore I act in ways that are conducive to continuing companionship. Does this have no meaning if my consciousness ends with my death? I simply don’t see how this follows.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Catholic catechism is rather longer than the New Testament - unless it’s repeating everything a few times, it obviously contains an expansion of Biblical content.

where did you get that idea from? that isnt close to accurate. the CCC is an expostion on Church teaching. not an expannsion of the text of the Bible.

 

[Sair]

you are choosing to act on insufficient information. when acting is not necessary. its a choice.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

There seems to be a misunderstanding. You want me to explain why values “matter” or whether they “make sense.” Values neither matter, in the ultimate sense that you probably mean, nor are they rational. They are.

I’m not saying that people act according to their values because those values ultimately matter to the universe or because it’s logical to act in accordance with your values. I’m saying that people cannot help but act in accordance with their values. There’s no higher “mattering” here.

Where does value come from? A lot of sources. Some of it comes from biology (empathy, instincts, biological necessity), some of it comes from traditions – values that have worked in the past get passed down and taught to children and internalized by them – other values come from reason in the sense that we decide that certain things are important in relation to other, non-rational values.

None of these things are valuable to anything other than human minds. The universe doesn’t care one bit about these things. “Value” exists entirely in thinking minds, and that’s it.

All as you assume . However, since it doesn’t matter, as you agree, if reality were to be as you describe, there’s no reason for anyone to care about them, other than personal inclination, regardless of the sources of that - so in such a world, I can’t see how you could define anything as being impermissable - except by the mechanical processes of force and restriction, rather than by moral considerations

 

[Mystic_Banana]

1. If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.
2. Not everything is permissible. (i.e. some things are wrong).

Therefore, God exists.

If this is unsound, which premise is wrong?

Just to summarise my own view, anything would be permissable if there is no afterlife. There would also be no point in pursuing anything, since the end result of everything would be nothing

• if there is an afterlife, then our existence has value
• much experience of the afterlife ties in with the possible/probable existence of God, both of which would appear to lie in the realms of supernatural experience

Although there is no absolute proof of the existence of God, and there are arguments against it, the pointlessness of life of an exclusively material, finite existence makes it reasonable to value the self in the hope of the existence of an afterlife, and to act accordingly (I’m heading Pascals wagering way here)

But by itself, I actually disagree with the idea that some things are neccesarily wrong. They are only wrong if life has reasonable value - i.e. involves an afterlife

 

[Sair]

Just to summarise my own view, anything would be permissable if there is no afterlife. There would also be no point in pursuing anything, since the end result of everything would be nothing

• if there is an afterlife, then our existence has value
• much experience of the afterlife ties in with the possible/probable existence of God, both of which would appear to lie in the realms of supernatural experience

Although there is no absolute proof of the existence of God, and there are arguments against it, the pointlessness of life of an exclusively material, finite existence makes it reasonable to value the self in the hope of the existence of an afterlife, and to act accordingly (I’m heading Pascals wagering way here)

But by itself, I actually disagree with the idea that some things are neccesarily wrong. They are only wrong if life has reasonable value - i.e. involves an afterlife

Do you not then think that happiness and misery in this life have any meaning? A transitory experience is not less meaningful to the individual because it doesn’t last - in fact, it’s often the opposite. If there is no change, even from a state of contentment, boredom and apathy soon result.

It seems a bit pointless, really, to ask whether you would cease to value your life if you were presented with conclusive proof that there is no afterlife. Not only does no such proof exist, but you can’t really imagine how you would feel if your own beliefs were different to what they are.

My own take on all this is that the life we get is all we get - and we need to make the best we can of it. For some people, that’s a tremendous amount. Lack of belief in an afterlife doesn’t automatically lead to nihilism, although it might do if someone were raised to believe that their consciousness would last forever, and were then somehow convinced that this was not the case. I know from personal experience that letting go of the notion of an afterlife is one of the hardest things about accepting an atheist worldview. But it’s not impossible, and it doesn’t change the fact that our lives and experiences - and those of our loved ones - matter in the here and now.

 

[tonyrey]

Christian morality is superior to secular morality because it does not stake everything on this life.

There is plenty of evidence but the point is that we are prepared to take the risk that we are mistaken and you cannot take that risk because you don’t believe there is an afterlife. Your morality is geared solely to this life and does not even allow for the existence of other rational beings - which is quite likely given the immensity of the universe. So it is based on the false perspective that we alone are the authors of morality and must be morally infallible! Everything is permissible for the atheist because the atheist decides what is permitted! Abortion is a very good example. The right to life is regarded as a human convention and humans decide whether an unborn child has a right to life - depending on such arbitrary criteria as its stage of development in the womb.

In any case, Christian morality can only be concerned with our actions in this life, simply because we have no basis - other than our own wishes - upon which to put faith in an afterlife of perfect justice and happiness

.
That is a different topic which I’m keen to pursue in another thread. The tension between the universal belief in justice and the gross injustice of life taken in conjunction with the absurdity of the Chance hypothesis are reasonable grounds, together with other evidence, for the rejection of the notion that this life is all there is - which is based on crude, simplistic materialism.

Hope is never certainty, regardless of whether we believe in an afterlife or not. But some hope is more well-founded than other kinds of hope. If a person sacrifices himself in the firm belief that doing so will better the lot of others, is he more noble for doing so in the absence of corroborating evidence?

If people are mistaken their unselfish intentions are no less noble even though they are misguided.

Is he more noble for sacrificing himself to gain an uncertain eternal reward, even though his action may do no actual good for those he leaves behind? That seems to be the basis of the Christian notion of self-sacrifice - because there is no corroborating evidence that an eternal state of happiness exists.

This is a speculative argument which needs a precise example of such a situation.

All of our actions are influenced by circumstances. Some of these are self-imposed circumstances, but many others are not.

How self-imposed? If the mind is merely the activity of the brain there is no self and all our circumstances are thrust upon us…

Give me one example in which any person has acted in a purely selfless manner -

There are many cases of people, including atheists, who died in order to save the lives of the others. Of course the cynic can always say it gave them mental satisfaction but I consider that a very poor subterfuge. If you regard people as animals you obviously expect them to behave like animals…

… and please note that this excludes belief in eternal reward, because that feeds into self-interest.

You are relapsing into your identification of self-interest with selfishness…

But if we humans were to act entirely rationally, it would lead to outcomes even you could not stomach. Emotion generally precedes rationality - we could feel before we could reason.

So what? Are you suggesting we should let emotion dominate our lives and decisions? The real question is whether we can control ourselves at all.
Belief in moral responsibility is incompatible with materialism because it infringes the law of the conservation of energy. Can ought exist without can?

The fact that it would be a happier world has no bearing on the ultimate nature of morality - which implies that we can choose and act to make it so.

We can choose, but our success depends upon the actions of others, which we generally can’t control to the requisite extent, even if we happen to be unscrupulous totalitarian dictators.

Again, where do we obtain this power of control?

 

[tonyrey]

The folly of the Cross has nothing to do with the unlikelihood of selfless love - it is the rank unreasonableness of the notion that God had to sacrifice himself to appease himself for the actions of humans whose imperfections God himself created.

Because democrats at least pay lip service to the notion that all humans ought to have the opportunity to have a say in their future prospects.For that opportunity to be taken advantage of there has to be freedom of choice…

It is fanciful to suppose that morality can be explained entirely by the fact that we are social beings. In a democratic society people have the right to protest and demonstrate without violence even to the extent of disrupting normal activity. Why? Because the freedom of the individual is valued in addition to social cohesion. When confronted with an unjust regime we are morally justified in attempting to overthrow those have imposed harmony by force. Morality cannot be explained solely by the fact that we are social beings. You believe we are animals but in fact we are persons… and that makes all the difference…
Did you miss what I said about balancing individual autonomy with social cohesion?

Once again the flaw in your argument is that individual autonomy is an illusion if we are cogs in the machine of nature. And why do individuals have rights if survival and social cohesion are the goals for which we have evolved?

“often” is the key word. When it comes to the crunch we can be more successful by not working with others.

Tell that to anyone who decides to build an apartment block, or indeed to manage a farm on their own.
Tell that to the criminals and profiteers who have become millionaires by ruthlessly ignoring the rights of others and resorting to hired assassins where necessary…

Not at all. It is absurd to deny that we have a body with instincts and physical desires.

Then why do so many Christians feel that this body and its instincts should be ignored or overridden for the sake of undetectable benefits?
I’m sure you don’t advocate going to the other extreme and letting instincts and physical desires dominate your behaviour! The distortion of Christianity does not invalidate the teaching of Jesus.

If we are animals through and through there is no reason why animals should not have exactly the same rights as us. Nor any reason why we should be more valuable. Nor why we should be responsible for our behaviour (unless they are too!). This is your dilemma!

I have never denied that humans have highly sophisticated brains, and greater capacity to reason and make moral judgements - the difference is, I don’t reject the experience of any other animal as unimportant.

Why do you think I do? To believe God created the world implies that we should have reverence for all life - as St Francis demonstrated… If the world just exists for no reason the difficulty is to understand why the experience of any animal is objectively important. Thinking it is does not make it so!

Where basic needs are the same - in terms of capacity for suffering or for experiencing satisfaction or contentment - equal consideration ought to be given, regardless of species.

I agree:
A Robin Redbreast in a Cage
Puts all Heaven in a Rage…

[/QUOTE]