If there were no God

[intjhatesyou]

I’m afraid I missed the point of your argument…?

 

[intjhatesyou]

Unless I missed it, nobody mentioned whether or not Judeo Christianity was the oldest religion…?

 

[Sophia]

If free moral agency was limited in such a way that the moral pendulum couldn’t swing to either side with equal magnitude, then it’s not “free”, is it?

Of course it would be. Freedom is never absolute.

What does follow is that if a psychopath attempts to harm my family, I can utilize my will to stop him.

As soon as your try to prevent him from harming your family, you admit that the well-being of your family is
more important than his “free will” - and that would make you a hypocrite.

And if free moral agency is one of the greatest goods, then a loving and omnipotent god won’t eliminate it. As I’ve told you for the hundredth time.

As soon as the free will of a psychopath is considered to be a “greater” good than the well-being of the victims, then this “god” is NOT a loving god any more. He would become exactly as evil as the actual psychopath. If that is beyond your comprehension, well, that is just too bad. I wasted enough time trying to educate you.

 

[Gorgias]

Are you aware of the plethora of ethical systems “out there”?

The thing is, that’s not what the claim was. It wasn’t “there are many systems”, it was “there’s not one that’s absolute.” That’s what I’m addressing.

(After all, once we get past the initial “there can’t be an absolute system”, then we can address the claim that “even though there are many systems, that doesn’t prove that there isn’t one absolute system.”

Are you aware of the plethora of ethical systems “out there”? I presented a few. Is “atheism a religion? is baldness a hairstyle? is health just another disease?” I suggest you print this out and put it above your computer, so I don’t have to repeat it all the time. I would appreciate your courtesy.

There are many NFL teams. They all begin the season thinking that they’re Super Bowl champs. The fact that there are 32 competing belief systems _doesn’t imply that only one of them gets to hoist the Lombardi Trophy and assert that they were right, all along." If you want to print that out so I don’t have to keep repeating it, I would appreciate your courtesy.

 

[Sophia]

The thing is, that’s not what the claim was. It wasn’t “there are many systems”, it was “there’s not one that’s absolute.” That’s what I’m addressing.

The problem is that there is no epistemological method to compare different ethical systems. So any order would be subjective. Unlike the order of the NFL teams, where there is the method to decide the “order”.

But if you differ, just present your argument that there IS an absolute ethical system. And while you are at it, show us “which ethical system is that absolute one”.

Do you now get the difference between “ethics” and “meta-ethics”? (And I really would appreciate if you stopped repeating my words to you. It is wearing very thin. If you have nothing else to say, just keep quiet.)

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that there is no epistemological method to compare different ethical systems.

That, too, is a different answer to a different question. The assertion was a bald, unsubstantiated, “there is no absolute system.”

Do you now get the difference between “ethics” and “meta-ethics”?

I do. You haven’t demostrated that you do.

And I really would appreciate if you stopped repeating my words to you. It is wearing very thin.

Pretty effective – and, as a side effect, annoying – when someone demonstrates that your claims don’t hold up, using your own words, isn’t it?

 

[Vonsalza]

Of course it would be. Freedom is never absolute.

The capacity to be evil and the capacity to be good must balance else the basis by which actions are juxtaposed and subsequently judged becomes meaningless.

As soon as your try to prevent him from harming your family, you admit that the well-being of your family is
more important than his “free will” - and that would make you a hypocrite.

If I try to stop him from harming my family, I haven’t impaired his moral agency in the least. He’s still an evil man desiring to do a very evil thing - whether he succeeds or not isn’t particularly relevant to his agency.

So I’m not a hypocrite here. You just don’t know what “free moral agency” actually means.

As soon as the free will of a psychopath is considered to be a “greater” good than the well-being of the victims, then this “god” is NOT a loving god any more.

Again, this is all you have - a bald fiat that you can’t objectively back-up. In rejecting western religion for this, you’ve only traded one religion for another and you’re still vulnerable to the same rational and material slings and arrows you use to critique religion.

Despite your clear feelings otherwise, it’s not going to become more objectively true every time you grand-stand and repeat it.

Sorry.

He would become exactly as evil as the actual psychopath.

He might be!

-Or-

He might value free moral agency over the lives of people. As I’ve suggested for the 101st time, now.

 

[Sophia]

That, too, is a different answer to a different question.

The two questions cannot be separated. If there is no epistemological method to answer a question, then the question is irrelevant. Which “ethical system” is better, cannot be answered. And if there is no “order”, there cannot be a “best” one, or “absolute” one. But this leads to nowhere. Show me that “absolute ethical system”, and give some argument why is it “absolute”, and you have my shut up. The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. Show me your “pudding”.

I do. You haven’t demostrated that you do.

Actually you did not. A meta-ethical proposition is NOT an ethical question. Your habit of repeating my words is only annoying, without any relevance.

 

[Sophia]

If I try to stop him from harming my family, I haven’t impaired his moral agency in the least. He’s still an evil man desiring to do a very evil thing - whether he succeeds or not isn’t particularly relevant to his agency.

This makes the concept of “moral agency” irrelevant. If that agent is UNABLE to perform the deeds, which he desires to perform, then he can be as “evil” as he wants to be. Why should anyone care?

Again, this is all you have - a bald fiat that you can’t objectively back-up.

It is the definition of being “good” to act in the best interest of others. If you are unaware of the basic definitions, you are even less worthy to be considered.

 

[Vonsalza]

This makes the concept of “moral agency” irrelevant. If that agent is UNABLE to perform the deeds…

No, if anything is irrelevant, it’s that part of your objection - ability. The agent needs only to be able to act. When their will runs contrary to another, we have a contest. We see this every day, everywhere…

It is the definition of being “good” to act in the best interest of others.

And it appears (to the the theoretical psycho-god) to be in the best interests of others to allow them to enjoy free moral agency rather than exist as safe automatons. It seems to be a “heavier” good than all the ill it subsequently generates.

It keeps working because you don’t have a counter for it… There isn’t one beyond “Well! I sincerely disagree!”.

 

[Sophia]

No, if anything is irrelevant, it’s that part of your objection - ability. The agent needs only to be able to act. When their will runs contrary to another, we have a contest. We see this every day, everywhere…

I have seen this baloney so many times. It is boring. If all that is needed that this psychopath is able to attempt to do what he plans to do (even if that plan does not and cannot succeed), then let’s have a benevolent “god” interfere and prevent it from succeeding - each and every time. And everyone will be better off. Well, the psychopath will be disappointed (along with you - two peas in a pod), but that firmly belongs to the “who the hell cares” category.

And it appears (to the the theoretical psycho-god) to be in the best interests of others to allow them to enjoy free moral agency rather than exist as safe automatons. It seems to be a “heavier” good than all the ill it subsequently generates.

It is NOT in the best interest of the victims. Your “psycho-god” is on the side of the psychopaths, along with you. Nothing else needs to be said. And you really need to learn the difference between “automatons” and people with limited ABILITY to put their plans into reality.

I am still on the side of the victims, while you are still in the camp of the psychopaths.

What is your title in the Ku Klux Klan? Is it “Grand Dragon”? Because I have seen this kind of attitude only in the KKK or the Gestapo or the Khmer Rouge.

<<< Need to add! >>>

There isn’t one beyond “Well! I sincerely disagree!”.

Indeed. I don’t deny it. Since ethics is purely subjective, I present my “personal opinion”. (Just like you present your personal opinion - shared by all the psychopaths and sociopaths around the world).

However, I am glad to announce that my “personal” opinion is shared by all the good-willing people of the world. I admit that the number of people who share an “opinion” does not make that “opinion” sacrosanct… but, what the heck… it means something - at least in our eyes. (Yes, I know that you disagree.) And I have this sneaky suspicion that “God” (capitalized) also shares this “personal” opinion.

 

[Bradskii]

OK, badly worded on my part. The null hypothesis is the default. But the point remains: If God (on the assumption He exists) had decided not to make His presence known for another few hundred years, then we’d still be pretty much where we are now (notwithstanding a few historical twists and turns) Morality would be as it is now. Our understanding of the world would be pretty much as it is now.

The vast chunk of the world that isn’t and has never been Christian has, as far as you would presumably believe, based their morality on the wrong assumptions. But all the places that I have been that don’t subscribe to a Judeo Christian view of behaviour seem to be doing rather well without it. And a lot of places have different religious beliefs and.come to pretty much the same standards of morality.

So if you have one part of the equation that seems not to be required, then we can remove it and the answer will remain as it always was.

 

[Theban]

But the point remains: If God (on the assumption He exists) had decided not to make His presence known for another few hundred years, then we’d still be pretty much where we are now (notwithstanding a few historical twists and turns) Morality would be as it is now.

The vast chunk of the world that isn’t and has never been Christian has, as far as you would presumably believe, based their morality on the wrong assumptions. But all the places that I have been that don’t subscribe to a Judeo Christian view of behaviour seem to be doing rather well without it. And a lot of places have different religious beliefs and.come to pretty much the same standards of morality.

I admit haven’t paid attention to the latest developments of this conversation, but this is a pretty wild statement.

There is just so much wrong with this, that I scarcely believe I have understood you correctly. Are you actually saying that Christianity has had no significant effect on Western morality, and that other cultures that have never accepted Christianity or other abbreviated philosophies and religions have a more or less equal morality as in the West?

If so, well then I ask you to consider that for a moment. If you then still think so, then I must ask which cultures you are referring to on the latter statement, and how on Earth did you come to the conclusion you did?

 

[Gorgias]

A meta-ethical proposition is NOT an ethical question.

This seems to be at the heart of our disagreement here. You seem bound and determined to hold to the claim that the assertion of the existence of an empty set is not an assertion, but an assertion about assertions.

 

[Sophia]

This seems to be at the heart of our disagreement here. You seem bound and determined to hold to the claim that the assertion of the existence of an empty set is not an assertion, but an assertion about assertions.

Another misunderstanding. And you example is incorrect. The existence of an empty set is a proposition within “set-theory” - which is part of mathematics. It is not a meta-mathematical, but a mathematical proposition. This existence is not “physical”, of course, but conceptual. I suggest we leave meta-mathematics alone, since that is a very complicated subject and we are not experts in it.

Any proposition about physics is a metaphysical proposition.
A proposition about ethics is a meta-ethical proposition.

An ethical proposition is something like this: “If you wish to reap a reward, you should spread good deeds”. That is it offers a method about an actual problem. Every ethical proposition is an “ought” or a “should” proposition. The proposition “there is no ultimate ethical system” is none of the kind. It does not give a “method” about “how should we behave”.

That is why I see both metaphysics and ethics (also aesthetics) as irrelevant in the absence of a suitable epistemology. Epistemology is the “king”. Oh, and there is no “pure” epistemological method to find out which epistemological method is “better” than the other one. This decision falls into the same realm that is being investigated. We test each epistemological method and find out if it yields a correct result. As it says: “the proof of the pudding is that it is edible”.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have seen this baloney so many times.

And you’ve been able to show that it can’t be true exactly 0 times.

If all that is needed that this psychopath is able to attempt to do what he plans to do (even if that plan does not and cannot succeed), then let’s have a benevolent “god” interfere…

Nope. The actors must be free to act.

It is NOT in the best interest of the victims.

The best interest for the victims seems to be “give them free moral agency” - one of the greatest of goods.

Your “psycho-god” is on the side of the psychopaths, along with you. Nothing else needs to be said.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m sure you wish you could prove it. Alas…

I am still on the side of the victims, while you are still in the camp of the psychopaths.

I’m not one anyone’s “side”. I just support free moral agency and you plain don’t like it. Tough.

What is your title in the Ku Klux Klan? Is it “Grand Dragon”? Because I have seen this kind of attitude only in the KKK or the Gestapo or the Khmer Rouge.

Dazzling, profound rhetoric there. Truly. Complete with the Nazi reference.

Indeed. I don’t deny it.

You certainly seem to. We’ll leave it to the gallery to decide.

However, I am glad to announce that my “personal” opinion is shared by all the good-willing people of the world.

So’s mine. It’s worth pointing out that the religious tend to be substantially, measurably more charitable than others as a group.

And I have this sneaky suspicion that “God” (capitalized) also shares this “personal” opinion.

If, of course, it even exists. Right?

This feels like an end. Nice chat.

 

[Gorgias]

The existence of an empty set is a proposition within “set-theory” - which is part of mathematics. It is not a meta-mathematical, but a mathematical proposition.

Goodness! That sure took a long time to establish!

And, inasmuch that mathematics models other contexts, we can plainly see that your claim fails: the mathematical example – which you admit is ‘math’ and not ‘meta-math’ – completely describes the situation at hand.

So glad we could come to agreement on that point.

Any proposition about physics is a metaphysical proposition.
A proposition about ethics is a meta-ethical proposition.

Nice try. You can’t wiggle out of it now… you’ve already given up the ghost.

The proposition “there is no ultimate ethical system” is none of the kind.

Really, now. You keep mis-stating the proposition, and think that no one notices.

That wasn’t the proposition. I know it. You know it. We all know it. Please stop pretending that the proposition is something that it is not.

 

[Sophia]

Nope. The actors must be free to act.

You say something different every time… Attempt to act is the same as starting to act, but being prevented from succeeding. By some agency who intervenes, or by some natural barrier… it does not matter.

The best interest for the victims seems to be “give them free moral agency” - one of the greatest of goods.

“Seems”??? That is merely your opinion. Nope. The greatest good is to let everyone be free to do whatever they want - UNLESS they try to prevent others from doing the same. And if someone tries to interfere with the freedom of others - SLAP them down before they succeed. The phrase to describe this is: “The right of your fist ends where my nose begins”. THAT is the greatest good.

I can just see you looking down on the victim of a gang rape and say: “What is your problem? You had all the freedom to will to escape, you were MERELY prevented from acting on it. The freedom of the psychopath to rape you is much more valuable than you desire to escape.”

I’m sure you wish you could prove it.

I don’t need to. You already proved it in every post you presented. Read your own words. Anyone who values the “freedom” of the psychopath to torture some victim - over the “non-freedom” of the victim who wishes not to be tortured is on the side of the psychopath.

It’s worth pointing out that the religious tend to be substantially, measurably more charitable than others as a group.

Nonsense, but that does not matter. What DOES matter is that ALL those good people - both religious or not - prefer to prevent or limit the “freedom” of the psychopaths by incarcerating them. So that those psychopaths can “wish” to torture some victim, but they cannot act on it.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But the point remains: If God (on the assumption He exists) had decided not to make His presence known for another few hundred years, then we’d still be pretty much where we are now (notwithstanding a few historical twists and turns) Morality would be as it is now.

The vast chunk of the world that isn’t and has never been Christian has, as far as you would presumably believe, based their morality on the wrong assumptions. But all the places that I have been that don’t subscribe to a Judeo Christian view of behaviour seem to be doing rather well without it. And a lot of places have different religious beliefs and.come to pretty much the same standards of morality.

I admit haven’t paid attention to the latest developments of this conversation, but this is a pretty wild statement.

There is just so much wrong with this, that I scarcely believe I have understood you correctly. Are you actually saying that Christianity has had no significant effect on Western morality, and that other cultures that have never accepted Christianity or other abbreviated philosophies and religions have a more or less equal morality as in the West?

If so, well then I ask you to consider that for a moment. If you then still think so, then I must ask which cultures you are referring to on the latter statement, and how on Earth did you come to the conclusion you did?

Why don’t people read what I write?

I said that IF God had had no (name removed by moderator)ut on Western Civilisation (if He had decided not to make His presence known) then we would still be where we are regarding morality.

And you need to get out more. There is a fairly large chunk of the planet that has no Judeo Christian connection whatsoever and they have developed exactly the same morality as everyone else. And I understand this because I have visited most of them.

 

[Sophia]

Goodness! That sure took a long time to establish!

Establish what? You have no idea what meta-mathematics is (Metamathematics - Wikipedia) if you think that your reference to the empty sets is a meta-mathematical proposition.

Nice try. You can’t wiggle out of it now… you’ve already given up the ghost.

What “wiggle” are you talking about? You seemed to be confused about “meta-propositions” so I gave you actual examples, which you either did not read or did not understand.

In post 155 Niceatheist wrote:

There really isn’t an absolute moral code.

That wasn’t the proposition.

The exact wording was “there really is no absolute ethical system”. Which is the same AND it is also not an ethical proposition. But you have been given the opportunity to present that “absolute ethical system”, and you failed to do it. Go back and read my last post again, and see if you can understand it.