Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[Freddy]

A selfishly given loaf of bread has the same amount of calories as a selflessly given one.

Maybe an idea there for Harry. Another good reason for not stealing something (some bread) is because it will cause hardship (hunger) to another.

 

[HarryStotle]

Maybe one of these years you will understand that there are emerging attributes, which bring a whole new level of existence into the picture. Just contemplate a pile of bricks and a few beams as opposed to the house that is built of the same materials. Do you seriously assert that a house is merely a pile of bricks?

Yeah, I’ve read Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter, and I’m not convinced about “emerging” attributes.

Your example using bricks and beams that “emerge” as a house is a weak example since it “emerges” by human intelligent design, it doesn’t just “emerge” as if it does so inexplicably.

I don’t seriously assert that a house is merely a pile of bricks. On the other hand I don’t merely assert that it “emerges” either.

Hofstadter’s example of an ant hill is much stronger, but not very convincing since he merely assumes something about instinct and genetics – i.e., that these inexplicably “emerge” – when that may not be the case at all.

To be clear, assuming a Creator God has nothing to do with the “emerging” of genetics and therefore things merely “emerge” inexplicably is hardly an argument.

Maybe one of these years…

I find that amusing.

How old are you?

 

[HarryStotle]

Lys:

A selfishly given loaf of bread has the same amount of calories as a selflessly given one.

Maybe an idea there for Harry. Another good reason for not stealing something (some bread) is because it will cause hardship (hunger) to another.

And stealing (some bread) might prevent hardship (hunger) for another. Does preventing hardship always make things right?

Jumping into a lake to save a drowning person will cause me hardship, so I shouldn’t do it? On the other hand, saving them does prevent them hardship. Maybe. If they drown though, they wouldn’t be aware of any hardship since they would be dead, while saving them might put them through days or weeks of hospital care and psychological hardship. Which to do? Hmmm. Where’s my book on utilitarian calculus? Maybe I can figure this out while that drowning person treads water for a time.

 

[HarryStotle]

So even if someone is kind and loving for the “selfish reason”, in the hope that it will come to her… it is still a good deed. A selfishly given loaf of bread has the same amount of calories as a selflessly given one. Of course this is a “utilitarian” approach, which is a anathema in the eyes of some Catholics.

Why the disparaging tone?

You could simplify this entire thread going right to the heart of the topic. Provide the grounds for morality from purely atheistic or naturalistic premises, then we would have a starting point instead of this piecemeal or scattergun critique.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Lys:

A selfishly given loaf of bread has the same amount of calories as a selflessly given one.

Maybe an idea there for Harry. Another good reason for not stealing something (some bread) is because it will cause hardship (hunger) to another.

And stealing (some bread) might prevent hardship (hunger) for another. Does preventing hardship always make things right?

Jumping into a lake to save a drowning person will cause me hardship, so I shouldn’t do it? On the other hand, saving them does prevent hardship. If they drown though, they wouldn’t be aware of any hardship since they would be dead, while saving them might put them through days or weeks of hospital care and psychological hardship. Hmmm. Where’s my book on utilitarian calculus? Maybe I can figure this out while that drowning person treads water.

That’s a good one! ‘Should one try to save a child from drowning?’ Well, the obvious answer to that is ‘Yes, we should make all reasonable attempts to do so’. If we agree on that then we can obviously discuss what ‘reasonable’ means and why we should do it it any case. Sound ok? So…

‘Should we make all reasonable attempts to save a child from drowning?’

Yes or no.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

Lys:

A selfishly given loaf of bread has the same amount of calories as a selflessly given one.

Maybe an idea there for Harry. Another good reason for not stealing something (some bread) is because it will cause hardship (hunger) to another.

And stealing (some bread) might prevent hardship (hunger) for another. Does preventing hardship always make things right?

Jumping into a lake to save a drowning person will cause me hardship, so I shouldn’t do it? On the other hand, saving them does prevent hardship. If they drown though, they wouldn’t be aware of any hardship since they would be dead, while saving them might put them through days or weeks of hospital care and psychological hardship. Hmmm. Where’s my book on utilitarian calculus? Maybe I can figure this out while that drowning person treads water.

That’s a good one! ‘Should one try to save a child from drowning?’ Well, the obvious answer to that is ‘Yes, we should make all reasonable attempts to do so’. If we agree on that then we can obviously discuss what ‘reasonable’ means and why we should do it it any case. Sound ok? So…

‘Should we make all reasonable attempts to save a child from drowning?’

Yes or no.

Yes, of course.

Are we morally obligated to?

Yes? Why?

No? Why not?

Your turn.

 

[upant]

I want it off topic precisely because it’s something on which we disagree.

that is the issue in a nutshell.

disagreement on deciding what is moral.

it has to be moral or immoral, it can’t be both.

who is the final arbitrator?

 

[Freddy]

Lys:

So even if someone is kind and loving for the “selfish reason”, in the hope that it will come to her… it is still a good deed. A selfishly given loaf of bread has the same amount of calories as a selflessly given one. Of course this is a “utilitarian” approach, which is a anathema in the eyes of some Catholics.

Why the disparaging tone?

You could simplify this entire thread going right to the heart of the topic. Provide the grounds for morality from purely atheistic or naturalistic premises, then we would have a starting point instead of this piecemeal or scattergun critique.

That’s not how it works. At least as far as I am concerned. If Lys provides you with grounds from here to eternity then it becomes your version of shooting fish in a barrel. He’s not going to be able to do it.

Again, what is required is agreement on any moral matter. And THEN delve into why we think it’s correct. Like saving a drowning chikd.

 

[Lys]

Your example using bricks and beams that “emerge” as a house is a weak example since it “emerges” by human intelligent design, it doesn’t just “emerge” as if it does so inexplicably.

The point is that complex systems have attributes that are missing from the constituent elements. I could have made a simpler example. A water molecule has extra attributes which are missing from the two hydrogen atoms and the one oxygen atom. The “wetness” of the water molecule is an emergent attribute, which cannot be reduced to the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Why the disparaging tone?

What is disparaging?

All I said that biological and social “goods” are the same whether there is a God or not. The loaf of bread helps to overcome hunger whether there is a God or not. That is all.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I want it off topic precisely because it’s something on which we disagree.

that is the issue in a nutshell.

disagreement on deciding what is moral.

it has to be moral or immoral, it can’t be both.

who is the final arbitrator?

No…for the umpteenth time. We AGREE on what is moral and THEN give our reasons why we hold it to be so.

 

[upant]

No…for the umpteenth time. We AGREE on what is moral and THEN give our reasons why we hold it to be so.

and when you don’t, what happens

 

[Pattylt]

The emergent brain is becoming pretty well established and I see no problem with theists claiming that God emerged their brain if they wish. We are moral creatures whether God made us thus or it emerged with evolution. What do we do when our morality is different from each other over something? How can we reach an agreement if something is moral or not?

Here’s a question. Christians are perfectly moral if they eat ham. Jesus fulfilled the law and now allows it. Jews, however are immoral if they eat ham. They feel the law is still in effect for them. Should we base any current legislation on the eating of ham? Or, should we be able to accept that ham is perfectly moral for Christians and immoral for Jews? It seems there are cases where morality isn’t just what the Christian God decides. Since this is a case where either side isn’t too bothered by what the other side believes, we usually don’t think about it. Maybe we should because it can lead us to figure out how to live with other people who’s morality is different than ours…even though OUR God is always right. We all choose a moral path from the many available and in most things, they agree with each other on what’s moral. It’s when morals clash that we have to figure out how to co exist with conflicting morals.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No…for the umpteenth time. We AGREE on what is moral and THEN give our reasons why we hold it to be so.

and when you don’t, what happens

Then you get a disagreement. But we’re looking for agreement. You and I. And I know we can do it!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

Freddy:

Lys:

A selfishly given loaf of bread has the same amount of calories as a selflessly given one.

Maybe an idea there for Harry. Another good reason for not stealing something (some bread) is because it will cause hardship (hunger) to another.

And stealing (some bread) might prevent hardship (hunger) for another. Does preventing hardship always make things right?

Jumping into a lake to save a drowning person will cause me hardship, so I shouldn’t do it? On the other hand, saving them does prevent hardship. If they drown though, they wouldn’t be aware of any hardship since they would be dead, while saving them might put them through days or weeks of hospital care and psychological hardship. Hmmm. Where’s my book on utilitarian calculus? Maybe I can figure this out while that drowning person treads water.

That’s a good one! ‘Should one try to save a child from drowning?’ Well, the obvious answer to that is ‘Yes, we should make all reasonable attempts to do so’. If we agree on that then we can obviously discuss what ‘reasonable’ means and why we should do it it any case. Sound ok? So…

‘Should we make all reasonable attempts to save a child from drowning?’

Yes or no.

Yes, of course.

Well, I had to skip the reasons but I’m not getting any younger and we’ll get to an agreement on those shortly.

So we agree it’s a good thing. And not saving her would be a bad thing.

So do you agree that her parents would be devastated if she drowned and that that would be a bad thing? Still looking for agreement here. So call a halt if you disagree with that statement but I would need you to agree or disagree before continuing.

 

[chercheur]

How does that pan out, Harry? Do you give him a theological argument or do you say ‘You can’t take it. Because it’s MY pen!’

Guess it’s not the latter. You don’t think it’s a good argument. You don’t think it’s an argument at all.

My take on this is that it’s not much of an argument in the context of this discussion. In most real interactions both parties involved probably agree for the same or differing reasons that property rights matter. But I think calling into question the basis for those rights, here, is valid.

 

[HarryStotle]

…
The “wetness” of the water molecule is an emergent attribute, which cannot be reduced to the hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

Okay, so let’s assume that your point entails that mind is an emerging attribute of brain chemistry. Would that be where we are headed?

So as the “wetness” of water disappears when hydrogen and oxygen molecules break apart, the mind (along with all mental properties) just dissipates when brain chemistry ceases. Mind is nothing over and above brain chemistry, just as wetness is nothing over and above molecular bonding. Just “emerging” properties, nothing more, nothing less?

Have I got your drift?

All I said that biological and social “goods” are the same whether there is a God or not. The loaf of bread helps to overcome hunger whether there is a God or not. That is all.

Are they, though?

From one perspective, if the being whose hunger is overcome is merely a 60-70 year long agglomeration of biochemistry that “emerges” when conceived and dissipates when the biological processes terminate, nothing more and nothing less, then the “person” is merely an emerging phenomenon much like wetness emerges from the mater molecule. Bread is “good” to the degree that it prolongs the existence of this emergent “person,” one of billions on the earth.

I suppose that level of good as defined by the non-existence of God might move you to some degree or other to try to feed such an emergent being, of which there are billions.

However, if the being whose hunger is overcome is a 60-70 year long phase of a potentially eternally existing creation of the Eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God who is the foundation of existence itself and who has a definitive plan for each and every one of these human creations that far exceeds their limited imaginations, then the level of good that is bestowed on that human person by providing bread to them has infinite and eternal consequences.

So, which “good” is a better good?

1. Keeping alive for a short time an emergent property of accidentally evolved biochemistry that ultimately has no purpose but came to be entirely by accident, although in the short term the emerging properties give the appearance of value to the human subjects who are nothing but those emerging properties and will dissipate like the dew at sunrise in a few decades.
2. Providing for the short term phase of an eternal creation which has endless possibilities precisely because they live in a universe that has been brought into being and sustained by the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscience God who cares infinitely about every one of his creatures.

These amount to the same level of good? The same whether or not God exists?

Seems to me that “whether there is a God or not” doesn’t amount to the mere question of hunger, but rather to the nature of the thing that is hungry. And God’s existence makes a huge difference as to what kind of thing you are feeding when you give bread in each case.

 

[upant]

Then you get a disagreement.

so morals can both be good and evil to different people? you don’t see an issue with this?

What do you do when you can’t reach an agreement? or do you consider the issue amoral?

Christians are perfectly moral if they eat ham. Jesus fulfilled the law and now allows it. Jews, however are immoral if they eat ham.

but, what is the moral issue here?

Most activities are invested with deeper meaning, turning every one of them into an occasion for obeying (or disobeying) God.

This then is the moral issue, obeying God and both are moral. They are doing the same thing, following their God.

 

[HarryStotle]

Well, I had to skip the reasons but I’m not getting any younger and we’ll get to an agreement on those shortly.

So we agree it’s a good thing. And not saving her would be a bad thing.

So do you agree that her parents would be devastated if she drowned and that that would be a bad thing? Still looking for agreement here. So call a halt if you disagree with that statement but I would need you to agree or disagree before continuing.

Yes, of course.

Sorry but this feels like trying to teach nuclear physics to a five year old. Or playing Bach on a kazoo.

But do continue.

I will agree to everything you say – until we get to the actual reasons why things would be good or bad.

Yes to parents being devastated and drowning bad. Got it.

 

[Freddy]

But I think calling into question the basis for those rights, here, is valid.

Not so much calling into question - although there will undoubtedly be some of that from both sides. But more to see how far we can agree on a moral position before we have to part ways on the reason why we hold to that position. And if at that moment we can agree that it is still a valid moral position.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Then you get a disagreement.

so morals can both be good and evil to different people?

Well I thought that would be stating the obvious. And sometimes it’s a non-issue (let’s eat pork!) and sometimes it’s a very long way from being a non-issue (let’s make abortion illegal). How we solve those difficult problems is a problem in itself. Sometimes we can vote on it which is nothing more than majority rules or it can be forced on you. Which is might makes right. Hopefully reasonable people can reach reasonable compromises without having to resort to either. Especially the latter.