The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[AntiTheist]

You just contradicted yourself. Perhaps you would care to re-phrase when you have more time.

In the interest of extreme brevity – i.e. literally walking out the door when I made that post – I may have written something confusing.

Essentially, my point was this: you either accept a claim on the grounds of sufficient evidence – in which case, you do not need faith – or you accept a claim on the grounds of faith – in which case, you do not have evidence sufficient to convince someone who does not have faith.

If you have a position based on faith, there’s no point in trying to persuade others because there is no rational basis on which others can agree with you. There might be a point in others listening to you, though, if they are the kind of people who get enjoyment out of pointing out the holes in your arguments.

If you have a position based on evidence or the lack thereof – as I do – then there is a point in trying to persuade others by pointing out the evidence or lack thereof.

That’s more or less what I meant.

Now, I’ve been thinking about this evidence vs. faith thing today, and it struck me as very significant that others on this thread have admitted that one needs faith to believe in these religious claims. Essentially, this is an admission that there is insufficient evidence to accept these claims (because if there were sufficient evidence, we would just be talking about the evidence and there would be no need to appeal to faith).

Evidence-based claims are true regardless of what anyone thinks of them. For example, relativity is true, and we can demonstrate it to be true – it’s true regardless of whether I “open my heart” to relativity or whether I want it to be true or not. I don’t have to “choose” to believe in it. I look at the evidence, and there’s simply no denying where the evidence points. There is nothing there that remotely requires faith.

Religion is the only field that makes claims about the objective world in which one’s personal desires and opinions are the basis upon which one accepts factual claims about the world.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t mean this disproves gods only that it disproves the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God because Leibniz’s proposition is the only possible justification of the problem of evil that makes sense but it’s simply not so. We can imagine the world just a little bit better (i.e. with a little bit less suffering somewhere) and hence this is not the best of all possible worlds.

“imagine” is the operative word. It is easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to design a better world is an entirely different proposition…

I don’t think the free will argument holds water. At best it makes God seem sadistic.

On the contrary. Sadism consists in inflicting pain on those who have no choice.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think the free will argument holds water. At best it makes God seem sadistic.

Sadism implies the direct infliction of unnecessary suffering. You need to explain how God is the direct cause of pain and also why the suffering is unnecessary.

Your argument is also self-refuting because if free will does not exist God does not have free will and is not responsible what happens in the world. Sadists are generally considered culpable for their actions.

In addition if free will does not exist you are not responsible for your conclusion that free will does not exist. They are merely the inevitable consequences of blind physical processes which are far more likely to be misleading than illuminating. We know how often our instincts lead us astray and they are only related to physical survival. It is extremely improbable that abstract truths about free will can be grasped by mindless machines which lack insight and are restricted to computation. If you are not responsible for your conclusions why should we attach any significance to them?

 

[ContegoFides]

Sadly, I must abandon this thread. My wife just went into labor; we’re having a baby! Thank God for my new daughter.

I will keep you all in my prayers. If you’re insulted by that, I’m sure you’ll get over it some day.

-T

 

[Slowlearner]

Now, I’ve been thinking about this evidence vs. faith thing today, and it struck me as very significant that others on this thread have admitted that one needs faith to believe in these religious claims. Essentially, this is an admission that there is insufficient evidence to accept these claims (because if there were sufficient evidence, we would just be talking about the evidence and there would be no need to appeal to faith).

Evidence-based claims are true regardless of what anyone thinks of them. For example, relativity is true, and we can demonstrate it to be true – it’s true regardless of whether I “open my heart” to relativity or whether I want it to be true or not. I don’t have to “choose” to believe in it. I look at the evidence, and there’s simply no denying where the evidence points. There is nothing there that remotely requires faith.

Religion is the only field that makes claims about the objective world in which one’s personal desires and opinions are the basis upon which one accepts factual claims about the world.

I’m a bit surprised regarding your observation of faith. That Christianity is a faith is a central tenant of the religion. We do tend to engage in debates such as in this thread and in proof of god thread, which debates may give the impression that our belief is evidence based. While we use evidence, that evidence corroborates our faith. [Catholics, if my statements are not consistent with Church teaching, please correct me.]

I view “evidence-based” viewpoints as a very narrow, hubristic, view of reality. An atheist with views such as those you have expressed, is akin to a white coated scientist peering day after day through a microscope whose world becomes limited to what he sees on a petri dish in front of him. A Christian does not deny evidence, rather a Christian says, “the world is infinite, I can never understand it all, I must use faith.”

But how to make decisions in absence of evidence, and how have so many people over two-thousand years continued to do so? By using your heart and conscience. No scientist has yet been able to explain these feelings of heart and conscience in a way that leads to a philosophy of behavior and life that does not at some point start from an assumption premised on an article of faith.

If we wait for evidence, there are no answers to the questions that every person’s conscience raises: why am I here? what is my purpose? what is the meaning of my life? Or more simply, if a person waits for evidence, how does he answer the basic question, what am I to do today? How am I to act and live today?

Previously on this thread, you and ThomasToo have answered the foregoing question (perhaps posed in a different context – morality – but essentially the same question), by saying you appeal to your values, your feelings, your happiness, etc.

My premise is that for any atheist, in his daily life, there is in fact a huge universe of unexplored feelings, beliefs, understandings, etc., that shape the way the person acts and behaves. There is no coherent evidence-based way of describing the decision-making process of an atheist. It rests on faith.

 

[rvilbig]

The truth ought never to be rejected. Ever. To do anything else is intellectual suicide. The truth may be uncomfortable, unflattering and nihilistic but it’s still the truth. Frankly, when I hear this sort of assertion I grow frightened because it represents what I like to think are my stupid fears of what Christianity is deep down: the mentality to hide whatever is unpleasant even if it’s real.

Perhaps, we’re forgetting the etymology of the word Truth. In Greek, truth is ἀλήθεια alētheia, the third and fourth syllables being “θεια” or “theia”. In early English, we find this abbreviated to two forms, triewð (W.Saxon) and treowð (Mercian), from which we obtain the modern word ‘Truth.’

Now, “Truth” is undoubtedly a powerful word in our language, signifying an absolute correspondence between some concept and the deepest realities about the universe. The blood of countless martyrs paid the price for this costly word, and if I may be so assertive, rightly belongs to Christians first and foremost. Anyone opposing the kingdom of God might do well to recognize where they stand in regards to knowledge of the truth:

"Jesus said, "…] For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.“Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”” (Jn 18:37-38)

Perhaps you atheists ought to find your own word. Alternatively, if it comes down to it, I’ll pay our dues again on this word with my blood, any day. I think John Paul the Great once said in a homily that “If our words won’t convert them, our blood will.” Seems to me this is already happening.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[UnworthyApostle]

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Definitions of atheism according to dictionary.com

hmm, atheism is a doctrine OR belief. see, atheists have to start arguing with semantics in order to hold some type of position when they are backed into a corner. the bottom line is that even a lack of belief constitutes a belief in itself. that is, there is a doctrine or a creedo of non belief. a doctrine is a formulation of some opinion, or what one believes. thus, the atheist is in a logical corner which cannot be esscaped. i will even go out on the limb and claim atheism itself is a religion of sorts.

 

[ThomasToo]

Perhaps, we’re forgetting the etymology of the word Truth. In Greek, truth is ἀλήθεια alētheia, the third and fourth syllables being “θεια” or “theia”. In early English, we find this abbreviated to two forms, triewð (W.Saxon) and treowð (Mercian), from which we obtain the modern word ‘Truth.’

Now, “Truth” is undoubtedly a powerful word in our language, signifying an absolute correspondence between some concept and the deepest realities about the universe. The blood of countless martyrs paid the price for this costly word, and if I may be so assertive, rightly belongs to Christians first and foremost. Anyone opposing the kingdom of God might do well to recognize where they stand in regards to knowledge of the truth:

"Jesus said, "…] For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.“Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”” (Jn 18:37-38)

Perhaps you atheists ought to find your own word. Alternatively, if it comes down to it, I’ll pay our dues again on this word with my blood, any day. I think John Paul the Great once said in a homily that “If our words won’t convert them, our blood will.” Seems to me this is already happening.

Let’s agree to share the word since the Christian equivalence between ‘truth’ (or rather ‘Truth’) and ‘God’/‘Jesus’ comes decidedly later than the Greek notion of a thing that is (i.e. the opposite of false).

I was responding directly by a claim by the happy new father who said ‘nevertheless, even if atheism were true - it should be rejected as a philosophy because it is bad for individuals and for society.’ I think that both you and I should agree that if any given philosophy or set of beliefs is true then it should be embraced since they are true and not eschewed because they are distasteful. Do you disagree?

 

[AntiTheist]

First of all, congratulations in advance to ContegoFides.

Second of all:

I view “evidence-based” viewpoints as a very narrow, hubristic, view of reality. An atheist with views such as those you have expressed, is akin to a white coated scientist peering day after day through a microscope whose world becomes limited to what he sees on a petri dish in front of him. A Christian does not deny evidence, rather a Christian says, “the world is infinite, I can never understand it all, I must use faith.”

But how to make decisions in absence of evidence, and how have so many people over two-thousand years continued to do so? By using your heart and conscience. No scientist has yet been able to explain these feelings of heart and conscience in a way that leads to a philosophy of behavior and life that does not at some point start from an assumption premised on an article of faith.

If we wait for evidence, there are no answers to the questions that every person’s conscience raises: why am I here? what is my purpose? what is the meaning of my life? Or more simply, if a person waits for evidence, how does he answer the basic question, what am I to do today? How am I to act and live today?

Previously on this thread, you and ThomasToo have answered the foregoing question (perhaps posed in a different context – morality – but essentially the same question), by saying you appeal to your values, your feelings, your happiness, etc.

My premise is that for any atheist, in his daily life, there is in fact a huge universe of unexplored feelings, beliefs, understandings, etc., that shape the way the person acts and behaves. There is no coherent evidence-based way of describing the decision-making process of an atheist. It rests on faith.

Everything that you’ve said above is conflating two very distinct things. The first is the way that we evaluate claims about the world around us; the second is the way that we answer questions of value and individual action. They’re not the same thing at all.

Certainly, it would be absurd to use the scientific method and conduct rigorous, double-blinded tests in order to determine what I should eat for dinner tonight, or whether I like the sight of a sunset.

It would be equally absurd to use my feelings to determine how the moon’s gravitational pull affects the earth.

Different situations and claims call for different methods of evaluation. To say that, “Well, we don’t know everything about the universe, and we use our feelings to determine some things…therefore, we’re justified in using our feelings to answer this particular question” – which is exactly what you’re saying – is the fallacious argument to end all fallacious arguments.

Questions of fact – like whether or not we’re justified in thinking that there are supernatural things – are evaluated by evidence. Questions of value – like what I should do with my life – are evaluated by subjective feelings.

Now, granted, knowing certain facts might change the way I value certain other things, and vice versa – that’s precisely why the scientific method of repeated testing attempts, as much as is possible, to remove subjective bias from our evaluation of evidence. But the fact remains that there is not some kind of giant overlap between the two: questions of fact need to be addressed with evidence, and questions of value need to be addressed with feelings.

 

[tonyrey]

They are merely the inevitable consequences of blind physical processes which are far more likely to be misleading than illuminating.

Clarification: “They” refers to “Your thoughts”…

 

[Slowlearner]

First of all, congratulations in advance to ContegoFides.

Second of all:Everything that you’ve said above is conflating two very distinct things. The first is the way that we evaluate claims about the world around us; the second is the way that we answer questions of value and individual action. They’re not the same thing at all.

Certainly, it would be absurd to use the scientific method and conduct rigorous, double-blinded tests in order to determine what I should eat for dinner tonight, or whether I like the sight of a sunset.

It would be equally absurd to use my feelings to determine how the moon’s gravitational pull affects the earth.

Different situations and claims call for different methods of evaluation. To say that, “Well, we don’t know everything about the universe, and we use our feelings to determine some things…therefore, we’re justified in using our feelings to answer this particular question” – which is exactly what you’re saying – is the fallacious argument to end all fallacious arguments.

Questions of fact – like whether or not we’re justified in thinking that there are supernatural things – are evaluated by evidence. Questions of value – like what I should do with my life – are evaluated by subjective feelings.

Now, granted, knowing certain facts might change the way I value certain other things, and vice versa – that’s precisely why the scientific method of repeated testing attempts, as much as is possible, to remove subjective bias from our evaluation of evidence. But the fact remains that there is not some kind of giant overlap between the two: questions of fact need to be addressed with evidence, and questions of value need to be addressed with feelings.

Ok then. We should agree:

Atheist: Q of fact, use evidence. Q of Value, use feelings.

Catholic: Q of Fact, use evidence. Q of Value, use Church.

But I don’t think I am the one conflating things. See post number 2:

To me it is simple. Either you have faith or you are a total nihilist. If you are not a nihilist, then, as I believe Chesterton said, either (a) you have faith and admit it or (b) you have faith and don’t admit it. Thus, another way of stating the contradiction is to say that atheists have faith in one or more things but these elements of faith are hidden and not acknowledged in their books.

I flipped through one of Dawkins’ books and found sections where he espoused his morality on certain subjects. It was incoherent handwaving.

Seems to me that the problem with debating atheists/agnostics, and the problem with atheist/agnostic books, is that atheists do not engage in an honest debate. The Christian faith is open and known. Thus atheists have a target to attack and write about. However, their own beliefs as to morals and meaning are veiled and or unsupported. Of course, they will say they believe in science, but science does not provide a moral theory. An honest debate would be between the Christian and the atheist’s respective faith systems. But the atheist denies, or won’t reveal, his faith system.

Maybe I’m wrong. Have, for instance either Hitchens or Dawkins (strong anti-Catholics) written a book setting forth a moral system for human behavior?

Throughout this thread, I and others have been trying to say to you and Thomastoo: if you are going to use evidence based arguments, what is your basis for morals and behavior?

Is this what the whole atheism debate comes down to: Hitchens/Dawkins/you saying (1) reject religion for value decisions because there is no evidence of God and I have a non-scientific list of cases where religious people were evil and/or caused suffering, and (2) for value decisions use (a) whatever feels good to you personally at the time, or (b) be a moral skeptic and flip a coin?

+1 on Congrats to ContegoFides.

 

[rvilbig]

Let’s agree to share the word since the Christian equivalence between ‘truth’ (or rather ‘Truth’) and ‘God’/‘Jesus’ comes decidedly later than the Greek notion of a thing that is (i.e. the opposite of false).

I was responding directly by a claim by the happy new father who said ‘nevertheless, even if atheism were true - it should be rejected as a philosophy because it is bad for individuals and for society.’ I think that both you and I should agree that if any given philosophy or set of beliefs is true then it should be embraced since they are true and not eschewed because they are distasteful. Do you disagree?

Oh, we may certainly share the “Truth,” just as soon as you renounce your pagan ways, get baptized and confirmed and received into the Holy Roman Catholic Church. In the meantime, I can share the Truth with you via an online edition of the New American Bible (link).

I realize this is a tall order, but tell me: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer 13:23, RSV). Don’t you think it’s about time you evolved?

I’ll pray for your conversion to the Truth.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[ThomasToo]

Oh, we may certainly share the “Truth,” just as soon as you renounce your pagan ways, get baptized and confirmed and received into the Holy Roman Catholic Church. In the meantime, I can share the Truth with you via an online edition of the New American Bible (link).

I realize this is a tall order, but tell me: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer 13:23, RSV). Don’t you think it’s about time you evolved?

I’ll pray for your conversion to the Truth.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

Cute… I meant the word ‘truth’ since it is just a word used to denote any proposition that accurately describes the universe. I also have a very good handle on the Bible but I appreciate the thought.

Individuals cannot evolve only species can and that’s over evolutionary time but I doubt that’s what you meant.

If I ever pray I will pray that anyone who prays that you reject your fundamental principles does so in vein.

 

[rvilbig]

Cute… I meant the word ‘truth’ since it is just a word used to denote any proposition that accurately describes the universe. I also have a very good handle on the Bible but I appreciate the thought.

Individuals cannot evolve only species can and that’s over evolutionary time but I doubt that’s what you meant.

If I ever pray I will pray that anyone who prays that you reject your fundamental principles does so in vein.

Evolutionary time? “Woe to you, [ThomasToo], how long will it yet be before you become clean!” (Jer 13:27).

You see, ThomasToo, when you convert, you will be a new individual: “[W]hoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor 5:17). That is evolutionary succession: the old species giving birth to the new. Let the old ThomasToo go extinct, leaving behind a new and improved descendant (ThomasThree?).

Tell me, what are your fundamental principles? God is the Author of all Truth, so I’ll do my best to help resolve the conflict with you: “[E]ven if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, Section 23).

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[ManOnFire]

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity postulates that time stands still when an object, or “everything in the entire universe” (when arguing the beginning of time), is moving EQUAL to the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles per second. Time theoretically is REVERSED and moves backwards when an object or “everything in the entire universe” travels FASTER than the speed of light. If the object or “everything in the entire universe” can travel faster than the speed of light and therefore time is reversed, then, if we wait long enough, we can reach the theoretical “beginning of time” according to godless theory. What happens if we reach it? There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue right on past “the beginning of time” since we traveled there. There can’t be a wall or some other existence to stop us from reaching it unless that entity exists infinitesimally, which necessitates a choice between God and actual infinity. But, reaching the beginning ot time would negate the very definition of it, and make it a falsehood.

Any travel faster than the speed of light that takes us right past “the beginning of time” would negate it’s definition. This also negates a definition of a godless “end of time” since we are simply bouncing around along a linear continuum of forward or reverse according to our speed relative to the speed of light.

Of course, one could argue that Einstein is wrong. Otherwise, the only 2 choices are God created the universe, or an actual infinity exists where it’s mystery is permanently unknowable by definition, and science is inherently flawed. Why do people have such passionate beliefs in something that is unknowable??? They must abandon their belief that they are academically superior to the religious since no logical person could believe that something so inherently flawed (science) could be superior unless they are selectively closing their minds to arguments like mine and THEY HAVE BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE WHICH IS PERMANENTLY AND INHERENTLY FLAWED.

Hmmm. Blind Faith. Sounds familiar. Where’s the moral superiority over us religious people now? The university profs are threatening students with low grades. Perhaps they should ask for a tuition refund. We need education, not propaganda.

The romantic lovers follow His code of behaviour and selflessly donate their lives to raise the next generation in His name and the selfish choose to take the easy way out. Only by giving away your life do you really learn how to live. Just think about what motivated Mother Theresa. If only more people would believe in His Covenant for behaviour and trust in His Way.

 

[ThomasToo]

Evolutionary time? “Woe to you, [ThomasToo], how long will it yet be before you become clean!” (Jer 13:27).

You see, ThomasToo, when you convert, you will be a new individual: “[W]hoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor 5:17). That is evolutionary succession: the old species giving birth to the new. Let the old ThomasToo go extinct, leaving behind a new and improved descendant (ThomasThree?).

Tell me, what are your fundamental principles? God is the Author of all Truth, so I’ll do my best to help resolve the conflict with you: “[E]ven if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself. (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, Section 23).

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

That is quite possibly the most quote-y post I’ve ever seen.

Evolutionary time (cf. geological time) is the technical term for the time frame on which evolution operates. I suppose I was being a bit cutsey as well though i don’t quite see the parallel to be fully apt but that’s a different discussion.

My core principles are individual freedom (libre), skepticism and equality. Three things the Church does not really agree with as evidenced by its (and its followers’ collective) opposition to–amongst other things–the legalization of victimless crimes such as prostitution and the use of marijuana; the asking of certain questions whose answers come of the form ‘it’s a mystery’ which is semantically equivalent to ‘stop asking questions like that, you’ll never get an answer’; and gay marriage. I don’t think we ought to get into these individual issues her because (a) they’re paradigmatic and not comprehensive, and (b) they’re a bit far afield of the question at hand in this thread. If you’d prefer we can discuss this over email; I’m available at Just.Another.Doubting.Thomas@gmail.com.

 

[ThomasToo]

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity postulates that time stands still when an object, or “everything in the entire universe” (when arguing the beginning of time), is moving EQUAL to the speed of light, which is 186,000 miles per second. Time theoretically is REVERSED and moves backwards when an object or “everything in the entire universe” travels FASTER than the speed of light. If the object or “everything in the entire universe” can travel faster than the speed of light and therefore time is reversed, then, if we wait long enough, we can reach the theoretical “beginning of time” according to godless theory. What happens if we reach it? There’s no reason to believe we can’t continue right on past “the beginning of time” since we traveled there. There can’t be a wall or some other existence to stop us from reaching it unless that entity exists infinitesimally, which necessitates a choice between God and actual infinity. But, reaching the beginning ot time would negate the very definition of it, and make it a falsehood.

Any travel faster than the speed of light that takes us right past “the beginning of time” would negate it’s definition. This also negates a definition of a godless “end of time” since we are simply bouncing around along a linear continuum of forward or reverse according to our speed relative to the speed of light.

Of course, one could argue that Einstein is wrong. Otherwise, the only 2 choices are God created the universe, or an actual infinity exists where it’s mystery is permanently unknowable by definition, and science is inherently flawed. Why do people have such passionate beliefs in something that is unknowable??? They must abandon their belief that they are academically superior to the religious since no logical person could believe that something so inherently flawed (science) could be superior unless they are selectively closing their minds to arguments like mine and THEY HAVE BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE WHICH IS PERMANENTLY AND INHERENTLY FLAWED.

Hmmm. Blind Faith. Sounds familiar. Where’s the moral superiority over us religious people now? The university profs are threatening students with low grades. Perhaps they should ask for a tuition refund. We need education, not propaganda.

The romantic lovers follow His code of behaviour and selflessly donate their lives to raise the next generation in His name and the selfish choose to take the easy way out. Only by giving away your life do you really learn how to live. Just think about what motivated Mother Theresa. If only more people would believe in His Covenant for behaviour and trust in His Way.

There’s also the following forumlae for m_L longitudinal mass and m_T transverse mass as functions of rest mass, m_0, and velocity, v–for velocities near the speed of light:
/gamma = /frac{1}{/root(1-/frac{v^2}{c^2})}
m_L = (/gamma^3)(m_0)
m_T = (/gamma)(m_0)

This is LaTeX notation because I don’t know of an easy way to explain it here but the essay version follows. Basically as velocity approaches the speed of light (v approaches c) then the bottom part of the fraction in gamma–the constant by which our rest mass to get our relativistic masses–approaches zero. For the case v = c we have gamma = 1/0 which is obviously impossible. As such as the velocity of an object with non-zero mass approaches the speed of light, it’s mass increases geometrically and approaches infinity as v approaches c. So too it takes a geometrically increasing amount of energy to accelerate an object until there is simply not enough energy in the known universe to push it any measurable amount faster.

Did that make sense to anyone?

 

[AntiTheist]

Ok then. We should agree:

Atheist: Q of fact, use evidence. Q of Value, use feelings.

Catholic: Q of Fact, use evidence. Q of Value, use Church.

Well, at the risk of confusing terminology, I think the term I would use to describe the basis for our value judgments as values – that is, the set of things that we subjectively place importance on, as determined by a number of factors: instinctual, cultural, societal, traditional, internalized from caretakers in youth, etc.

Everyone draws on their values when making decisions about things they want to do. People who belong to a particular religious tradition may have their values influenced by the values of that tradition – and even people who don’t agree that a particular religion is factually true may find themselves in agreement with at least some of the values of a particular religion.

Throughout this thread, I and others have been trying to say to you and Thomastoo: if you are going to use evidence based arguments, what is your basis for morals and behavior?

Values, the same basis that you base behavioral decisions on.

To use an obvious example, we’re all raised in a cooperative society, so it’s no surprise that we all value things that contribute to cooperative societies. Given broadly shared values, we can indeed come up with a more or less objective list of rules to promote those values.

Again, when I’m trying to decide whether a statement about the world around me is true or not, I rely on evidence. When I’m trying to decide how I should act, I rely on my values. They’re different questions.

Is this what the whole atheism debate comes down to: Hitchens/Dawkins/you saying (1) reject religion for value decisions because there is no evidence of God and I have a non-scientific list of cases where religious people were evil and/or caused suffering, and (2) for value decisions use (a) whatever feels good to you personally at the time, or (b) be a moral skeptic and flip a coin?

I have literally no idea what point you’re trying to make here. Could you maybe rephrase it?

 

[Slowlearner]

Well, at the risk of confusing terminology, I think the term I would use to describe the basis for our value judgments as values – that is, the set of things that we subjectively place importance on, as determined by a number of factors: instinctual, cultural, societal, traditional, internalized from caretakers in youth, etc.

Everyone draws on their values when making decisions about things they want to do. People who belong to a particular religious tradition may have their values influenced by the values of that tradition – and even people who don’t agree that a particular religion is factually true may find themselves in agreement with at least some of the values of a particular religion.

Values, the same basis that you base behavioral decisions on.

To use an obvious example, we’re all raised in a cooperative society, so it’s no surprise that we all value things that contribute to cooperative societies. Given broadly shared values, we can indeed come up with a more or less objective list of rules to promote those values.

Again, when I’m trying to decide whether a statement about the world around me is true or not, I rely on evidence. When I’m trying to decide how I should act, I rely on my values. They’re different questions.

I have literally no idea what point you’re trying to make here. Could you maybe rephrase it?

Are you just being a “good” positivist?

I think all agree that we humans are shaped by our environment and experiences and that influences how we make value judgments. You are describing how people act and there is no debate here about that.

The question we’ve been raising about value judgments is a normative one. Through reasoned analysis we are capable of changing our values. We all ask the question, “what is the right thing to do.”

A moral skeptic says, “there is no objective right or wrong. There is no good or bad.” Thus, a moral skeptic says of religion, “I don’t believe in religion, but there is nothing wrong with it, because there is no good or bad in anything.”

Hitchens, Dawkins, ThomasToo, and many other atheists are not moral skeptics. In addition to their moral/value judgment about religion, they occasionally make objective moral/value assertions. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I have read these statements to be statements of objective truth in the opinion of the author.

My contention, again, is that anyone who believes in objective good and bad uses faith. There is no evidence-based rationale for an objective good or bad.

So to all the non-moral skeptics, I say, if we are going to debate evidence for my Catholic faith, let’s debate the evidence for your agnostic faith. (To be clear, I am not asking for evidence as in social observations, I am asking for evidence of truth of any objective moral/value statement.) This should not be burdensome. Atheist authors (and forum participants) have shown the ability to think and write prodigiously on the subject of God’s existence.

To moral skeptics, I say, I wonder if you are really a moral skeptic if you have been engaged in moral/value discussions in this thread, else you are taking great delight in playing with us.

 

[ThomasToo]

My contention, again, is that anyone who believes in objective good and bad uses faith. There is no evidence-based rationale for an objective good or bad.

Have you ever read Kant? He provides a purely rational defense of his moral schema in Grounding For the Metaphysics of Morals.