Why are discussions about morality so futile?

[PRmerger]

And in regard to God v Santa, God appears to fill a need in a lot of people that is in no way comparable to a child’s belief in a fat guy in a red suit (although I’m certain that a lot of people think of God as a bearded guy in a white robe).

Here’s the similarity, Bradski: both beliefs make someone good and happy.

You approve of belief in one (because it makes people good and happy), but not the other.

Why?

If a friend’s wife dies, do you take the opportunity to tell him that you know she’d been unfaithful to him? You’ve got an email that she sent to you by mistake that proves it. Do you ‘flick the switch’ and send it to your friend, devastating him in the process, or do you let him continue believing what gives him comfort?

No, I wouldn’t tell him his wife has been unfaithful. I see your point. But you seem to be arguing as if my position is that “every single truth matters”.

I am not arguing that at all. For example, I couldn’t care less that there is indeed an answer as to how many hairs I have on my head at this very moment. There is a truth (43, 488?) that could be discovered. But I have no need to pursue this. It is, indeed, inconsequential.

As such, the truth that this man’s wife was cheating on him is inconsequential, now that she is dead.

If she were alive, that would be a different story.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not faith. I don’t sit there as the plane is rolling down the runway thinking that I have faith in the ability of the guy at the controls to get it in the air.

I know you don’t. But, even if you don’t acknowledge it as such, what you are doing is indeed, truly, operating on faith.

You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE at your disposal that the pilot is capable of flying–either that she has graduated from flight school and was capable once, and that (even if she was once capable) that she is capable today.

I have a very reasonable expectation that the whole process that everyone has gone through up to this point has resulted in a competent pilot at the controls.

Interesting, this. So no direct evidence…but a reasonable expectation, eh? Inferred evidence, so to speak? You have reasoned your way to a conclusion?

Hmmm…is this not the same paradigm that Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, use to prove the existence of God?

There is no direct evidence, but one can reason his way into knowing that He exists.

Is that not their modus?

But for some reason now for atheists the goalposts change. Reasoning one’s way into belief is not sufficient. Direct evidence is now demanded.

Why is this, do you think?

 

[Bradski]

I know you don’t. But, even if you don’t acknowledge it as such, what you are doing is indeed, truly, operating on faith. You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE at your disposal that the pilot is capable of flying–either that she has graduated from flight school and was capable once, and that (even if she was once capable) that she is capable today.

Interesting, this. So no direct evidence…but a reasonable expectation, eh? Inferred evidence, so to speak? You have reasoned your way to a conclusion?

No, it’s not a conclusion. It’s a reasonable expectation. Based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence (not least that airlines only allow people to fly their planes if they are exceptionally competent to do so). A conclusion and an expectation are not the same thing.

I have no direct evidence that the brakes on my car will work on the way home, or that other drivers will stay on the correct side of the road or that the bridge will not collapse or that the pilot can fly. I don’t ever get to the point where I have to make a decision on these matters because, again, I have reasonable expectations that things will work as planned. So there is no ‘faith’ involved.

However, if the passenger says she can fly, then I can certainly ask a few pertinent questions, but in the absence of any direct evidence, I will indeed be operating on faith if I allow her to take the controls.

Regular pilot: no conclusion needs to be reached because of a reasonable expectation, so no faith is involved.
Passenger: a conclusion does need to be reached (can she fly?) ergo, a lot of faith in that conclusion.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it’s not a conclusion. It’s a reasonable expectation. Based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence (not least that airlines only allow people to fly their planes if they are exceptionally competent to do so). A conclusion and an expectation are not the same thing.

Reasonable expectation = faith.

 

[Bradski]

Reasonable expectation = faith.

Faith is a positive concept. A reasonable expectation is neutral at best.

That is, faith is something that will add something to your life (whether true or not) in a positive way. It forms part of your outlook. Whereas a reasonable expectation in the sense that we have been talking about is not something that you ever have to consider.

You have faith in God and it helps make you who you are. It’s a significant part of what PR is. I have a reasonable expectation that my brakes won’t fail, the bridge won’t collapse etc, but I don’t even consider these things at all and they form no part in any decisions I make in life. Assuming that my reasonable expectations are indeed reasonable, then they remain inconsequential.

So I’d say there is a significant difference.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s the similarity, Bradski: both beliefs make someone good and happy.

You approve of belief in one (because it makes people good and happy), but not the other.

Why?

Could you please address the above, Bradski?

 

[PRmerger]

Faith is a positive concept. A reasonable expectation is neutral at best.

A reasonable expectation that a pilot can fly you safely is not neutral at best.

It’s a positive concept.

That is, faith is something that will add something to your life (whether true or not) in a positive way. It forms part of your outlook.

Ok.

Whereas a reasonable expectation in the sense that we have been talking about is not something that you ever have to consider.

Of course you have to consider it. You consider it each and every time you trust your life into the hands of a pilot whom you do not know.

You have faith in God and it helps make you who you are. It’s a significant part of what PR is. I have a reasonable expectation that my brakes won’t fail, the bridge won’t collapse etc, but I don’t even consider these things at all and they form no part in any decisions I make in life. Assuming that my reasonable expectations are indeed reasonable, then they remain inconsequential.

So I’d say there is a significant difference.

If it is a difference (which I don’t see at all), then it’s a difference of such great subtlety as to be insignificant.

 

[ngill09]

Interesting, this. So no direct evidence…but a reasonable expectation, eh? Inferred evidence, so to speak? You have reasoned your way to a conclusion?

Hmmm…is this not the same paradigm that Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, use to prove the existence of God?

There is no direct evidence, but one can reason his way into knowing that He exists.

Is that not their modus?

But for some reason now for atheists the goalposts change. Reasoning one’s way into belief is not sufficient. Direct evidence is now demanded.

Why is this, do you think?

For the record, I (who would class myself neither as atheist nor Christian) would consider the paradigm of the natural apologists such as Aquinas to be sufficient, if their arguments were sound. However, close examination of those arguments reveals fatal flaws, mostly in the form of non-sequitur and question-begging.

 

[Bradski]

Could you please address the above, Bradski?

Was this Santa? I’m not sure I said I approve of a belief in either. Nor did I say that I would protect or embrace someone’s belief in God as you asked earlier:

Now, could you answer why you wouldn’t protect or embrace someone’s belief in Santa, but would for someone’s belief in God?

I said that I wouldn’t take away someone’s belief in God (irrespective if God exists or not) because it does appear to make some people ‘more moral, happier, more satisfied with life’. If taking away their belief made them less moral, more unhappy and less satisfied with life, then it would seem to be a good idea to let them keep it, however wrong I think it is.

Notwithstanding that, if someone’s religious beliefs might cause them to fly things into buildings, I might reconsider that position in some cases.

A reasonable expectation that a pilot can fly you safely is not neutral at best. Of course you have to consider it. You consider it each and every time you trust your life into the hands of a pilot whom you do not know.

It’s a reasonable expectation so you don’t consider it. Just like your brakes and the bridge. If you actually asked someone sitting next to you on a plane if they thought, in their personal opinion, that the guy up the pointy end was capable of getting the plane safely in the air, you’d scare the living daylights out of them. Imagine if the stewardess said during the safety run-through: ‘And I’d just like you all to know that the crew has complete faith in the captain being able to actually fly this plane’. I don’t know about you, but I’d be trampling over small children to get to the exit.

And when was the last time you considered if your brakes were OK, or the other drivers were going to obey the rules of the road or that the bridge you are about to cross was safe enough or your chair wasn’t about to collapse or your lunch wasn’t going to make you ill. The answer to that is ‘Never’. You never give those things a second thought. But you still want to say that you can describe it as faith, even though you don’t consider them in the slightest.

So if you still want to call that faith and say it’s comparable to your faith in God (because ‘it’s a difference of such great subtlety as to be insignificant’), then we’ll agree to disagree.

 

[PRmerger]

For the record, I (who would class myself neither as atheist nor Christian) would consider the paradigm of the natural apologists such as Aquinas to be sufficient, if their arguments were sound. However, close examination of those arguments reveals fatal flaws, mostly in the form of non-sequitur and question-begging.

 

[PRmerger]

Was this Santa? I’m not sure I said I approve of a belief in either. Nor did I say that I would protect or embrace someone’s belief in God as you asked earlier:

Fair enough.

I said that I wouldn’t take away someone’s belief in God (irrespective if God exists or not) because it does appear to make some people ‘more moral, happier, more satisfied with life’. If taking away their belief made them less moral, more unhappy and less satisfied with life, then it would seem to be a good idea to let them keep it, however wrong I think it is.

But you said you weren’t so sure about if you would have this same paradigm with a belief in Santa.

Why is that?

I might pass on Santa. But I think that belief in God does make some people more moral, happier, more satisfied with life. So if it was within my power to flick a switch and make everyone’s belief disappear, I wouldn’t do it. I think people are believing in something that’s not true. But that doesn’t make their belief wrong for them. I wish it wasn’t the case, but that’s the way the world turns.

 

[Bradski]

But you said you weren’t so sure about if you would have this same paradigm with a belief in Santa. Why is that?

I’m sure you didn’t spend too much time soul searching and wondering where you had gone wrong when you found out about Santa. I doubt if you thought you’d wasted a great deal of your childhood believing in something that wasn’t true. I don’t think that you were only good just because you were promised something if you were good.

On the other hand…

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure you didn’t spend too much time soul searching and wondering where you had gone wrong when you found out about Santa. I doubt if you thought you’d wasted a great deal of your childhood believing in something that wasn’t true. I don’t think that you were only good just because you were promised something if you were good.

On the other hand…

I am not following your argument here.

Belief in [fill in the blank] is fine with you, if it makes someone happy and morally good. Yes, or no?

 

[Bradski]

I am not following your argument here. Belief in [fill in the blank] is fine with you, if it makes someone happy and morally good. Yes, or no?

Not if it’s incorrect, no. I obviously think that it’s wrong to believe in something that’s not true. As uncomfortable as it can be to know the truth, I don’t think that people should be encouraged to believe something that is wrong even if it makes them happier and morally better. I’m optimistic enough (or perhaps naïve enough) to think that people can still attain happiness and still be moral agents without incorrect beliefs.

In Santa’s case, I have no problem in playing along with what is in effect a fairy story to keep children happy. Just as I would have no problem in reading them bed time stories that we both treated as real. But I’d be a worried parent if they didn’t grow out of this period and see life as it really is. That fat old blokes don’t leave presents and fairies don’t swap teeth for cash and there is no magic castle in the enchanted woods. None of this is, in any case, needed to become happy and moral.

But the vast majority of the world’s population have much more sophisticated beliefs that they do seem to need to become so. That without these beliefs they would (as a lot of them tell me continuously), have no basis for their morality and life would have no meaning. Do I think that it’s right that they should think this? (and we’re not just talking Catholicism or even Christianity). No I do not. I think that it’s very wrong indeed. But if their belief causes no harm and they believe it does them good, then there is a very strong argument for maintaining the status quo. That is, I would not flick that switch and remove the belief. And quite frankly, I’d be seriously very worried about what might happen if I did.

There is an argument that says that, despite religion being a force for good in the world, it does lead to extremes of thought and fundamentalist beliefs that allow people, to use the most extreme example, to fly planes into buildings. That there is a direct, albeit distant link between the little old lady singing hymns in a quavering voice on a Sunday afternoon in a small Anglican church in a quaint village in England and the guy with the explosive vest in the crowded marketplace in Khabul screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ before turning dozens of people into minced meat.

There is no causal link, I know. One doesn’t lead to the other. But, the argument goes, you could line up a thousand people, with the little old lady at one end and the guy in Khabul at the other, and ask each of them about their religious beliefs. And you wouldn’t be able to tell one person’s beliefs from the beliefs of the person standing next to them. But as you worked your way along the line, the views would become gradually more strident. And eventually lead to views that no reasonable person would accept.

The argument goes that if we didn’t have religion at all, then the little old lady would have to find something else to do on a Sunday afternoon but by the same token the guy in Kabul wouldn’t be strapping explosives to himself.

This is not an argument I have used myself. I haven’t really knocked it about enough to see how it stands up to serious debate. But I am aware that if I had the opportunity to flick that switch and I don’t do it for the reasons I have given, then I am allowing the fundamentalists and extremists to maintain their beliefs as well. Not just you and the little old lady.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski
**
The argument goes that if we didn’t have religion at all, then the little old lady would have to find something else to do on a Sunday afternoon but by the same token the guy in Kabul wouldn’t be strapping explosives to himself.**

The trouble with this line of thinking is that you take the worst possible religious fanaticism and make it an icon for religion in general. That little old lady Mother Teresa did not strap an explosive to herself. Millions of Christians have dedicated themselves to good works for little or practically no pay, all in the name of Christ who lives in their hearts. Far and away the effect of religion has been more positive in human affairs than negative. You can always point to classic instances of religious institutions or persons running amok. For every instance of religious(?) cruelty there are a thousand instances of human virtue and sacrifice that are not heralded by history because the doers were too humble to seek the mob’s applause. Those who believe the world would be better without religion have to take into consideration what the enemies of religion do to make the world a better place.

 

[Bradski]

The trouble with this line of thinking is that you take the worst possible religious fanaticism and make it an icon for religion in general.

Yes, that can certainly happen. It is a problem with the argument and I agree with you that that line of simplistic thinking is wrong. One should look at religion as a whole, not just your Mother Theresas and the guys with the explosives.

Millions of Christians have dedicated themselves to good works for little or practically no pay, all in the name of Christ who lives in their hearts.

I’m not going to argue this. As I said:

…despite religion being a force for good in the world…

Yes, I did preface it with ‘despite’, but that’s required to lay the basis for the argument.

Far and away the effect of religion has been more positive in human affairs than negative. Those who believe the world would be better without religion have to take into consideration what the enemies of religion do to make the world a better place.

There’s a whole lifetime of debate in that first sentence. Which I’m not going to go into at this time. But it leads to two points to consider to which I alluded earlier (and bear in mind that I am referring to all religion, not just to Christianity and not just to particular denominations within Christianity).

The first is undeniable: It does lead to extremes of thought and fundamentalist beliefs which undoubtedly have negative effects on how people live. And the second is equally undeniable: It leads people to believe things that aren’t true.

 

[PRmerger]

The first is undeniable: It does lead to extremes of thought and fundamentalist beliefs which undoubtedly have negative effects on how people live. And the second is equally undeniable: It leads people to believe things that aren’t true.

All ideologies can lead to fanaticism.

There are democracy fanatics. Does that mean we should eschew democratic values?

There are science fanatics. Does that mean we should eschew science?

There are drug abusers. Does that mean we should eschew drugs?

There are fanatical parents. Does that mean we should eschew parenthood?

Abusus non tollit usum.

All ideologies set up a system in which fanaticism can flourish. That is not an indictment of that particular ideology.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

**The first is undeniable: It does lead to extremes of thought and fundamentalist beliefs which undoubtedly have negative effects on how people live. **

Again, that is true for some religions. Religion also leads to extremes of thought and fundamental beliefs which undoubtedly have positive effects on how people live.

**And the second is equally undeniable: It leads people to believe things that aren’t true. **

That is the opinion of the unbeliever, who cannot not know whether atheism is true and very possibly doesn’t believe in truth in the first place.

 

[PRmerger]

Far and away the effect of religion has been more positive in human affairs than negative. You can always point to classic instances of religious institutions or persons running amok. For every instance of religious(?) cruelty there are a thousand instances of human virtue and sacrifice that are not heralded by history because the doers were too humble to seek the mob’s applause. Those who believe the world would be better without religion have to take into consideration what the enemies of religion do to make the world a better place.

Indeed.

And I argue that without religion, Christianity in particular (specifically, Catholicism), there cannot be sacrificial love ala St. Maximilian Kolbe.

There is no atheistic equivalent to this virtuous, sacrificial, agape-ic love done by Christians.

(NB: that there are atheists who are heroes, no doubt. But hero is as different from St. Maximilian Kolbe as a really good red wine is different from the Precious Blood of Christ.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

PRmerger

There are also atheist fanatics. Ask him if that means we should eschew atheism.