A question for atheists/etc

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You oversimplify much.

Not believing that Jesus existed, and not believing he is the actual offspring of an omnipotent being are two entirely different things. Most atheists acknowledge the likelihood of Jesus existing, just not his divinity. They do this because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever in anything divine (as is in fact required by the very definitions of divinity).

Many mental patients have developed deep and meaningful relationships with entities we label fictitious. We can't actually prove they don't exist, it's just that we can't prove they do. This is generally the way of things. Relationships with a spiritual being fall under the same heading and so are treated much the same way by some. That's not to call religious people crazy, I'm just pointing out the logical path of conclusions.

I have experienced that most atheists do believe we cease at death, but some are not so certain. There are some quasi-spiritual groups that deny monotheism but believe (or at least hope) that some form of consciousness continues after death, though they are often hard pressed to rationalize this duality. You could, I suppose, believe in reincarnation of some type and still be an atheist, as long as you deny the existence of a god. I think that's stretching the defnition of atheism however.

Lastly, being an atheist doesn't mean you don't search for answers, any more than being a theist means you look for answers. Many (in my opinion the vast majority) of people claim religious affiliation without ever seriously questing for truth. It's more about being included for them than it is about answers to any great questions. I never sought answers and truth as hard as I did for the 30ish years I spent as an atheist. During that time I read most religious texts, attended services of every faith I could find, debated frequently, read incessantly, and thought endlessly. None of that in any way suggested a 'truth' to be found in any religion.

In my opinion the answer is that there is NO universal truth. Everything is subjective, including answers of divinity and the nature of life and the universe. You can't find the 'truth' of religion by trying to see that religion thru the eyes (or words) of others. You have to experience something that clicks inside you as being 'true'. In other words, you don't find religion, religion finds you. ***note that I actually don't mean that, because I don't believe in religion (meaning the institution thereof). A more accurate description for it would be belief, or spirituality***

Nice post. I very much agree with this:

Lastly, being an atheist doesn't mean you don't search for answers, any more than being a theist means you look for answers. Many (in my opinion the vast majority) of people claim religious affiliation without ever seriously questing for truth.

I find that very many religious people I meet don't really know what they believe and could in no way give any sort of answer for what they do believe (i.e. not even some coherent reasoning from their own scriptures). I also find that most who are atheist don't look much farther than "there's no proof, so I don't believe in God"... but then don't spend time digging and searching and questioning to see if there is a chance they are wrong.

I admire the time and effort you put forth. We may not be in agreement in the end, but searching for truth is a great endeavour all by itself.

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Another question for Atheists.

If the universe has no intrinsic meaning and everything is just a random interaction of particles and/or waves... if you believe science that this is all that exists, why do you put higher value on a human than a rock
...
I understand the emotional reasons that people value humans more than a rock, but I'm looking for cold hard science... the type that wants mathematical evidence for proof. Please keep away from the "internal programming" or "instinct" arguments, as we all go against these constantly.... like when we go on a roller coaster that to our body feels terrifying, but we do it anyway.

Joe

1. Instinct arguments hold up when given a broad scope, but I won't make that arguemnt.

Simply put, ethics is an objective excersize of reason that has no requirement for the existence of a diety. As a logical extension of ethics and reason, one can conclude that a rational agent (i.e. a human) holds special status.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
It is a kind of faith, but it's not the same kind. I don't have any good reason to doubt the existence of my fellow humans. I can hear, see, touch, and speak to them at any time I wish. The only thing that involves faith is when you consider WHY I value other humans more than rocks. I think that human's are much more interesting than rocks (well some humans) so that's as far as I am able to go with that without going into instinct, evolution, and such.

Inasmuch as it is provable, I believe that humans exist. So it's a good thing I like them better than rocks. The same goes for God. If someone tells you that they live without faith in ANYTHING, then they're liars, but to call faith in common, everyday life the same as faith in a supreme being would trivialize your faith I think.

We agree! But most I find that are atheists (but obviously NOT all) would deny that they live much or most of their life on faith.

I've always questioned things. I remember when I was a little boy in early grade school (about a zillion years ago) walking home on many occasions and trying to figure out how I could prove to myself that I wasn't just a bear hibernating and dreaming about being human. Even at that age (under ten) I realized that I couldn't really prove anything except that I existed someplace. EVERYTHING else is a matter of faith. Maybe it was that realization at such a young age that has helped me to believe in God... after all, once I realized that I couldn't prove that ANYTHING existed other than me, it didn't take hugely more faith to believe in God than it did to believe that I wasn't a hibernating bear.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: skace
Because science is based on proveable repeatable results. Aaaand religion isn't. If you are so freaked out about imaginery time, wrap your head around irrational numbers.

Notice how you are using Quantum Physics as your example instead of something such as gravity? Why? Because gravity has been accepted for a very long time and you'd have to be insane to attack it. But you can attack Quantum Physics because neither you nor I are versed in it, thus it cannot defend itself against your attacks. That makes you happy, I'm sure.

No, actually I like quantum physics and am not attacking it. What I'm attacking (if you want to use that word) is a philosophy that allows for some things to be taken on faith but then looks down on others for taking things on faith. It's hypocritical. I don't personally have a problem with imaginary time if it helps us to actually work out what the truth is... but then again, I don't have a problem with science saying that God creating the universe is one valid and possible theory that they cannot yet prove. I accept the measure of faith on both sides.

Joe

 

[curran]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: her209
If God is all knowing, then does he know everything that he's going to do before he himself does it.

*head explodes*

I picture that God is the boundary of everything, and that everything that exists, exists WITHIN him. So God would not be IN time (with the exception of Jesus) but all time would be, in totality, in one instant, in the Mind of God.

It's VERY hard for me to think about how "thought" would be for God. For me, thought is a stream of thoughts and the passing of moments, but for God I see one "eternal now" where all thought exist together all the time, without change. I know that seems pretty weird, but for a being to exist outside of time, I can't picture it any other way.

Joe

I've heard things like this before, but to me it always comes across as an excuse or a lame explanation. To me it's an example of how some people change their god or add qualities in order to fit or answer a question.

Originally posted by: Netopia
How many atheists on here realize that Quantum Physics has had a REAL problem with the design of the universe?

You make it sound as if quantum physicists are scrambling to try and keep their theories alive. I compare this to Pat Robertson calling the theory of evolution a "theory in crisis." Sure, there are many unanswered questions about universe's origins, just as there are in any branch of science. But both the theories of evolution & the "big bang" are very, very scientifically sound theories. Think of them as a jigsaw puzzle that someone has just finished, only to find that several of the pieces were missing. Chances are it would still very clear what the "big picture" is.

..Rational scientists knew that that odds of this universe existing in a state where life could ever exist were just too astronomically high.... so unlikely that no logical person could accept that it just happened by accident.

I think you are wrong here. This sounds like made-up propaganda....again, similar to the propaganda claiming that evolution scientists are beginning to turn on their own theories as they "are discovering evidence of their creator." Again...blatantly false. Besides, what's irrational about trying to answer the universe's origins w/out rolling over & playing dead by saying, "well god did it...guess there's no more work to be done here?"

Besides, an explanation about how time relates to a god simply will never be more than a discussion. It can't be challenged b/c it's only one's own interpretation & simply put is not even testable. So what is more logical, quantum physics w/ physical observations or a space-time-god theory?

Do you know what Quantum Physic's answer to this problem is? Imaginary Time! Yes... a time that doesn't even exist in reality, but that they can use to make models of the universe where life COULD have happened. Even with imaginary time, the odds are VERY SLIM that life could ever happen, but at least the odds are better. For more information, read Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshell".

A couple things here. In math & science, "imaginary" takes on another meaning. Imaginary quantities are found throughout science & are based on principles. It's not simply the same as someone having an "imaginary" friend.

Second, you don't sound like a quantum physicist, or even a scientist at all. The big bang is not riding solely on the "imaginary time" theory. There's much more to it, & definately more to it than what you will find in a couple lightly scientific books meant for an entertaining read.

My question is, why is it ok for science to theorize and calculate with things which don't exist in reality, but then use the calculations that include these things as proofs, but it ISN'T ok for Science to include a God that they also can't prove in reality and have that theory be just as valid?

See part on "imaginary." Also, it will never be ok for science to include a god in it's proofs, theory, whatever. Nothing against religion in that particular sense, but it simply isn't testable/repeatable/observable, & is therefore not scientific. At least the "imaginary" theories you mentioned have been through rigorous examination & criticism by other mathmeticians & scientists, & are the most logical explanations we have as humans.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
It is a kind of faith, but it's not the same kind. I don't have any good reason to doubt the existence of my fellow humans. I can hear, see, touch, and speak to them at any time I wish. The only thing that involves faith is when you consider WHY I value other humans more than rocks. I think that human's are much more interesting than rocks (well some humans) so that's as far as I am able to go with that without going into instinct, evolution, and such.

Inasmuch as it is provable, I believe that humans exist. So it's a good thing I like them better than rocks. The same goes for God. If someone tells you that they live without faith in ANYTHING, then they're liars, but to call faith in common, everyday life the same as faith in a supreme being would trivialize your faith I think.

We agree! But most I find that are atheists (but obviously NOT all) would deny that they live much or most of their life on faith.

I've always questioned things. I remember when I was a little boy in early grade school (about a zillion years ago) walking home on many occasions and trying to figure out how I could prove to myself that I wasn't just a bear hibernating and dreaming about being human. Even at that age (under ten) I realized that I couldn't really prove anything except that I existed someplace. EVERYTHING else is a matter of faith. Maybe it was that realization at such a young age that has helped me to believe in God... after all, once I realized that I couldn't prove that ANYTHING existed other than me, it didn't take hugely more faith to believe in God than it did to believe that I wasn't a hibernating bear.

Joe

I strongly disagree. If you wish to redefine 'faith' to include 'rational expectation' then, sure we all live our day to day lives on 'faith'. Nevertheless, I don't see that as being (by any reasonable definition) synonymous with 'faith' in God.

As for proving things...sure, you can't prove anything other than your own existence with absolute certainty, but you *can* prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I live my life based on past experience and rational conclusions drawn from a fundamenally ordered world (if periodically chaotic in some senses). I've accepted that the opportunity cost of not living a life based on the assumption of the existence of the reality I percieve is greater than that of living a life based on the assumption that I exist in a void, or in a universe completely removed from the one I percieve.

 

[kenji4life]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: huberm

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
searching for an answer presumes that there is a question. for many people, this question does not exist. I ask you, what question did you have that you needed to search and find an answer for?

I came to the realization that there was no way that we were put on this Earth to exist for only a short time, and then fade away forever. There had to be some continuance beyond physically dying.

sounds good. why do you think there has to e some continuance beyond physically dying?

the main reason i don't think so (i.e. you just end it) is when you go to sleep at night. you go to sleep and what happens (when you don't remember you dream)? nothing happens. you wake up the next day as if nothing happened. the time past by instantly. you are closest to death when you go to sleep as many of your brain functions shut down.

Actually that statement sounds like it is coming from someone who knows absolutely nothing about sleep, no offense intended. You are very much alive when sleeping. It's a regenerative state where the brain is able to interpret, and recover from all of the information that was input throughout the time of being awake. The subconcious is believed to make up the majority of the overall human though process.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

BTW... I liked your books.

Man I haven't read Illusions in forever, or Gift of Wings. Just read Jonathan to my daughter so I'm current on that one. Thanks for the idea.

Maybe we're thinking of two different things. I was thinking of Richard Bachman, aka Stephen King's nom de plume for a while.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: So
I have read both works to which you refer, and Hawking never once refers to these as anything but a hypothesis. I.E. an idea that someone had that holds sway better than a fairy tale merely because it seems to follow logically from known facts; nevertheless, such a hypothesis is still very far from accepted science without actual evidence for their basis in reality.

Also, hawking specifically addresses this when he points out that m-theory may not be testable (nobody has as of yet come up with a test for m-theory) and thus, is arugably not science.

If not science, then what is quantum physics? Philosophy? If you say yes or no, I'll probably agree with you!

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So
I have read both works to which you refer, and Hawking never once refers to these as anything but a hypothesis. I.E. an idea that someone had that holds sway better than a fairy tale merely because it seems to follow logically from known facts; nevertheless, such a hypothesis is still very far from accepted science without actual evidence for their basis in reality.

Also, hawking specifically addresses this when he points out that m-theory may not be testable (nobody has as of yet come up with a test for m-theory) and thus, is arugably not science.

If not science, then what is quantum physics? Philosophy? If you say yes or no, I'll probably agree with you!

Joe

Quantum physics is a broad term referring to a number of hopothesies and theories based around the insight that matter beaves in discrete 'quantized' units. Any hypothesis that is testable is science, any one that is not is philosophy (if you wish to call it that).

There are plenty of 'quantum' theories that have been well evidenced by indirect observation.

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: Netopia

I understand the emotional reasons that people value humans more than a rock, but I'm looking for cold hard science... the type that wants mathematical evidence for proof. Please keep away from the "internal programming" or "instinct" arguments, as we all go against these constantly.... like when we go on a roller coaster that to our body feels terrifying, but we do it anyway.

Joe

I think it is one of the most remarkable and satisfying things that evolutionary psychology can explain our sense of meaning. (I'm sorry if this is the "internal programming" or "instinct" argument.) I think my understanding of this was one of the main reasons why I finally abandoned religion.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: So
1. Instinct arguments hold up when given a broad scope, but I won't make that arguemnt.

Simply put, ethics is an objective excersize of reason that has no requirement for the existence of a diety. As a logical extension of ethics and reason, one can conclude that a rational agent (i.e. a human) holds special status.

But why? What absolutely logical, purely scientific reason could there be. If instinct, then it is merely programmed emotion that could be overcome easily enough... many criminals do just that.

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So
1. Instinct arguments hold up when given a broad scope, but I won't make that arguemnt.

Simply put, ethics is an objective excersize of reason that has no requirement for the existence of a diety. As a logical extension of ethics and reason, one can conclude that a rational agent (i.e. a human) holds special status.

But why? What absolutely logical, purely scientific reason could there be. If instinct, then it is merely programmed emotion that could be overcome easily enough... many criminals do just that.

Joe

As I said, I don't want to debate the 'instinct' argument. I feel it has merit, you don't -- that's another topic.

What do you mean what logical reason could there be? It seems to me that the benefits of treating other humans as rational agents are patent, and once you distinguish between rational agents and everything else, the rest 'flows' logically.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

BTW... I liked your books.

Man I haven't read Illusions in forever, or Gift of Wings. Just read Jonathan to my daughter so I'm current on that one. Thanks for the idea.

Maybe we're thinking of two different things. I was thinking of Richard Bachman, aka Stephen King's nom de plume for a while.

Joe

DOETH!!! Yeah totally, my bad. I was thinking of Richard Bach. I liked Bachman too actually, especially the long walk. But I don't feel like re-reading them right now.

 

[Pastore]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You oversimplify much.

Not believing that Jesus existed, and not believing he is the actual offspring of an omnipotent being are two entirely different things. Most atheists acknowledge the likelihood of Jesus existing, just not his divinity. They do this because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever in anything divine (as is in fact required by the very definitions of divinity).

Many mental patients have developed deep and meaningful relationships with entities we label fictitious. We can't actually prove they don't exist, it's just that we can't prove they do. This is generally the way of things. Relationships with a spiritual being fall under the same heading and so are treated much the same way by some. That's not to call religious people crazy, I'm just pointing out the logical path of conclusions.

I have experienced that most atheists do believe we cease at death, but some are not so certain. There are some quasi-spiritual groups that deny monotheism but believe (or at least hope) that some form of consciousness continues after death, though they are often hard pressed to rationalize this duality. You could, I suppose, believe in reincarnation of some type and still be an atheist, as long as you deny the existence of a god. I think that's stretching the defnition of atheism however.

Lastly, being an atheist doesn't mean you don't search for answers, any more than being a theist means you look for answers. Many (in my opinion the vast majority) of people claim religious affiliation without ever seriously questing for truth. It's more about being included for them than it is about answers to any great questions. I never sought answers and truth as hard as I did for the 30ish years I spent as an atheist. During that time I read most religious texts, attended services of every faith I could find, debated frequently, read incessantly, and thought endlessly. None of that in any way suggested a 'truth' to be found in any religion.

In my opinion the answer is that there is NO universal truth. Everything is subjective, including answers of divinity and the nature of life and the universe. You can't find the 'truth' of religion by trying to see that religion thru the eyes (or words) of others. You have to experience something that clicks inside you as being 'true'. In other words, you don't find religion, religion finds you. ***note that I actually don't mean that, because I don't believe in religion (meaning the institution thereof). A more accurate description for it would be belief, or spirituality***

I would agree with almost all of this. The piece I have a problem with is bolded. There is one universal truth that everyone I *think* would agree with. And that is *I*, me, I exist. THAT is the one universal truth, in my opinion and many philosophers through time.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: So
I strongly disagree. If you wish to redefine 'faith' to include 'rational expectation' then, sure we all live our day to day lives on 'faith'. Nevertheless, I don't see that as being (by any reasonable definition) synonymous with 'faith' in God.

As for proving things...sure, you can't prove anything other than your own existence with absolute certainty, but you *can* prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I live my life based on past experience and rational conclusions drawn from a fundamenally ordered world (if periodically chaotic in some senses). I've accepted that the opportunity cost of not living a life based on the assumption of the existence of the reality I percieve is greater than that of living a life based on the assumption that I exist in a void, or in a universe completely removed from the one I percieve.

I know we are talking about two very different levels of faith. And you are correct that one at least based on past experience of ourselves (or others), but I'm trying to simply point at the REALLY big picture, that we all, at some level, like it or not, live by faith. If this be true, then to point at someone else and "you live by faith but I live by proof" is actually somewhat silly and a bit hypocritical. I'm NOT saying that you say these things... it was just my point.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: dogooder

I think it is one of the most remarkable and satisfying things that evolutionary psychology can explain our sense of meaning. (I'm sorry if this is the "internal programming" or "instinct" argument.) I think my understanding of this was one of the main reasons why I finally abandoned religion.

If you would... expand on that thought some... I'm curious.

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So
I strongly disagree. If you wish to redefine 'faith' to include 'rational expectation' then, sure we all live our day to day lives on 'faith'. Nevertheless, I don't see that as being (by any reasonable definition) synonymous with 'faith' in God.

As for proving things...sure, you can't prove anything other than your own existence with absolute certainty, but you *can* prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I live my life based on past experience and rational conclusions drawn from a fundamenally ordered world (if periodically chaotic in some senses). I've accepted that the opportunity cost of not living a life based on the assumption of the existence of the reality I percieve is greater than that of living a life based on the assumption that I exist in a void, or in a universe completely removed from the one I percieve.

I know we are talking about two very different levels of faith. And you are correct that one at least based on past experience of ourselves (or others), but I'm trying to simply point at the REALLY big picture, that we all, at some level, like it or not, live by faith. If this be true, then to point at someone else and "you live by faith but I live by proof" is actually somewhat silly and a bit hypocritical. I'm NOT saying that you say these things... it was just my point.

Joe

By my definition, please explain to me where it comes down to 'I live by faith' -- I'm not following.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: So
As I said, I don't want to debate the 'instinct' argument. I feel it has merit, you don't -- that's another topic.

What do you mean what logical reason could there be? It seems to me that the benefits of treating other humans as rational agents are patent, and once you distinguish between rational agents and everything else, the rest 'flows' logically.

Ok... let me give a scenario.

Let's say that a person with no belief in a diety who has predefined right and wrong is walking down the street. This person sees an elderly gentleman with HUGE gold rings encrusted with fine jewels on every single finger of each hand. The person also knows that if he attacks and kills this man and steals all of the rings that he will never get caught. He also knows that the money from said rings will put both him and his offspring in a better economic situation. From a purely logical point of view, why would he not kill and take? He and his would only benefit. There is no right and wrong... and even if instinct told him not to, we often overcome instinct to protect or provide for our families.

To me, logically, the world teaches the natural laws of survival of the fittest and might makes right. Why then do we (even if by instinct) have some OTHER law controlling our minds?

Joe

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
You oversimplify much.

Not believing that Jesus existed, and not believing he is the actual offspring of an omnipotent being are two entirely different things. Most atheists acknowledge the likelihood of Jesus existing, just not his divinity. They do this because there is absolutely no proof whatsoever in anything divine (as is in fact required by the very definitions of divinity).

Many mental patients have developed deep and meaningful relationships with entities we label fictitious. We can't actually prove they don't exist, it's just that we can't prove they do. This is generally the way of things. Relationships with a spiritual being fall under the same heading and so are treated much the same way by some. That's not to call religious people crazy, I'm just pointing out the logical path of conclusions.

I have experienced that most atheists do believe we cease at death, but some are not so certain. There are some quasi-spiritual groups that deny monotheism but believe (or at least hope) that some form of consciousness continues after death, though they are often hard pressed to rationalize this duality. You could, I suppose, believe in reincarnation of some type and still be an atheist, as long as you deny the existence of a god. I think that's stretching the defnition of atheism however.

Lastly, being an atheist doesn't mean you don't search for answers, any more than being a theist means you look for answers. Many (in my opinion the vast majority) of people claim religious affiliation without ever seriously questing for truth. It's more about being included for them than it is about answers to any great questions. I never sought answers and truth as hard as I did for the 30ish years I spent as an atheist. During that time I read most religious texts, attended services of every faith I could find, debated frequently, read incessantly, and thought endlessly. None of that in any way suggested a 'truth' to be found in any religion.

In my opinion the answer is that there is NO universal truth. Everything is subjective, including answers of divinity and the nature of life and the universe. You can't find the 'truth' of religion by trying to see that religion thru the eyes (or words) of others. You have to experience something that clicks inside you as being 'true'. In other words, you don't find religion, religion finds you. ***note that I actually don't mean that, because I don't believe in religion (meaning the institution thereof). A more accurate description for it would be belief, or spirituality***

I would agree with almost all of this. The piece I have a problem with is bolded. There is one universal truth that everyone I *think* would agree with. And that is *I*, me, I exist. THAT is the one universal truth, in my opinion and many philosophers through time.

And yet it's largely only true for yourself, and at this moment. You didn't exist a hundred years ago, so you were unreal then. Unless you do something to be known to others you won't be known 100 years from now. A farmer in remote China has no knowledge of your existence, and therefore you are inconsequential to him as well. My own belief, and that of some philosophers, is that reality is dictated not by the thing itself, but by the perception and observance of that thing. It is ONLY the subjective reality of a thing that can be known, and never it's true nature.

Case in point: "Was I before a man who dreamt about being a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly who dreams about being a man?" ~Taoist master Chuang Tzu
In other words, I defy you to prove beyond doubt that you exist. It is only for sanity and convenience that one assumes they themselves are real, and without interacting with you in some way no other will make that assumption.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
...

In my opinion the answer is that there is NO universal truth. Everything is subjective, including answers of divinity and the nature of life and the universe. You can't find the 'truth' of religion by trying to see that religion thru the eyes (or words) of others. You have to experience something that clicks inside you as being 'true'. In other words, you don't find religion, religion finds you. ***note that I actually don't mean that, because I don't believe in religion (meaning the institution thereof). A more accurate description for it would be belief, or spirituality***

I would agree with almost all of this. The piece I have a problem with is bolded. There is one universal truth that everyone I *think* would agree with. And that is *I*, me, I exist. THAT is the one universal truth, in my opinion and many philosophers through time.

I certainly agree with that. That is, that this is the only thing that EVERYONE should be able to agree upon.

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So
As I said, I don't want to debate the 'instinct' argument. I feel it has merit, you don't -- that's another topic.

What do you mean what logical reason could there be? It seems to me that the benefits of treating other humans as rational agents are patent, and once you distinguish between rational agents and everything else, the rest 'flows' logically.

Ok... let me give a scenario.

Let's say that a person with no belief in a diety who has predefined right and wrong is walking down the street. This person sees an elderly gentleman with HUGE gold rings encrusted with fine jewels on every single finger of each hand. The person also knows that if he attacks and kills this man and steals all of the rings that he will never get caught. He also knows that the money from said rings will put both him and his offspring in a better economic situation. From a purely logical point of view, why would he not kill and take? He and his would only benefit. There is no right and wrong... and even if instinct told him not to, we often overcome instinct to protect or provide for our families.

To me, logically, the world teaches the natural laws of survival of the fittest and might makes right. Why then do we (even if by instinct) have some OTHER law controlling our minds?

Joe

Did you miss the part in my other post where I said that morality doesn't have to come from a diety? It's wrong because people are rational agents who own their and by extension, it's product: Physical property. Therefore, it's immoral to rob from another because you are in essence enslaving them for their time and in turn, denying that they are a rational agent -- that is, taking away their humanity.

Maybe it is rational, if you were sure you wouldn't be caught (which you can't be, so it wouldn't be rational in reality) but it's still immoral

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: So
I strongly disagree. If you wish to redefine 'faith' to include 'rational expectation' then, sure we all live our day to day lives on 'faith'. Nevertheless, I don't see that as being (by any reasonable definition) synonymous with 'faith' in God.

As for proving things...sure, you can't prove anything other than your own existence with absolute certainty, but you *can* prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I live my life based on past experience and rational conclusions drawn from a fundamenally ordered world (if periodically chaotic in some senses). I've accepted that the opportunity cost of not living a life based on the assumption of the existence of the reality I percieve is greater than that of living a life based on the assumption that I exist in a void, or in a universe completely removed from the one I percieve.

I know we are talking about two very different levels of faith. And you are correct that one at least based on past experience of ourselves (or others), but I'm trying to simply point at the REALLY big picture, that we all, at some level, like it or not, live by faith. If this be true, then to point at someone else and "you live by faith but I live by proof" is actually somewhat silly and a bit hypocritical. I'm NOT saying that you say these things... it was just my point.

Joe

By my definition, please explain to me where it comes down to 'I live by faith' -- I'm not following.

Even our "rational conclusions" are sometimes wrong. How many people I've known that KNEW their spouses loved them, only to find they were cheating on them for years. They made rational conclusions, but ultimately some things (like another's love for you) must simply be taken on faith and hoped correct. When we get in our cars to go to work, by faith in our personal past experiences we believe that we will get there and back home that day safely... and many each day die because their belief wasn't a concrete fact, but a hope. Again, I agree that this is VERY different from believing in something you've neither seen nor even felt, but it is a level of faith none the less.

Joe

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Netopia
Even our "rational conclusions" are sometimes wrong. How many people I've known that KNEW their spouses loved them, only to find they were cheating on them for years. They made rational conclusions, but ultimately some things (like another's love for you) must simply be taken on faith and hoped correct. When we get in our cars to go to work, by faith in our personal past experiences we believe that we will get there and back home that day safely... and many each day die because their belief wasn't a concrete fact, but a hope. Again, I agree that this is VERY different from believing in something you've neither seen nor even felt, but it is a level of faith none the less.

Joe

Making a rational conclusion based on the facts at hand, and then finding out that you reached the wrong conclusion due to an error in your logic or insufficient data doesn't mean you are living on faith. Additionally, you keep moving back to that term -- faith. We don't have 'faith' that an automobile will start, we have a rational expectation based on previous experience. Furthermore, when they travel to work, they don't have faith that they will get there safely, they are making yet another rational decision based on statistical risk, past experience and knowledge of concrete factors.

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: So

Did you miss the part in my other post where I said that morality doesn't have to come from a diety? It's wrong because people are rational agents who own their and by extension, it's product: Physical property. Therefore, it's immoral to rob from another because you are in essence enslaving them for their time and in turn, denying that they are a rational agent -- that is, taking away their humanity.

Maybe it is rational, if you were sure you wouldn't be caught (which you can't be, so it wouldn't be rational in reality) but it's still immoral

But aren't morals just opinions too? Usually forced on others who have a different opinion but are fewer in number?

But I guess I was getting at it being irrational, not immoral.

Joe