Posts by cofty

28

Birthday Wishes Welcome!

by LifesNotOver in

jw
friends

many of you don't know me or won't remember me.

i left the jw's and my husband and my home last september - forging a new life in a new town.

i haven't posted here for many months, but have been reading most days.

cofty

Happy birthday to you. Here's a song for you from the gorgeous Claire Grogan

...

78

The handling of child abuse allegations

by Landy in

there's a lot of criticism surrounding the jw's handling of chiild abuse within their ranks with a lot of it being well deserved.

but i'm interested to know how people on here think child abuse allegations should be handled.

there's a few scenarios below, the first couple are easy then it gets a bit more complex.

cofty

Exploring the case for mandatory reporting: a summary of a roundtable hosted by the NSPCC..

78

The handling of child abuse allegations

by Landy in

there's a lot of criticism surrounding the jw's handling of chiild abuse within their ranks with a lot of it being well deserved.

but i'm interested to know how people on here think child abuse allegations should be handled.

there's a few scenarios below, the first couple are easy then it gets a bit more complex.

cofty

I think those are two legitimate questions. It's worrying that so many are quick to demonise somebody who even wants to have a sensible conversation about it.

I don't think anybody is trying to defend the WT's appallingly inadequate child welfare policies. The solutions are not entirely simple though. Yes if there is a report of an attack on a child the authorities must be told but not every scenario is clear-cut. Even the NSPCC the biggest child welfare charity in the UK is against mandatory reporting laws. When you read their reasons they have a good point.

I do think that enhanced DBS checks (criminal records) should be required for every elder and MS.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

cofty

What other kind of valid interpretation of reality do you accept beyond scientific method and atheism? ... You seems to use science and atheism as the only two kinds of valid and universal knowledge. - John_Mann

Hi John thank you for the question. Let me take the second part first.

Atheism isn't a basis for knowledge in that sense. It is simply a lack of belief in the claims of theism. If somebody is unconvinced that there is a supernatural being who is immanent and involved in the affairs of humans - who cares about our actions and judges us after our physical deaths - then we are atheists.

But that tells us nothing else about the atheist or about reality. I know of atheists who believe in fate or in astrology or homeopathy and all other sorts of irrational woo.

My appeal is for a rational, evidence-based approach; a commitment to discover what is objectively true about our world. The big change in my intellectual life was not when I left the Watchtower in '85 but when I abandoned faith as a valid basis of knowledge in '94. Being rational means that our beliefs should be in proportion to the available evidence.

Claims about supernatural worlds, gods, angels, souls and spirits are irrelevant in the pursuit of knowledge and in the moral debates of our time.

Science is the best method we have for uncovering facts about reality. It's how we try to get past our biases and superstitions and investigate the world objectively. Of course is has its limitations. Science cannot tell me whether I ought to prefer Martin Elliot's "Tennis Girl" poster (£2.99) or Tracey Emin's "Unmade Bed" (£2.2m) However there is a lot it can tell us about human nature that might explain my personal preference.

Science is based on an assumption of methodological naturalism. That doesn't mean that a scientist has to believe there is no supernatural world but that he must leave the supernatural outside the lab. If he is investigating the efficacy of a new cancer drug he can't factor in the effects of intercessory prayer. When he is investigating the possible benefits of human stem-cell research he cannot limit his pursuit of progress in case a frozen blastula might be imbued with an immortal soul.

Similarly when wrestling any moral dilemma the question of what decision will make god happy is inadmissible.

78

The handling of child abuse allegations

by Landy in

there's a lot of criticism surrounding the jw's handling of chiild abuse within their ranks with a lot of it being well deserved.

but i'm interested to know how people on here think child abuse allegations should be handled.

there's a few scenarios below, the first couple are easy then it gets a bit more complex.

cofty

I'm confused why Sir82 is rightly commended for a sensible approach but Landy is being mauled for taking the same position.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

cofty

John - the paragraph that contains the phrase "people like Cofty..." Please explain further what you mean. It sounds like a GROSS misrepresentation of my position but I should give you a chance to clarify before I object.

Thanks

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

cofty

Apologies for that. I did realise the sentence was provisional. I quoted it without context for brevity.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

cofty

" Many who attach themselfs to scientific study do not have the freedom to think nor their own personality on views on right and wrong?" - Rebel

Science doesn't dictate how anybody should think or what they must believe. It is a method for discovering what is objectively true about the world. Some of the things that have been learned through the scientific method are more certain than other things.

When faced with moral questions we need information on which to base our decisions. Why should we abandon the method that has served us so well? If our desire is to enhance the wellbeing of conscious creatures then start with as much information as you can get about the likely consequences of our proposed actions. Maybe we can't "get an ought from an is" but we can get some of the way there.

That means we don't get to trump the conversation with evidence-free dogmatic statements that end with "...thus sayeth the lord"

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

cofty

Ruby - I am using the words morality and ethics interchangeably. Both words are simply shorthand for how we worry about the way our actions impact of the well-being of conscious creatures.

the good thing about Plato's line and about arguing from ethics is that at least this gives us an evolutionary platform from which to argue.

I think it does the opposite. Theists like John_Mann and William Lane Craig see morality in Platonic terms. To them god is the absolute standard of perfection against which everything is measured. It is like Plato's essential triangle.

Evolutionary psychology and biology shows us how morality developed from the bottom-up without reference to perfect ideals.

Belief in perfect gods and eternal judgements after physical death was an effective way to convince people to be good when nobody was watching. It is a persistent meme.

philosophical reasoning tends to argue for the welfare of sentient beings. for me this is a little narrow because sentient beings sooner or later have to acknowledge that their long term well being also depends on what condition nature is in

But that is the same thing. We worry about the ethics of caring for the environment because of the effect our actions will have on the well-being of its inhabitants.

210

Morality Without Deity

by cofty in

one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.

it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.

christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.

cofty

By analyzing our morality systems we're able to spot just one dilemma (human embryos in scientific research). - John_Mann

That could not be further from the facts. I could list plenty more examples. We are discussing stem-cell research as a sample of conflict between secular objective ethics and those based on religious dogma. We could debate homosexuality, abortion, fertility treatment, contraception, the role of women, premarital sex and many more issues.

In every case your position would be based on unproven assertions about supernatural events. I would advocate a position based on a rational investigation about the consequences of actions and how they affect the well-being of conscious creatures.

Your approach would be based on an imaginary perfect being - absolute morality. Your views would be intransigent and impervious to reason since they are prefaced by an implied "Thus sayeth the almighty..."

My moral choices would be open to new information.

The gulf is very large.

And the bases of our morality systems are different. What you defined as absolute vs objective (which I disagree) and I define as Catholic vs atheist.

You keep saying you disagree but you never give a reason. Your moral judgements have no connection with objective facts. You admit they are a matter of "faith" which is a gift of your god to those whom he chooses. What could possibly be less objective?

You say embryonic research can bring a lot of good. But China is doing this kind of research since it was possible because they don't have this moral dilemma. I don't know nothing about what China discovered in this specific research, do you know about some panacea invented based on this research?

It is totally irrelevant to the conversation. Your objection is not practical but ideological. No matter how much benefit ever comes of human stem-cell research, no matter how much suffering is alleviated your objection will not - cannot - weaken one iota. It is based on an absolute standard rooted in the character of your deity. It is immune to facts.

Also I repeat you have a very Sola Scriptura influence in your atheism.

And yet I have not used scripture once in our entire conversation!

My strongest argument against the christian god does not depend on the bible at all...

If I am talking with Evangelical Protestants I will debate scripture, if I am talking to a Roman Catholic I will address your peculiar epistemology.

And your position about "there's no absolute(s) in the universe" is a contradiction by itself.

I have never said "there's no absolute(s) in the universe". Why did you put those words in quotation marks. They are not my words. You have repeatedly misrepresented my views in this conversation. I have tried very hard to present your position honestly. I said there is no such thing as an absolute standard of morality.

The reason of why our morality seems to be very similar is because I believe everyone has a soul created with absolute moral commands.

And yet you have still presented no evidence to support this assertion. Genuine and sincere christians can be found on both sides of every moral dilemma. Your "absolute moral commands" are not so absolute are they?

Even if you deny the existence of the Law-giver you can't deny the law written inside you.

We have the capacity for making moral judgements. We have evolved a capacity for justice, reciprocity, empathy, as well as disgust, anger and shame. All of this can easily be accounted for by evolution - there is no ghost in the machine.