Posts by cofty

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

Thank you for a very thoughtful post David Jay. A lot to think about there.

I have a sincere question that might surprise some in view of my anti-theist position.

Do you think that the sort of morality that David_Jay writes about which is inspired by a religious sense has something to contribute that a purely secular objective morality lacks?

If God is love and the epitome of what is truly good, then one can also reason that all love and good is in essence God.

That seems to reduce god to a metaphor, but even if that is so, does it still add something to the human quest for morality? That isn't a trick question I am genuinely wrestling with the question of whether anchoring ethics to an ultimate source is a useful thing even if it is not objectively true?

Does it still resonate with human nature in a way that purely secular ethics do not? Or does it belong to the infancy of our species? Can it safely be discarded?

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

Interesting dilemma never a jw.

I wonder what a panel of christian ethicists would make of it. It's always tempting to change the terms of a thought experiment to escape the dilemma but that misses the point doesn't it? Would it be a moral good - or less of a moral ill - to kill humans who, through no fault of their own, posed a threat to a large number of others? Would theists and secularists really approach the problem any differently once we get behind the rhetoric? I'm really not sure.

Objective facts about the consequences are a tool that should be used to help us make good ethical decisions. But that doesn't mean there are always easy answers. Sam Harris points out the difference between ethical answers in theory and in practice. How many birds are there in flight around the world right this moment? The answer does exist but there is no way to reliably access it.

There is a great deal of low-hanging fruit that a secular morality could help us with. Other parts of the moral landscape might be far more challenging to access.

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

It's becoming clear you you don't want to engage with any of the actual arguments on the topic John. That's a pity.

Perhaps you would answer one question....

Can you think of a moral position that isn't predicated on the well-being of conscious creatures?

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

Stem cell-research is a useful example of the clash between the absolute moral pronouncements of theism and a more rational morality based on objective facts.

Compare ---

Yes, we believe that the soul is directly created and infused by God in the very moment of conception. It's not about the embryo having a neural system or not or ability to feel pain. It's about the soul already created - John_Mann

Catholics want to prohibit important medical research on the basis of the specific belief that god infuses the fertilised egg with a unique human soul at the moment of conception.

Objective facts show that this belief is impossible. These facts should give pause to those who would deny important medical knowledge to people suffering from debilitating diseases. It won't give them pause of course because their morality is based on the premise of "god says.... the end".

22

Absolute moral standards and fiction.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but when we read a book of fiction in my mind it's easier to travel outside ourselves and our absolute moral standards.

fiction allows our imagination to be free.

i haven't read " fifty shades of grey" but i read " romeo and juliet" at school,and juliet was 13, romeo i believe was supposedly around 18 or 19.

cofty

I don't know Vander. Perhaps you should ask somebody who wishes to justify the use of the Atomic bombs of WWII. I don't.

29

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson

by azor in

jw
friends

listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.

i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.

hope some of you get a chance to listen.

cofty

Sadly Peterson indulges in incoherent gibberish in this and other recent interviews.

I think he is unwell.

22

Absolute moral standards and fiction.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

not all beliefs are worthy of respect, but when we read a book of fiction in my mind it's easier to travel outside ourselves and our absolute moral standards.

fiction allows our imagination to be free.

i haven't read " fifty shades of grey" but i read " romeo and juliet" at school,and juliet was 13, romeo i believe was supposedly around 18 or 19.

cofty

could there then also be benefits of slavery of the few (millions) for the benefit of the many (billions)? - Vander

That is the ethics of Yahweh not those of a post-enlightenment society.

Morality does not reduce to arithmetic. A world where universal human rights are respected represents a higher peak in the moral landscape than one where the weak can be enslaved.

It does remind me a little of Sam Harris's railway carriage issue: Is it right to pull a lever and cause a runaway carriage to kill 1 railway worker vs 5 on another track? - Simon

I have always answered no to that dilemma. I would not kill one to save 5. The victim cannot be used as a commodity without their consent.

50

If turned off by the GB's latest bloopers- do you still have faith in God and Christ?

by the-Question in

some go back to churchianity!.

and that, to me, indicates they never had real faith in god- but it was in men.....

cofty

If turned off by the GB's latest bloopers- do you still have faith in God and Christ? - the-q

Why do you think faith is an effective tool for establishing what it true?

37

I will only believe in demons if...

by deegee in

jws are known to have an obsession and preoccupation with demons.. this obsession and preoccupation is not without merit given that jesus, his disciples/apostles, and the general public of 1st century ce judea and galilee are reported as believing in the existence of demonic spirits and in the possibility of demon possession of an individual.. exorcism formed a large part of jesus' ministry on earth.

the gospels and the book of acts describe many exorcisms where jesus and his disciples release people from demonic possession.. ___ .

but how do demons get inside a person's brain or body?

cofty

There are no demons. No angels. No "spirits". Stop worrying.

If you can define spirit that would be interesting. I mean what is it exactly?

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

Amazing how Atheists here seems just to take the Sola Scriptura approach. - JM

For the second time - if you bothered to read the OP you will see my argument does not depend on scripture.