Killing in the name of......

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1572
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: Killing in the name of......

Post by Thinking critical » April 19th, 2018, 3:00 pm

No, it's he me who should apologise for my lack of clarity. You are right by identifying undesirable behaviour enevidably leads to moral judgment of such behaviour.
When I previously stated "position" I was referring to the moral judgment of either the theist or atheist as a group, I do not like to stereotype.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Eduk
Posts: 1391
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Killing in the name of......

Post by Eduk » April 19th, 2018, 6:58 pm

Personally I do think being a theist demonstrates a clear unreasonableness and does lead to, at least, some harm. But who doesn't believe something unreasonable which has lead to, at least, some harm. If all religions vanished off the face of the planet tomorrow I think it would make no appreciable difference. As one unreasonable belief would simply be replaced with another. The problem is not religion, as Alias points out, it is believing unreasonable things to start with.
Having said that once a religion has started it does take on a life of its own, to some extent. So I'm sure there are many many instances of harmful actions done to fit into a group.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the phrasing is leading, too loosely defined, too broadly defined and not fair. You may as well ask which group is more harmful, those who like football or those who don't.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Killing in the name of......

Post by Namelesss » April 22nd, 2018, 6:16 pm

Thinking critical wrote:
April 14th, 2018, 10:15 am
I came across an interesting challenge recently, regarding the consequences of our beliefs.
The question proposed was wether or not anyone could think of a crime or action resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering that one would "only" cause due to the absence of belief in god(s)?..
The particular strain of 'belief' is irrelevant (God or money or Chevrolets or whatever), all strains share the same pathological symptomatology!

No one ever deliberately harmed another unless he was infected with some strain of belief!

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1572
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: Killing in the name of......

Post by Thinking critical » April 24th, 2018, 9:32 am

Namelesss wrote:
April 22nd, 2018, 6:16 pm
Thinking critical wrote:
April 14th, 2018, 10:15 am
I came across an interesting challenge recently, regarding the consequences of our beliefs.
The question proposed was wether or not anyone could think of a crime or action resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering that one would "only" cause due to the absence of belief in god(s)?..
The particular strain of 'belief' is irrelevant (God or money or Chevrolets or whatever), all strains share the same pathological symptomatology!

No one ever deliberately harmed another unless he was infected with some strain of belief!
Agreed, belief is often an emotional attachment to an idea or concept which you may want or hope to be true in the absence of empirical knowledge (if such knowledge exists). Therefore belief can motivate us and give us a desire to act or react in away that one wouldn't expect if the belief was absent.
The strain of belief is irrelevant, but the context of the discussion was religion when Christopher Hitchens was debating a pope. The pope asked Hitchens how an atheist could possibly appreciate true morality without excepting there god, Christoper proposed this argument as the rebuttal.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Killing in the name of......

Post by Namelesss » April 24th, 2018, 10:06 pm

Thinking critical wrote:
April 24th, 2018, 9:32 am
The pope asked Hitchens how an atheist could possibly appreciate true morality without excepting there god, Christoper proposed this argument as the rebuttal.
First, the Pope is a professional theologian/apologist, Hitchens is a professional entertainer.
It was loaded from the beginning.

The question; "...action resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering that one would "only" cause due to the absence of belief in god(s)?"
Clarifying 'unnecessary' is the first step to a philosophical examination, but we'll move on to...

Segundo, as soon as the Pope asked 'me' "how an atheist could possibly appreciate true morality", I would respond that 'morality' is the sin of Pride, judgment of 'Good and Evil', the original forbidden fruit!
See how he squirms out of that one!

We don't see 'good and evil', we don't 'judge others', in a state of unconditional Love (what Christ was/is all about)!
If the Pope wants to 'associate' "unconditional Love" with his notion of 'God', then so be it, but that is not a logical refutation.
God tells us not to be 'moral' ("Do not eat from the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil" lest foolish man think he is like Us!").
Sanity tells us the same thing.
So, God or not, morality is insanity!
Those 'with a God' are warned of the toxicity of that fruit (the one and only Sin!), yet the hypocrites take fresh bites every day, often!

Were Hitchens a philosopher, he would be on good ground to field the questions that he sees fit to 'answer'.

Of course I did answer the question when I stated that the 'inverse' is true, that "no one ever deliberately harmed another unless he was infected with beliefs!"
That answers the question, and does an end run around the poor term 'unnecessary'.
All that exists is 'necessary', and that is everything!

Alias
Posts: 2182
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Killing in the name of......

Post by Alias » April 25th, 2018, 1:37 pm

If you think the meaning of "necessity" was ill-defined in terms of causing harm, consider how far the meaning of "cause pain and suffering, torture and kill" must be stretched to include saying "I don't think you're moral." Now stretch the word "belief" to include all thoughts, passions and sensations
Those liberties with vocabulary will include all motives of all people, all chains of causation. That will encompass a hundred forms of love, hate, fear, awe, dread, fealty, delusion, calculation, neurosis, greed, passion, sex, boredom, pride, socio- and psychopathology, envy and hunger.
But what's left to compare?
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Post Reply