Morals, Morality and God

[Iapetus]

Reply to Burning Ghost:

Yes, more or less. Sorry, I have you blurning - whatever that is - in the previous post.

[Burning ghost]

Setting out a ground to work from. That is all I was doing. So I asked both those claiming to be theist or atheist some questions and posed some avenues of investigation - and made the effort to express how I look at the situation and conceptual use of the “god”.

I asked a question and answered as concisely as I could myself. I wasn’t expecting much from anyone merely hoping. Maybe Tommarcus can offer up comment later or maybe not. Either way not much more to say here so I’ll just go back to listening until the need to say something arises again (was just puzzled by TH’s weird insults because appeared to me to be set up to derail and antagomise rather than move toward more civil and productive argumentation.)

[ThomasHobbes]

Either way not much more to say here so I’ll just go back to listening until the need to say something arises again (was just puzzled by TH’s weird insults because appeared to me to be set up to derail and antagomise rather than move toward more civil and productive argumentation.)

Teehee.
Puzzled?
Consider: one insult deserves another

[Karpel Tunnel]

Indeed. But it is NOT that sort of belief which we are talking about. Hence atheism is not a religion.

I didn't say it was. You were talking about beliefs vs. knowledge and i weighed in on that issue.

This is an opinion and since I am not part of a religion I do not expect you the believe it.

It was an assertion. I challenged it.

Your point is not relevant when you reject the notion of unjustified beliefs. If you have faith in science like you have faith in god, then you would be making a mistake.

I certainly think many beliefs are not justified. I am not sure if I am the 'you' in that first sentence.

deleted further irrelevant points.

Must I wait around for verification to be moral?

I suppose you could ask your god? Trouble that he never seems to be listening nor answering.

I was asking you, checking to see if you actually believe the opinion you asserted is a good one, using examples. To which you do not respond. I gave counterexamples of situations where I thought your opinion would not be a useful one to have. Where it would be a bad heuristic. My belief in God or not is not relevent.

No atheism can only mean no beliefs about god.

Precisely. I was responding because you you saying you believe in NOTHING. Given your response here I now assume you meant simply that you did not believe in God, but in the context of the post where you are saying that you do not hold beliefs and only know certain things, it seemed like you were making atheism a blanket lack of belief, not just a lack of belief in God.

I see no attempt on your part to respond to criticism of your 'opinion'

I'll find other people to have philosophical discussion with here.

[Burning ghost]

Iapetus -

As an atheist I am not, of course, able to define the god or gods in which I do not believe though, if you like, I could make up rejectable gods. I don’t believe in the green pixie lard lumper. I don’t believe in the personal, interactive man with a beard who whispers in my ear. I don’t believe in the God who answers prayers.

Yes, in any particular argument it may be necessary for the person making the claim to be precise about what, exactly, they are claiming. But, as a non-believer, that is not my problem.

I think a lot of people who believe in “god” too don’t believe this either. Generally I see diffeent degrees of setting out some ideal of humanity and in the case if theists, more often than not, to use personification as a means to guide them toward being better - which is a very human thing to do and something we actively do throughout our lives by role playing.

If you were to take on this definition of “god” ... “That which guides me toward being a better person” then you’d be hard pressed to protest about things being better. Of course the issue of “good intentions” and all that is a dangerous path as history has shown us, and I expect personal experience for anyone attentive enough to their own mistakes.

Is Tommarcus talking about this kind of “god”? Honestly I don’t think so, but at least I can see a common enough thread in his definition to find a possible way to go over some common ground and work from there.

Tommarcus -

In terms of morality I imagein we can agree that belief in “god” is not essential to morality? It is very encouraging to see you say “the most perfect being” rather than omnipotent - that woudl simply step beyond any reasonable access for us. It does see that a being that makes mistakes is nascent like we are and there in lies our “divinity” (to steal away the word for my own purposes.) By “divinity” I am using my artistic licence! Haha! I just meant that our ability to make mistakes helps us to learn and that our naivety is, strangely enough, part boon.

As to a belief in some conscous godhead figure I am not inclined to believe such a thing. For me all definitions of “god” are merely expression of the unconscious and that truly speaking “god is within” so to me I am god just as you are. In terms of physics I would extend this to say my understanding of experiential matter is a reflection of existence and existence is all there can be for me consciously as a living being.

Like everything I’ve come across in life a true and complete understanding is never actually complete. Only by setting out rules and seeing how they play out can we establish certainty - this is why mathematics is so powerful, it is abstract and the correct result is not up for despute unless applied to physical reality. Often people see arguments for “god” as people saying 1+1=4 which by the set rules of arithmetic is not up for despute and silly arguments about counting objects is an abstraction from the abstract world of math! The issue is people taking words as finite items of concern like they do with numbers.

The ability to judge yourself as if you’re another person is the path to moral behaviour. Whether you’re morally stronger than others is somethig that will eventually play out. This the leads into arguments of what “better” and “good” is. For me this is the most difficult thing to manage and no matter how I look at it reason cannot fully encompass the problem - this is where a degree of faith (non-religious or religious) comes into play and we must be willing to suffer the consequences of our words, thoughts and actions in order to move forwards. And not being a serious believer in “fairness” I would say that some people are doomed to a life of utter pain and suffering and that is just a ad state of affairs, but I don’t believe “nature” cares and to some degree I believe it is better to try to do good (whatever that means for you) in teh face of meaningless existence, in defiance of what you do possibly meaning absolutely nil. That is morality, that is human and that is why I respect human life.

We are so unbelievably lost and empty, mayeb even pointless creatures, and to know this and fortify against it and carry on regardless is exactly what I find inspiring about the human race in our muddled and befuddled minds. The person of no religious faith with no concern for an afterlife, truly holding to the idea that existence is essentially meaningless and yet still stepping forward and taking onthe battle life without any possible hint of reward (other than a brief endorphin rush) and literally laying dow their lives in the prusuit knowledge and understanding which they will not benefit fro in their grave, is the pinnacle of teh human endeavor in my mind.

If ou don’t quite understand what I am saying it is that the theist (one who believes in a greater meaning and reward) is a lesser person in they face up to adversity than the atheist who merely lays down their life because tey believe it is the riht thing to do. The first sacrifices themselves knowing a reward awaits them and the second sacrifices themselves knowing their is no long term personal gain, they merely act morally and without insentive.

Having said the above my rebuttal would be to say that certai concepts of “god” do encompass the view of the atheist position above and I have heard religous people in prominent positions say they don’t literally believe in an afterlife or in some higher being, they merely follow the ethical doctrines and fables of their faith knowing enough science to realise all may be for nought - yet they still act out as if good behaviour is so be pursued no matter how hard the struggle is.

The human need for meaning can go in two directions. One way, to it’s extreme, can need to nihilism and amorality, and the other way , to it’s extreme, can lead to blind dogmatism in the form of religious zealots - both seems to cause destruction and as we see in nature we actually need a little destruction fro time to time. If the human race is “balanced” enough then we’re never tip the scales too far in one direction or another. Given that we’re still here at the moment we’ve managed up to now, but the journey is by no means over.

My god is “humanity” and I believe in us. What else is there to truly believe in? If I am wrong in my belief then who will be aroudn to care one way or another? It seems like a win win form of morality to me and I hope my finite contributions are good rather than bad.

To quote James Joyce:

- And thanks be to God, Johnny, said Mr Dedalus, that we lived so long and did so little harm.
- But did so much good, said the little old man gravely. Thanks be to God we lived so long and did so much good.

That quote has stuck in my head fro some time. The ultimate representation of a human’s inbuilt struggle between pessimism and optimism, humility and pride.

[ThomasHobbes]

Indeed. But it is NOT that sort of belief which we are talking about. Hence atheism is not a religion.

I didn't say it was. You were talking about beliefs vs. knowledge and i weighed in on that issue.

Since several people have made that statement, and most of my comments have been directed at them it is important to reflect that atheism does not entail belief.

It was an assertion. I challenged it.

Your point is not relevant when you reject the notion of unjustified beliefs. If you have faith in science like you have faith in god, then you would be making a mistake.

I certainly think many beliefs are not justified. I am not sure if I am the 'you' in that first sentence.

deleted further irrelevant points.

Must I wait around for verification to be moral?

I suppose you could ask your god? Trouble that he never seems to be listening nor answering.

I was asking you, checking to see if you actually believe the opinion you asserted is a good one, using examples. To which you do not respond. I gave counterexamples of situations where I thought your opinion would not be a useful one to have. Where it would be a bad heuristic. My belief in God or not is not relevent.

Precisely. I was responding because you you saying you believe in NOTHING. Given your response here I now assume you meant simply that you did not believe in God, but in the context of the post where you are saying that you do not hold beliefs and only know certain things, it seemed like you were making atheism a blanket lack of belief, not just a lack of belief in God.

I see no attempt on your part to respond to criticism of your 'opinion'

I'll find other people to have philosophical discussion with here.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Burning Ghost:

I think a lot of people who believe in “god” too don’t believe this either. Generally I see diffeent degrees of setting out some ideal of humanity and in the case if theists, more often than not, to use personification as a means to guide them toward being better - which is a very human thing to do and something we actively do throughout our lives by role playing.

Seeking some ‘ideal of humanity’ is not something which interests me. Yes, people often try to personify things and it is may well be an inherited tendency comparable with fear of the dark, affinity for fluffy things and need for social interaction. I don’t see how any such thing necessarily guides somebody toward ‘being better’, particularly since ‘being better’ could mean almost anything.

If you were to take on this definition of “god” ... “That which guides me toward being a better person” then you’d be hard pressed to protest about things being better. Of course the issue of “good intentions” and all that is a dangerous path as history has shown us, and I expect personal experience for anyone attentive enough to their own mistakes.

I don’t find such a definition to be at all helpful. Physical exercise can give somebody self-confidence and help them to achieve specific targets. I don’t see how that equates to ‘god’. Supportive parents can make a huge difference to somebody’s attempts to be ‘a better person’. Again, I don’t see any specific link to ‘god’. I don’t understand what you mean when you mention ‘dangerous path’.

Is Tommarcus talking about this kind of “god”? Honestly I don’t think so, but at least I can see a common enough thread in his definition to find a possible way to go over some common ground and work from there.

I don’t know. I hope not.

[Burning ghost]

Iapetus -

Forgive me, but it seems liek you’re trying to disagree as much as possible with a basic premise here - that is I assume you try to make your life better. Maybe I didn’t make that clear enough. Whatever it is that drives you some people choose to personify as some kind of godhead figure, whilst others admire this or that attribute of different people and wish exemplify those attributes.

I don’t findn it a huge stretch to see how an idea of “god” could decelop from this. And yes each persons “ideal” is likely to vary, but I think you’d find an awful lot of common ground too, such as wanting to be “useful”, “loved”, “able to love”, “develop skils and knowledge” etc. Having a more solid vision of what a human could be, what we could be, is certainly useful. This is why people set goals for the future and deadlines. It helps us see what could be and work toward it - planning actually works right?

If you were to view more religious attitudes with this in mind you don’t think it woudl be at all helpful to help you understand the rationality of part of their position? I am not asking you to belief in some bearded man nor defending such a belief. I am merely expressing how I have come to approach the alien topci of religion - I wasn’t brought up in a religious environment and I haven’t even been baptized. Up until a few years ago I could count the number of times I’d been into a religious building on one hand.

I used to go with the whole “opiate for the masses” idea at first, but then started writing a piece of fiction in which I had to face the fact that I didn’t understand why people were religious and how a religious idea had developed.

Today people don’t believe that Iron Man exists but you can bet your bottom dollar MANY children are growing up influenced by that character and wish to become like him, or Thor, or Spiderman etc. Modern mythos is a reflection of the human psyche and the culmination of these ideal persons (with their faults) is condensed in religious doctrine to express a combined perfect being which is imagined at the best parts of all the heroic parts of humanity.

Of course some staunch religious types will dismiss me as a heretic. I can at least come to some agreement with other less zealous types though even though we both share mainly different ideas about theology and the origins of religous institutions.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Burning Ghost:

Forgive me, but it seems liek you’re trying to disagree as much as possible with a basic premise here - that is I assume you try to make your life better. Maybe I didn’t make that clear enough. Whatever it is that drives you some people choose to personify as some kind of godhead figure, whilst others admire this or that attribute of different people and wish exemplify those attributes.

BG, my intention was certainly not to disagree as much as possible but it was to give you my views on the specific points you mentioned. So I explained that ‘being better’ could mean almost anything. If you can turn it into something concrete which we can discuss; then please do so. I explained in some detail why I thought your interpretation of ‘god’ was unlikely to be helpful. If you wish to defend your proposition, then please do so. I also commented briefly on personification. In your most recent post you seem to be developing this theme with reference to Thor, Spiderman and so on. It would be foolish to deny that these seem to tap sympathetically into aspects of the human psyche because they are, indeed, very popular. That is a discussion appropriate to another thread. I don’t, however, see that encouraging children to believe that such characters are real is, necessarily, ‘a good thing’. Thus I am not sure how you can relate your point to the value of a belief in God. If you think you can, then please do so.

I don’t findn it a huge stretch to see how an idea of “god” could decelop from this. And yes each persons “ideal” is likely to vary, but I think you’d find an awful lot of common ground too, such as wanting to be “useful”, “loved”, “able to love”, “develop skils and knowledge” etc. Having a more solid vision of what a human could be, what we could be, is certainly useful. This is why people set goals for the future and deadlines. It helps us see what could be and work toward it - planning actually works right?

There are, I am sure, followers of the Jeddi Knights who find commonality in striving towards goals prompted by the story. They doubtless derive pleasure from joint enterprises and – probably – a sense of being “useful”, “loved”, “able to love”, “develop skils and knowledge” etc". Fine. The Jeddi Knights don’t have to be real for this to be the case. That would apply to belief in Thor, Spiderman, or Amon-Ra. Or God. Or I might choose not to believe in any such entities but, instead, find commonality through train spotting, long walks in groups or social care. There are endless such things which may – but not necessarily – result in us ‘being better’. If I am missing something significant, then please let me know.

I used to go with the whole “opiate for the masses” idea at first, but then started writing a piece of fiction in which I had to face the fact that I didn’t understand why people were religious and how a religious idea had developed.

I also explained that I thought beliefs derived from a huge range of influences, only some of which are subject to logic and/or reason. Where I am certainly in agreement with you is in the need to accommodate as fully as possible a range of differing beliefs. I have a principle which I apply in these circumstances; I have few objections to people believing whatever they like, as long as they do not expect me to behave in accordance with their beliefs. Thus I can live relatively comfortably alongside expressions of religion but I despise dogma.

This is why I tried to engage with Tommarcus in relation to his concern that objections were being made to a manger scene on the town green but he/she did not reply. I would have pointed out that there was space for a manger scene in each and every church in the land, that there are quite a few of these, and that this is freely permissable in law. Why, therefore, should it be assumed that they can be placed anywhere else of the religious group’s choosing, particularly when the First Amendment in in place to control this? Why is there a requirement that ‘in God we Trust’ be included in the print of all US paper currency? Would it make a difference if the government required ‘in Allah we Trust’? Why would a candidate for the highest office in the land (George Bush snr) say, ” …I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God … Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists”.

I am fully in favour of accommodation and compromise, but there are certainly points at which lines need to be drawn.

[Burning ghost]

Iapetus -

I agree that people doing what they do is fine as long as they don’t continually ram it down my throat (good intentions or not - because the saying holds pretty true.)

I don’t find such a definition to be at all helpful. Physical exercise can give somebody self-confidence and help them to achieve specific targets. I don’t see how that equates to ‘god’. Supportive parents can make a huge difference to somebody’s attempts to be ‘a better person’. Again, I don’t see any specific link to ‘god’. I don’t understand what you mean when you mention ‘dangerous path’.

I am saying I think people abstract these different ideas from different facets of their life and create an unspecified “ideal”. Some frame it as some godhead and others find it expressed through certain attitudes and values they deem important.

My interpretation of “god” is not an interpretation of “god” in the sense I think you mean. My interpretation is of how humans encapulate an idea they occassionally call “god”. I don’t have a “god” nor do I believe in some “god” other than having a sring belief that I am a mortal god and responsible for my actions and the putcomes around me - even though I think some problem is not my own doing being able to see a problem makes it my problem, and to some degree, my fault - this is the idea of “god” that I see to some degree expressed by others except I don’t abstract it from myself in my case.

I don’t see a better guiding force than the self. What is difficult to do is to face oneself. It seems psychologically easier to abstract the idea of some perfect being rather than to try and move toward a more perfect state when one is unable to obtain any meaningfully applicable “perfection”.

If you think about people and actions of people you’ve admired in your life the culmination is something like what the religious man would call “god”. I think that is a useful thing to think about if you haven’t before. If you have then you have.

For a child to act out and role play is not really the same as me saying they should believe these people exist. The point is the act out how they see their heroes and these heroes change. For some it seems their is a constant need/inclination to admire and idolise others or others actions. With pantheons of gods we see a whole array of admirable attributes vying for the attentions of their father god. If you were to imagine how all these fragmented parts of heroes and such could be splice into one admirable whole then you’ll step closer to seeing that the meaning of “faith in god” is more like belief that things can get better if the correct path is trodden - not that any of us understand the better path other than through error (and it is wisdom and courage that allows us to navigate between mortal mistakes and lessons that damage.)

Anyway I’ll sit back and listen again. If this doesn’t do much for you then maybe I’m not saying anything you haven’t/thought before.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Burning Ghost:

My interpretation of “god” is not an interpretation of “god” in the sense I think you mean. My interpretation is of how humans encapulate an idea they occassionally call “god”. I don’t have a “god” nor do I believe in some “god” other than having a sring belief that I am a mortal god and responsible for my actions and the putcomes around me - even though I think some problem is not my own doing being able to see a problem makes it my problem, and to some degree, my fault - this is the idea of “god” that I see to some degree expressed by others except I don’t abstract it from myself in my case.

I am not really sure what you mean. If you are saying that you have empathy with the problems of others, then I don’t see what is gained by calling this ‘god’. In any case – as you have pointed out – everybody is likely to have a different interpretation and it is to this individual interpretion which we must respond.

I don’t see a better guiding force than the self. What is difficult to do is to face oneself. It seems psychologically easier to abstract the idea of some perfect being rather than to try and move toward a more perfect state when one is unable to obtain any meaningfully applicable “perfection”.

I have never seen the need for a perfect being, nor for a state of perfection. What is more, when I have asked others what they mean by these things, the answers have never been particularly illuminating. Looking towards ourselves – self-awareness – may certainly be a worthy strategy but there is no need for any supernatural influence in such considerations.

If you think about people and actions of people you’ve admired in your life the culmination is something like what the religious man would call “god”. I think that is a useful thing to think about if you haven’t before. If you have then you have.

I could hardly disagree more. The people I admire have always been avowedly human, with faults and foibles. Never godlike.

For a child to act out and role play is not really the same as me saying they should believe these people exist. The point is the act out how they see their heroes and these heroes change. For some it seems their is a constant need/inclination to admire and idolise others or others actions. With pantheons of gods we see a whole array of admirable attributes vying for the attentions of their father god. If you were to imagine how all these fragmented parts of heroes and such could be splice into one admirable whole then you’ll step closer to seeing that the meaning of “faith in god” is more like belief that things can get better if the correct path is trodden - not that any of us understand the better path other than through error (and it is wisdom and courage that allows us to navigate between mortal mistakes and lessons that damage.)

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. People do, absolutely, claim that God is real and far more than a simple guideline. This belief is sufficiently strong that it drives a presidential candidate to consider excluding from citizenship anybody who thinks otherwise. What is even more worrying is that this particular candidate got elected!

[Burning ghost]

Iapetus -

You disagree with what? I posed something to think about and you disagree? Did I say the people you admired were godlike? Read my words again if you wish (eg. “Culmination” and “something like”.)

I didn’t miss that point. If you’re from the US then you’re probably less likely to see the tamer side of religion. I was just commenting on how admiration can condense and be represented as some worthy goal - like “love” some people believe “god” exists in such a way and some nutters even think “god” exists as some conscious floaty being surrounding the universe (the former are not the kind of people I’d likely engage with because they are stuck and I’m not sure how to each them.)

I’m generally not swayed by singular cases. They are useful to look at but not really telling of the greater underlying picture (especially whe framed in a political context purposely and knowingly espoused toward the public to fit some agenda.)

[Iapetus]

Reply to Burning ghost:

I apologise if I misinterpreted what you wrote but I did have some difficulty in understanding it. Even after rereading I am unclear what your apparent interpretation of 'god' has to do with responsibility and personal problems. Or the link between role play and 'father god'. I tried to give it my best shot and, evidently, failed miserably.

[Burning ghost]

Reply to Burning ghost:

I apologise if I misinterpreted what you wrote but I did have some difficulty in understanding it. Even after rereading I am unclear what your apparent interpretation of 'god' has to do with responsibility and personal problems. Or the link between role play and 'father god'. I tried to give it my best shot and, evidently, failed miserably.

No doubt I’ll try again in the future to frame this better ... and likely make more of a mess of it before it becomes clearer. Thanks for your time anyway, your comments have been useful and I hope I’m bright enough to take them onboard and refine my words.

I’ll keep on keeping on anyway

[tommarcus]

If necessary I apologize for not responding sooner to the comments made by those in this very intelligent discussion (some of which I agree and disagree). However I did not have the time to give your thoughts the attention which they deserve. I was involved in Applied Philosophy rather than in
the theory of philosophy.

Ironically, I am defending the right of atheists to be treated with the same respect for their beliefs as religious. In the past they were treated with persecution. However, I believe that atheism should be treated with same amount of respect, scrutiny and rules. If it helps to state it in a positive fashion,, then it appears that atheism is the belief in the non-existence of any God. Regardless point is the same. We are referring to beliefs about God, even God's existence.

For Americans and others, I have never heard the Constitution referred to as a set of principles. Why not go all the way and call them suggestions? In fact, the Constitution is the law of the land. The courts, including the Supreme Court only interprets the law. Hence if an action or law violates the Constitution, it is deemed unconstitutional and unlawful. Such judicial interpretations which then become law can be very flawed at best. For example, the Supreme Court had made the Dread Scott Decision which said that run away slaves in free states could be reinslaved.

I absolutely believe that people can be moral without believing in God, as I originally stated in this discussion. My fear is that man-made morals can lead to good or bad. My point is that such absolute morals and purpose established by God with our creation are the best morals. If someone doesn't believe in God, then they are free to believe in morals for which they can persuade themselves and others. However, those that believe in God are constrained by the reasonable and logical actions that can be attributed to a supreme being. This of course demands a definition of God.

The concerns raised about defining something which is hard for humans to understand let alone define are valid, Hence my defining God as the most powerful and perfect being who exists and can only do what us logically possible. From this definition, I believe the following.

First, my personality might not be the greatest, but I like having one. If God, was not a being, then there is no doubt that I would be more perfect and in some sense more powerful than him or her. A contradiction.

God must be the most virtuous being possible. If not maybe I could be more virtuous. This would make me more perfect than God. Another contradiction.

A perfect being us not selfish. If not, he or she is something less than an unselfish human.

Are there other notions of God. Certainly. But some of the basic premises cannot be reasonably contradicted. We are not God. But in another dimension where discreteness and continuity my exist simultaneously and being and personality doesn't mean human being and personality, such a concept can make sense, some of which have been proposed in this discourse.

Please note, nothing that I have said is meant to prove the existence of God, I was taught religion and practise it and do believe in God, but at one time, I had questioned as to whether God and religion were just results of human imagination. We have all avoided that subject which belongs under another topic which speaks well if our discipline. .