Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Adam and Ever were metaphors, that would undermine the Christian tenet of Original Sin. So, I doubt this allow Christianity to "work".
Throw the concept of inherited original sin into the gutter, I personally know many liberal Christians who do. Protestants themselves don't want unbaptised babies and children suffering in a Christian "original sin" hell. So they throw the ridiculous concept out with yesterdays' bathwater. These "later inheritance" Christians believe people who are aware or the only ones responsible enough to deserve hell. This means that it is the concept of "knowledge/awareness" that is what curses and saves you, and so Christians can come to see that Adam and Eve story is a fairy-tale with "esoteric information" behind it, but no inherently factual or historical information.
But I have to agree with Chango
Organized Religion disproves "god" with it's narrow mindless definition....
I say as an atheist, as a non-theist, that I do not believe such a being exists as defined by current religious thought. As a humanist I have more important things to do anyway.
Oh c'mon, LKC! This unusually logical "theory" sheds new light on the age-old secular problem of which came first, the chicken or it's daily egg which pretty reliably I'd say falls down and out of it's slippery cloaca. Now we know why her precious God-given eggs don't ascend back up into her oviducts. Think of the egg-traffic-jam that would ensue after a few days! Not to mention the eggular pain.
Thank The Lord for Intelligent Falling!
Oh sorry: I've got to go now and pray. I really do! Anyone wanna join me? Because it's surely a day of Revelation! My own head would fly off if God weren't holding it down with IF!
How does the falling aspect of a waterfall exist in a purely material world? It doesn't. Good thing we live in a Physical Universe, not a material-only one.
gravity is immaterial, conceptual, and physical. There is no need to say that consciousness and morals are "supernatural".
Morals and concepts, even at the most fundamental level, are meaningless unless they transcend. Otherwise, we're all left standing at the gates of Auschwitz saying "to me, this was wrong", "to me, this was necessary", "to me, this was right." And?
Or even the most fundamental foundations of all reason, logic, and language:
-law of identity: "that every thing is the same with itself and different from another"
-law of non-contradiction: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time"
-law of excluded middle: "for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is."
Can these be false? If all humanity was destroyed, would they still hold true? Denial of them would cast us into utter absurdity, but yet we assume them all the while begging the question. This is what happens, however, when we unhook the transcendental from our ontology and make it purely autonomous. As someone said earlier - "I think, therefore I am." Then we're not really anything at all.
As a humanist I have more important things to do anyway.
Using the word 'important' is an illusion. You will return to the earth today, tomorrow, 50 years from now and nothing you did today will matter. Sure, you can kid yourself with other humanists that you are leaving a legacy behind and helping the next guy, but let's fast forward to eternity and consider if that's true. You are simply a machine that is doing what it's supposed to do, determined by the manner in which matter is interacting set forth trillions of years ago. Free will (actually any will), conscience, love, hate, caring, contempt, purpose, they're all an illusion.
... as more is discovered and understood, things that used to be called 'god' are gradually eliminated. So that as time goes on and more is understood, notions of god recede.
I highly recommend Neil Gaiman's novel, American Gods in this vein. Its basic premise is that all the "old" gods that no one believes in anymore, led by Odin the All-Father, band together to battle the modern gods and culture heroes (e.g., the Internet and media gods). It's hilarious and thought provoking.
Morals and concepts, even at the most fundamental level, are meaningless unless they transcend. Otherwise, we're all left standing at the gates of Auschwitz saying "to me, this was wrong", "to me, this was necessary", "to me, this was right." And?
I am not sure that anyone is capable of saying any more that, "to me, this is wrong" To go further we would need some objectively verifiable foundation for morality. In my opinion, metaphysics fails here, because it is all based on the subjective thoughts and experiences of humans. When you get right down to it, without objective, testable theories and actual hard data, all we are left with is "to me".
To get past this, what would you base morality on that is not subjective, that can be objectively or experimentally verified? Can you point to some method, some axiom to definitively state what is moral and what is not, and how can you validate this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckd83
Or even the most fundamental foundations of all reason, logic, and language:
-law of identity: "that every thing is the same with itself and different from another"
-law of non-contradiction: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time"
-law of excluded middle: "for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is."
Can these be false? If all humanity was destroyed, would they still hold true? Denial of them would cast us into utter absurdity, but yet we assume them all the while begging the question. This is what happens, however, when we unhook the transcendental from our ontology and make it purely autonomous. As someone said earlier - "I think, therefore I am." Then we're not really anything at all.
These are the rules for logic, for a particular kind of analysis. We human beings ignore these laws all the time. Logic is not a fundamental element of reality, it is a system of manmade ideas that we use to try to model reality. The truth of these ideas is measured by how well they stack up against what we experience. Logic does pretty well as a tool to analyze other ideas.
Just like we can have non-euclidian geometry, you could make a system of logic with different laws and axioms, and you would get different results. A quick example of this is N-ary logic which does not have the "excluded middle" principle, as there are N possible truth values, not simply true or false. This mode of thinking is not often used in rhetoric, but is very useful in a formal logic, mathematics, or computer programming setting.
We have developed and refined the idea of logic precisely because it is useful, it provides meaningful results that correspond with reality. You have yourself pointed this out, with the statement, "Denial of them would cast us into utter absurdity..." We use them becasue they are useful, because out of the other sets of ways to interpret the world they appear to have the most correspondence to reality, the most utility, the most "truth".
I would argue that morality is in the same boat. It is clear that what is considered moral changes over time and across cultures. I would argue that morality is formed as a framework to facilitate social interaction, first between individuals, then families, tribes, nations, etc... I find it interesting that a group in isolation may develop a specific code of morality, and then as that group is exposed to other groups the traditional morality shifts and integrates the morality of the bigger picture. It seems clear to me that with time and communication, more and more societies are slowly converging to some sort of a common mean morality as ideas are exchanged and relationships are formed.
These are the rules for logic, for a particular kind of analysis. We human beings ignore these laws all the time. Logic is not a fundamental element of reality, it is a system of manmade ideas that we use to try to model reality.
So if mankind never existed, the laws of logic would not be true?
Quote:
We use them becasue they are useful, because out of the other sets of ways to interpret the world they appear to have the most correspondence to reality, the most utility, the most "truth".
You're begging the question.
Quote:
I would argue that morality is formed as a framework to facilitate social interaction, first between individuals, then families, tribes, nations, etc...
By definition, then, the Nazis' actions were moral.
So if mankind never existed, the laws of logic would not be true?
Assuming there are no other animal or being capable of similar rational thought, the laws of logic would not exist, as they are ideas formulated by human beings. The underlying reality that they describe may very well remain unchanged, but since they would not have been formulated, one cannot really evaluate their truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckd83
You're begging the question.
I'm not sure I see that here, can you elaborate? We may be having a semantics problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckd83
By definition, then, the Nazis' actions were moral.
That is entirely dependent on who you ask, now isn't it? The Nazi's firmly believed that they were. I do not. I would suggest that there are a great may period in history and various cultures where the concept of genocidal extermination of a culture deemed inferior is not considered morally problematic. The question is who gets to determine the one true standard, and why? I am comfortable with the idea that my view of morality is shaped by the time and place in which I find myself, and what I believe to be morally vital, like individual liberty and freedom of conscience, may be considered vulgar immoralities some time in the future. I still think I am right , but I recognize that so does/did everyone else.
To try to measure against some absolute, unchanging morality, you first need to establish that such a thing exists, and then proceed to define it rigorously.
-NoCapo
Last edited by NoCapo; 05-02-2013 at 09:00 AM..
Reason: quote problems...
Okay ... so God is not needed for anything, but exists anyway. What exactly has God been doing then? Twiddling his thumbs for billions of years?
Hoping Occam's Razor doesn't notice him
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank You Lord, for grounding my thinking!
, but I recognize that so does/did everyone else.
