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.
I have never said atheists can't be moral, decent, nice people. The point I have made is that while they can be great people, and they can be wonderful, decent, and honest....there is no common denominator that is above them that defines what is and is not moral.
Shirina did an excellent job on this one already, but since this is an issue that is especially close to my heart, I'd like add a few of my own twists. I think you are probably right about the need for some sort of "common denominator" in order to identify moral principles (although I think it could also be open to rational debate), but if common denominators are the ticket to successful moral insight, then atheists have at least one logically air-tight option - although, I admit, comprehending this option requires a bit of philosophical contemplation, which may not come easily.
Logic requires that the actual existence of something - let's call it X - implies the "logically prior" potential for X. In plain language, the only things that actually exist are things that are logically and naturally possible. You are never going to wander down the street and stumble upon a genuinely impossible object. Certain things might seem impossible, but this "seeming" only belies your ignorance and/or some magician playing a trick on you.
I know, with absolute certainty, that I have experiences, and I am fully justified in believing (even feeling certain) that there are lots of other sentient beings who also have experiences. No rational persons wants to seriously debate this. But if experiences exist, then there must be some logically prior conditions for the possibility of sentient experiences. (Let's let CFP = "conditions for possibility".) Theists will probably want to say that God is the CFP of everything, but atheists like to point out that there must be CFP for God. Theists generally don't accept this insight, but it is a genuinely rational insight. If God exists, then there must be logically prior CFP of God. If God exists, then Reality has to be such that it is possible for God to exist. The logic is air-tight because it is basically just a tautology, given what we mean by "possible" and "impossible."
And this brings us to something that atheists can point to as the best place to dig around for the ultimate foundations of morality. The CFP of sentient experience must logically be a common denominator for all human beings and, furthermore, these same CFP would have to apply to God as well, given that God is sentient. Thus, from an atheist point of view, it is conceivable that God could, in principle, "go off the rails" and do immoral things. Logically, the firmest foundation for morality is not God (especially not any particular human interpretation of what God must be like, based on assertions in holy-books) but, rather, the CFP that apply to us, and to God as well.
If, as you imply, we need a common denominator in order to ground morality, the CFP of sentient experience are a logically air-tight option. And this brings me back to why I think Sam Harris is on the right track. He is, basically, a "rational mystic" who advocates figuring out how to identify the CFP of sentient experience based on logic and science (that's not exactly his terminology, but I'd say that this is essentially his approach). I'm not sure if Harris is familiar with phenomenological methods but, if he isn't, then this is something he will eventually need to investigate if he is to hvave any real hope of making progress in this area. And, of course, the same holds true for all atheists.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-01-2018 at 09:21 AM..
I will grant that Mystic explained that very poorly. I believe he would with a little more thought amend it to say that how we deal with, or the attitude we adopt toward pain and/or suffering is the determinant. Perhaps he believes that "suffering" IS the attitude adopted toward pain as opposed to just awareness of the hurt, I don't know.
Food for thought.
Don't suffer fools gladly, though.
'Suffering' covers a whole raft of situations. Physical suffering (aside that our mind tells us that it hurts) is one thing. Suffering with social, workplace or domestic bullying and abuse can cause real suffering, even if you don't have a mark on you. And even then, if your mind wasn't working properly, it might make no difference to one. But our minds do work, and the way our minds work is 90% (at least) of suffering. Mystic, as you say, should have thought that one through before posting.
I have never said atheists can't be moral, decent, nice people. The point I have made is that while they can be great people, and they can be wonderful, decent, and honest....there is no common denominator that is above them that defines what is and is not moral.
...
Some of us have had experiences in our life that led us to moral stances without the threat of hell hanging above us. Others, apparently like you, rely on threats to make you moral.
Shirina did an excellent job on this one already, but since this is an issue that is especially close to my heart, I'd like add a few of my own twists. I think you are probably right about the need for some sort of "common denominator" in order to identify moral principles (although I think it could also be open to rational debate), but if common denominators are the ticket to successful moral insight, then atheists have at least one logically air-tight option - although, I admit, comprehending this option requires a bit of philosophical contemplation, which may not come easily.
Logic requires that the actual existence of something - let's call it X - implies the "logically prior" potential for X. In plain language, the only things that actually exist are things that are logically and naturally possible. You are never going to wander down the street and stumble upon a genuinely impossible object. Certain things might seem impossible, but this "seeming" only belies your ignorance and/or some magician playing a trick on you.
I know, with absolute certainty, that I have experiences, and I am fully justified in believing (even feeling certain) that there are lots of other sentient beings who also have experiences. No rational persons wants to seriously debate this. But if experiences exist, then there must be some logically prior conditions for the possibility of sentient experiences. (Let's let CFP = "conditions for possibility".) Theists will probably want to say that God is the CFP of everything, but atheists like to point out that there must be CFP for God. Theists generally don't accept this insight, but it is a genuinely rational insight. If God exists, then there must be logically prior CFP of God. If God exists, then Reality has to be such that it is possible for God to exist. The logic is air-tight because it is basically just a tautology, given what we mean by "possible" and "impossible."
And this brings us to something that atheists can point to as the best place to dig around for the ultimate foundations of morality. The CFP of sentient experience must logically be a common denominator for all human beings and, furthermore, these same CFP would have to apply to God as well, given that God is sentient. Thus, from an atheist point of view, it is conceivable that God could, in principle, "go off the rails" and do immoral things. Logically, the firmest foundation for morality is not God (especially not any particular human interpretation of what God must be like, based on assertions in holy-books) but, rather, the CFP that apply to us, and to God as well.
If, as you imply, we need a common denominator in order to ground morality, the CFP of sentient experience are a logically air-tight option. And this brings me back to why I think Sam Harris is on the right track. He is, basically, a "rational mystic" who advocates figuring out how to identify the CFP of sentient experience based on logic and science (that's not exactly his terminology, but I'd say that this is essentially his approach).
Very good (as we might expect) [and another cracker from Shirina, of course] and the point that you make is logical, and even evidence -based (the way the world works - when we find out how it works). But it's Human logic and Human interpretation of the evidence.
This means to the God -believer..as much as they are inclined to credit it. God can exist without an origin? No problem. Just say that it's so. God is good even when he does the bad? A phone in to Atheist experience answered that one: "God is God and humans are humans".
All logic, evidence, ethics and science, philosophy and verified fact is tossed out of the window if it doesn't fit what they have been taught, aside that some of the can cherry -pick a bit when they can't bring themselves to toss all human thinking out of the window.
After all, how many people would get into a Jesus taxi where the driver just let the engine go and just let Jesus steer?
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.
