Our common humanity

[Bryan]

Oh, I get it now! If I believe in God, and God tells me how things are supposed to be, then that's a sufficient basis for everything I do.

Congratulations. You constructed a straw man just like Frank's. Did the two of you collaborate on the design, or was the coincidence a product of your being programmed alike?

OK, then, I believe in God, and God tells me that everyone is supposed to send all their assets to me. God's plan is for me to own all the money and wealth in the wooooorrrrrlllllddd! So Bryan, post your real name and address and I'll set up a post office box number so you can transfer your assets to me.

God told me you're lying about what he told you.

Were you trying to make a point, BTW? I haven't spent much time discussing the epistemology of morality, so you seem to have skipped off on your own that time. Did you really think that you could just make something up and not risk creating yet another straw man?

Now how is that any different from what you're doing, Bryan?

IIRC, I informed Melanie that I felt it was premature to go into the epistemology of a theism-based morality before we have a common ground of accepting the existence of a god or gods.

I haven't changed my mind.

Are you that eager to deflect from Paul's (or your own) responsibility for his claims about morality?

Have you checked the thread title, lately?

You think about it and let us all know when you have the answer.

I have the answer right now. Are you really that eager to change the topic? Would you read the 10,000 word post, or would you accept a condensed version?

And make sure to explain it very carefully because remember, we're not as smart as you are, so you have to go real slow and make sure you don't leave anything out of the explanation. Don't worry about your explanation being long. (As though that ever stops you when you think you have something to say.)

Your post has all the earmarks of sandbagging, just like Melanie's. The request for exquisite detail, along with simplified language that might eliminate the space-saving use of the philosophical terms that were invented to describe the type of things I'd be talking about.

Doesn't that pretty much make you a coward?

And how is it any different from what the people who started your religion did in the first place, except that they convinced enough people to go along with them that they gained the power to enforce? You think about that one, too. Let us know when you come up with an answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. And you let us know when you're ready to return to the topic of "Our common humanity" and how it supposedly provides a framework for morality, you coward.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Guest]

"I'm already on record stating that our rights are endowed, and that they do not stem from divine command."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...dpost&pid=61098

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Endowed by a creator according to you. All you did was state a contradiction within a single sentence.

[Guest Guest]

God told me you're lying about what he told you. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is exactly how our civilizations have been divided by religion. Each culture asserts that God speaks exclusively to or for it, and on that basis attacks or tries to denigrate all the others.

The solution being proposed is that we honor all people for and in their humanity regardless of race, creed, national origin, etc. The point that's being made to you is that anyone can make a statement, call it a divine command, and start a crusade or jihad over it. That is why drawing your ethics from your beliefs about God doesn't work, and the historical record proves that it doesn't work. But if we live by the central Truth of each person's humanity, we just might be able to build a more peaceful world. We keep talking about it. When are we going to try doing it? It's the simplest thing in the world to say and to understand (except apparently for you), but apparently one of the hardest things to do. It calls on us to do things differently, which I believe is why we are reluctant to accept it as true or useful. But there really is no other way. The way to live at peace with everyone, and for everyone to have the best possible shot at happiness, is to honor each person's humanity.

[Guest Guest]

Your post has all the earmarks of sandbagging, just like Melanie's.  The request for exquisite detail, along with simplified language that might eliminate the space-saving use of the philosophical terms that were invented to describe the type of things I'd be talking about.

Doesn't that pretty much make you a coward?

Yeah.  And you let us know when you're ready to return to the topic of "Our common humanity" and how it supposedly provides a framework for morality, you coward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone needs a nap. Apparently Bryan isn't up to answering the question. He can ask questions, but he can't answer them.

Here is the definition of "sandbagged" from Microsoft Word's online dictionary: "2. vt knock somebody or something down: to attack or hit somebody or something with a sandbag (informal)."

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I can understand why Bryan feels that way. His entire entire was destroyed by a question he can't answer. He was asked to justify what he calls his "theism-based morality" and he can't. Well, neither can anyone else. It can't be justified because it's based on a wish masquerading as reality, not on anything that is actually known to be real.

Go play somewhere else, Bryan. You're not up to this.

[Stixx3969]

Bryan,

I have one quick question. Do you feel that someone who is without religion is by default immoral?

[Guest Guest]

(1) You seem to have skipped out on justifying how I supposedly work "from the inside out" (what's that supposed to mean, anyway?)

The reality of your lives bows to my philosophy if my philosophy accurately models reality.  Your response appears to fallaciously beg that question.

(2) If you define categories broadly enough, the categories cease to be meaningful, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) Do we really need a reminder about your morally perfect rocks? Philosophy modeling reality? I don't think so.

(2) Human happiness is not meaningless.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE

In fact, we have laws in most (or all) states (USA) against cruelty to animals. That seems to be based on our concern for their welfare. I don’t know that the Bible has anything to say about it, and several passages in the Bible seem to suggest that we need not detain ourselves with that.

Yeah? Could you name one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's pretty basic:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Do with the animals as you please. And it has been so interpreted.

[Bryan]

Bryan,

  I have one quick question. Do you feel that someone who is without religion is by default immoral?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, and I've answered that question more than once before in this forum.

My position is that atheist philosophies are very probably incapable of constructing a coherent system of morality.

It's simple enough for an atheist to live inconsistently with his worldview, however, and living as though the popular morality is the correct morality (for example).

[Strife767]

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This section has always made me curious too.

"Replenish" the earth? What is the earth running out of, and why would God create an earth that needs replenishing? More fuel for the "imperfect things can't come from a perfect deity" argument, I think.

Also, the word "subdue," to "make subordinate, dependent, or subservient." Why do we have to do that? Why would God create us with the literal command to practically enslave his other creations? What is the point of that?

Of course, looking at it objectively, it's easy to see why it's worded this way, but I'm speaking specifically to the "God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent" crowd--these actions, and this command, followed religiously (pun intended ), cause TONS of unnecessary suffering (keep in mind that no suffering is truly "necessary" under the 'watch' of an all-powerful being)! Just the fact that we need to eat meat to live healthy lives suggests that if there is a god, that he's downright malevolent. Could not God have made humans photosynthetic or something, so that we wouldn't have to kill other animals to survive and thrive? Of course he could have--this is supposed to be GOD we're talking about, after all!

It's amazing how few Christians see how incompatible their definition of God is with reality.

[Guest Paul]

This section has always made me curious too.

"Replenish" the earth? What is the earth running out of, and why would God create an earth that needs replenishing? More fuel for the "imperfect things can't come from a perfect deity" argument, I think.

Also, the word "subdue," to "make subordinate, dependent, or subservient." Why do we have to do that? Why would God create us with the literal command to practically enslave his other creations? What is the point of that?

Of course, looking at it objectively, it's easy to see why it's worded this way, but I'm speaking specifically to the "God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent" crowd--these actions, and this command, followed religiously (pun intended ), cause TONS of unnecessary suffering! Just the fact that we need to eat meat to live healthy lives suggests that if there is a god, that he's downright malevolent. Could not God have made humans photosynthetic or something, so that we wouldn't have to kill other animals to survive and thrive? Of course he could have--this is supposed to be GOD we're talking about, after all!

It's amazing how few Christians see how incompatible their definition of God is with reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even as enlightened an establishment as the American Museum of Natural History in New York was guilty of this kind of cultural blindness for a long time. Until just a few years ago, they included exhibits of so-called primitive peoples from remote areas of the world along with exhibits of non-humans. I kept picturing an exhibit with a figure of a white European male in a smoking jacket, holding a pipe, behind one of their glass partitions, but apparently they never got around to it.

[Guest 2smart4u]

This section has always made me curious too.

"Replenish" the earth? What is the earth running out of, and why would God create an earth that needs replenishing? More fuel for the "imperfect things can't come from a perfect deity" argument, I think.

Also, the word "subdue," to "make subordinate, dependent, or subservient." Why do we have to do that? Why would God create us with the literal command to practically enslave his other creations? What is the point of that?

Of course, looking at it objectively, it's easy to see why it's worded this way, but I'm speaking specifically to the "God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent" crowd--these actions, and this command, followed religiously (pun intended ), cause TONS of unnecessary suffering! Just the fact that we need to eat meat to live healthy lives suggests that if there is a god, that he's downright malevolent. Could not God have made humans photosynthetic or something, so that we wouldn't have to kill other animals to survive and thrive? Of course he could have--this is supposed to be GOD we're talking about, after all!

It's amazing how few Christians see how incompatible their definition of God is with reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your knowledge of nutrition is seriously lacking . We don't "need to eat meat to live healthy lives". To the contrary, studies have shown people that avoid meat altogether, getting their protein from othe sources such as skim milk, beans, legumes and nuts have healthier cholesterol levels and live longer lives.

It appears your understanding of nutrition parallels your understanding of God, you still cling to the "mother nature, serendipity and happenstance" reason for our existence. Had your cholesterol checked lately ??

[Bryan]

This section has always made me curious too.

"Replenish" the earth? What is the earth running out of, and why would God create an earth that needs replenishing? More fuel for the "imperfect things can't come from a perfect deity" argument, I think.

Have you ever considered using a dictionary to help resolve your puzzlement?

1 a: to fill with persons or animals : stock barchaic : to supply fully : perfect c: to fill with inspiration or power : nourish2 a: to fill or build up again <replenished his glass> b: to make good : replaceintransitive verb: to become full : fill up again

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replenish

Also, the word "subdue," to "make subordinate, dependent, or subservient."

WOW!

You used the dictionary that time. I am floored.

But what led to the decision to use one definition over the three or so others? I'm curious myself about that one.

1 : to conquer and bring into subjection : vanquish

2 : to bring under control especially by an exertion of the will : curb <subdued my foolish fears>

3 : to bring (land) under cultivation

4 : to reduce the intensity or degree of : tone down

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subdue

Why do we have to do that? Why would God create us with the literal command to practically enslave his other creations? What is the point of that?

Get squared away on the other part and then we'll work on this one if you're still puzzled.

Of course, looking at it objectively, it's easy to see why it's worded this way, but I'm speaking specifically to the "God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent" crowd--these actions, and this command, followed religiously (pun intended ), cause TONS of unnecessary suffering (keep in mind that no suffering is truly "necessary" under the 'watch' of an all-powerful being)! Just the fact that we need to eat meat to live healthy lives suggests that if there is a god, that he's downright malevolent. Could not God have made humans photosynthetic or something, so that we wouldn't have to kill other animals to survive and thrive? Of course he could have--this is supposed to be GOD we're talking about, after all!

It's amazing how few Christians see how incompatible their definition of God is with reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's our Strifey. Bless his heart.

[Guest Jez]

No, and I've answered that question more than once before in this forum.

My position is that atheist philosophies are very probably incapable of constructing a coherent system of morality.

It's simple enough for an atheist to live inconsistently with his worldview, however, and living as though the popular morality is the correct morality (for example).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why isn't caring about every person's welfare in itself a coherent system of morality?

[Bryan]

Why isn't caring about every person's welfare in itself a coherent system of morality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it's not a system.

[Autonomous]

I think that morality has a philosophical basis because of evidence suggesting the existence of a god

I know I'm going to regret this, but what evidence?

(other than the appearance of morality), and because the worldview that would result if there were no philosophical basis for morality is repugnant.  I think one good test for a worldview is whether you can live with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm actually fairly sure that the argument you are making isn'twhat it seems to be. You seem to be saying "it would really S**K if x didn't exist," which of course is not an argument for x actually existing at all. X being a philosophical basis for morality of course. What are you actually saying here?

[Guest Melanie]

If I simply wish to do things the way I wish to do them, then why should I bother creating a god to say so?  I could simply claim it on my own authority, a la Nietzsche.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you can have it both ways AND claim divine sanction for whatever you want to do.

[Guest Melanie]

There is nothing in being human by itself that has any implications beyond being human (that's what a tautology is).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point is that being human has implications. How about this:

"There is nothing about God that has any implications beyond God."

Same thing. I'm not arguing tautologically. You are. All you're doing is picking what you want to be important and what you don't want to be important, and arguing that all the non-important stuff (like our humanity) is just a tautology, while all the really important stuff (like the concept of God you've got stuck in your head) is meaningful. You're not saying anything. You're just expressing what you would like to be true.

[Guest Melanie]

Yeah.  And you let us know when you're ready to return to the topic of "Our common humanity" and how it supposedly provides a framework for morality, you coward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, you've been told over and over and over why our common humanity provides a framework for morality. You admit that it could be, but insist that this could be so (without a word of justification, either logical or factual) only if there was a god who so endowed it. All you're doing is picking what you want to believe. The argument is more than tiresome at this point.

[Strife767]

Your knowledge of nutrition is seriously lacking . We don't "need to eat meat to live healthy lives".  To the contrary, studies have shown people that avoid meat altogether, getting their protein from othe sources such as skim milk, beans, legumes and nuts have healthier cholesterol levels and live longer lives.

Okay, hotshot: why would "God" give humans the digestive capabilities of carnivores, then? If vegetarianism is the best way, why do we have omnivore-like digestive systems instead of pure herbivore ones, which lots of species do have? You're making your god sound imperfect again.

[Bryan]

I know I'm going to regret this, but what evidence?

See the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and the anthropic principle, for starters.

Ignore what Gavin said about the anthropic principle. He apparently accepted Richard Dawkins' crackpot interpretation.

I'm actually fairly sure that the argument you are making isn'twhat it seems to be. You seem to be saying "it would really S**K if x didn't exist," which of course is not an argument for x actually existing at all. X being a philosophical basis for morality of course. What are you actually saying here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you read it correctly. It's not, strictly speaking (and with understatement), the most deductively appealing of arguments.

But it really would S**K if there were really no such thing as right or wrong. Could you live that way? I know some people can. I suspect they're a tiny minority.

[Bryan]

The point is that being human has implications. How about this:

"There is nothing about God that has any implications beyond God."

Same thing. I'm not arguing tautologically. You are.

Unlike Paul LaClair, I have not invoked God in a tautological formula such that I attempt to evoke the implications for God's existence.

You're being silly.

But any time you want to explain how the implications of being human supplies a philosophical basis for morality, I'm eager to hear it.

Try to avoid responses like "It supplies a moral foundation because our common humanity makes us all human."

All you're doing is picking what you want to be important and what you don't want to be important, and arguing that all the non-important stuff (like our humanity) is just a tautology, while all the really important stuff (like the concept of God you've got stuck in your head) is meaningful. You're not saying anything. You're just expressing what you would like to be true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Baloney--but your unintended irony is impressive.

If I simply wish to do things the way I wish to do them, then why should I bother creating a god to say so?  I could simply claim it on my own authority, a la Nietzsche.

So you can have it both ways AND claim divine sanction for whatever you want to do.

Note to Melanie: Check the context and look up "simply."

Bryan, you've been told over and over and over why our common humanity provides a framework for morality.

I have been given no coherent account of such.

Paul refers to "universal" values that are not universal. Melanie appears to take that same tack in different words; neither of them addresses the is/ought divide.

Without addressing at least one of those two problems (fixing only the first still leaves the second), repeating the argument only counts as a fallacy of argumentum ad infinitum.

You admit that it could be, but insist that this could be so (without a word of justification, either logical or factual) only if there was a god who so endowed it.

Ah, no. If I had said what you claim I've said then I'd be contradicting myself.

I allow that it's possible that morality could be a brute fact in a physicalist universe, but I have yet to see a coherent explanation for how it could be. In other words, I do not assume that it is impossible. I simply haven't seen an argument for it that can withstand moderate scrutiny. Because of the former, I am doubtful that an atheistic account is possible in actuality.

All you're doing is picking what you want to believe. The argument is more than tiresome at this point.

Straw men are rather boring, aren't they?

Edited July 25, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE(Jez @ Jul 22 2007, 07:03 PM)

Why isn't caring about every person's welfare in itself a coherent system of morality?

Because it's not a system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I live that way, it's my system. And if everybody lived that way, it would be the world's system.

[Guest Guest]

I know I'm going to regret this, but what evidence?

I'm actually fairly sure that the argument you are making isn'twhat it seems to be. You seem to be saying "it would really S**K if x didn't exist," which of course is not an argument for x actually existing at all. X being a philosophical basis for morality of course. What are you actually saying here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're not crazy, Autonomous. It didn't make any sense. Bryan rarely does. All he ever does it put words around his wishes and call them facts.

[Guest Guest]

Okay, hotshot: why would "God" give humans the digestive capabilities of carnivores, then? If vegetarianism is the best way, why do we have omnivore-like digestive systems instead of pure herbivore ones, which lots of species do have? You're making your god sound imperfect again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not only that, but some species need meat to survive, certainly in the wild. There's no good answer to this point. It's as clear a proof that the biblical god doesn't exist as you could ask for.

[Autonomous]

See the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and the anthropic principle, for starters.

The Kalam Cosmological argument simply argues that the universe must have a cause. Implying said cause to be God is departing from the argument.

Barrow's teleological application of the Strong anthropic principle is rejected by Brandon Carter, who is one of the first to formulate the principle. Nick Bostrom states quite eloquently that the anthropic principle simply warns against anthropic bias.

Even if we accept that these arguments prove God's existence, neither of these prove that God exists in the particular permutation that you believe in. If the Muslims, Hindus, or pagans are right, the inalienable rights God gives to man change somewhat.

Ignore what Gavin said about the anthropic principle.  He apparently accepted Richard Dawkins' crackpot interpretation.

No, you read it correctly.  It's not, strictly speaking (and with understatement), the most deductively appealing of arguments.

But it really would S**K if there were really no such thing as right or wrong.  Could you live that way?  I know some people can.  I suspect they're a tiny minority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not believe in dualism. Now while there are complex arguments put forth in support of a soul separate from the body, the most common one I hear is that it would be horrible if that were the case. Which in no way proves the soul to exist.

Taoism and Buddhism both accept the existence of gods, but the deities are not really central to the core tentets of either religion. If their conceptions of morality are not based on god-given rights, are their moralities now insufficient?

The idea that morality must be based on god-given rights has a fairly extensive set of problems. What if there is no god? How do you know that you have the correct set of rights?