"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by David E

That was my point about the bus ads: our idea of what "the right thing to do" is didn't just come from nowhere or from instinct, it DID start with "because God said so". (Whether you believe or not as Voltaire said). Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

Coming late to the discussion, I respectfully disagree. Christianity has merely incorporated the social contract which has been around forever of "don't do this to me and I won't do it to you." Fear of "in kind" retribution (whether by an individual or the state) is a powerful motivator for choosing what we now call "the moral path".

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

There are plenty philosophers who deduce what is a priori good, without evoking God. I don't think Buddhism requires a God, but suggests as good the absence of suffering. I think one can understand suffering and it's aleviation as a basis for morality that transcends the concept of God.

Yes, I specifically mentioned Buddhism as an example of a value system that produces good results in modern times. But it is a religion. That’s one of the reasons I referred several times to “non-religious” (as opposed to "athiest") folk in my original post.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Of course, as a rational hedonist, I'd also say that ultimately what feels good is the basis for most morality anyway - it's just easier to justify when you say you were only following (divine) orders (like killing the godless infidels)

That may be hedonistic, but its certainly not rational: I was talking about what is good and you wrote "what feels good" as being the basis for most morality. Big difference; they are almost always the opposite! Examples: 1) Tagging feels good, but is not good. 2) Stealing something when no one is looking feels good and is easier than working for it but is not good. (In fact, many thieves steel not for gain, but because it does feel good to them.) 3) Heroin feels good, but is not good.

Morality is about doing the right thing which is usually the harder choice. As far as your comment about killing infidels, I don't think anyone can say the suicide bomber is motivated by it it feeling good, in fact it feels quite bad, but in his mind it is doing good.

I see a few comments from others too who maybe got confused by what I wrote: I didn’t say “what feels good”, I wrote that I fear “what each person feels is good”, which the suicide bomber is an example of.

[€uroMeinke]

There are plenty philosophers who deduce what is a priori good, without evoking God. I don't think Buddhism requires a God, but suggests as good the absence of suffering. I think one can understand suffering and it's aleviation as a basis for morality that transcends the concept of God.

Of course, as a rational hedonist, I'd also say that ultimately what feels good is the basis for most morality anyway - it's just easier to justify when you say you were only following (divine) orders (like killing the godless infidels)

[JWBear]

While I'm not a practicing Wiccan, I do try and follow the Wiccan Rede:

"Do what you will, so long as it harms none "

[Ghoulish Delight]

Though I should add that € I'm sure will make a convincing argument for anarchy also.

[Alex]

And that's fine. I have no expectation that the social contract reached by any individual society will be the one I prefer. And our current definition of murder is not entirely that of judeo-christian tradition. For example, by many traditions abortion (as we're so loudly reminded) is murder, euthanasia (as practiced in some European countries and Oregon) is murder.

Personally, I agree that the former is not and that the latter is. Society will or will not come to match my views.

Whether you like the fluidity of morality does not change the fact that it is fluid. When enough people feel the same way and change an aspect of societal morality, religion is pretty much helpless to stop it (this is why divorce is now legal in Ireland).

As for why, without referencing god, I think murder is wrong:

I place almost no inherent value on your individual life. This is true. If we learned later today that you were dead all it would be is an interesting factoid.

But I care if you were murdered for the same reason I don't really care if 600 villagers in Africa die but do care if they all die of ebola: I don't want it to happen to me. So I'd really appreciate it if society rallied round to make sure the ebola epidemic did not spread.

This is because I very much do place an inherent value on my life. I'd really prefer it not end until I choose that it does. So, by society gathering round to condemn killing people like me, to the extent that this pressure prevents me specifically from being killed I am in favor. Selfishness is why murder is bad; if I were guaranteed to be exempted from any murdering, my opposition to it would fall precipitously (but not completely since there are other lives that I hold in some value). Continuing this to other conclusion is why drunk driving is bad (you driving drunk could hurt me) but Jim Jones convincing hundreds to kill themselves is not (if Jim Jones successfully convinces me then see the second sentence of this paragraph).

And yes, there are people who want to continue their religious culture even in the absence of god. I just think they're even more irrational than the people who actually believe the god is there and therefore think they're doing what he commanded. Avoiding bacon-wrapped asparagus because your deluded (as you now think they were if you don't believe their god exists) ancestors did is just silly*.




*And yes, for whomever might feel inclined to bring it up, I do engage in a very similar form of silliness myself. Being silly doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but it doesn't make it less silly.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

Selfishness is why murder is bad; i

The fallacy that makes most people scared to give up on religion is that selfishness is a bad thing.

The reality is, everything thing we do is selfish. Every single decision is selfish. In the end, it comes down to "because I want to".

Even acts that are materially selfless are ultimately motivated by selfishness. They are performed because the performer would feel worse about themselves if they didn't.

"But I've given up my own fulfillment to raise my kids!" Only because you'd feel worse about not raising your kids.

And yes, some people have different selfish desires, and that's where law enforcement comes in. Hopefully, they'll feel worse about the prospect of being in jail instead of fulfilling their selfish tendencies that negatively affect other people.

But the selfish desire of the majority of people for personal safety, as Alex defined well, is what motivates the social contract, independent of religious belief.

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

The fallacy that makes most people scared to give up on religion is that selfishness is a bad thing.

The reality is, everything thing we do is selfish. Every single decision is selfish. In the end, it comes down to "because I want to".

Even acts that are materially selfless are ultimately motivated by selfishness. They are performed because the performer would feel worse about themselves if they didn't.

"But I've given up my own fulfillment to raise my kids!" Only because you'd feel worse about not raising your kids.

And yes, some people have different selfish desires, and that's where law enforcement comes in. Hopefully, they'll feel worse about the prospect of being in jail instead of fulfilling their selfish tendencies that negatively affect other people.

But the selfish desire of the majority of people for personal safety, as Alex defined well, is what motivates the social contract, independent of religious belief.

I think it’s overly cynical to say that everything is ultimately selfish. If someone donates their fortune to an orphanage, I would say it is altruistic and not be concerned about whether their motivation was to go to heaven or not. Otherwise, altruism has no meaning. I care much more about what people do than the reason they did it. (In fact, many times we are not even sure of our own motives.)

[David E]

Originally Posted by Alex

As for why, without referencing god, I think murder is wrong:

I place almost no inherent value on your individual life. This is true. If we learned later today that you were dead all it would be is an interesting factoid.

But I care if you were murdered for the same reason I don't really care if 600 villagers in Africa die but do care if they all die of ebola: I don't want it to happen to me. So I'd really appreciate it if society rallied round to make sure the ebola epidemic did not spread.

This is because I very much do place an inherent value on my life. I'd really prefer it not end until I choose that it does. So, by society gathering round to condemn killing people like me, to the extent that this pressure prevents me specifically from being killed I am in favor. Selfishness is why murder is bad; if I were guaranteed to be exempted from any murdering, my opposition to it would fall precipitously (but not completely since there are other lives that I hold in some value). Continuing this to other conclusion is why drunk driving is bad (you driving drunk could hurt me) but Jim Jones convincing hundreds to kill themselves is not (if Jim Jones successfully convinces me then see the second sentence of this paragraph).

So you are saying murder is wrong because the person being killed does not want that to happen? Just because you don't want it to happen doesn't necessarily create a moral barrier to others. For example, because thieves don't want to be arrested doesn't make arresting them an immoral act.

Then you gave selfishness as a second reason. Now you are into the business of saying an act is wrong because of the thinking or motivation of the perpetrator. So it would not be wrong if the killer had an altruistic motive? The 9/11 murderers did, even giving their lives for the cause.

Another post in this thread claims that everything is selfish (9/11 perpetrators wanted to go to heaven). I don’t agree myself, but if it were true, and we applied your logic of selfish=wrong, then everything would be wrong.

Still wondering what is wrong about murdering.

Originally Posted by Alex

And yes, there are people who want to continue their religious culture even in the absence of god. I just think they're even more irrational than the people who actually believe the god is there and therefore think they're doing what he commanded. Avoiding bacon-wrapped asparagus because your deluded (as you now think they were if you don't believe their god exists) ancestors did is just silly*.

Maybe not so silly if you learn the background and wisdom behind some of the practices. Having a Sabbath or day of rest once a week from TV and computers could lead to a happier, more mentally healthy life and people be more inclined on that day to bond and empathize with friends, for example. This day was one of the first animal rights laws in history, as it required that domesticated beasts rest also. Judaism had other more detailed strictures protecting animals such as prohibiting the amputation and consumption of single limbs which was practiced before then. Now, I am not saying that secular value systems can’t come up with similar norms, and sometimes they do; but for the most part, THEY DIDN’T, whereas the religious traditions as they have evolved have a pretty good system that should not be discarded lightly. A lot of the figuring out has been done.

When I say secular systems have not generally produced good results, let me give you my evidence: In four centuries, the Catholic Inquisition is estimated to have murdered about 30,000 people. (I am making a case for contemporary religious values anyway). The secular ideologies that replaced religious ones in the 20th century, most notably under Mao and Stalin, murdered 100 million, besides massive forced relocation and theft of property. Without the notion that something transcends our physical existence, this human tragedy more easily becomes an acceptable cost of attaining your utopian vision for society on earth, because there is nothing else but that.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by David E

Still wondering what is wrong about murdering.

I'm glad I don't live near you, then.

I wish I had time to participate in this chat, but I'm extra busy for the next few days. Very quickly, I'd mention that Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are always brought up by religious apologists to rub in the faces of the secular. But they were hardly bastions of rational secular philosophy. They essentially created godless pseudo-religions with themselves as supreme entities - kind of like the Caesars of yore. In other words, nothing new at all. Political ideology elevated to the status of unquestionable truth can be just as devastating as religion, no doubt about it. But this is irrelevant to the question of whether we derive our morality from a supernatural source. These abusive regimes are a long way away from secular liberal democracies, which currently seem to be exterminating hardly anyone in Scandinavian countries, for instance.

Altruism has been observed in other animal species. Does this mean that our own sense of altruism evolved, or is some supernatural agency granting an awakening morality to a few other primates? I'd say more likely the former.

Altruism aside, self-interest is still a perfectly reasonable place from which to say murder is wrong, or at least extremely inconvenient. And getting from "I don't want to be killed" to "I shouldn't kill others" is perfectly logical. If you live in any kind of in-group at all, and you engage in murder, you can jolly well expect the group to want you out of the picture, and you can easily understand why. ("They don't want to die, just like me.") From here, it isn't that far a jump to say, "Okay, there are other beings with self-interest, just like me. We can work together for our mutual protection." It isn't necessarily the complete picture, but I fail to see any inherent flaws in this explanation. In even the smallest tribe, proscribing murder is a no-brainer. (Of course, the same protecting of self-interest will likely mean that killing folks in the other tribes will be allowed or even encouraged if and when they become a threat. That hasn't changed, alas.)

That's all I have time for. I'm always interested in this topic, so y'all have a ball with it. I'll check back later. <swims away>