Atheists and Agnostics

Jennya

Jennya · Sep 7, 2011

Do you believe in evil?
Where do you think it comes from?

Personally, I don't believe in evil, I just think its all relative.

Snoink

Snoink · Sep 7, 2011

Relative to what?

Jennya

Jennya · Sep 7, 2011

I mean relative in the scene that it is dependent on the individual, not absolute . Something that might be evil to one person is not evil to another.

Snoink

Snoink · Sep 7, 2011

Oh! I see. How would a person qualify evil then? Er... if that question is confusing, how would they know that something should be seen as evil in their perspective when they see it? What makes this thing, which is neither good nor bad in its substance, be evil in their eyes?

Jennya

Jennya · Sep 7, 2011

Well they wouldn't think its evil? This topic is rather tricky, I probably should have not bought it up but since certain religions have strong concepts on good and evil I did anyway.

Snoink

Snoink · Sep 7, 2011

It is a bit tricky! Fortunately, we don't have to wade through theology to come up with answers, right?

If your friend said that something was evil, would you agree with her, since it was evil relative to them and that's all that matters, or would it be okay for you to try and convince her that it's not evil, if it doesn't seem evil to you?

For instance, let's pretend that your friend recently got a stepmother whom she hated, and she calls her stepmother "her evil stepmother." However, the stepmother seems to you to be really nice and she's trying her hardest to be the best stepmother she can be... she just has big shoes to fill and your friend is still in denial that the divorce, let's say, happened.

Would you believe that the word "evil" is misused there? If you think it is misused, how would it be better used in context?

Would you try to comfort your friend and tell her that it's not that bad? Or would you allow that friend to believe that her stepmother was evil, since evil is a matter of perspective and you cannot change her perspective on these things? Or maybe you believe that you can change her perspective... but wouldn't this mean that you're imposing on her perspective of evil, and thus denying her the ability of making her own decisions? When would it be okay to impose your perspective of feelings? When would it NOT be okay?

Maybe you would just ignore the situation entirely. If this is the case, and evil is in the eye of the beholder, aren't you abandoning your friend while she is confronting her perception of evil? Or maybe you don't take her seriously. If this is the case, then why not? When would you take her seriously? Why?

Maybe you do take her seriously and talk with her about how evil her stepmother is. In this case, would the stepmother become evil in your eyes as well? Or would you be just pretending to sympathize with your friend by pretending that her stepmother was evil when she is, as you know, not evil? Would you consider this to be a necessary lie? Why?

Let's say, instead of talking about a person, we are talking about an inanimate object instead. How do your answers change?

It is a bit tricky! Fortunately, we don't have to wade through theology to come up with answers, right? ;)

If your friend said that something was evil, would you agree with her, since it was evil relative to them and that's all that matters, or would it be okay for you to try and convince her that it's not evil, if it doesn't seem evil to you?

For instance, let's pretend that your friend recently got a stepmother whom she hated, and she calls her stepmother "her evil stepmother." However, the stepmother seems to you to be really nice and she's trying her hardest to be the best stepmother she can be... she just has big shoes to fill and your friend is still in denial that the divorce, let's say, happened.

Would you believe that the word "evil" is misused there? If you think it is misused, how would it be better used in context?

Would you try to comfort your friend and tell her that it's not that bad? Or would you allow that friend to believe that her stepmother was evil, since evil is a matter of perspective and you cannot change her perspective on these things? Or maybe you believe that you can change her perspective... but wouldn't this mean that you're imposing on her perspective of evil, and thus denying her the ability of making her own decisions? When would it be okay to impose your perspective of feelings? When would it NOT be okay?

Maybe you would just ignore the situation entirely. If this is the case, and evil is in the eye of the beholder, aren't you abandoning your friend while she is confronting her perception of evil? Or maybe you don't take her seriously. If this is the case, then why not? When would you take her seriously? Why?

Maybe you do take her seriously and talk with her about how evil her stepmother is. In this case, would the stepmother become evil in your eyes as well? Or would you be just pretending to sympathize with your friend by pretending that her stepmother was evil when she is, as you know, not evil? Would you consider this to be a necessary lie? Why?

Let's say, instead of talking about a person, we are talking about an inanimate object instead. How do your answers change?

Dreamwalker Admin

Dreamwalker · Sep 7, 2011

This could be seen as true to a certain degree, Snoink. The thing is, though, that if we should take evil is such a term, we should also take love in such a term. One says they love their mother and in the same breath they could say they love a taco.

When one thinks of evil in the sense of something being... not generally nice, then we aren't really using the term in its correct origins.

Now, on the subject of evil in the Christian standpoint, I don't really think we could say otherwise. Its a word to term the concept or 'wrong'. Their belief system revolves around their own ideology of right and wrong whether or not, to us, it means the same

That being said, do you believe in a certain kind of evil? A certain wrong that you shouldn't do? If so, does that evil or wrongness revolve around a certain bit of morality? As someone who doesn't believe in Natural Law, I believe that morality is something we are taught. Goods and bads are things we learn. Its why people's ideals differentiate on certain subjects, like cruelty to animals per se. Some can shoot a deer without feeling anything while others cringe at the very thought of it. Its all in how you were raised and what culture you grew up in.

So evil, in its correct term, is whatever you make of it. As well as love.

This could be seen as true to a certain degree, Snoink. The thing is, though, that if we should take evil is such a term, we should also take love in such a term. One says they love their mother and in the same breath they could say they love a taco.

When one thinks of evil in the sense of something being... not generally nice, then we aren't really using the term in its correct origins.

Now, on the subject of evil in the Christian standpoint, I don't really think we could say otherwise. Its a word to term the concept or 'wrong'. Their belief system revolves around their own ideology of right and wrong whether or not, to us, it means the same

That being said, do you believe in a certain kind of evil? A certain wrong that you shouldn't do? If so, does that evil or wrongness revolve around a certain bit of morality? As someone who doesn't believe in Natural Law, I believe that morality is something we are taught. Goods and bads are things we learn. Its why people's ideals differentiate on certain subjects, like cruelty to animals per se. Some can shoot a deer without feeling anything while others cringe at the very thought of it. Its all in how you were raised and what culture you grew up in.

So evil, in its correct term, is whatever you make of it. As well as love.

Blink

Blink · Sep 7, 2011

Naturally, "good" and "evil" have no empirical definitions in secular thought, but it doesn't stop me from using the terms. I freely call Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and all the rest "evil" because they committed atrocious acts against humanity, and most people (thankfully, almost everyone) would agree that genocide is evil. Of course morality is relative, but it's relative to the society and, being a product of that society, the terms may be used by people with various degrees commitment; one might call a certain war evil, while others would call it good - hence a debate ensues and hopefully a reasonable synthesis emerges. If it doesn't, then this is will be due to socioeconomic factors that shape the debaters' perspectives.

Good and evil should be reclaimed by humanists and employed if there are prospects for some level of consensus.

Snoink

Snoink · Sep 7, 2011

Good and evil should be reclaimed by humanists and employed if there are prospects for some level of consensus.

But -- and this is what is hard to wrap my mind around -- according to humanism it seems like good and evil are simply labels that you put on things if you want to convince people to do a certain thing. Stalin, for example, is evil, therefore we must stop him. Having healthy people around is good, therefore we should implement a universal healthcare. Those sorts of arguments.

But, from what it seems like to me, according to the humanist nothing can be good or evil by itself. It's kind of like that cliche where you say, "If a tree falls and nobody is in the forest, does it make a sound?" Obviously, this is a bad analogy, but it seems that the humanist, if he were consistent, would say, "No, it doesn't for there is no one to perceive the sound." Like this, one has to be present to perceive good or evil. Evil cannot exist by itself and good cannot exist by itself, according to the humanist.

Is this a logical assumption to make?

[quote]Good and evil should be reclaimed by humanists and employed if there are prospects for some level of consensus.[/quote]

But -- and this is what is hard to wrap my mind around -- according to humanism it seems like good and evil are simply labels that you put on things if you want to convince people to do a certain thing. Stalin, for example, is evil, therefore we must stop him. Having healthy people around is good, therefore we should implement a universal healthcare. Those sorts of arguments.

But, from what it seems like to me, according to the humanist nothing can be good or evil by itself. It's kind of like that cliche where you say, "If a tree falls and nobody is in the forest, does it make a sound?" Obviously, this is a bad analogy, but it seems that the humanist, if he were consistent, would say, "No, it doesn't for there is no one to perceive the sound." Like this, one has to be present to perceive good or evil. Evil cannot exist by itself and good cannot exist by itself, according to the humanist.

Is this a logical assumption to make?

Blink

Blink · Sep 7, 2011

I think it's definitely an interesting point - and it's probably true!

Whether or not a tree makes a sound is possibly more practical than whether or not something is evil - it's concrete and so there would be measurable effects, if infinitely small. Even if we begin to ask "what is a sound?", coming to all sorts of conclusions involving what vibrations would count as sounds (given that sounds too are an abstract construction), and then what counts as a vibration (etc, etc...), it cannot be denied that a sound has some sort of effect.

By contrast, moral labels are simply a reflection of the world upon language. The only reason we would need to describe something as evil would be, as you say, to make an argument; morality is a measurement of the world, whereas, for example, sounds are that which are measured (although, just as you cannot measure time in metres, you cannot measure sounds as good or evil). So in reflection of that, I'd say that, without an argument, whether something is evil or not is meaningless:

action/potential action (a belief) => judgement (good or evil) => argument to convince others

And in that chain, the judgement is defined exclusively by our solipsism, our view of the world, and the use of morality to form an argument is based on the impact of the world on emotion, and thus the mind.

Does that sort of make sense? I think I started to lose myself somewhere!

I think it's definitely an interesting point - and it's probably true!

Whether or not a tree makes a sound is possibly more practical than whether or not something is evil - it's concrete and so there would be measurable effects, if infinitely small. Even if we begin to ask "what is a sound?", coming to all sorts of conclusions involving what vibrations would count as sounds (given that sounds too are an abstract construction), and then what counts as a vibration (etc, etc...), it cannot be denied that a sound has some sort of effect.

By contrast, moral labels are simply a reflection of the world upon language. The only reason we would [i]need[/i] to describe something as evil would be, as you say, to make an argument; morality is a measurement of the world, whereas, for example, sounds are that which are measured (although, just as you cannot measure time in metres, you cannot measure sounds as good or evil). So in reflection of that, I'd say that, without an argument, whether something is evil or not is meaningless:

action/potential action (a belief) => judgement (good or evil) => argument to convince others

And in that chain, the judgement is defined exclusively by our solipsism, our view of the world, and the use of morality to form an argument is based on the impact of the world on emotion, and thus the mind.

Does that sort of make sense? I think I started to lose myself somewhere! :P

inkwell

inkwell · Sep 10, 2011

That depends on your definition of "evil" of course.

The important thing to make clear in the context of this club is that in ethics it is impossible to follow a moral authority such as God when determining what actions are right or wrong (good or evil...).

Jennya

Jennya · Sep 13, 2011

I do have a idea of what 'good' and 'evil' is but I wholly understand that they might not be so to others. Stalin to me was a bad man, a dictator but an idealist but on the other hand Lenin and Trotsky where not evil, just a little consumed in their ideals ( in my opinion anyway).

I usually would say what I though was acceptable at the moment. But I would never say that ones stepmother is 'evil' I would try to try and get my friend to be rational and see ti though the other persons point of view. Then let them make there own choice.

The thing is that I know for a fact that I'm not 'good', I strive to be but I understand that I like all people will fall short.

Snoink

Snoink · Sep 13, 2011

The important thing to make clear in the context of this club is that in ethics it is impossible to follow a moral authority such as God when determining what actions are right or wrong (good or evil...).

That's not necessarily true, I think... I am speaking philosophically here. Aristotle wrote his Ethics book with the premise that there was a higher good. He did not believe in the Christian God, of course, but many Christians believe that this higher good is incarnated in God. And you'll find that many other religions share this same trait where deities are shown to be the highest good. So, it's a matter of definitions being tricky again so they use his books heavily in determining their philosophy.

Obviously, as atheists, you do not believe in God being good since you don't believe in God at all, nor would I expect you to, but you must realize that what is considered to be "good" is considered to be a variety of things by many people and that those with religious convictions often incarnate ideas such as "good" into deities. I think most atheists here will say that, instead of following God for a moral code, they follow a relativistic moral code which is formed both by their own personal experiences and by the culture that they grew up in.

While you may reject the idea of being led by a personal god which can speak to you directly, because our culture does take elements of religious ideas it is very probable that you do, in some weird sense, follow this moral authority of "God" as it were, since you probably live in the Western culture and are influenced by this theistic code. While, to you, God would not be a living force at all, His authority, through the people who actively follow Him and who actively control the government policies which we live under, would affect you. However, it is true that "God" would be just as an abstract word as "good" or "evil" as there is no such thing, to you, as God -- again, it's just a matter of word choice.

I suppose you can say tear it down and build it up again, but... uh... I agree with Descartes here, when he says this is a bad idea. As John Lennon said, "You say you got a real solution? Well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan." Revolution, without any way to build it back up again quickly, is detrimental in the long run, and in the desperation of anarchy, it's very probable that people will cling to the old ideas and stop all the progress of the new ideas. So, probably not a good idea, that.

[quote]The important thing to make clear in the context of this club is that in ethics it is impossible to follow a moral authority such as God when determining what actions are right or wrong (good or evil...).[/quote]

That's not necessarily true, I think... I am speaking philosophically here. Aristotle wrote his Ethics book with the premise that there was a higher good. He did not believe in the Christian God, of course, but many Christians believe that this higher good is incarnated in God. And you'll find that many other religions share this same trait where deities are shown to be the highest good. So, it's a matter of definitions being tricky again so they use his books heavily in determining their philosophy.

Obviously, as atheists, you do not believe in God being good since you don't believe in God at all, nor would I expect you to, but you must realize that what is considered to be "good" is considered to be a variety of things by many people and that those with religious convictions often incarnate ideas such as "good" into deities. I think most atheists here will say that, instead of following God for a moral code, they follow a relativistic moral code which is formed both by their own personal experiences and by the culture that they grew up in.

While you may reject the idea of being led by a personal god which can speak to you directly, because our culture does take elements of religious ideas it is very probable that you do, in some weird sense, follow this moral authority of "God" as it were, since you probably live in the Western culture and are influenced by this theistic code. While, to you, God would not be a living force at all, His authority, through the people who actively follow Him and who actively control the government policies which we live under, would affect you. However, it is true that "God" would be just as an abstract word as "good" or "evil" as there is no such thing, to you, as God -- again, it's just a matter of word choice.

I suppose you can say tear it down and build it up again, but... uh... I agree with Descartes here, when he says this is a bad idea. As John Lennon said, "You say you got a real solution? Well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan." Revolution, without any way to build it back up again quickly, is detrimental in the long run, and in the desperation of anarchy, it's very probable that people will cling to the old ideas and stop all the progress of the new ideas. So, probably not a good idea, that.

inkwell

inkwell · Sep 14, 2011

I see where you're going Snoink, but methinks you misunderstood me.

(Even if I believed in God) I would not look to God as a moral authority. Think of it like this: when I see my doctor, I trust his expertise and judgment when it comes to medicine. He is an authority. The reason I trust him as an authority is because he has legitimate credentials. His authority can be independently tested against something else. God on the other hand has absolutely nothing to back his authority, and we have no way of testing his authority.

Another problem often cited (by Socrates I believe) is this: Is something good because God says it is, or does God say it's good because it is good?

If God deems an action good because it already is good, then we don't need God for our ethics. Things are good independent of God.

On the other hand if something is good simply because God said so, then what if he said rape was good? Would you honestly rape someone? Now reference the previous argument, can God really serve as a moral dictator in the first place? (And I don't mean that necessarily in the political sense.)

Before you say, "inkwell, God would never say rape is a good thing!" Why not? Is that because you feel rape is a bad thing? You can't claim God wouldn't commend rape because it's immoral, because in this case, the only requirement for morality is that God decides it.

To go even further with this: before Moses received the the commandments, did he not know murder was bad? I mean think about that. On the flip side, many people believe slavery is wrong. But there's nothing in the Bible to reinforce that. On the contrary, there are passages that seem to condone it.

And finally, why would you determine your morals on something that, to say the least, is intellectually unsettled?

I see where you're going Snoink, but methinks you misunderstood me.

(Even if I believed in God) I would not look to God as a moral authority. Think of it like this: when I see my doctor, I trust his expertise and judgment when it comes to medicine. He is an authority. The reason I trust him as an authority is because he has legitimate credentials. His authority can be independently tested against something else. God on the other hand has absolutely nothing to back his authority, and we have no way of testing his authority.

Another problem often cited (by Socrates I believe) is this: Is something good because God says it is, or does God say it's good because it is good?

If God deems an action good because it already is good, then we don't need God for our ethics. Things are good independent of God.

On the other hand if something is good simply because God said so, then what if he said rape was good? Would you honestly rape someone? Now reference the previous argument, can God really serve as a moral dictator in the first place? (And I don't mean that necessarily in the political sense.)

Before you say, "inkwell, God would never say rape is a good thing!" Why not? Is that because you feel rape is a bad thing? You can't claim God wouldn't commend rape because it's immoral, because in this case, the only requirement for morality is that God decides it.

To go even further with this: before Moses received the the commandments, did he not know murder was bad? I mean think about that. On the flip side, many people believe slavery is wrong. But there's nothing in the Bible to reinforce that. On the contrary, there are passages that seem to condone it.

And finally, why would you determine your morals on something that, to say the least, is intellectually unsettled?

Snoink

Snoink · Sep 14, 2011

I think you misunderstand either me or my intentions. You do not believe that God exists, I do -- who cares? We follow different authorities, and that puts us under different sets of rules of how we conduct our lives -- and I respect that. I am not going to argue why those in India should follow rules that the United States set up when we are speaking in India. That would be ridiculous. Similarly, I would not do the same in an atheist/agnostic club.

Nor am I really interested in arguing a religious point here and turning this into a discussion about the validity of the bible. This is an atheist/agnostic club. If I want to discuss the bible in any particular way, I would go to a Christian club. Heck, I made a Roman Catholicism club, in fact (though, I think you'll be very disappointed in how little we use our bible to determine our doctrine). Anyway, if you want to discuss the finer points of the Christian religion, I would direct you to those areas.

Instead, my primary goal here is to discuss metaphysics... more particularly in this case, the metaphysics of ethics, or metaethics, as that is the study of what is considered to be good and bad. You stated something interesting about the metaethics that sounded strange to me, so I wanted to explore the nature of your comment. Rest assured, I am not going to lob bible quotes at you or try to convert you. I just want to understand what you said and examine your ideas critically. What can I say? I am an engineer. We like to tear things apart and see how well they can be reconstructed again.

With that said, there are two things that you said which are interesting to me. The first one is shorter, so I'll delve into this first. When you talked about ethics, it seemed that you believed that ethics determined what was good and what was bad. This is the definition of ethics, after all. But... um... there are different ethical systems. I am not talking in the theistic sense, I am talking in the general ethics sense. Depending on which perspective you choose to take, the ethics can change dramatically. So, when you speak of ethics, which perspective of this ethics are you taking? It seems that you don't endorse in ethics with an absolute perspective (which is the kind of ethics that theology generally advocates). This is a completely valid form of ethics, but obviously you (and many other people) do not agree with taking this position. So... what would be your ethical perspective?

And also, I think you misunderstand my first point. You say that you would trust a doctor's credentials and believe he is an authority of things because his credentials show this. That is good!

However, what I was trying to say is that many people who are in positions of authority -- in particular, moral authority who can make decisions involving ethics today -- sometimes look to God as an authority, and in particular as a moral authority. Whether they are should or should not look to God as an authority is irrelevant. Whether God exists or not is also irrelevant. Replace God with the words "Flying Monkey Barf Butt." I don't care. If someone follows authority from Flying Monkey Barf Butt, this means that it is possible to follow authority from Flying Monkey Barf Butt. And, if in their perception, Flying Monkey Barf Butt truly exists as a living entity. Do you believe in this? No. But, if this person wishes to follow this moral authority by Flying Monkey Barf Butt, he is entitled to do so according to ethics. It's legitimate -- ethics with an absolute perception.

Now, if we believe that culture helps define our morals, then we can see that, if someone with authority establishes the moral code for something -- a nation, a company, whatever -- and yet follows the authority of Flying Monkey Barf Butt, then the morals are going to be based off of what Flying Monkey Barf Butt says. Those who follow this moral code then will adopt the moral code of Flying Monkey Barf Butt. Because ethics is often culturally inherited and we tend to do things within our culture, then most likely, even if we don't believe in Flying Monkey Barf Butt, we'll assimilate to the code anyway.

...do you see what I am saying?

Anyway, my point is that if you, as an atheist, cannot accept a moral authority from a particular deity of sorts, then you would have to deny every authority that comes from authorities who believe that religion is real. I am not saying that you should believe in God, just like I am saying you shouldn't believe in Flying Monkey Barf Butt. I am just saying that you should probably accept that, whether you like it or not, religion is a big force for people and it definitely affects the ethics... probably even your own personal ethics is tainted from religion in some way or another. After all, you do not live in a vacuum. And this is okay. Just be sure to analyze the ethics and determine whether it is just or not, that is all. Don't follow moral codes blindly, but don't reject moral codes blindly either. Thinking is good in these cases.

Now, the second bit: let's talk about good being good, which is an idea that you brought up. This is an interesting tautological statement that you've said. However, by using this tautological statement, you indicate that, for good to be good, this is a universal, unconditional truth. This is a kind of strange idea, if you think about it critically. Either, by saying that good is good, you are using circular reasoning (which is fallacious) or indicating that there is absolute truth. If there is absolute truth, then you run into problems.

As I've said before in other threads, one of the main arguments for God not existing is that there is no absolute truth. There is no truth -- everything is based on perspective. The concept of good only exists in the mind, the concept evil only exists in the mind, etc. Everything is merely perspective. While there are many philosophers (especially Christian philosophers) see the allegory of Plato's Cave as being an allegory for finding what is truth (remember that Christians are of the belief that God is truth), other philosophers can see this as a metaphor that shows that reality is never real -- what appeared to be real in the cave was merely what could be perceived and that it is possible to be led out of an infinite amount of caves. Again, there is no truth -- everything is based off of perception.

However, with this idea of good being good, that kind of throws a monkey wrench into this argument. If good is really good, then there is a universal, unconditional truth. So, while there may be those who perceive this truth wrongly, that does not mean that there is no truth.

...do you see what I am saying?

Anyway, if there is absolute truth, then many of the arguments for the existence of a higher truth may become valid. And then it also kind of implies that, if there is a notion that good is good, there is in fact a higher moral authority. Maybe not in God as the Christians believed in, of course, but if there is a good that is universal and unconditional, as the tautology of your statement implies in, it points to the fact of a higher moral authority. After all, if good can be good, this means also that bad can be bad. And it also implies that there are bad things you can do and there are good things you can do, and that the good things that you do are good and the bad things that you do are bad.

Again, I guess you can say there is actual truth and that it occurs in the scientific or mathematical world only and that all matters of philosophy are just based on opinions by philosophers, and thus be in agreement with Nietzsche. However, if this is the case and science is your only way of proving whether something is or isn't, then you run into the problem where you cannot actually prove your own existence. After all, the reason why many people believe in God is because He said, "I AM" and they believe that He was. You can scoff of this, of course, but then you hit a problem: the only way you know that you may exist is by saying, "I AM." Or, as Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." (In fact, this is Descartes starting point for the existence of God... but I digress.)

If this is the case, then everything that you can figure out with science may be wrong since it's based on the very fact of your existence being real. If you do not exist, then the science truths that can be determined are as real as a dream. If you do exist, then they may be real, but then again, they may not. After all, science is never factual -- just based on sound evidence. And I know that sounds slightly bizarre, but trust me. As a scientist/engineer myself (I am a biochemical engineer, so I did lots of work in genetics) I can say that there are tons of contradictions in the scientific community about certain things and, though there are established theories, every once in a while we tear them down and reconstruct them again on a different premise.

But then, that leads to another interesting development, since this means you would believe in the existence of things which can be proven through science, but not actually human existence. Socrates talked about it in his Apology:

Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings? ... I wish, men of Athens, that he would answer, and not be always trying to get up an interruption. Did ever any man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses? or in flute-playing, and not in flute-players? No, my friend; I will answer to you and to the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself. There is no man who ever did. But now please to answer the next question: Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?

He cannot.

Of course, it's quite possible that this was just a misuse of words for you and you don't really believe in absolute goodness or truth? I realize that it's very likely that you were trying to be kind to me by examining my beliefs using assumptions that you thought I might use! If this is the case, then I apologize... you probably have guessed this by now, but I adore discussing metaphysics to a fault.

If you're curious about my belief in this matter, a quick and dirty summary is that I believe that there is absolute truth and absolute goodness, and I also believe that God is Absolute Good and Absolute Truth. I believe He commands us to be good because He wants us to be in communion with Him, and the only way He can do this effectively, since He is absolutely good, is for us to be good as well. In this way, I believe you get can get around the Euthyphro dilemma... though I am not sure. Let me read Plato's Euthyphro, and I'll get back to you on this, okay?

I don't want to make any false assumptions here!

And, yes, this is a complete over-simplification of my belief and I can go into much more depth than just this, but at this point, I kind of want to avoid turning this thread into a Catholic apologetics discussion, so you'll forgive me if I don't. ^_^;; If you would like to discuss this matter further, you can talk with me personally or ask in the Christian clubs... I suggest the Roman Catholicism club, mostly because I run it and I am thus biased, but whatever. I promise I don't bite.

Anyway, those were the two points of intrigue I found when reading your response to my response.

As far as your other questions go? I'll look up Plato's Euthyphro. Mind you, from what I read of Plato, I should point out that I disagree with Plato on several points (though I agree with him in others). I rather prefer Aristotle over Plato, actually. He was the first person who really developed the idea of the scientific method, after all! ^^;;

I think you misunderstand either me or my intentions. You do not believe that God exists, I do -- who cares? We follow different authorities, and that puts us under different sets of rules of how we conduct our lives -- and I respect that. I am not going to argue why those in India should follow rules that the United States set up when we are speaking in India. That would be ridiculous. Similarly, I would not do the same in an atheist/agnostic club.

Nor am I really interested in arguing a religious point here and turning this into a discussion about the validity of the bible. This is an atheist/agnostic club. If I want to discuss the bible in any particular way, I would go to a Christian club. Heck, I made a Roman Catholicism club, in fact (though, I think you'll be very disappointed in how little we use our bible to determine our doctrine). Anyway, if you want to discuss the finer points of the Christian religion, I would direct you to those areas.

Instead, my primary goal here is to discuss metaphysics... more particularly in this case, the metaphysics of ethics, or metaethics, as that is the study of what is considered to be good and bad. You stated something interesting about the metaethics that sounded strange to me, so I wanted to explore the nature of your comment. Rest assured, I am not going to lob bible quotes at you or try to convert you. I just want to understand what you said and examine your ideas critically. What can I say? I am an engineer. We like to tear things apart and see how well they can be reconstructed again. ;)

With that said, there are two things that you said which are interesting to me. The first one is shorter, so I'll delve into this first. When you talked about ethics, it seemed that you believed that ethics determined what was good and what was bad. This is the definition of ethics, after all. But... um... there are different ethical systems. I am not talking in the theistic sense, I am talking in the general ethics sense. Depending on which perspective you choose to take, the ethics can change dramatically. So, when you speak of ethics, which perspective of this ethics are you taking? It seems that you don't endorse in ethics with an absolute perspective (which is the kind of ethics that theology generally advocates). This is a completely valid form of ethics, but obviously you (and many other people) do not agree with taking this position. So... what would be your ethical perspective?

And also, I think you misunderstand my first point. You say that you would trust a doctor's credentials and believe he is an authority of things because his credentials show this. That is good! :)

However, what I was trying to say is that many people who are in positions of authority -- in particular, moral authority who can make decisions involving ethics today -- sometimes look to God as an authority, and in particular as a moral authority. Whether they are should or should not look to God as an authority is irrelevant. Whether God exists or not is also irrelevant. Replace God with the words "Flying Monkey Barf Butt." I don't care. If someone follows authority from Flying Monkey Barf Butt, this means that it is possible to follow authority from Flying Monkey Barf Butt. And, if in their perception, Flying Monkey Barf Butt truly exists as a living entity. Do you believe in this? No. But, if this person wishes to follow this moral authority by Flying Monkey Barf Butt, he is entitled to do so according to ethics. It's legitimate -- ethics with an absolute perception.

Now, if we believe that culture helps define our morals, then we can see that, if someone with authority establishes the moral code for something -- a nation, a company, whatever -- and yet follows the authority of Flying Monkey Barf Butt, then the morals are going to be based off of what Flying Monkey Barf Butt says. Those who follow this moral code then will adopt the moral code of Flying Monkey Barf Butt. Because ethics is often culturally inherited and we tend to do things within our culture, then most likely, even if we don't believe in Flying Monkey Barf Butt, we'll assimilate to the code anyway.

...do you see what I am saying?

Anyway, my point is that if you, as an atheist, cannot accept a moral authority from a particular deity of sorts, then you would have to deny every authority that comes from authorities who believe that religion is real. I am not saying that you should believe in God, just like I am saying you shouldn't believe in Flying Monkey Barf Butt. I am just saying that you should probably accept that, whether you like it or not, religion is a big force for people and it definitely affects the ethics... probably even your own personal ethics is tainted from religion in some way or another. After all, you do not live in a vacuum. And this is okay. Just be sure to analyze the ethics and determine whether it is just or not, that is all. Don't follow moral codes blindly, but don't reject moral codes blindly either. Thinking is good in these cases.

Now, the second bit: let's talk about good being good, which is an idea that you brought up. This is an interesting tautological statement that you've said. However, by using this tautological statement, you indicate that, for good to be good, this is a universal, unconditional truth. This is a kind of strange idea, if you think about it critically. Either, by saying that good is good, you are using circular reasoning (which is fallacious) or indicating that there is absolute truth. If there is absolute truth, then you run into problems.

As I've said before in other threads, one of the main arguments for God not existing is that there is no absolute truth. There is no truth -- everything is based on perspective. The concept of good only exists in the mind, the concept evil only exists in the mind, etc. Everything is merely perspective. While there are many philosophers (especially Christian philosophers) see the allegory of Plato's Cave as being an allegory for finding what is truth (remember that Christians are of the belief that God is truth), other philosophers can see this as a metaphor that shows that reality is never real -- what appeared to be real in the cave was merely what could be perceived and that it is possible to be led out of an infinite amount of caves. Again, there is no truth -- everything is based off of perception.

However, with this idea of good being good, that kind of throws a monkey wrench into this argument. If good is really good, then there is a universal, unconditional truth. So, while there may be those who perceive this truth wrongly, that does not mean that there is no truth.

...do you see what I am saying?

Anyway, if there is absolute truth, then many of the arguments for the existence of a higher truth may become valid. And then it also kind of implies that, if there is a notion that good is good, there is in fact a higher moral authority. Maybe not in God as the Christians believed in, of course, but if there is a good that is universal and unconditional, as the tautology of your statement implies in, it points to  the fact of a higher moral authority. After all, if good can be good, this means also that bad can be bad. And it also implies that there are bad things you can do and there are good things you can do, and that the good things that you do are good and the bad things that you do are bad.

Again, I guess you can say there is actual truth and that it occurs in the scientific or mathematical world only and that all matters of philosophy are just based on opinions by philosophers, and thus be in agreement with Nietzsche. However, if this is the case and science is your only way of proving whether something is or isn't, then you run into the problem where you cannot actually prove your own existence. After all, the reason why many people believe in God is because He said, "I AM" and they believe that He was. You can scoff of this, of course, but then you hit a problem: the only way you know that you may exist is by saying, "I AM." Or, as Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." (In fact, this is Descartes starting point for the existence of God... but I digress.)

If this is the case, then everything that you can figure out with science may be wrong since it's based on the very fact of your existence being real. If you do not exist, then the science truths that can be determined are as real as a dream. If you do exist, then they may be real, but then again, they may not. After all, science is never factual -- just based on sound evidence. And I know that sounds slightly bizarre, but trust me. As a scientist/engineer myself (I am a biochemical engineer, so I did lots of work in genetics) I can say that there are tons of contradictions in the scientific community about certain things and, though there are established theories, every once in a while we tear them down and reconstruct them again on a different premise.

But then, that leads to another interesting development, since this means you would believe in the existence of things which can be proven through science, but not actually human existence. Socrates talked about it in his [i]Apology[/i]:

[quote]Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human things, and not of human beings? ... I wish, men of Athens, that he would answer, and not be always trying to get up an interruption. Did ever any man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses? or in flute-playing, and not in flute-players? No, my friend; I will answer to you and to the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself. There is no man who ever did. But now please to answer the next question: Can a man believe in spiritual and divine agencies, and not in spirits or demigods?

He cannot. [/quote]

Of course, it's quite possible that this was just a misuse of words for you and you don't really believe in absolute goodness or truth? I realize that it's very likely that you were trying to be kind to me by examining my beliefs using assumptions that you thought I might use! If this is the case, then I apologize... you probably have guessed this by now, but I adore discussing metaphysics to a fault.

If you're curious about my belief in this matter, a quick and dirty summary is that I believe that there is absolute truth and absolute goodness, and I also believe that God is Absolute Good and Absolute Truth. I believe He commands us to be good because He wants us to be in communion with Him, and the only way He can do this effectively, since He is absolutely good, is for us to be good as well. In this way, I believe you get can get around the Euthyphro dilemma... though I am not sure. Let me read Plato's [i]Euthyphro[/i], and I'll get back to you on this, okay? :) I don't want to make any false assumptions here!

And, yes, this is a complete over-simplification of my belief and I can go into much more depth than just this, but at this point, I kind of want to avoid turning this thread into a Catholic apologetics discussion, so you'll forgive me if I don't. ^_^;; If you would like to discuss this matter further, you can talk with me personally or ask in the Christian clubs... I suggest the Roman Catholicism club, mostly because I run it and I am thus biased, but whatever. I promise I don't bite.  :)

Anyway, those were the two points of intrigue I found when reading your response to my response.

As far as your other questions go? I'll look up Plato's [i]Euthyphro[/i]. Mind you, from what I read of Plato, I should point out that I disagree with Plato on several points (though I agree with him in others). I rather prefer Aristotle over Plato, actually. He was the first person who really developed the idea of the scientific method, after all! ^^;;

Your thoughts on the concept of Evil please :)

About / Info

Forums & RPG

Literary

Resources