Can we create moral choice through lies about ethics?

[WasatchMan]

In a recent podcast, Stefan asked the question:

 

Who would you rather talk morality with, an atheist or a Christian?

 

With the assertion that he would rather talk to Christians about morality because there are a lot of leftist determinist atheists out there that you cannot talk morality to. Besides being a false dichotomy, since I would only rather talk morality with people who derive it from logic, universals, and reasoned arguments, how can one even talk to a Christian about morality?  Morality is one of the major things Christianity should automatically disqualify you from a philosophical discussion of over.

 

While there are a lot of things that I will talk to Christians about, such as politics, economics, physics, personal issues, etc., morality is one thing I would rather not talk to Christians about. This is because Christians derive their morality from an all powerful god who blackmails them into either blindly accepting for an eternity in paradise or rejecting for an eternity in hell.  In other words, Christian ethics are derived from a lie.  They have short-circuited the need to prove anything about their morality, except for whether or not they know what god wants and can speak for it.  How can you have a talk about morality with someone who's ethical premise is "god says so".

 

Here is a moral gem from a Christian demonstrating his great ability to have moral conversations:

 

 

So how do you find out what God thinks? The Christian says, you look in the Bible. And the Bible tells us that God forbids homosexual acts. Therefore, they are wrong.

So basically the reasoning goes like this:

(1) We are all obligated to do God’s will.

(2) God’s will is expressed in the Bible.

(3) The Bible forbids homosexual behavior.

(4) Therefore, homosexual behavior is against God’s will, or is wrong.

 

-William Lane Craig

 

And here is some actual truth about morality, from an atheist:

 

 

"We create the possibility of moral choice by communicating truth about ethics to people."

 

- Stefan Molyneux

 

So, can we create the possibly of moral choice through lies about ethics?

[Kevin Beal]

I'm having a hard time parsing your question. By "create the possibility of moral choice", do you mean to say: form a logical basis for moral arguments? If so, the question can be rephrased to ask if lies can form the logical basis of a thing, which is obviously false.

 

"Because an all powerful deity said so" is obviously no basis for moral theories, and it's hard to say that religious people are truly acting morally if it's out of fear of hell, or to gain access to heaven. That is, if it's not principled, then is it really morality? I would say that hell no, it's not. (Pun not intended).

 

Even still, I would be infinitely more inclined to talk about morality with a religious person than with a nihilist. Nihilists of any variety make me feel like I'm slowly dying when I try and talk some sense with them. If there were a hell, it would be arguing ethics to a nihilist. (Or consciousness to a Functionalist, or naive realism to an advocate of idealism).

 

Obviously, not all atheists are nihilists, but a crap ton of them are. They may not know that's what it's called, or be in denial, referring to it as something like "moral relativism", "personal morality", or whatever other horse shit they tell themselves.

 

Religious people may be totally messed up on the methodology, but at least they have some sense of the effects of morality. Nihilists aren't wrong, they are a virus.

[WasatchMan]

I'm having a hard time parsing your question. By "create the possibility of moral choice", do you mean to say: form a logical basis for moral arguments? If so, the question can be rephrased to ask if lies can form the logical basis of a thing, which is obviously false.

 

"Because an all powerful deity said so" is obviously no basis for moral theories, and it's hard to say that religious people are truly acting morally if it's out of fear of hell, or to gain access to heaven. That is, if it's not principled, then is it really morality? I would say that hell no, it's not. (Pun not intended).

 

Even still, I would be infinitely more inclined to talk about morality with a religious person than with a nihilist. Nihilists of any variety make me feel like I'm slowly dying when I try and talk some sense with them. If there were a hell, it would be arguing ethics to a nihilist. (Or consciousness to a Functionalist, or naive realism to an advocate of idealism).

 

Obviously, not all atheists are nihilists, but a crap ton of them are. They may not know that's what it's called, or be in denial, referring to it as something like "moral relativism", "personal morality", or whatever other horse shit they tell themselves.

 

 

If you want to rephrase it like that it is fine with me, I think the way I stated it was fine but fair enough. I find your interpretations resulting from the rephrasing basically identical to the ones I had from my original phrasing, so lets carry on.  The question then comes to, is morality a derivative of good outcomes OR from a logical/universal ethical system.  If morality can only be described as a derivative of a logical/universal ethical system, then we can't call what Christians do morality.  Furthermore, as a pragmatic stance I do not waste much time talking effects with people before getting methodology.  In this internet age, if I want to find out about empirical data I will research it, not try to get it from someone who's fundamental epistemological and metaphysical premise is mysticism (aka the Bible).

 

This post is not intended to be a cost benefit analysis of religion vs nihilism. I stated in my post that this is a false dichotomy.  This post was intended to discuss philosophical universals around the nature of morality, and whether you can describe an ethical system derived from a lie morality.  It would seem that if morality could be derived from lies and effects, that would mean moral relativism was actually the correct stance, which I think you already correctly pointed out. 

 

So even if we rephrased Stefan's question to: "Would you rather talk morality to a Christian or a nihilist", I would assert the answer should be: "Neither, because you cannot talk morality to someone who's premises for morality are fundamentally flawed and whose ethical system is derived from a lie.  You can have a discussion of utilitarianism, but you cannot talk morality."

 

Religious people may be totally messed up on the methodology, but at least they have some sense of the effects of morality. Nihilists aren't wrong, they are a virus.

 

Isn't this an argument for moral relativism? I universally do not call good effects morality.

[Kevin Beal]

If you want to rephrase it like that it is fine with me, I think the way I stated it was fine but fair enough. I find your interpretations resulting from the rephrasing basically identical to the ones I had from my original phrasing, so lets carry on.

I'm not sure I understand why this statement is even necessary. I don't see what it explains or adds, unless it's some kind of leveling. But the rephrasing is not trivial. If I've correctly parsed your question, it's a loaded one. Like asking if people think things should be built on truth, or whether or not they want things built upon lies.

 

Further, if my interpretation of your question is correct, then why ask it? It's obviously true that nothing logical can be built on lies. You don't need to ask people to confirm.

 

Isn't this an argument for moral relativism? I universally do not call good effects morality.

You were correct the first time: I do not think effects are a valid basis for morality. I'm just saying that it's easier to talk about economics with a person who accepts that free markets are better for the world, even though the praxeological basis is not an argument from effect, but from principle.

 

So even if we rephrased Stefan's question to: "Would you rather talk morality to a Christian or a nihilist", I would assert the answer should be: "Neither, because you cannot talk morality to someone who's premises for morality are fundamentally flawed and whose ethical system is derived from a lie.  You can have a discussion of utilitarianism, but you cannot talk morality."

The question "would you rather..." is not a philosophical question. It's a question of preference. But I get your point that it's not actual morality if there is no methodology (beyond "god said so").

 

I don't know, but I was under the impression that he was talking about moral conclusions rather than a rational methodology for evaluating moral arguments. But he's done both plenty of times. He called into Michael Badnarik's call in show to discuss UPB with Michael's largely christian audience:

 

FDR1140 UPB - Stefan on the Michael Badnarik Show Part 1

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1140_20080903_Wed_Badnarik1.mp3

 

FDR1140 UPB - Stefan on the Michael Badnarik Show Part 2

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1141_20080903_Wed_Badnarik2.mp3

[WasatchMan]

I'm not sure I understand why this statement is even necessary. I don't see what it explains or adds, unless it's some kind of leveling. But the rephrasing is not trivial. If I've correctly parsed your question, it's a loaded one. Like asking if people think things should be built on truth, or whether or not they want things built upon lies.

 

Further, if my interpretation of your question is correct, then why ask it? It's obviously true that nothing logical can be built on lies. You don't need to ask people to confirm.

 

Your interpretation is correct, given your (correct) premise about morality.  To be honest, the issue I had with it is I thought you were trying to level, because it seemed like you were trying to rephrase my question as a tautology, and therefore minimize it. I may have been mistaken though.  I am sorry if I was.  The purpose of this topic was to have a dialogue on whether we can call what Christians do morality, and in general what universally can be called morality.  People can disagree with me and say that morality can be derived from fundamentally flawed ethical systems if they provide overall good effects. It may seem obvious to you and I am sorry if it was.  I do agree it is a pretty basic and obvious question, somewhat similar to asking "can you study the physical world without the scientific method". However, Stefan made the assertion that he would rather talk morality with Christians than atheists, so I found it relevant to try to have dialogue on what we can even call morality.

 

The question "would you rather..." is not a philosophical question. It's a question of preference. But I get your point that it's not actual morality if there is no methodology (beyond "god said so").

 

 

If we cannot call what Christians do morality, than it doesn't matter if it is a philosophical question or a preference.  You should not use the word morality to describe something that is categorically not morality, regardless of the context.  I am sure that you are aware that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their correct names. I think just this right here demonstrates how this question can provide some valuable answers even though it is so basic.

 

 

 

I don't know, but I was under the impression that he was talking about moral conclusions rather than a rational methodology for evaluating moral arguments. But he's done both plenty of times. He called into Michael Badnarik's call in show to discuss UPB with Michael's largely christian audience:

 

If you don't mind, I would be interested if you could flush out the difference between "moral conclusions" and "morality" for me.  I would assert that you also cannot call something a moral conclusion if it is not derived from a correct ethical system.  Am I missing a different type of moral category that can be derived from its effects rather than its methodology?

 

Thanks Kevin, I really do appreciate your thoughts.

[J. D. Stembal]

I like the idea that all theists and statists are 99.9% atheist, they just have to give up the last golden calf to attain rationality. With theists, it's the fantasy of the deity, mysticism or spirituality, with statists, it's the utilitarian propaganda of the state which they ferociously worship.

 

Choosing between the left or the right, the state and god, nihilism or conservatism is a false dichotomy, as I will chose neither. Similarly, I don't think we should be choosing between traditionalism or feminism with regard to the family. Indeed, they are different versions of the same social movement because women have always written the social rules. This is known as Briffault's Law.

 

I don't share the theory that marriage and family values evolved through biological necessity for the sake of raising children. Marriage comes out of a post-agricultural evolution of women's fertility requirements. When it became possible to grow a surplus of grain instead of living at subsistence, collecting berries and skinning animals, it fundamentally changed the way that women viewed male-female sexual relations.

 

It was now possible to establish a familial dynasty to hoard the benefits of the labors of men. Women have the eggs, and they write the social rules. In traditional marriage laws, the needs of the wife were paramount; husbands' and children's needs were secondary. Males and children are disposable and largely utilitarian entities for women. Men have evolved to play the role of the servant to the queen, since if men don't play along, they don't get any nookie.

 

Before marriage existed, humans societies were overtly matriarchal, and males had little role in parenting beyond fertilization. The very idea of paternity in modern hunter-gathers is unthinkable. No one knows who the biological father is because everyone in the tribe fucks each other on a regular basis. The men go out and hunt wild animals and socialize together while the women and children pick nuts, fungi and fruit. The tribe raises the collective. Even in antiquity, males were the more disposable of the species, the tool in the proverbial woodshed.

 

In my self-interest as a male, I have no desire to head back down the path of traditionalism, the former iteration of feminism. Nor do I want to go back to collective tribalism, which is now known as anarcho-communism. Until women cease to behave as egg terrorists holding our future for ransom, using their sexual monopoly on eggs as social currency, we will never be rid of the state, or be able to attain any standard of rational ethics.

[powder]

End, I think that is a very interesting post, I also think it should be the topic of another thread.  

 

Wasatchman, its still not clear to me what you are arguing for here though you are asking some good questions.  My understanding of morality is that it concerns itself with the NAP - if you are not assaulting, stealing, murdering or raping, you are living a moral life.  The fact that the Bible has all that stuff in it and is thought of to be some sort of moral tome for human living is a real problem for sure.  

 

Still, I talk to Christians about morality and not all Christians believe in the heaven/hell paradigm.  They still all have a twisted sense of ethics, just like statists do, because they hold onto morally contradictory tenets.  But I can still talk to Christians about morality just as I can talk politics with statists.  

 

So, what you saying is that if their understanding of morality is based on irrational and inconsistent information (bible stuff) then,...  what exactly?  

 

I don't like that your post is downvoted without explanation.  

[Delightful Might]

I read Joe Rowlands, "Morality Needs No God" fairly recently - excellent!

[WasatchMan]

Wasatchman, its still not clear to me what you are arguing for here though you are asking some good questions.  My understanding of morality is that it concerns itself with the NAP - if you are not assaulting, stealing, murdering or raping, you are living a moral life.  The fact that the Bible has all that stuff in it and is thought of to be some sort of moral tome for human living is a real problem for sure.  

 

Still, I talk to Christians about morality and not all Christians believe in the heaven/hell paradigm.  They still all have a twisted sense of ethics, just like statists do, because they hold onto morally contradictory tenets.  But I can still talk to Christians about morality just as I can talk politics with statists.  

 

So, what you saying is that if their understanding of morality is based on irrational and inconsistent information (bible stuff) then,...  what exactly?  

 

Thanks for the questions, powder.  I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position, and I think your questions really strike at the root of what I am trying to get at.

 

So morality to me is not a description of effects or actions detached from a methodology.  Morality and the methodology (ethics) used to reach moral conclusions are fundamentally intertwined to the point that I don't think the word "morality" should be used for conclusions reached not using a ethical framework based on and truth and universality.   The reason why we can say "if you are not assaulting, stealing, murdering, or raping, you are living a moral life" is not because those are floating absolutes on themselves, but because they are conclusions reached using a consistent philosophical framework known as the NAP or UPB.  You may be able to call them good pragmatic choices to make, but without the philosophical framework they should cease to be called moral conclusions.

 

Therefore, if I am correct that morality can only be ascribed to behavior resulting from a true methodology, than we shouldn't be calling behavior that is reached through a false methodology, morality. Just like when Stefan, rightly, corrects people when they use the word "love" to describe relationships that should not be associated with that word because it destroys the meaning of the word "love", I think using words like "morality", "values", "virtues", etc. detached from a true philosophical ethical framework also destroys the meaning of these words. 

 

This is why I used Stef quote "we create the possibility of moral choice by communicating truth about ethics to people", because I believe the only way you can actually make moral choices is through a true, philosophical, ethical system.  Choices made not following this methodology could be called religious, pragmatic, personal choices,  but not moral choices, because just like "love" we shouldn't be using the same word to describe two different, and opposite, things, especially something as important is morality, values, and virtues.

 

I hope this helps address your questions, and is not just my own tangent.  Please feel free to dig in deeper if I am missing something, or you disagree with my assertions.

[Mister Mister]

With the assertion that he would rather talk to Christians about morality because there are a lot of leftist determinist atheists out there that you cannot talk morality to. Besides being a false dichotomy, since I would only rather talk morality with people who derive it from logic, universals, and reasoned arguments, how can one even talk to a Christian about morality?  Morality is one of the major things Christianity should automatically disqualify you from a philosophical discussion of over.

 

  You show a lot of animosity towards people who call themselves Christian, and it seems to me you have concluded certain things about how they all think, conclusions which you will not test because you have "disqualified" them from discussion.  But you also say that you believe moral choices are created through understanding of ethics.  So it seems strange that you are advocating against any philosophical atheist/voluntaryist people to talk with Christians about ethics, while at the same time shaming Christians for being wrong about ethics, which by your admission they can't be at fault for unless they are exposed to the counter-arguments.  It just seems lacking in empathy/sympathy to me.  I was at one time, a determinist, a relativist, a socialist, into mysticism and other things, and now I'm not.  There are many former Christians or even current Christians who listen to this show and are active on these boards.  By your logic, should no one have ever tried to talk me out of these errors? 

 

  It seems to me the only thing that should ever disqualify a person from discussion of a particular topic is if they continually demonstrate abusive or manipulative behavior.  But this is not something we can know from their stated conclusions, only from engaging them.  Does that make sense?

 

Can I ask what is your history with religion?

 

So, can we create the possibly of moral choice through lies about ethics?

Of course.  For example if you disseminate the belief that the test of a person's guilt or innocence is whether or not they will float, that will have consequences in peoples' choices.  If this is the only concept of justice that people ever hear, to some extent they can't be blamed for acting upon it.  Is that what you mean?

[WasatchMan]

  You show a lot of animosity towards people who call themselves Christian, and it seems to me you have concluded certain things about how they all think, conclusions which you will not test because you have "disqualified" them from discussion.  But you also say that you believe moral choices are created through understanding of ethics.  So it seems strange that you are advocating against any philosophical atheist/voluntaryist people to talk with Christians about ethics, while at the same time shaming Christians for being wrong about ethics, which by your admission they can't be at fault for unless they are exposed to the counter-arguments.  It just seems lacking in empathy/sympathy to me.  I was at one time, a determinist, a relativist, a socialist, into mysticism and other things, and now I'm not.  There are many former Christians or even current Christians who listen to this show and are active on these boards.  By your logic, should no one have ever tried to talk me out of these errors? 

 

I would assert the "animosity" that you experiencing in this thread is on you, because shaming religious people is not the intent of this thread.  The intent of this thread is to have a rational discussion on whether ethics can be derived from falsities.  My audience for this thread was for philosophers, not religious people and is a technical question in nature. I am asking the epistemological question on the nature of what philosophy can call "morality" and "ethics".  Would you claim a scientist was exhibiting "animosity" towards a young earth creationist for saying they the cannot have a scientific discussion with a young earth creationist? Truth does not have any emotion, let alone "animosity".

 

  It seems to me the only thing that should ever disqualify a person from discussion of a particular topic is if they continually demonstrate abusive or manipulative behavior.  But this is not something we can know from their stated conclusions, only from engaging them.  Does that make sense?

 

 I think I have made it clear that I am willing to talk to Christians about pragmatic issues, but what I am not willing to do is call it a discussion on "morality" or "ethics" because their premises (i.e. faith and superstition) preclude them from a rational discussion on these topics.  Just like the premise of a 6000 year old universe precludes you from discussions on science.

 

 

Can I ask what is your history with religion?

 

 

I think that is fair.  My history with religion is rather minimal.  My mom when I was young thought it would be beneficial for our family to have an appreciation for god and got my family into Catholicism, and I was even baptized as a Catholic.  However my experience with Catholicism wasn't bad.  I even had a very rational Catholicism teacher at one point who taught us that the bible was not to be taken literally but was to be taken as parable.  Religion just seemed pretty goofy to me and it never stuck, but I have no animosity towards towards the people, I work, live, and thrive in a religious society (Mormon Utah). I just have the fortitude to have a strong opinion against non-sense and will continue to call non-sense what it is, non-sense. 

 

Sorry, I am not a politician, just an aspiring "thorn in your amygdala" philosopher.

 

 

Of course.  For example if you disseminate the belief that the test of a person's guilt or innocence is whether or not they will float, that will have consequences in peoples' choices.  If this is the only concept of justice that people ever hear, to some extent they can't be blamed for acting upon it.  Is that what you mean?

 

So this is the root of the matter.  Is ethics what works or is ethics what is true? I would assert that ethics can only be derived from truth, and anything else should be labeled as pragmatism.  This is a question about the language we use as philosophers. A scientist does not label young earth creationism a theory, and I am asserting that philosophers should not label behavior derived from lies ethics. 

[green banana]

Is ethics what works or is ethics what is true? I would assert that ethics can only be derived from truth, and anything else should be labeled as pragmatism.

 

I think it is helpful to distinguish between an ethical theory and the maxims it produces. Maxims are prescriptions 'brush your teeth' or prohibitions 'don't steal'. While the Christian / Islamic / Jewish ethical foundation is wrong, the believers practice maxims that can be in line with a rational ethical theory. It's not that they are doing something wrong, but that their justifications for their actions is flawed. I can see why it is easier to discuss ethics with somebody like that.

[WasatchMan]

I think it is helpful to distinguish between an ethical theory and the maxims it produces. Maxims are prescriptions 'brush your teeth' or prohibitions 'don't steal'. While the Christian / Islamic / Jewish ethical foundation is wrong, the believers practice maxims that can be in line with a rational ethical theory. It's not that they are doing something wrong, but that their justifications for their actions is flawed. I can see why it is easier to discuss ethics with somebody like that.

 

I think that this is a good point to make here.

 

One thing I am really trying to get across though is that you cannot call a conversation about "maxims" a conversation about "ethics" or "morality", if it is a rational conversation, the most you can call it is a conversation about pragmatic results.  I will attempt to put an example forward to why I would assert this:

 

Take Mormons and their strong position against divorce and holding families together.  The reason why the "maxim" exists is that God said so and if you do divorce you will lose your family in the afterlife and will likely be stuck in a lower level of the afterlife, never even able to get your own planet to rule over.

 

Now take Stefan's strong position against divorce and holding families together.  The reason why the "maxim" exists is that if you have brought other people into this world, you are directly responsible for them living and therefore are morally responsible for their well being.  Since you are morally responsible for their well being, and that divorce and family separation is proven to be detrimental to the well being of a child, divorce is wrong (excluding morally mitigating circumstances).  (This may not be exactly how Stef would look at this but I think he is pretty close to this line of reasoning).

 

The Mormon and Stef could have a conversation about their maxims, and the pragmatic results of holding the maxims, however they could not have a rational conversation about the ethics or morality behind this maxim.  This is because the Mormon has come to their conclusion through complete unreconciled non-sense (i.e. "God said so"), and Stef has derived his from ethical first principles.  If this is true, it is wrong to say that you can have rational conversations about ethics and morality with complelty flawed ethical systems, all you can have is a pragmatic conversations on the results of your maxims in the real world.

[green banana]

"all you can have is a pragmatic conversations on the results of your maxims in the real world."

But that is already a big step ahead from where some Atheists are who doubt the validity of said maxims.

[WasatchMan]

"all you can have is a pragmatic conversations on the results of your maxims in the real world."

 

But that is already a big step ahead from where some Atheists are who doubt the validity of said maxims.

 

Sure, but that still doesn't mean you can call it a conservation on ethics or morality.

[shirgall]

I find that people who claim the identities "atheist" or "christian" to be an orthogonal vector to people capable of having logical discussions or not. Who would you rather talk to about ethics? A Jesuit or a Communist?

[WasatchMan]

I find that people who claim the identities "atheist" or "christian" to be an orthogonal vector to people capable of having logical discussions or not. Who would you rather talk to about ethics? A Jesuit or a Communist?

 

The purpose of this thread is what the word ethics and morality applies to, good pragmatic results or a consistent logical system built from first principles.  I have no interest in comparing whether Jesuits or Communists are better.

[shirgall]

The purpose of this thread is what the word ethics and morality applies to, good pragmatic results or a consistent logical system built from first principles.  I have no interest in comparing whether Jesuits or Communists are better.

 

My point was that Jesuits are religionists that are trained heavily in logic, and Communists are areligionists that are systematically broken.

[Nathan Metric]

The difference between talking morality with Christians versus nihilists is that Christians merely have false information about the world whereas nihilists are hypocrites and a small subset of them are outright sociopaths.

 

Christians believe in the value of the truth. "I am the truth the way and the life". They merely are wrong about what the truth is

Nihilists do not believe in the value of the truth for its own sake, but only pursue the truth if the truth aids them in their will to power.

[WasatchMan]

The difference between talking morality with Christians versus nihilists is that Christians merely have false information about the world whereas nihilists are hypocrites and a small subset of them are outright sociopaths.

 

Christians believe in the value of the truth. "I am the truth the way and the life". They merely are wrong about what the truth is

Nihilists do not believe in the value of the truth for its own sake, but only pursue the truth if the truth aids them in their will to power.

 

Are you really going to tell me that following a 2000 year tomb that is obviously complete non-sense is the behavior of a people who value truth?  A belief system whose fundamental premise for metaphysics is having faith in a universal overlord to which there is no evidence for is the reflection of valuing truth?

 

Regardless, this is not the point of this thread.  I have mentioned I have no interest in comparing nihilist to Christians.  I even called it a false dichotomy in the OP.  The purpose of this thread is whether we can call a epistemological and metaphysically flawed system of behavior "morality".  To me this applies to both Christians and nihilist, with the difference that nihilist don't claim to be operating under morality.

[Nathan Metric]

Stupidity doesn't prove someone doesn't value the truth.

 

You want to understand Stefan's behavior? Okay then. You would have to allow yourself to start comparing groups then.

 

With Christians you are merely dealing with people who are stupid and ignorant. With nihilists you are dealing with people who are corrupt. It's a lot easier to talk morality with someone who is a fool than someone who is corrupt.

[WasatchMan]

Stupidity doesn't prove someone doesn't value the truth.

 

You want to understand Stefan's behavior? Okay then. You would have to allow yourself to start comparing groups then.

 

With Christians you are merely dealing with people who are stupid and ignorant. With nihilists you are dealing with people who are corrupt. It's a lot easier to talk morality with someone who is a fool than someone who is corrupt.

 

Common now.  I am talking about the fundamental premises of Christianity (that one must have faith) not individual stupid people.  The entire framework of religion itself is anti-rational and therefore has no place in ethical or moral conversations.

[Nathan Metric]

Believing in something without evidence is foolish. Not corrupt.

 

The only Christian I know that is outright "anti-rational" is Sye Ten Bruggencate, but he is a rarity amongst Christians. Hardly any Christians are that dense in rejecting the efficacy of man's mind.

[WasatchMan]

Believing in something without evidence is foolish. Not corrupt.

 

The only Christian I know that is outright "anti-rational" is Sye Ten Bruggencate, but he is a rarity amongst Christians. Hardly any Christians are that dense in rejecting the efficacy of man's mind.

 

What is your point? What does 'corrupt' have to do with this conversation? How do you think that these words you are using apply to this thread?

 

I am talking about philosophy not people.  A system built on faith is fundamentally anti-rational.  I give two shits about the people, I am talking about the ideas people follow and whether or not bad ideas with good results can be called morality and ethics. 

 

This is probably my last response to you unless you decide to actually address the topic at hand and not just random thoughts on good and bad Christians.

[Troubador]

One can have religious/ spiritual beliefs and still see value in reason. They are not mutually exclusive. Neither do religious beliefs automatically equate to stupidity. If that were so the considerable contribution to the sciences, arts and philosophy that men and women of faith have made over the millennia would not have occurred. Note it is not the case that having these beliefs equals intelligence either, just that one can be religious and be intelligent. One does not preclude the other.

 

You can keep ignorant where it is, everyone is ignorant about something, also a staggering number of religious people also manage to fit in a quite terrifying amount of corruption.

 

As to the central premise of being unable or unwilling to discuss morality/ethics with Christians (and I am assuming you count most religions there too, but willing to be corrected on that). Can I point out that depends on which Christians you speak to. There is tonnes of self contradiction in the bible, but there are also common sense guidelines that end up becoming bizarre points of faith in the modern world. Consider the prohibition on pork you find I the Old Testement/ Torah. Which modern day Christians mostly ignore, but you still see in practiced in some contemporary Jewish communities. Back in the day keeping pork safely stored and safe to eat was damnsome difficult so some bright spark probably came along and figured "I know if I stick this bit in our sacred text, people will stop giving themselves gastrointestinal distress, and the air will be a lot sweeter smelling for everyone". Some people still follow this rule today, despite it no longer being such a challenge to keep it safe to eat what with all the advances in refrigeration and general food preparation.

 

So too it could be viewed with morals /ethics, slap in some sound moral and ethical ideas that people can follow (like the golden rule for example) without thinking too hard about it and everybody benefits. If centuries later some other bright spark comes along and categorically generates logical and empirical proofs for morals and ethics, well that's of value intrinsically for everyone wether they are religious or not. Kind of like Gallelio's assertion of the earth being a sphere and not the center of the universe, and in fact it rotates around the Sun. I would assert precious few modern Christians would argue that wasn't true today.

[Nathan Metric]

Christians exist in reality. Christianity is an abstract concept. The actual behavior of Christians is more important than the logical implications of what they claim to follow.

 

This thread is related to Stefan asking a guy would he rather live with atheists or Mormons. The level of corruption each group has would matter in such a question. Who is more corrupt has EVERYTHING to do with the conversation.

[WasatchMan]

One can have religious/ spiritual beliefs and still see value in reason. They are not mutually exclusive. Neither do religious beliefs automatically equate to stupidity. If that were so the considerable contribution to the sciences, arts and philosophy that men and women of faith have made over the millennia would not have occurred. Note it is not the case that having these beliefs equals intelligence either, just that one can be religious and be intelligent. One does not preclude the other.

 

You can keep ignorant where it is, everyone is ignorant about something, also a staggering number of religious people also manage to fit in a quite terrifying amount of corruption.

 

As to the central premise of being unable or unwilling to discuss morality/ethics with Christians (and I am assuming you count most religions there too, but willing to be corrected on that). Can I point out that depends on which Christians you speak to. There is tonnes of self contradiction in the bible, but there are also common sense guidelines that end up becoming bizarre points of faith in the modern world. Consider the prohibition on pork you find I the Old Testement/ Torah. Which modern day Christians mostly ignore, but you still see in practiced in some contemporary Jewish communities. Back in the day keeping pork safely stored and safe to eat was damnsome difficult so some bright spark probably came along and figured "I know if I stick this bit in our sacred text, people will stop giving themselves gastrointestinal distress, and the air will be a lot sweeter smelling for everyone". Some people still follow this rule today, despite it no longer being such a challenge to keep it safe to eat what with all the advances in refrigeration and general food preparation.

 

So too it could be viewed with morals /ethics, slap in some sound moral and ethical ideas that people can follow (like the golden rule for example) without thinking too hard about it and everybody benefits. If centuries later some other bright spark comes along and categorically generates logical and empirical proofs for morals and ethics, well that's of value intrinsically for everyone wether they are religious or not. Kind of like Gallelio's assertion of the earth being a sphere and not the center of the universe, and in fact it rotates around the Sun. I would assert precious few modern Christians would argue that wasn't true today.

 

 

From the OP:

 

While there are a lot of things that I will talk to Christians about, such as politics, economics, physics, personal issues, etc., morality is one thing I would rather not talk to Christians about. This is because Christians derive their morality from an all powerful god who blackmails them into either blindly accepting for an eternity in paradise or rejecting for an eternity in hell.  In other words, Christian ethics are derived from a lie.  They have short-circuited the need to prove anything about their morality, except for whether or not they know what god wants and can speak for it.  How can you have a talk about morality with someone who's ethical premise is "god says so".

 

Did you read this? How can you even ask me these questions if you did?

 

My central point is that Christians (and yes all religions) behavioral system is fundamentally derived from the dictates of a made up fictional character.  To call the outcomes of that behavioral system, morality and ethics, is erroneous because I am claiming that morality and ethics are words used to describe behavioral system derived from truth, reason, and first principles, not ones derived through lies.

[WasatchMan]

Christians exist in reality. Christianity is an abstract concept. The actual behavior of Christians is more important than the logical implications of what they claim to follow.

 

Sorry, but faith and behavioral dictates derived from god (see 10 Commandments) are fundamental tenants to being a Christian.  I don't know how you can claim someone can be a Christian and not follow these tenants.  That would be like saying someone can be a soccer fan, but hate watching sports where people kick balls.

[Troubador]

Ahh I get you (sorry I was a bit slow there) a moral/ethical system founded on a lie (which in and of itself is a morally/ethically questionable act) cannot therefore produce a moral or ethical system. Hmmm assuming I've understood now, and apologies for not doing due dilligence earlier (ie reading!), I think again it depends on the Christian.

 

It all hinges on your use of the world lie. A lie requires intent to decieve, and seeing as the individual Christian concerned may have an earnest belief, as such their position is not one born out of an intent to decieve anyone. In fact despite having from your point of view an irrational belief, as long as the discussion is centered entirely on the logical and rational why should there be a problem? In fact I would go so far as to say there would be quite a receptive audience amongst many Christians to see a workable moral/ethical system founded on logic and reason to apply to their lives. After all they have the aspiration to morals and ethics ready built in.

 

As I said before you can talk about astrophysics with most modern christians without anyone jumping up and down about the earth being flat. Granted you might run into trouble with evolution in some circles, but not always. Remember though that Gallileo and Darwin are seperated by a good 150 years and religious thinking can move glacially slow at times. Correct me this UFB stuff is extremely new, and not even in the wider public consciousness yet, so I guess we'll see going forward.

[WasatchMan]

Ahh I get you (sorry I was a bit slow there) a moral/ethical system founded on a lie (which in and of itself is a morally/ethically questionable act) cannot therefore produce a moral or ethical system. Hmmm assuming I've understood now, and apologies for not doing due dilligence earlier (ie reading!), I think again it depends on the Christian.

 

No worries, I appreciate you correcting your error.

 

 

It all hinges on your use of the world lie. A lie requires intent to decieve, and seeing as the individual Christian concerned may have an earnest belief, as such their position is not one born out of an intent to decieve anyone. In fact despite having from your point of view an irrational belief, as long as the discussion is centered entirely on the logical and rational why should there be a problem? In fact I would go so far as to say there would be quite a receptive audience amongst many Christians to see a workable moral/ethical system founded on logic and reason to apply to their lives. After all they have the aspiration to morals and ethics ready built in.

 

So I am not using "lie" at all meaning that someone intends to deceive.  This topic really has nothing to do with people, so intentions don't matter.  What I am meaning is that the behavioral system followed by Christians is derived from a lie.  The lie that God exists and has demands on your behavior.  Not that people are lieing, but the methodology is fundamentally predicated on something that was just made up to control peoples behavior.  You cannot call a behavioral system that floats on made up non-sense, morality or ethics.

 

 

As I said before you can talk about astrophysics with most modern christians without anyone jumping up and down about the earth being flat. Granted you might run into trouble with evolution in some circles, but not always. Remember though that Gallileo and Darwin are seperated by a good 150 years and religious thinking can move glacially slow at times. Correct me this UFB stuff is extremely new, and not even in the wider public consciousness yet, so I guess we'll see going forward.

 

The reason why I said that I could talk to Christians about physics but not ethics and morality, is because the behavioral system saying that God created morality and ethics is fundamental to religion, where as facts about the physical environment are not fundamental to religion.  In other words, you cannot call yourself a Christian and not believe that God created morality, because that is essentially what religion is, a behavioral system backed by the power God.  And Christians know this.  That is why their number one complaint about Atheism is "If God does not exist, than objective moral values do not exist."  They do not parse words, and they are not kidding, and neither was Stefan when saying "We create the possibility of moral choice by communicating truth about ethics to people."

 

 

Like I said to Nathan, "faith and behavioral dictates derived from god (see 10 Commandments) are fundamental tenants to being a Christian.  I don't know how you can claim someone can be a Christian and not follow these tenants.  That would be like saying someone can be a soccer fan, but hate watching sports where people kick balls."

[Mister Mister]

 

That is why their number one complaint about Atheism is "If God does not exist, than objective moral values do not exist."  They do not parse words, and they are not kidding

 

But given that most atheist intellectuals are relativists, can't we have sympathy for this sentiment?

[WasatchMan]

 

But given that most atheist intellectuals are relativists, can't we have sympathy for this sentiment?

 

Sure, I can have sympathy towards a lot of things, but what I cannot do is change the meaning of words based on my sympathy,

[MMX2010]

A brief thought experiment for you, WastachMan. 

 

A scientist with a 250 IQ and a 19 hours-a-day work ethic has discovered a way to make people live 25% longer and be 25% happier.  It also reduces depression by a full 50%, and has a boatload of extraordinarily positive effects, with no negative side effects.  He publishes his paper to explain his discovery, and it's full of extremely esoteric vocabulary and confusing metaphors.  Grammatically, it's fine - but no one can accurately read it because of its prose-style. 

 

Fundamentally, the problem is: (1) that he's far too intelligent to communicate his discoveries in a way that average people can understand, and (2) that humanity would greatly benefit if only he could communicate better. 

 

Naturally, this is a sad situation, but who do you blame?  The scientist?  The audience?  No one? 

 

--------------------

 

What percentage of people do you think are smart enough AND sufficiently non-traumatized to genuinely understand morality?  My estimate is about 5%. 

 

I've no idea whether my 5% estimate is valid, but if it is, I can ask a very simple question with an obvious answer.  Would I rather that the 95% of people who don't understand morality: (1) behave as if they did - with the caveat that they'll only "come close" to behaving as if they actually did, since they actually don't OR (2) behave like dangerous, violent, psychopaths because they don't? 

 

Religion is nothing more than a way to make People Who Can't Understand Morality approximate (but never reach) The Virtuous Behaviors Of A Man Who Really Does Understand Morality.  Hence, I appreciate religion for what it is, without expecting it to be more than it is. 

[green banana]

Fundamentally, the problem is: (1) that he's far too intelligent to communicate his discoveries in a way that average people can understand, and (2) that humanity would greatly benefit if only he could communicate better. 

 

The scenario is flawed. Even if the assertions were correct, it would need to make predictions and describe an experiment that can verify it. As long as this is not provided, theories like that are discarded instantly.

[WasatchMan]

Naturally, this is a sad situation, but who do you blame?  The scientist?  The audience?  No one? 

 

I would think no one is to blame, given that the scientist really did try a lot of different avenues to communicate in a way that could be understood by others.

 

 

Religion is nothing more than a way to make People Who Can't Understand Morality approximate (but never reach) The Virtuous Behaviors Of A Man Who Really Does Understand Morality.  Hence, I appreciate religion for what it is, without expecting it to be more than it is. 

 

Maybe this true, but personally it doesn't really matter to me.  The argument for the ends justifying the means has never appealed to me as a proper way of analyzing things.  You can't universalize it and it is subject to an individuals application and ability to predict causal relationships of ideas affect to human society.  I don't have a crystal ball that actual knows the outcomes, so I will stick with what I do know.  I guess you could try to create (like so many before you)  a utilitarian measuring system to determine the most practical approach to all situations, but I don't think it is possible.

 

At least when we argue from universals, first principles, and the truth, we have an argument firmly grounded in reality.  Also, by taking the position that someone is incapable of understanding truth, you have taken away their autonomy to make these decisions themselves.  I would rather leave the door open to philosophy for those who can break out of the hive, than bar it shut in my general frustration for other peoples perceived inability to think.