Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[Ana the Ist]

If one believes in Jesus and let's pretend that is not true ... what are the "great consequences" of that "lie"?

It would certainly depend upon the depth of someone's faith and their interpretation of reality through the prism of their faith.

I only see "great consequences" from the other angle ... if Jesus is true then an atheist forfeits eternal life with God ... life after earthly death.

Well this is a rather extreme example....but you've heard of the Salem Witch Trials, right?

If we assume the believer never lets his belief influence his life at all....you're right, there's no big consequence to believing. That doesn't often seem to be the case though.

If Jesus is not true then we all turn to dust and that's it. Nothing beyond the grave.

Sure. I'm more concerned about consequences that we know are possible than ones we just imagine might be possible.

 

[eleos1954]

It would certainly depend upon the depth of someone's faith and their interpretation of reality through the prism of their faith.



Well this is a rather extreme example....but you've heard of the Salem Witch Trials, right?

If we assume the believer never lets his belief influence his life at all....you're right, there's no big consequence to believing. That doesn't often seem to be the case though.



Sure. I'm more concerned about consequences that we know are possible than ones we just imagine might be possible.

Yeah ... will different beliefs .... personally I count my relationship now and in the future with the Lord as a blessing and I look forward to being with Him and others in eternity. Everyone experiences good and bad consequences not matter what they believe.

 

[zippy2006]

Poverty doesn't have to refer strictly to material wealth for secular humanists either. We can take "need" to include psychiatric or "spiritual" (for lack of a better, secular word) help as well and it still works. We're all better off in a society that takes an interest in the physical, mental, and emotional welfare of both our neighbors and the strangers beyond our gates. We're a social species, after all. We should act like one.

Yes, but it's interesting that the West is approaching a point where we are materially, psychiatrically, and socially healthy, and yet still unhappy. In such a case an anthropological error is probable (such as, for example, the omission of the spiritual nature of man, or some other anthropological error in an analogous case).

I will grant you that loving God has no place in secular humanism, and I'm skeptical of anyone who says they love everyone they're working to help. We typically only have the capacity to even care about 90-100 individual people at one time.

"Love" is a complicated word with a complicated history and etymology. I don't think a secular has as good a grasp on it as a religious. Interestingly, I also don't think a secular (diocesan) priest has as good a grasp on it as a religious priest (or any professed religious). Generalizations, of course.

On the other hand, if someone loves God and the person they are serving but doesn't actually help them, that's an even more inappropriate sort of martyrdom.

"If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?" (James 2)

Even Mother Teresa's legacy was tainted when it came out that the medical care her mission in Calcutta provided did more harm than good.

I highly doubt that, and criticizing saints is tricky business. It all depends on how you measure harm and good, but the idea that Mother Teresa's missions did more harm than good is believed by no one, for good reason. The Indians, least of all.

It doesn’t, but it does support the idea that we should treat one another as though we do.

No rationalistic system can support an idea without supporting it. That's an analytic truth. The verbs "pretend" and "know" are never equivalent. Pretending is never a strong support.

I really appreciate the consistent length and quality of your posts, by the way. It's a worthy intellectual virtue that I sometimes miss myself.

 

[gaara4158]

Isn't that the situation we're talking about?

Failure to kill someone and steal their water will result in you dying of dehydration?

Because if you're going to tell me that the "humanitarian" thing to do would be to quietly die of thirst....

It brings us back to your original statement about "humanitarianism" always being "good"....and leads to the question "Good for whom?"

In this contrived scenario where a hostile guardian of the entire water supply cannot be persuaded to share or trade voluntarily during the hours before you die of thirst, and the water can’t be acquired without killing him, yes, killing him and freeing the water supply is justified under a secular humanist framework. I should hope this isn’t a common situation.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, but it's interesting that the West is approaching a point where we are materially, psychiatrically, and socially healthy, and yet still unhappy. In such a case an anthropological error is probable (such as, for example, the omission of the spiritual nature of man, or some other anthropological error in an analogous case).

I'm not sure it's the case that people rich in material wealth, mental health, and social connections make up a significant portion of the people who are chronically unhappy. I think most would categorize that as a mental health issue. Still, I can see a rich spiritual (or otherwise conscientious) lifestyle being essential to sustaining mental health, and that can easily fall by the wayside in a culture obsessed with productivity and appearances.

"Love" is a complicated word with a complicated history and etymology. I don't think a secular has as good a grasp on it as a religious. Interestingly, I also don't think a secular (diocesan) priest has as good a grasp on it as a religious priest (or any professed religious). Generalizations, of course.

I can imagine a secular humanist "loving everyone" by recognizing each individual as a unique, sentient product of the same incomprehensibly long, rare, and intricate natural process that produced the humanist himself. It would cause him to view others with the same awe and reverence we would an enormous diamond, or a particularly starry night. His deep appreciation for the absurd fortuitousness of his own existence would carry over to everyone he met. That's about as close as I can get to a love of all people and God from a secular perspective.

I highly doubt that, and criticizing saints is tricky business. It all depends on how you measure harm and good, but the idea that Mother Teresa's missions did more harm than good is believed by no one, for good reason. The Indians, least of all.

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion into a debate about Mother Teresa, but you should know there are some pretty serious criticisms against her legacy. I'm sure there are multiple sides to it, and we don't need to go down that road since you agreed to the point I was trying to make anyway, but here's the Wikipedia link for anyone who wants to go down that rabbit hole: Criticism of Mother Teresa - Wikipedia

No rationalistic system can support an idea without supporting it. That's an analytic truth. The verbs "pretend" and "know" are never equivalent. Pretending is never a strong support.

It's not that we're pretending, it's that our principles lead to the same kind of ethical guidelines that would be reached from the worldview that all humans are infinitely and unimpeachably valuable. We're not pretending that worldview is true, we're finding alternate rationalistic routes to some of its ethical implications.

I really appreciate the consistent length and quality of your posts, by the way. It's a worthy intellectual virtue that I sometimes miss myself.

I try to always reciprocate the quality of responses that I get in return for mine, so you should take it as a compliment!

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not sure it's the case that people rich in material wealth, mental health, and social connections make up a significant portion of the people who are chronically unhappy. I think most would categorize that as a mental health issue. Still, I can see a rich spiritual (or otherwise conscientious) lifestyle being essential to sustaining mental health, and that can easily fall by the wayside in a culture obsessed with productivity and appearances.

Okay sure, I agree with that. Granted, I was talking about societal resources, not specific people. You would think that a society so rich in those resources would 'produce' happy people.

I can imagine a secular humanist "loving everyone" by recognizing each individual as a unique, sentient product of the same incomprehensibly long, rare, and intricate natural process that produced the humanist himself. It would cause him to view others with the same awe and reverence we would an enormous diamond, or a particularly starry night. His deep appreciation for the absurd fortuitousness of his own existence would carry over to everyone he met. That's about as close as I can get to a love of all people and God from a secular perspective.

Right, that is well-put. Although it is more than many religious people achieve, it does not carry the potential for a God who knows each of our names directly and without mediation. Theologically it is the difference between deism and theism.

Yet if a secular person has such a perspective then they possess a wisdom that is beginning to approach natural knowledge of God. The trouble with Darwinism, in my unlearned opinion, is that it does not perceive man's relation to creation nearly as well as Genesis 1 & 2. Darwinism explains to us how a birthday cake is made. It has no concept of what a birthday cake is, or what it is for. It knows not what birthdays are.

I don't want to sidetrack this discussion into a debate about Mother Teresa, but you should know there are some pretty serious criticisms against her legacy. I'm sure there are multiple sides to it, and we don't need to go down that road since you agreed to the point I was trying to make anyway, but here's the Wikipedia link for anyone who wants to go down that rabbit hole: Criticism of Mother Teresa - Wikipedia

I do want to read more about this topic, but currently I view it as a few critics criticizing something that the vast majority of people believe/know is good. The best books and songs always escape critics. Beyond that, the non-Catholic Indian population has great esteem for her. Ironically I have more potential criticisms of her qua Catholic than qua humanist. I would say that if she erred it was theologically, not morally. If someone such as Christopher Hitchens thinks he is morally superior to Mother Teresa I will do naught but smile.

It's not that we're pretending, it's that our principles lead to the same kind of ethical guidelines that would be reached from the worldview that all humans are infinitely and unimpeachably valuable.

Sociologically it cannot help but be interesting that all current forms of moral imperialism come from the West which has Christian roots. Humanism has deeply Christian roots. Beyond that, though, I don't see how one system which believes in principle that human beings are infinitely valuable and one system which does not both come to the conclusion that human beings are infinitely valuable. I don't find that to be rationally tenable.

We're not pretending that worldview is true, we're finding alternate rationalistic routes to some of its ethical implications.

Your phrase, "...as though we do" seemed to imply pretension, which is why I used the word. Secular humanism clearly does try to find rational avenues to arrive at some of the same ethical implications that it admires in Christianity, that is true. The basic problem is that infinite value of anything is never an implication. All the secular humanist can really do is aim for valuing human beings highly, and then go on to argue that there isn't much difference between valuing highly and valuing infinitely. I don't think the last part works.

To return to the OP for a moment, I think what Smith is saying is that the humanist should stop pretending/claiming to have infinite value in his pocket. He doesn't. He can perform magic, but not miracles.

I try to always reciprocate the quality of responses that I get in return for mine, so you should take it as a compliment!

Oh, thank you kindly! But your posts are less volatile than mine, and less person-based and more even-handed. That is what I was trying to say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In this contrived scenario where a hostile guardian of the entire water supply cannot be persuaded to share or trade voluntarily during the hours before you die of thirst, and the water can’t be acquired without killing him, yes, killing him and freeing the water supply is justified under a secular humanist framework. I should hope this isn’t a common situation.

I'm surprised to hear that...

Are there no objective morals in your interpretation of secular humanism then?

 

[gaara4158]

I'm surprised to hear that...

Are there no objective morals in your interpretation of secular humanism then?

I’m not sure. As we’ve seen, we can invent situations by which any act that would be reprehensible on its own might be justified due to the circumstances. We can make objective moral statements within the framework of secular humanism, but I don’t know if that makes them objectively true outside of that framework. I don’t think so.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I’m not sure. As we’ve seen, we can invent situations by which any act that would be reprehensible on its own might be justified due to the circumstances. We can make objective moral statements within the framework of secular humanism, but I don’t know if that makes them objectively true outside of that framework. I don’t think so.

Why not just drop the framework then? I get that in the vast majority of situations, you'd say that "killing and robbing someone for water is morally bad"....I would too. We can't say that for every circumstance and person though...so we don't believe it to be objectively true.

So why not abandon the framework entirely and just decide what you think is good and bad according to subject and circumstances? Is it a comfort issue? A reassurance of sorts is be able to point out a moral framework and say "this is what I believe"?

 

[gaara4158]

Why not just drop the framework then? I get that in the vast majority of situations, you'd say that "killing and robbing someone for water is morally bad"....I would too. We can't say that for every circumstance and person though...so we don't believe it to be objectively true.

So why not abandon the framework entirely and just decide what you think is good and bad according to subject and circumstances? Is it a comfort issue? A reassurance of sorts is be able to point out a moral framework and say "this is what I believe"?

The secular humanist framework is basically the codification of the natural moral intuitions we all share naturally anyway. You might be able to do just as well flying by the seat of your pants, but the concern of this thread calls for more than that, so here we are.

 

[gaara4158]

Okay sure, I agree with that. Granted, I was talking about societal resources, not specific people. You would think that a society so rich in those resources would 'produce' happy people.

You'd think so, right? Unfortunately, I think it has something to do with a somewhat... skewed distribution of those resources within society.

Right, that is well-put. Although it is more than many religious people achieve, it does not carry the potential for a God who knows each of our names directly and without mediation. Theologically it is the difference between deism and theism.

Yet if a secular person has such a perspective then they possess a wisdom that is beginning to approach natural knowledge of God. The trouble with Darwinism, in my unlearned opinion, is that it does not perceive man's relation to creation nearly as well as Genesis 1 & 2. Darwinism explains to us how a birthday cake is made. It has no concept of what a birthday cake is, or what it is for. It knows not what birthdays are.

The secular perspective would truly be missing something spectacular about reality if the theist perspective turned out to be correct. But in practice, when it comes to forming ethical guidelines, I don't see enough difference between the two to really fuss about.

Sociologically it cannot help but be interesting that all current forms of moral imperialism come from the West which has Christian roots. Humanism has deeply Christian roots. Beyond that, though, I don't see how one system which believes in principle that human beings are infinitely valuable and one system which does not both come to the conclusion that human beings are infinitely valuable. I don't find that to be rationally tenable.

I have a number of issues with the concept of infinite value, but we can sidestep those for now to work within your structure. I don't think it's necessarily untenable to believe in "infinite value" via differing rational pathways, but I don't think it's even necessary for both of us to get there in the first place. You can start from a position that states human beings are infinitely valuable, and that position would have its own set of implications, including perhaps the Categorical Imperative. I, on the other hand, can start from a position that states humans ought to strive for a society in which we can all reasonably co-exist, and that would have its own implications, which might also include the Categorical Imperative. In this way, we both find that the CI is a useful tool for creating moral guidelines -- lofty ones, even -- even if we don't agree on the basis of morality itself.

Your phrase, "...as though we do" seemed to imply pretension, which is why I used the word. Secular humanism clearly does try to find rational avenues to arrive at some of the same ethical implications that it admires in Christianity, that is true. The basic problem is that infinite value of anything is never an implication. All the secular humanist can really do is aim for valuing human beings highly, and then go on to argue that there isn't much difference between valuing highly and valuing infinitely. I don't think the last part works.

That is indeed more or less my move, so we'll have to get into why you don't think it works.

To return to the OP for a moment, I think what Smith is saying is that the humanist should stop pretending/claiming to have infinite value in his pocket. He doesn't. He can perform magic, but not miracles.

I agree that infinite value isn't something that makes much sense, let alone from a secular humanist perspective. I think magic vs. miracles is an apt comparison. Magicians have shown that it doesn't take a miracle to walk on water, turn water into to wine, or even rise from the grave. I think lofty moral goals are more accessible to secular humanists than you give them credit for.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The secular humanist framework is basically the codification of the natural moral intuitions we all share naturally anyway. You might be able to do just as well flying by the seat of your pants, but the concern of this thread calls for more than that, so here we are.

Natural moral intuitions we all share naturally?

What exactly do you think the concern of this thread is?

 

[gaara4158]

Natural moral intuitions we all share naturally?

What exactly do you think the concern of this thread is?

The concern of this thread is whether atheists can construct a rational worldview that calls for lofty moral goals like universal human rights. It’s been my goal to do that these last few pages, and it takes more than “I feel it” to be convincing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The concern of this thread is whether atheists can construct a rational worldview that calls for lofty moral goals like universal human rights. It’s been my goal to do that these last few pages, and it takes more than “I feel it” to be convincing.

Is that really the topic? I don't know if you saw it...but I asked about the topic multiple times and never got an answer.

If that's the case, I think you'll find it difficult. It's not so much that atheists can't rationally construct an objective moral system ...no one can.

 

[zippy2006]

In this contrived scenario where a hostile guardian of the entire water supply cannot be persuaded to share or trade voluntarily during the hours before you die of thirst, and the water can’t be acquired without killing him, yes, killing him and freeing the water supply is justified under a secular humanist framework. I should hope this isn’t a common situation.

I don't mean to butt into your good conversation, but a Thomist perspective would describe this as a situation in which self-defense justifies the principle of double-effect. This "move" is available via the natural law, and does not depend on revelation.

I am going to dumb this down in a dangerous way, so don't quote me. The moral key is that you are not trying to kill the man, you are trying to drink water. If, in trying to drink water and keep yourself alive, you are attacked, self-defense is allowed. Ideally you would incapacitate the man rather than kill him, but if he attacks you viciously it may happen that you end up killing him in trying to defend yourself.

I think Ana rightly identifies a common problem with Humanitarianism: it neglects the proper love that one ought to have for oneself. Granted, many forms of Christianity are culpable of the same error.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't mean to butt into your good conversation, but a Thomist perspective would describe this as a situation in which self-defense justifies the principle of double-effect. This "move" is available via the natural law, and does not depend on revelation.

I am going to dumb this down in a dangerous way, so don't quote me. The moral key is that you are not trying to kill the man, you are trying to drink water. If, in trying to drink water and keep yourself alive, you are attacked, self-defense is allowed. Ideally you would incapacitate the man rather than kill him, but if he attacks you viciously it may happen that you end up killing him in trying to defend yourself.

I think Ana rightly identifies a common problem with Humanitarianism: it neglects the proper love that one ought to have for oneself. Granted, many forms of Christianity are culpable of the same error.

It seems like you're saying that the man dying of thirst isn't bad for stealing water....

And if the owner of the water fights him, he's not bad for fighting back...

Surely the owner of the water isn't bad either though? If they fight to keep their property from being stolen?

 

[gaara4158]

Is that really the topic? I don't know if you saw it...but I asked about the topic multiple times and never got an answer.

If that's the case, I think you'll find it difficult. It's not so much that atheists can't rationally construct an objective moral system ...no one can.

Yeah, I tend to agree that the system itself can’t be objectively true. I go back and forth on that. I prefer instead to define an intersubjectively agreeable system under which objective statements can be made.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I tend to agree that the system itself can’t be objectively true. I go back and forth on that. I prefer instead to define an intersubjectively agreeable system under which objective statements can be made.

I guess we'll have to consider other tributaries of ethical consideration, like Jesus Himself. What would He 'suggest' to solve these hypothetical moral instances involving contesting claims of severe thirst ... ?

 

[zippy2006]

It seems like you're saying that the man dying of thirst isn't bad for stealing water....

The extent to which water can be owned is highly arguable, even in our society (e.g. reservoirs, lakes, rivers, public works, "international waters," etc.).

Surely the owner of the water isn't bad either though?

A person who refuses water to one dying of thirst is bad. A person who claims to own, and then refuses, our most basic vital life force, to one who will die without it, is evil.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The extent to which water can be owned is highly arguable, even in our society (e.g. reservoirs, lakes, rivers, public works, "international waters," etc.).



A person who refuses water to one dying of thirst is bad. A person who claims to own, and then refuses, our most basic vital life force, to one who will die without it, is evil.

It amazes me that atheists and skeptics here have such difficulty figuring this out.