Godlessness and choice

[anonymous person]

Now you're getting close to what I believe. All religions, gods, and scriptures are manmade. As is science, for that matter. These are all products of the human mind. I'm a little more generous. They all have failings, but they have successes, too.

Who do you say that Jesus is?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

If you justify everything by good or evil, you will be forever combatants in a polarized war.

Except, that duality governs human psyche.

Most people cannot, and do not, think beyond two choices. My favorite example of this is voting for lesser of two evils, or having a gun pointed to your head to make a seriously unfathomable decision.

In the first case, the general human psychology will not allow one to see the third option (abstaining from voting - a right of voting also.) In the second case, the general human psychology seldom entertain the choices of taking a bullet, or even trying to take the gun.

The entirely of pedestrian education is focused on dualistic psychology. So, there should be no wonder why everything is in "black or white." Indeed, we live our lives such that we unconsciously place ourselves in one of two accepted categories of life.

Duality (in this case, good vs evil) drives humanity. Humanity isn't ready for tertiary, quarterary, or any other reality proposing mutiple choices. Those "options" have always been programmed out of the mind of the people. And, we cannot be in unity, because we have no idea what that means.

So, we are only left with duality - even if we don't subscribe to it - in order to describe significant situations and conditions in a way that another person will be able to process and understand.

It is actually the introduction of those persons that may consider something greater than duality that are the objects of polarized psychological war. The addition of a "third+" option, or the option to be unified, is the object of disdain - not duality. That is why we have such nice terms, phrases and institutions to control those types of mentalities.

In terms of the OP, to me it is just incredibly interesting the entire issue. Conflicts in psychology ironically ignore the other facets that feed the conflict - even rejecting the entertainment thereof.

 

[jayem]

Who do you say that Jesus is?

A moral teacher. Like Zoroaster, or the Buddha, or Socrates, or Lao Tzu. And just like them, a human being. Not a god, and not supernatural.

 

[anonymous person]

A moral teacher. Like Zoroaster, or the Buddha, or Socrates, or Lao Tzu. And just like them, a human being. Not a god, and not supernatural.

Why do you think Jesus was a moral teacher? What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?

 

[jayem]

Why do you think Jesus was a moral teacher? What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?

I've done some Bible study. I believe there was a Rabbi Yeshua, and some--though probably not all--of the saying attributed to him in the Bible are generally accurate. Just like I believe some of the teachings of the Buddha (who also left no writings himself) were accurately recorded. And that Plato did the same with the dialogues of Socrates. But I don't for a minute believe that the rabbi performed miracles, or returned to life after being dead.

 

[anonymous person]

But I don't for a minute believe that the rabbi performed miracles, or returned to life after being dead.

Why not?

 

[jayem]

Why not?

Let me ask you one. Do you believe that centuries before Jesus, a tribe of ancient Israelites somehow made their way across the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean and settled in what is now the US? And that after the resurrection, Jesus came and preached to them, and established a church here just as he did in Judea?

 

[anonymous person]

Let me ask you one. Do you believe that centuries before Jesus, a tribe of ancient Israelites somehow made their way across the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean and settled in what is now the US? And that after the resurrection, Jesus came and preached to them, and established a church here just as he did in Judea?

That's a great question. Do you want to answer the question I asked? Why do you not think that rabbi Yeshua performed miracles, or returned to life after being dead?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Most of the godless people I meet today (including agnostics and atheists in that) consider science and choice as the pillars of reality.

I would broadly agree with the science portion of that. However, I don't really know what you mean by choice.

I've tried to respond to your main points, but I keep running into the "choice" problem. Your whole post is founded on this idea that atheists consider choice as a "pillar of reality". I don't really agree with that and I don't really know what you mean by that.

I have 3 main issues with this godless understanding of choice.

1) It seems to contradict the scientific appraisal of reality as being somehow determined by environment, evolution and circumstance.

Pure scientific determinism was abandoned a long time ago. I don't think any scientist today anymore agrees with a pure clockwork universe. It's been shown to be wrong.

You may be misunderstanding the whole choice thing.

Most progressives (who also often happen to be irreligious) do not hold up "choice" as the pillar, they hold up "non-judgement" and "mutual respect" as the pillars. Whether it is a choice or not is irrelevant. In fact, many of the "don't judge" arguments are born from the idea that these "moral choices" are not choices at all. For example, many people argue that transgenderism and homosexuality are biologically-determined and are emphatically not choices. If you ascribe to this view then it becomes awfully difficult to judge someone for being homosexual: it's like judging them for being black or having red hair.

The social sciences (sociology and psychology) have never claimed to be deterministic sciences. The best they can show is that, given a set of cultural, biological, and environmental influences, an individual may be predisposed to a certain type of behaviour. For example, if you grow up in a home where neither of your parents work or show any strong work ethic, then you are predisposed to have a poor work ethic. You are still able to choose to work hard. There is no deterministic force causing you to be unable to work hard.

2) It is rather selective in what it chooses e.g. the mother choice of her own personal convenience over that of the life of her child.

Abortion is a really sticky, complex moral issue because it is actually two competing moral issues wrapped into one. There really isn't any catch-all moral rule that can be applied to abortion in my opinion. Also, it is worth keeping in mind that, I think both pro-life and pro-choice people can agree: a world with fewer abortions is a better one. It is just that the pro-life people have decided that the best way to achieve this goal is by restricting abortions (or making them full-on illegal) while pro-choice people have decided that the best way to achieve this goal is by providing free/subsidized birth control, counselling services, family planning centers, etc.

As far as I know, no one wants an abortion. The long term goal is not more abortions. No one has a baby girl and dreams that one day she will get knocked up at 16 and have to decide whether to have an abortion or not.

Do you have another example of the selective choosing other than abortion?

3) It has no ultimate authoritative foundation that does not change.

No it does not. Some variant of the Golden Rule appears in nearly all cultures and has survived through thousands of years of civilization and has been upheld by most major moral teachers. Seems about as close as we are going to get.

 

[Ron Gurley]

OP QUESTION: Why are the choices accepted by "godless" people so selective in terms of what is acceptable and what (is) not.

A: Beacause they ARE "godless"...without a changed spirit within them...no spiritual guidance...no Divine Example to follow...they have spiritually REJECTED God!

Their morals / ethics are relative and ever changing with the social "world", the "sin nature", and the "devil".

God's character and attributes are unchanging and unchangeable.

God demands a spiritual CHOICE of ALL:

1 Chronicles 28:9...King David to his wise son upon passing his kingdom
“As for you, my son Solomon,
know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind;
for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.
If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but
if you forsake Him, He will reject you.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today,
that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse.
So CHOOSE LIFE in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

 

[Ron Gurley]

POST#49: " Golden Rule appears in nearly all cultures and has survived through thousands of years of civilization and has been upheld by most major moral teachers. Seems about as close as we are going to get.

The "Golden Rule" is ONLY good Man-to-Man advice given by Jesus the Christ during His Sermon on the Mount to the curious, unbelieving crowds.

What about Man-to-God commandments!?!

Matthew 22:37
And He (Jesus) said to him (rich young ruler),
‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’

Matthew 7:12...Jesus!
“In EVERYTHING, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you,
for this is the (Mosaic) Law and the (OT) Prophets.(main theme!)

Prayer and the Golden Rule

Matthew 7:
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you;
seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8 For everyone who asks receives, and
he who seeks finds, and
to him who knocks it will be opened.

 

[jayem]

That's a great question. Do you want to answer the question I asked? Why do you not think that rabbi Yeshua performed miracles, or returned to life after being dead?

You know my answer. I'm a naturalist. I don't believe in supernatural occurrences. Jesus's miracles are mythological embellishments that were added to make the narrative more compelling. Do you think I should believe them? Another example: I believe that Siddhartha Gautama, AKA the Buddha, was a real man, who lived in northern India in the 5th century BC. There are millions of followers of the religion (or maybe philosophy) that has been built around his teachings. Buddhist scripture says that he ascended into heaven for a week to preach to the soul of his deceased mother, and then returned to his ministry on earth. Do you think this is believable? And what about the Israelite tribe living in America, and Jesus returning to preach to them? That's from the Book of Mormon. Should I believe that also? Virtually all of the many world religions have their legends of supernatural happenings. Why should any of them be believed?

 

[anonymous person]

You know my answer. I'm a naturalist. I don't believe in supernatural occurrences. Jesus's miracles are mythological embellishments that were added to make the narrative more compelling. Do you think I should believe them? Another example: I believe that Siddhartha Gautama, AKA the Buddha, was a real man, who lived in northern India in the 5th century BC. There are millions of followers of the religion (or maybe philosophy) that has been built around his teachings. Buddhist scripture says that he ascended into heaven for a week to preach to the soul of his deceased mother, and then returned to his ministry on earth. Do you think this is believable? And what about the Israelite tribe living in America, and Jesus returning to preach to them? That's from the Book of Mormon. Should I believe that also? Virtually all of the many world religions have their legends of supernatural happenings. Why should any of them be believed?

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

It causes me to wonder...why do you think that supernatural occurrences can't happen?

 

[jayem]

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

It causes me to wonder...why do you think that supernatural occurrences can't happen?

Inductive reasoning. People have always made up supernatural reasons for what wasn't understood. Things like diseases, weather, earthquakes, eclipses, and many other events were once thought to be the work of god's, or spirits, or the like. But as our knowledge improved, we now know that all these are perfectly natural phenomena. A supernatural explanation has never been shown valid for anything. So why should I believe anything supernatural ever has happened, or will happen?

 

[Ron Gurley]

Post #54:"So why should I believe anything supernatural ever has happened, or will happen?

That's the whole point. A-theists, AG-nostics,
NAT-uralists, HUM-anists and the LIKE have only one
"belief system":
"God does NOT exist" and anything related to SPIRIT and SOUL is not "provable".

 

[jayem]

Post #54:"So why should I believe anything supernatural ever has happened, or will happen?

That's the whole point. A-theists, AG-nostics,
NAT-uralists, HUM-anists and the LIKE have only one
"belief system":
"God does NOT exist" and anything related to SPIRIT and SOUL is not "provable".

I'm a naturalist. I would state my belief system like this: I believe that everything in the universe is purely a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Particles and their interactions are all there is. Which would mean that I reject the existence of any kind of supernatural gods, spirits, or similar entities that are claimed to be beyond the realm of particles and the fundamental forces. I realize of course, that I can't prove this with absolute metaphysical certainty. But neither can the existence of a supernatural realm be proven.

 

[quatona]

Post #54:"So why should I believe anything supernatural ever has happened, or will happen?

That's the whole point. A-theists, AG-nostics,
NAT-uralists, HUM-anists and the LIKE have only one
"belief system":
"God does NOT exist" and anything related to SPIRIT and SOUL is not "provable".

So you can´t answer the question?

 

[mindlight]

I would broadly agree with the science portion of that. However, I don't really know what you mean by choice.

I've tried to respond to your main points, but I keep running into the "choice" problem. Your whole post is founded on this idea that atheists consider choice as a "pillar of reality". I don't really agree with that and I don't really know what you mean by that.

OK, to start with I think choice as a product of a God given free will is very different in concept from what is entertained as choice by the liberal atheist world. In practice in the USA for example you ask an atheist Democrat what he believes about origins and he will say evolution and ask him about what he thinks about alternate lifestyles, abortion etc and he will say it is all a matter of choice. But yes what he means by choice may well end up being different from the reality of choice as Christians understand it.

Pure scientific determinism was abandoned a long time ago. I don't think any scientist today anymore agrees with a pure clockwork universe. It's been shown to be wrong.

Newtonian mechanics is one form of determinism , to suggest that blind, irresistible but unpredictable forces shape the universe is another form of determinism.

You may be misunderstanding the whole choice thing.

There is going to be a variance about what people say about choice. Whenever you try and suggest a one size fits all definition for atheists then it is understandable if a large number of those same atheists then say - but that is not me! But I have tried to take the broad sociologically verifiable example of atheistic liberalism as the basis of choice. It is focused on the individual not God and assumes a capacity to choose alternate directions for self generated reasons.

Most progressives (who also often happen to be irreligious) do not hold up "choice" as the pillar, they hold up "non-judgement" and "mutual respect" as the pillars. Whether it is a choice or not is irrelevant. In fact, many of the "don't judge" arguments are born from the idea that these "moral choices" are not choices at all. For example, many people argue that transgenderism and homosexuality are biologically-determined and are emphatically not choices. If you ascribe to this view then it becomes awfully difficult to judge someone for being homosexual: it's like judging them for being black or having red hair.

Interesting but a person chooses to resists judgments made on them cause their preference is to do the activity which or be the person who is being judged. Non judgmentalism in that respect is the effort to say you have no right to judge my choices or sins. Scientifically there is not really any such thing as transgenderism as people either have male or female DNA whatever confusion occurs as a result of malformation, experiences or choices. But interestingly a person who says they are woman but have male DNA is making a choice to redefine themselves as something that they are scientifically and absolutely not. It is a good example where choice and science clearly contradict.

The social sciences (sociology and psychology) have never claimed to be deterministic sciences. The best they can show is that, given a set of cultural, biological, and environmental influences, an individual may be predisposed to a certain type of behaviour. For example, if you grow up in a home where neither of your parents work or show any strong work ethic, then you are predisposed to have a poor work ethic. You are still able to choose to work hard. There is no deterministic force causing you to be unable to work hard.

I would agree that sociology and psychology are more arts than sciences. But as with my OP you can point to certain patterns like the modern atheists predisposition to evolutionary science and liberal choice. Also I would actually agree that science cannot predict human behaviour in any kind of truly reliable way. The exception to scientific rules will always overthrow the absolute legitimacy of theories and render predictions uncertain. But most atheists will suggest that this is a result of just not knowing enough about how these processes work yet. While I as a Christian assume a transcendence to people made in Gods image and with the transcendence that implies that will always render merely naturalistic predictions dubious.

Abortion is a really sticky, complex moral issue because it is actually two competing moral issues wrapped into one. There really isn't any catch-all moral rule that can be applied to abortion in my opinion. Also, it is worth keeping in mind that, I think both pro-life and pro-choice people can agree: a world with fewer abortions is a better one. It is just that the pro-life people have decided that the best way to achieve this goal is by restricting abortions (or making them full-on illegal) while pro-choice people have decided that the best way to achieve this goal is by providing free/subsidized birth control, counselling services, family planning centers, etc.

As far as I know, no one wants an abortion. The long term goal is not more abortions. No one has a baby girl and dreams that one day she will get knocked up at 16 and have to decide whether to have an abortion or not.

We agree that less abortion is better than more. We may disagree on the effectiveness of having a law about this. Statistically abortion numbers exploded as a result of Roe v Wade or the 1967 British abortion act.

Do you have another example of the selective choosing other than abortion?

Transgenderism might be a good one. Scientifically a persons DNA says man or woman but a person may still make a choice in defiance of that scientific reality. Trans genderism is a clear example where a person insists on making a choice at odds with scientific reality.

 

[mindlight]

I disagree with "choice" as an aspect of reality. My layman's understanding of quantum mechanics makes me think that determinism isn't the whole story - the future behavior of particles cannot be precisely determined from their current observable state. However, I don't necessarily believe that I have a metaphysical soul that is making choices. If anything like that exists, I suspect it would be a universal soul such as God and we are all merely God's sock puppets. I can imagine other explanations for that gap in QM. For example, there might uncountable multiverses so that every possibility happens.

Anyway, I don't think it is accurate to claim that most godless people believe in "choice" as a pillar of reality. Most godless people imagine our brains to be biological computers.

EDIT: If anything it is the theists whose beliefs are incoherent. On the one hand they accept science. They buy tickets on airplanes instead of trying to spiritually teleport themselves to the destination. But on the other hand they believe that they have a soul that will continue to exist in an afterlife. They can't explain how the metaphysical soul interfaces to the physical brain. They can't find any evidence for the existence of these metaphysical souls. But they just keep on believing, because they don't want to be atheists.

It is always hard and some will suggest mistaken when an attempt is made to define a positive outlook to a group of people who mainly define themselves in terms of their opposition to the positive idea of God. However there are patterns in history where godless people have congregated around a positive atheistic outlook for a time before truth and circumstance have demolished those idolatries. Examples include Marxism, Nazism and modern Liberal Atheism.

Your inability to make solid predictions about the future could be due to the impossibility of a finite, imperfect and mortal actor from doing that or because you simply do not yet know enough. But either way that would not overrule the idea that scientific naturalism is essentially deterministic. By this understanding there is always a material cause for why you choose the things you choose. But the idea of choice does contradict that because it implies that you bring something extra to a situation that allows you contradict your programming. That science can never predict human beings behaviour to 100% accuracy is an empirical proof of the inadequacy of a merely naturalistic predictive model and implies the existence of a metaphysical dimension that modern science is simply not factoring in.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

OK, to start with I think choice as a product of a God given free will is very different in concept from what is entertained as choice by the liberal atheist world. In practice in the USA for example you ask an atheist Democrat what he believes about origins and he will say evolution and ask him about what he thinks about alternate lifestyles, abortion etc and he will say it is all a matter of choice. But yes what he means by choice may well end up being different from the reality of choice as Christians understand it.

You are painting with too broad a brush. You say "[The atheist Democrat] will say it is all a matter of choice."

I disagree. It is not a matter of choice. It is about non-judgement and the "do-no-harm" principle. Atheists (in general) accept "alternate lifestyles" like homosexuality and transgenderism because they don't seem to be harming anyone else.

Not all moral decisions are a "matter of choice" for atheists. Notice how no atheist is supporting someone's choice to be a cannibal because cannibalism inherently harms others.

Your whole premise about "matter of choice" is false from the get go.

Interesting but a person chooses to resists judgments made on them cause their preference is to do the activity which or be the person who is being judged. Non judgmentalism in that respect is the effort to say you have no right to judge my choices or sins.

You are dragging the Christian notion of "sin" into secularism.

People absolutely have the right to judge my choices and put me in prison if my choices harm others (i.e. murder, rape, etc.). But if my choices/decisions/preferences do not harm anyone else, then what is there to judge?

Scientifically there is not really any such thing as transgenderism as people either have male or female DNA whatever confusion occurs as a result of malformation, experiences or choices. But interestingly a person who says they are woman but have male DNA is making a choice to redefine themselves as something that they are scientifically and absolutely not. It is a good example where choice and science clearly contradict.

Derail (this probably belongs in a different thread):

I will say something here which is probably not a very popular opinion among many progressives: transgenderism has all the characteristics of a mental illness and is classified as such by psychologists and psychiatrists. To me, encouraging a gender dysphoric person to embrace their transgenderism is the same as encouraging a schizophrenic to embrace their delusions and hallucinations as real or an alcoholic to embrace their alcoholism and drink more.

Understanding something scientifically as a mental illness does not mean that I am making any moral judgement of their lifestyle. For example, I do not judge someone as immoral for having schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. But I think society is approaching the hot button topic of transgenderism from the wrong perspective: one of moral hyper-inclusivity rather than scientific and medical evidence.

By the way #1: There are also other legitimate biological birth defects which complicate the conversation (e.g. when a baby is born without proper genitalia or when a baby is born with an XXY chromosome (Klinefelter), etc.)

By the way #2: Homosexuality (the sexual preference for your own sex) is not the same thing and is less commonly accompanied by dysphoria. Homosexuality is a subjective preference rather than a claim of an objective state of being. Saying "I prefer dogs to cats" is different than saying "I am a dog". So homosexuality is emphatically not a mental illness.

I would agree that sociology and psychology are more arts than sciences. But as with my OP you can point to certain patterns like the modern atheists predisposition to evolutionary science and liberal choice. Also I would actually agree that science cannot predict human behaviour in any kind of truly reliable way. The exception to scientific rules will always overthrow the absolute legitimacy of theories and render predictions uncertain. But most atheists will suggest that this is a result of just not knowing enough about how these processes work yet. While I as a Christian assume a transcendence to people made in Gods image and with the transcendence that implies that will always render merely naturalistic predictions dubious.

I have no idea what you are saying or implying.

We agree that less abortion is better than more. We may disagree on the effectiveness of having a law about this. Statistically abortion numbers exploded as a result of Roe v Wade or the 1967 British abortion act.

A couple things about this:

1) When abortion was illegal there was no government mandated statistics on abortion. All illegal abortions went unreported. So the "explosion" after Roe v Wade may be slightly over-inflated (although I do think that there was an overall increase).

2) The rate reached it peak in 1980 and has been dropping ever since as sex education and the availability of better birth control options become more and more popular. The rate has been halved since 1980. Abstinence-only education has never been shown to work effectively.

Because it is legal, women and girls have the ability to talk to doctors about it, get counselling and receive support as they struggle through a very difficult moral decision. Abortion is a complex moral topic and has been one for thousands of years.

Transgenderism might be a good one. Scientifically a persons DNA says man or woman but a person may still make a choice in defiance of that scientific reality. Trans genderism is a clear example where a person insists on making a choice at odds with scientific reality.

See above comments.