"Ought"

[anonymous person]

The most common objection to Christianity that I have heard goes something like,

God ought not to have wanted people to worship Him. Since He does, I cannot go along with that.

Of course you have the usual,

I am not a Christian because there is no evidence for it etc. etc. Now when pressed, most who say this will say that even if there were evidence, they still would not be Christian because ideas like worship, self-denial, and self-sacrifice which are part and parcel of Christianity just aren't their cup of tea.

All of these remarks carry with them the notion that something ought not to be the case, i.e. that God ought not do this or command that or this etc. Or that if God existed, the world ought not to be the way it is...

This implies that there is a way things ought to be which is the same as saying that there is a plan or a design behind it all.

So it seems to me that the only people that have a basis for making these types of statements are those that believe there is actually a planner or a designer behind it all.

Thoughts....

 

[Eudaimonist]

This implies that there is a way things ought to be which is the same as saying that there is a plan or a design behind it all.

That's not the same thing. Ought does not imply a plan or design.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[anonymous person]

Ought does not imply a plan or design.

Why not?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The most common objection to Christianity that I have heard goes something like,

God ought not to have wanted people to worship Him. Since He does, I cannot go along with that.
...
Thoughts....

You hang around some odd people. I have never heard that objection to Christianity.

 

[anonymous person]

You hang around some odd people. I have never heard that objection to Christianity.

You must not read people's posts.

A question for atheists

A question for atheists

A question for atheists

A question for atheists

A question for atheists

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Ought doesn't imply a planner. I'm not sure how that conclusion is even drawn.

 

[anonymous person]

Ought doesn't imply a planner.

Why not?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Why not?

Ought implies ideal conditions. Like the CO2 in the atmosphere ought to be lower to prevent the acidification of our oceans. Ideal for life all around the planet.

Or plants ought to provide more protein to preserve all plant life by satisfying the diet of large herbivorous and omnivorous animals (like the panda that spends 90% of its day eating bamboo)

Where does this imply that there's a plan or a planner? All it says is that there is a way things should be compared to the way things are.

 

[anonymous person]

Ought implies ideal conditions. Like the CO2 in the atmosphere ought to be lower to prevent the acidification of our oceans. Ideal for life all around the planet.

Or plants ought to provide more protein to preserve all plant life by satisfying the diet of large herbivorous and omnivorous animals (like the panda that spends 90% of its day eating bamboo)

Where does this imply that there's a plan or a planner? All it says is that there is a way things should be compared to the way things are.

Atheists do not use the word in the sense you are using it though.

They use it in the sense of moral obligation.

They say things like,

If God was good, He ought to appear to everyone in an undeniable way, or He ought not to have permitted slavery or He ought not have ordered such and such to be killed.

They are saying that in certain circumstances God would be morally obligated to act a certain way. In the absence of some competent authority to whom one is obligated, the concept of moral obligation is unintelligible. This competent authority decides what our moral duties are.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You must not read people's posts.

I don't really think you're reading that right. The objection is not that this god wants worship, but that he is not worthy of worship.

In any event, that thread is predicated on the hypothesis that Christianity is true, so these answers are hardly 'objections to Christianity'.

 

[Gracchus]

Atheists do not use the word in the sense you are using it though. They use it in the sense of moral obligation. They say things like, "If God was good, He ought to appear to everyone in an undeniable way, or He ought not to have permitted slavery or He ought not have ordered such and such to be killed."

Are we to take it that you disagree with such assertions?

They are saying that in certain circumstances God would be morally obligated to act a certain way.

People have been "morally obligated" to slay the Amalekites, to dash out the brains of babies, and burn those who disagreed. If I really want to do something you don't like, or refrain from something you want done, then ... Voila! I have a moral obligation.

In the absence of some competent authority to whom one is obligated, the concept of moral obligation is unintelligible. This competent authority decides what our moral duties are.

People who claim a "moral obligation" are disclaiming their own moral responsibility. If some deity tells me to kill a child I would tell that deity to shove his moral obligation where the sun don't shine. In short, I must be my own "competent authority" or give up the pretense of morality. But there would be a bright side: I could get a job tossing Zyklon-B into a shower room.

 

[anonymous person]

Are we to take it that you disagree with such assertions?

People have been "morally obligated" to slay the Amalekites, to dash out the brains of babies, and burn those who disagreed. If I really want to do something you don't like, or refrain from something you want done, then ... Voila! I have a moral obligation.
People who claim a "moral obligation" are disclaiming their own moral responsibility. If some deity tells me to kill a child I would tell that deity to shove his moral obligation where the sun don't shine. In short, I must be my own "competent authority" or give up the pretense of morality. But there would be a bright side: I could get a job tossing Zyklon-B into a shower room.

Seems you agree with me. Apart from a competent moral prescriber, the notions of moral prescriptions and moral duties and obligations are unintelligible.

 

[anonymous person]

I don't really think you're reading that right. The objection is not that this god wants worship, but that he is not worthy of worship.

In any event, that thread is predicated on the hypothesis that Christianity is true, so these answers are hardly 'objections to Christianity'.

And they will say He is not worthy of worship because He is in some way immoral. His failure to fulfill certain moral obligations precludes Him from being worthy of worship.

But from whence come these obligations if God does not exist?

 

[Gracchus]

Seems you agree with me. Apart from a competent moral prescriber, the notions of moral prescriptions and moral duties and obligations are unintelligible.

Well, what I am saying is that I could accept no "competent moral prescriber" but myself. But then, I can't be sure I am competent. And there is the question of "free will". I know that some folks have to believe in free will, but I choose not to.

And in the matter of whether I agree with you or not: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a ...."

But from whence come these obligations if God does not exist?

Whether or not God exists, I don't always seem to agree with him.

 

[anonymous person]

Well, what I am saying is that I could accept no "competent moral prescriber" but myself. But then, I can't be sure I am competent. And there is the question of "free will". I know that some folks have to believe in free will, but I choose not to.

And in the matter of whether I agree with you or not: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a ...."
Whether or not God exists, I don't always seem to agree with him.

What you accept is irrelevant to the point I am making. Bringing up free will is also irrelevant.

 

[Gracchus]

And they will say He is not worthy of worship because He is in some way immoral. His failure to fulfill certain moral obligations precludes Him from being worthy of worship.

That seems reasonable. (I know!: “To be a Christian, you must 'pluck out the eye of reason.'" --- Martin Luther)

But from whence come these obligations if God does not exist?

They come from me. They obligate me. You are going to do what you do. Your God is going to do whatever he is going to do. You and your God have no obligation to me. If your God has the power and inclination to burn me in hell, there is nothing I can do about it. But I don't have to like him. Luckily, I don't believe in your God, so I can spare myself some effort. I do not have to resist what can't constrain me.
You invent obligations for me, and say that your God demands them. I however, can examine, and accept or reject your claims.

 

[anonymous person]

That seems reasonable. (I know!: “To be a Christian, you must 'pluck out the eye of reason.'" --- Martin Luther)
They come from me. They obligate me. You are going to do what you do. Your God is going to do whatever he is going to do. You and your God have no obligation to me. If your God has the power and inclination to burn me in hell, there is nothing I can do about it. But I don't have to like him. Luckily, I don't believe in your God, so I can spare myself some effort. I do not have to resist what can't constrain me.
You invent obligations for me, and say that your God demands them. I however, can examine, and accept or reject your claims.

You mean your desires and passions come from you. And you live to fulfill them.

Moral obligations and duties were around way before you ever were conceived in your mother's stomach. Thus, they do not owe their existence to you.

 

[Gordon Wright]

Of course ought implies an entity making moral judgments, specifically the one saying "ought."

There is a subjective "ought" which is meaningless and merely whining. If there is an "ought" which is objective, what can that possibly be but God's own point of view?

When an atheist says things ought to be a certain way, he is imposing his own desires upon the universe. The universe doesn't much care.

 

[Gracchus]

You mean your desires and passions come from you. And you live to fulfill them.

That's right, as long as I can do so and live.

Moral obligations and duties were around way before you ever were conceived in your mother's stomach.

But they weren't obligations on me. And, by the way, I wasn't conceived in my mother's stomach. I was, most likely, conceived in her uterus, but certainly not in her stomach.

Thus, they do not owe their existence to you.

The "obligations" imposed by others, are merely justifications confabulated by some to impose their own desires on others. The only obligations on me, are those I impose on myself.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Atheists do not use the word in the sense you are using it though.

They use it in the sense of moral obligation.

They say things like,

If God was good, He ought to appear to everyone in an undeniable way, or He ought not to have permitted slavery or He ought not have ordered such and such to be killed.

They are saying that in certain circumstances God would be morally obligated to act a certain way. In the absence of some competent authority to whom one is obligated, the concept of moral obligation is unintelligible. This competent authority decides what our moral duties are.

I don't see where you're having an issue. If God were good he ought to act within a reasonable moral standard that we would understand. That's ideal. So what I said is still valid.