-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
An open mind comes from an honest person. Be true to yourself.Dan Dennett: Responding to Pastor Rick Warren | Video on TED.com
He didn't. His philosophy was deliberately paradoxical and absurdist, and was for the most part founded on the idea that humans desire to create meaning, but that the creation of meaning itself is absurd. So he was anti-nihlist (in the sense that he saw for the most part that construction of meaning as merely that - a construction), but also saw the deep and necessary need in humans to have a worldview. Caligula is a good place to go to get a sense of that paradox.
Suffice to say, Camus's conclusions would be rejected as irrational and inadequate by many of today's New Atheists.
Suffice to say, Camus's conclusions would be rejected as irrational and inadequate by many of today's New Atheists.
What about this video?Dan Dennett: Responding to Pastor Rick Warren | Video on TED.com
K
Haven't read through the thread. But I wonder just where atheists get there morals if they have any at all. Yea most will say from their momma's knee. But where did mom get it. Maybe the primordial soup, which is their father, (actually satan is) was more intelligent than just a single cell. I guess one monkey or gorilla discovered that it was wrong to kill.
Sure. But that's not quite the same thing as saying atheism has a hermeneutic through which morality can be assessed and defined. At least, not one that corresponds to humanism.
An interesting question I've pondered is this - why have a system of morality at all? Why appeal to some encompassing set of value-based standards?
An interesting question I've pondered is this - why have a system of morality at all? Why appeal to some encompassing set of value-based standards?
G
Indeed it doesn't that is one of my personal morality panaceas does it feel right? Atheists differ widely when it comes to morality. To me it seems to be something of a natural occurrence.
Morality exists because it keeps society together, it appears over the course of human history morality has gotten 'softer', in that you won't get your arm chopped off (at least in most areas) for stealing a pig. Morality is beneficial to all because everyones life will be better if people aren't constantly stealing from one another and murdering each other. Do I need a deity to realize that it makes sense not to kill people? No.
Morality exists because it keeps society together, it appears over the course of human history morality has gotten 'softer', in that you won't get your arm chopped off (at least in most areas) for stealing a pig. Morality is beneficial to all because everyones life will be better if people aren't constantly stealing from one another and murdering each other. Do I need a deity to realize that it makes sense not to kill people? No.
Sure. But should I then have any qualms about killing someone who I don't like, or who I think poses a threat to me and mine? Evolutionarily speaking, the jury is still out (and in fact there's quite a lot of evidence to suggest social selection, as opposed to genetic and individual selection is a fallacy) on whether or not we should care about the survival of the rest of the society if I think my survival could be enhanced by screwing them over.
I could also argue that the 'softening' of morality is mostly because of ironically traumatic Western imperialism and imposed political and ideological values. Who am I to say that other cultures other than my own might not have an equally valid opinion of power and morals? Who is to say that my own qualms about killing people, etc, aren't simply culturally conditioned rather than intrinsic, and could therefore turn out to be entirely arbitrary?
Or, for that matter if social harmony is the end of morality, would I be justified to wreak bloody violence in order to ensure long term survivability, if I had the means? And, again, why this need to justify myself on moral grounds? Who cares? Why not just check in the wash if I survived or not?
So, no, you don't need a deity to decide to kill people. You don't need a deity to decide to kill people either. But what makes one position more valid than the other? Is each position as arbitrary constructed as the other? Does it only matter who comes out the other end?
I could also argue that the 'softening' of morality is mostly because of ironically traumatic Western imperialism and imposed political and ideological values. Who am I to say that other cultures other than my own might not have an equally valid opinion of power and morals? Who is to say that my own qualms about killing people, etc, aren't simply culturally conditioned rather than intrinsic, and could therefore turn out to be entirely arbitrary?
Or, for that matter if social harmony is the end of morality, would I be justified to wreak bloody violence in order to ensure long term survivability, if I had the means? And, again, why this need to justify myself on moral grounds? Who cares? Why not just check in the wash if I survived or not?
So, no, you don't need a deity to decide to kill people. You don't need a deity to decide to kill people either. But what makes one position more valid than the other? Is each position as arbitrary constructed as the other? Does it only matter who comes out the other end?
G
I'm not sure of what I am, and recently I don't try and classify myself as atheist or non-theist or even theist, because I've found that if you declare yourself one or the other you limit your spectrum of thought.
Morality appears to have arisen very similarly in nearly all societies throughout the world.
Morality appears to have arisen very similarly in nearly all societies throughout the world.
G
Well that's why law exists, to prevent people who dislike each other from killing one another, again the law is not necessarily derived from religion, but arises very similarly throughout the world (with exceptions).
You could argue that, but I think its more due to the increase of the quality of life overall. Many cultures do, but most cultures have morals in common with one another, even when separated geographically.
Its typically unlikely that violence is going to help you, considering most people tend to taboo violence, the more you inflict on others the more likely you yourself will be killed (in most societies - with exceptions).
I think that's up to you to decide would you prefer a society in which the law is what the majority of people agree upon?
You could argue that, but I think its more due to the increase of the quality of life overall. Many cultures do, but most cultures have morals in common with one another, even when separated geographically.
Its typically unlikely that violence is going to help you, considering most people tend to taboo violence, the more you inflict on others the more likely you yourself will be killed (in most societies - with exceptions).
I think that's up to you to decide would you prefer a society in which the law is what the majority of people agree upon?
Again, I wonder whether you're overgeneralising here. Certainly, honour killings, for instance, are still acceptable in many parts of the world still largely untouched by Western democracy, itself influenced for centuries by institutionalised Christianity. I'd be interested in what you think of your morality in connection to Islamic sharia, or African tribal law, or East Asian semi feudalism, or for that matter any number of ancient cultures now passed. Again, I completely agree that most cultures share the idea of moralistic value. But exactly what activities are morally valuable can differ markedly. I would also argue that the prevealence of our 'morality', and our higher standards of living, has much more to do with technological advance and cultural and physical hegemony, than it does a more realised and authentic morality.
Whether or not cultures have attitudes towards illegal killings is hardly surprising. If I were to put on my Foucault glasses, I would say that the power to give or take life is one of the most strident demonstrations of power available to mankind. Therefore, it is not surprising that every culture has rules about killing. What differs MARKEDLY is what is considered a legal killing. Who benefits? Is it the powerful? Is that a morality you would agree with? Why or why not?
If I were to be in the position of ultimate power, as numerous despots have been over the last couple of centuries, what is the moral prerogative to stop me or remove me from that position? Why appeal to a higher moral authority at all? Surely as long as I am able to hold sway, there's no particular moral yay or nay to prevent that? What particular compassion am I required to have towards others, if ultimately my reasons for safeguarding moral order are about my own well being? Is all that matters ultimately strength of arms, and the ability to wield superior force? Why or why not?
I would prefer a law in which the widow, orphan and foreigner are protected, myself. But I do so because my God has treated me in such a way, and calls me to do so as a result. Not particular because of what I prefer, or because of what will safeguard for me a safer society. Certainly, I live in a 'safer society', but my society exists at the expense of others, so its not entirely win win.
Whether or not cultures have attitudes towards illegal killings is hardly surprising. If I were to put on my Foucault glasses, I would say that the power to give or take life is one of the most strident demonstrations of power available to mankind. Therefore, it is not surprising that every culture has rules about killing. What differs MARKEDLY is what is considered a legal killing. Who benefits? Is it the powerful? Is that a morality you would agree with? Why or why not?
If I were to be in the position of ultimate power, as numerous despots have been over the last couple of centuries, what is the moral prerogative to stop me or remove me from that position? Why appeal to a higher moral authority at all? Surely as long as I am able to hold sway, there's no particular moral yay or nay to prevent that? What particular compassion am I required to have towards others, if ultimately my reasons for safeguarding moral order are about my own well being? Is all that matters ultimately strength of arms, and the ability to wield superior force? Why or why not?
I would prefer a law in which the widow, orphan and foreigner are protected, myself. But I do so because my God has treated me in such a way, and calls me to do so as a result. Not particular because of what I prefer, or because of what will safeguard for me a safer society. Certainly, I live in a 'safer society', but my society exists at the expense of others, so its not entirely win win.
G
That is why I said with exceptions. Western Democracy, conceived by the ancient greeks, only spread when governments started to be secularized. And again all cultures differ when it comes to what is moral, but most agree that things like theft and murder are wrong.
The reason people don't like despots is a logical one, not a moral one. And I would also prefer a law in which lepers weren't treated as morally unclean. For every logical law there is a doubly illogical one given by religion.
The reason people don't like despots is a logical one, not a moral one. And I would also prefer a law in which lepers weren't treated as morally unclean. For every logical law there is a doubly illogical one given by religion.
Ultimately, there has to be a higher authority. That authority assumes a sort of dictatorial power.
Man can try to usurp it from God. When he does, terrible things occur. They start out small of course, but it escalates. Usually people see their nakedness and try to hide under rationalizations, loopholes, silence, or willful ignorance.
You ask if someone needs an authority to tell them if rape is wrong. Well, in a good many countries today, rape is okay. Of course the woman is punished for it to cover the sin, but the perpetrators get off.
In other parts of the world, man is trying to justify murder by giving it an acceptable time frame.
At other points and places in history organized displacement, genocide, enslavement, etc were seen as moral virtues by authorities who decided to go their own way.
In short, I find this argument utterly baseless.
Man can try to usurp it from God. When he does, terrible things occur. They start out small of course, but it escalates. Usually people see their nakedness and try to hide under rationalizations, loopholes, silence, or willful ignorance.
You ask if someone needs an authority to tell them if rape is wrong. Well, in a good many countries today, rape is okay. Of course the woman is punished for it to cover the sin, but the perpetrators get off.
In other parts of the world, man is trying to justify murder by giving it an acceptable time frame.
At other points and places in history organized displacement, genocide, enslavement, etc were seen as moral virtues by authorities who decided to go their own way.
In short, I find this argument utterly baseless.