Richard Dawkins: A Gift From God

[seer]

BP will be certainly one of the more informed atheists around here. Others here could learn from him, although I do agree with my fellow Christians that attempts to ground morality objectively in atheism fail.

Yes, I like BP. He is gracious.

[JimL]

That is nonsense Jim. So when atheists slaughter and enslave millions like in the former Soviet Union, China under Mao, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc... what do you say to them? That you personally object? Why is your moral opinion more correct or valid than theirs? This is the bottom line Jim, if there is no God then there is no objective moral law, no final justice. If there is a God, i.e. the God of scripture, then there is an objective moral rule. And ultimate justice.

Well you can assert that it is nonsense, but if God did not exist, or even if you just no longer believed in his existence, would you lose all sense of morality? Would commiting murder, slavery, theft, etc etc. no longer have a moral aspect to it from your own personal perspective? I think it would! I'm an athiest, not because i want to be free of moral responsibility or authority as the Christian accusation often goes, i'm an atheist because i see no necessity or evidence of a God with regards to existence or morality. People that do evil things come from all ideologies as well, including christians, so trying to equate atheism with evil or immorality is disengenuous at best. Btw seer, Hitler, if i'm not mistaken, was a christian. And if you want to get really specific, the christian God himself ordered the slaughter and enslavement of who knows how many, but like in the case of Mao, Stalin, Pol pot, Idi Amin etc etc. it is rationalized away as justifiable homicide. Anyways, there are millions of atheists out there that have the same moral compass, the same sense of right and wrong, as theists do and they don't need a God in order to have a sense of right and wrong. How do you account for that?

I think I already know what your rebuttal will be to this last question. "Where is the ultimate justice, the punishment and the reward." Correct?

[seer]

Well you can assert that it is nonsense, but if God did not exist, or even if you just no longer believed in his existence, would you lose all sense of morality? Would commiting murder, slavery, theft, etc etc. no longer have a moral aspect to it from your own personal perspective? I think it would! I'm an athiest, not because i want to be free of moral responsibility or authority as the Christian accusation often goes, i'm an atheist because i see no necessity or evidence of a God with regards to existence or morality. People that do evil things come from all ideologies as well, including christians, so trying to equate atheism with evil or immorality is disengenuous at best. Btw seer, Hitler, if i'm not mistaken, was a christian. And if you want to get really specific, the christian God himself ordered the slaughter and enslavement of who knows how many, but like in the case of Mao, Stalin, Pol pot, Idi Amin etc etc. it is rationalized away as justifiable homicide. Anyways, there are millions of atheists out there that have the same moral compass, the same sense of right and wrong, as theists do and they don't need a God in order to have a sense of right and wrong. How do you account for that?

I think I already know what your rebuttal will be to this last question. "Where is the ultimate justice, the punishment and the reward." Correct?

Jim, first Hitler was not a "Christian" but like most men of that time he did attend church when he was young. Second, if God did decide to take the life of a man or men that act would be perfectly just - how could it be otherwise? Third, you know that Christian theology teaches that men live beyond that life. So even when God finds it necessary to remove men from this world that is not the end of their story. Fourth, morality makes no sense apart from objective moral truths. Just as mathematics or the laws of logic would make no sense if they were subjective and dependent on personal or cultural opinion. Finally you are correct, ultimate justice plays an important role in the picture. Your universe, in the end, is indifferent, my universe, in the end, is just.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Jim, first Hitler was not a "Christian" but like most men of that time he did attend church when he was young.

This is actually a more complicated topic than people on either side tend to make it. Hitler was actually a quite devout Roman Catholic in his youth, and very nearly entered seminary with the goal of taking Holy Orders. By the end of his life, however, his view of Christianity had shifted quite a bit. At best, he would have been a highly unorthodox Christian, at that point. Still, he was very much a Christian throughout his rise to power, and it is very clear that much of Nazi ideology was influenced by Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies."

Second, if God did decide to take the life of a man or men that act would be perfectly just - how could it be otherwise?

Well, it's nice to know where you stand on Euthyphro's dilemma. Incidentally, I held pretty much the same position when I was a Christian.

Third, you know that Christian theology teaches that men live beyond that life. So even when God finds it necessary to remove men from this world that is not the end of their story.

This depends on the theology and the men. There are quite a number of Christians who teach Annihilationism-- that the death of an unsaved sinner results in the complete destruction of their soul, rather than infinite torment. Of course, that's only a minor quibble to the point you are making.

Fourth, morality makes no sense apart from objective moral truths. Just as mathematics or the laws of logic would make no sense if they were subjective and dependent on personal or cultural opinion.

I would disagree to this. So long as one can present a cogent definition for "morality," it makes sense whether there are objective moral truths or not.

[seer]

This is actually a more complicated topic than people on either side tend to make it. Hitler was actually a quite devout Roman Catholic in his youth, and very nearly entered seminary with the goal of taking Holy Orders. By the end of his life, however, his view of Christianity had shifted quite a bit. At best, he would have been a highly unorthodox Christian, at that point. Still, he was very much a Christian throughout his rise to power, and it is very clear that much of was influenced by Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies."

That is false Boxing. Nazi ideology was based mostly on the idea of creating a super-race, and if it had a religion it was Norse mixed with the occult. And in his life I believe Hitler had disavowed the Christian religion as being weak, I can find the quotes if you wish. But you are correct that they used the writings of Luther. Also, I think it was Stalin, not Hitler, that nearly entered seminary.

Well, it's nice to know where you stand on Euthyphro's dilemma. Incidentally, I held pretty much the same position when I was a Christian.

Really? I'm not on any horn of the dilemma.

This depends on the theology and the men. There are quite a number of Christians who teach Annihilationism-- that the death of an unsaved sinner results in the complete destruction of their soul, rather than infinite torment. Of course, that's only a minor quibble to the point you are making.

Yes I hold to Conditional Immortality, but that judgement is yet future. I suspect, or hope, that there are second chances after death.

I would disagree to this. So long as one can present a cogent definition for "morality," it makes sense whether there are objective moral truths or not.

Would you say this about the laws of logic or mathematics?

[Sparko]

Well you can assert that it is nonsense, but if God did not exist, or even if you just no longer believed in his existence, would you lose all sense of morality? Would commiting murder, slavery, theft, etc etc. no longer have a moral aspect to it from your own personal perspective?

the point of objective morality is that is it objective. That means something is either moral or not, even if nobody believes it is, or everyone does. Whether you believe in God or not, the morality would still be objectively true.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That is false Boxing. Nazi ideology was based mostly on the idea of creating a super-race, and if it had a religion it was Norse mixed with the occult. And in his life I believe Hitler had disavowed the Christian religion as being weak, I can find the quotes if you wish. But you are correct that they used the writings of Luther. Also, I think it was Stalin, not Hitler, that nearly entered seminary.

It's really not false, at all. The vast majority of Nazis were practicing Christians, despite the occult leanings of some of the elite. Hitler, as I mentioned, was quite devout and nearly entered the priesthood. Later in his life, his contemporaries reported that Hitler viewed Christianity with derision, but this was certainly a different view than he had earlier in his rise to power.

Would you say this about the laws of logic or mathematics?

Yes. We define these concepts in specific ways. The history of mathematics is one of my favorite subjects to discuss, and it illustrates this fact quite eloquently. Ancient Greek mathematics operated under very different rules than modern Calculus. Cartesian geometry is very different than non-Euclidean geometry. The manner in which the concept is defined determines its utility.

[jpholding]

It's really not false, at all. The vast majority of Nazis were practicing Christians, despite the occult leanings of some of the elite. Hitler, as I mentioned, was quite devout and nearly entered the priesthood. Later in his life, his contemporaries reported that Hitler viewed Christianity with derision, but this was certainly a different view than he had earlier in his rise to power.

Aw, you can do better than that. I did.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EXPBEVW

No, they weren't "practicing Christians" at all. Even to say they were "highly unorthodox" doesn't do justice to the matter. He and leading Nazis adhered to a cultic deviancy they called "Positive Christianity". Denied anywhere from 60-90% of the Bible, turned Jesus into an Aryan superman, and totally ignored doctrinal issues.

I recall nothing in the leading biographies (Kershaw, etc.) saying that Hitler wanted to enter the priesthood. He expressed thoughts of apostasy when he was in his early teens. I think you may be thinking of Goebbels there.

[tabibito]

“The catholic church has spilt more blood than any other religion.”
Hitler, as reported by Reinhold Hanisch, circa 1910.[23]

“The enemies of National Socialism include not only the ‘jewish Marxists’ and the catholics but also certain elements of an incorrigible, stupid and reactionary bourgeoisie.”
Speech by Hitler, 1 April 1933

I don't think we have evidence of a devout Catholic here.

Himmler, Goebells, Hoss, and Frank were (at least nominally) Catholic. The first State to give the Third Reich official recognition was the Vatican.

[seer]

It's really not false, at all. The vast majority of Nazis were practicing Christians, despite the occult leanings of some of the elite. Hitler, as I mentioned, was quite devout and nearly entered the priesthood. Later in his life, his contemporaries reported that Hitler viewed Christianity with derision, but this was certainly a different view than he had earlier in his rise to power.

Good, so at least we agree that Hitler moved away from the Christian faith. And yes, in a country with a majority of Christians you would assume that many in the military were Christian (at least professing Christians). The question is, were they following the teachings of Christ. BTW do you have a link for the claim that Hitler was going to enter the priesthood?

Yes. We define these concepts in specific ways. The history of mathematics is one of my favorite subjects to discuss, and it illustrates this fact quite eloquently. Ancient Greek mathematics operated under very different rules than modern Calculus. Cartesian geometry is very different than non-Euclidean geometry. The manner in which the concept is defined determines its utility.

I'm speaking of basic math. Does two plus two always equal four? Is that objectively true no matter where you are in the universe? Is the law of non-contradiction objectively true no matter where you are in the universe? How is it objectively true that it is always wrong to murder your neighbor?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

BTW do you have a link for the claim that Hitler was going to enter the priesthood?

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer. I'll see if I can pull the exact quote.

I'm speaking of basic math. Does two plus two always equal four? Is that objectively true no matter where you are in the universe?

Only for very clear definitions of "two," "plus," and "four." When we clearly define that which we are attempting to describe, we can evaluate objective properties for that concept. The same goes for any concept, be it logic or morality or music theory or comic book art.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Aw, you can do better than that. I did.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EXPBEVW

No, they weren't "practicing Christians" at all. Even to say they were "highly unorthodox" doesn't do justice to the matter. He and leading Nazis adhered to a cultic deviancy they called "Positive Christianity". Denied anywhere from 60-90% of the Bible, turned Jesus into an Aryan superman, and totally ignored doctrinal issues.

I recall nothing in the leading biographies (Kershaw, etc.) saying that Hitler wanted to enter the priesthood. He expressed thoughts of apostasy when he was in his early teens. I think you may be thinking of Goebbels there.

When I said "the vast majority of Nazis," I was not referring to just the elite. I was referring to all those who associated themselves with the Nazi party. I really don't think it's controversial to claim that the majority of Nazi party members were Christian.

[seer]

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer. I'll see if I can pull the exact quote.

OK, I never read that.

Only for very clear definitions of "two," "plus," and "four." When we clearly define that which we are attempting to describe, we can evaluate objective properties for that concept. The same goes for any concept, be it logic or morality or music theory or comic book art.

I'm not sure what that means. Again, the law of non-contradiction is universal and objective. How are prohibitions against murdering your neighbor universal and objective?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm not sure what that means.

It means that we have very clear definitions for "two," "plus," and "four" that most people take for granted because they have never been exposed to the actual foundations of mathematics. For example, if you see the phrase 2+2, you immediately think 2+2=4. However, I happen to be a computer scientist, by trade. If I see the phrase 2+2 while I'm evaluating a logic gate, I immediately think 2+2=1, because those symbols have distinctly different meanings in Logic Algebra than they have in Arithmetic. Or, I might actually be performing some arithmetic, but on some variables which exist in three possible states. In that instance, I would see 2+2 and think 2+2=11 because ternary numbers might simplify my job.

Arithmetic is universal for the exact same reason that, no matter where you are in the universe, a bachelor is an unmarried man. It is because they are strictly defined.

Again, the law of non-contradiction is universal and objective. How are prohibitions against murdering your neighbor universal and objective?

Again, I'll leave the defense of specific precepts of moral objectivity to those who support that concept. My goal was simply to point out that such people do exist.

[seer]

It means that we have very clear definitions for "two," "plus," and "four" that most people take for granted because they have never been exposed to the actual foundations of mathematics. For example, if you see the phrase 2+2, you immediately think 2+2=4. However, I happen to be a computer scientist, by trade. If I see the phrase 2+2 while I'm evaluating a logic gate, I immediately think 2+2=1, because those symbols have distinctly different meanings in Logic Algebra than they have in Arithmetic. Or, I might actually be performing some arithmetic, but on some variables which exist in three possible states. In that instance, I would see 2+2 and think 2+2=11 because ternary numbers might simplify my job.

That is why I said "basic math." Like in standard addition.

Arithmetic is universal for the exact same reason that, no matter where you are in the universe, a bachelor is an unmarried man. It is because they are strictly defined.

Ok good.

Again, I'll leave the defense of specific precepts of moral objectivity to those who support that concept. My goal was simply to point out that such people do exist.

Well you did say this: When we clearly define that which we are attempting to describe, we can evaluate objective properties for that concept. The same goes for any concept, be it logic or morality or music theory or comic book art.

So perhaps I am misunderstanding your point here.