| | |
This is a discussion on Is God evil for condemning atheists? within the Critical Thinking & Philosophy forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; This speaker travels around the world to accept questions on God and answers them on the spot. I think this ...
This speaker travels around the world to accept questions on God and answers them on the spot. I think this video is from Columbia university where students were able to ask any question.
I bring this video up because I want to hear the counter arguments to this speaker.
Philosophists, please have fun with this and post your thoughts for or against this video!
Not interested to watch the video. But, this question has no answer, as it's god who defines good/evil.
So any point of view that was not from god, will not be valid for god.
If god claims that murder is not evil, then it won't be evil.
For us humans, good/evil perception is different from god's perception.
Regarding the "Moral Law:"
This is just another one of the classic false dilemmas that theists employ to bolster their empty rhetoric.
- Perfectly objective and metaphysically-grounded Moral Law OR meaningless emotional attitudes.
- Intelligent Design OR random chance.
- Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?
Ignoring the supernatural baggage that has been tied to "standard" in this context, I will say that the standard for moral imperatives is in the concern for human and animal welfare.
It's not about some distorted vision of cosmic "justice," nor about the whims of an invisible man with magical powers; it's simply about a genuine interest in improving the quality of our conscious experience, and on that basis, I think we can say that God's decision to send the majority of the population to eternal torture (for finite crimes, no less), whether actively or passively, is immoral.
Regarding compulsion to believe:
Since when is our choice to pursue a relationship predicated upon a "choice" to believe in the existence of the person?
Apologists can feel free to invoke choice as an explanation for those who believe in a God, but oppose him/her (misotheism), but what they cannot do is use it to explain unbelievers.
Regarding the "evidence:"
A thousand bad arguments does not equal one good argument.
Not interested in, nor reading, anything after that comment.Originally Posted by mnemonicfx
I see that point. Without a God to set a standard of morals for us, it is essentially up to us to subjectively create our own rules and govern them with our own punishments, right? The one thing that irks me the most is the human concern for one another. Referencing back to the video, his example of some people love thy neighbors, some people eat theirs, that seems pretty spot on to me on how this world works where there has been no standard set rules. If we are creating our own rules based on subjectivity, no one can be right and no one can be wrong(within different societies), right? Who is to determine who is right?
Is a judge[or jury] in a courtroom immoral for sentencing humans to prison on a daily basis? A judge can sentence someone to prison for life based on evidence that might be real or not real. If there were a God who is omnipotent and eternal who records all of our actions in the book accurately, wouldn't that make him less immoral than a judge who makes the same decision on less credible evidence?
I think he is referring to people like you and I who have had exposure to religion, but ultimately decide whether or not we want to accept. What do you mean in the last sentence by using it to explain unbelievers?
I figured you'd be the first to reply, and I'm glad you did
Well, who is to determine that Aristotelian physics are better or worse than Newtonian physics? or Einsteinien physics?
Who is to determine that medical doctors know more about human health than aboriginal shamans?
I see a pretty clear double standard at work in many people's minds (including many atheists) when we come to the subject of morality.
Why don't you criticize the definition (and thus, the premises) of physics or medicine? It's just as easy to say, "Well, the premises of these enterprises are subjectively determined, and thus there are no right or wrong answers to be found in physics or medicine." The simple fact is that this is just a semantics game. It doesn't matter what we call these studies; rather, it matters that given their premises, "right" and "wrong" answers do actually exist.
I don't recall any instances of a judge sentencing someone to jail for disbelieving that the judge existed, rather than for actual crimes.
Furthermore, there is some effort in the judicial system to make the sentences proportionate to the crime(s) committed; whether this always works out is another issue.
So, when we're talking about a God sentencing human beings to an eternal sentence for finite crimes, this is consequently an infinitely unjust arbitration.
That might make him more qualified from an evidential standpoint, but that would not make him more or less "moral" than the judge...
I mean that it makes no sense to speak of "free will" or "choice" in the context of belief and evidence; it is only operable in the context of pursuing a relationship or rejecting it.
Christians tend to conflate the two, but they are very distinct.
It seems my reputation precedes me.I figured you'd be the first to reply, and I'm glad you did
EDIT: Going to work; will respond later.
I'm sure you won't be, if I don't explain it like Azrael did. As for the video, I'm not in the mood to listen to the stream. But, I may want to read what is it about.
That question really has no answer.
If you want an objective answer of that question rather than a subjective one, you need to define what is evil though. As god is the one who defines good/evil, then asking whether god is evil will require you to ask this god whether "condemning an atheist" is an act of evil / not. Maybe, this god wants to protect god's identity and reputation.
But If you use your own value of good/evil, then you're acting like god by claiming that this god is evil. You don't even know god and whether this god really condemn atheists. If god doesn't exist, how could god be evil?
If you ask humans, the answer could also be various:
What is the reason for "condemning atheist"?
Is it for dismissing god, or is it for some mistakes that atheists are doing?
Then, again you have to evaluate and analyze whether this is enough to claim that this act of god is evil.
But, if your goal is just to dispute/support theists that condemn atheists then this discussion stops right here, because you already know the answer to your question. You just need confirmation from Azrael.
I think his moral law presumption is quite fallacious.
I don't think it requires some metaphysical standard of morality to judge the hypothetical nature of a God who may have a) placed humans in a world which can be interpreted as lacking sufficient evidence and b) condemned them to an eternity of agony for simply interpreting it incorrectly. All it requires is logical ability, to determine whether or not God is moral or immoral. And logical ability is not nearly as subjective as loving or eating your neighbors.
Thus, God may be immoral from a very human perspective which does not presuppose some universal moral law.
It won't be an objective perspective, but it will be based on logic, and I think that's sufficient to make a judgment on God's hypothetical nature (as everything else in this imperfect world).
Now that a judgment can be made which is merely based on inherent human ability, and not some spooky universal law, we can actually see that if God were to create a very imperfect world, which we can hardly understand, show very little proof, if any, that he indeed exists, to then condemn those who do not believe in his existence for being intelligent and rational enough to a) desire proof prior to belief and b) only see proof of a naturalistic world which seems devoid of any supernatural agent or supreme intelligence, or 'creator,' that this would be a very irresponsible being with ridiculous, and highly irrational, standards which are only incoherent and self-conflicting, and that ultimately it would be an immoral being. In order to condemn someone for disbelief, especially given that fact that this being would have hypothetically created some people who are highly rational and require proof before belief, it would absolutely necessary for a supreme being to actually feel obligated - to make it his ultimate duty as a supreme being, protector, and father-figure of these people - to make it as unlikely as possible that those beings should refuse belief based on the seeming lack of sufficient evidence. For how can we see it as anything other than logically inconsistent and immoral to create rational beings, who are condemned for following their natural instincts (given by this God) in a world which was never structured to their natures in the first place? To me, it's like expecting someone born in a slum to behave as a prince (when you decided where they would be born) and then punishing them when they act unlike a prince. It's like a rat in a maze chasing cheese for the seeming amusement of the person watching. It's a puppet master pulling strings and getting off.
Thus, the logic of this moral judgment:
If God both created a world which isn't absolutely perfect and rational beings who are not only capable of noticing the lack of perfection in this system but who also actually desire positive proof of the notion that there was an actual creator behind it all, then there is no way a 'loving' God could also expect these beings to believe in his existence. If God wished for his creations to believe in his existence, it would necessary to either a) create beings without rational inclinations (which he could have done, being the creator, and which is ultimately his own doing and supposed intention) or b) create a perfect and flawless world in which his existence could readily be discerned from the world abound.
Sure some can argue that there is a very special reason as to why the world isn't perfect and flawless which was out of God's own doing, but even so - no being continues to condemn beings capable of rational inclinations (according to his own creative whims), who are stuck in an imperfect world which seems to lack evidence according to this rational inclination those beings may bear, regardless of the reason. If someone is tied to a ball and chain, do you expect them to run 20 miles per hour? Do you condemn them for not running 20 miles per hour? Do you consider your own self moral, if you were the one who tied that ball and chain to their feet in the first place? If rationality is our ball and chain and the world is imperfect and not very suitable to our rational natures, then no loving, moral God should ever - logically speaking - expect his creations to ignore their own natures and simply believe that the world which they interpret is not as it rationally seems, but instead that they should simply close their eyes and take things for granted and accept this on blind faith, and he definitely wouldn't, and should not, condemn them for not meeting these petty, and highly illogical, standards.
And so, I think it's fairly obvious that some quite inventive humans simply fabricated this entire story, hoping they'd fool a large amount of people (who aren't very rational), who wouldn't actually notice that they were being tricked into faith and blind belief. Look at the idea of hell. It's nothing more than a clever idea of a scary place, designed to coerce you - through fear - into believing and behaving in a particular manner, so that your actions benefit someone other than yourself. It's slavery of the mind, not freedom, and it certainly isn't love. It's a complete scheme and setup, and they've only managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with this illogical nonsense.
So yeah, the idea of 'moral law' is a joke. If a God can somehow still be considered 'moral' for condemning his own creations to an eternity of agony in an imperfect world which lacks sufficient evidence in favor of his existence, especially having been the designer of their very rationality in the first place, I'd love to know how. Logically, it seems very clear that no being could be considered moral for conducting themselves in this sort of foolish, detestable manner.
And Galileo basically said what I think best:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
And no one's going to trick me into believing otherwise.
The two are completely different things. Science is based on quantitative information gathered from observable presumably concrete laws. Your question is the same as asking who is to say that 2+2=4. It does because I can clearly see it does in front of me. The same goes for the other sciences you spoke of. I can see that modern medicine is effective and understand why. You can then compare those observable results to that of aboriginal shamans and gather the quantitative data to compare your results. What is good and what is evil can not be determined quantitatively unless what is good and what is evil can be agreed upon which if it originates in subjectivity it can't be because we cant even communicate something that is subjective perfectly adequately to come to a perfect agreement that can operate as some sort of self created objectivity. Our language and current forms of communication just aren't adequate enough to communicate subjectivity with that precision.
That being said you counter argument is flawed because unless morality is objective, concrete, and comes from a source outside of ourselves you can't compare it with sciences based on such.
Here is another thing to consider regarding the original question. To make moral judgments against someone, including God, you have either have authority over the subject or appeal to a law or entity that does have that authority otherwise if the subject is under no ones authority such judgments are ultimately meaningless. If all you can tell them when they ask why such is wrong is because it's not right and can only say it is so according to you then what reason do they have to listen? The application of morals requires either an authority or an objective standard which from which to determine them. That being said either those objective standards don't exist and therefore morality doesn't exist or they are an objective concrete law of the universe like the laws of science. Coming back to applying morals to God. If you are going to play the if game and say "if God exist..." than you need to apply the proper definition or God explain yours. I'm going to use the christian God for the rest of my case now on being the question seems to invoke that of the christian God when referring to condemnation and being that the person to whom the question was given to is a christian. Christians believe God is the creator of the universe not a part of it. That means that he created all the laws that go along with it and has authority over everything in it. These laws are part of his creation and can't be applied in reverse because creation has no authority over the creator just like a toy has no authority over the toymaker and can't declare him unjust for throwing one box of toys in the fire. The toys do all belong to the toymaker after all.
To invoke the christian God you have to invoke the christian definition of Him and or it's a flawed argument. You can't make argument against the christian God if you don't use His defining attributes in the argument because if you did it would no longer be the christian God and wouldn't be a valid argument against Him. To place the christian God's morality in question by man is to use his own laws against Him as the creator as if He was a part of creation and on the same level as man and he would no longer by definition be that of the christian God whom the argument was made against.
I know the idea that it still doesn't make it any easier to accept that anyone should be condemned for seemingly trivial things but the fact is the standard is perfection and anything that isn't perfect is infinitely imperfect no matter how trivial. That being said christians are infinitely imperfect too and deserving of condemnation as well but that is why we're offered grace. This is where that famous verse John 3:16-17 so perfectly fits. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whomsoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the world through Him."
Otherwise I suppose you can believe there is no objective morality and therefore the original argument ceases to exist; however, if there is no objective morality it's strange that so often people appeal to it. I don't write this to sound arrogant or that I have all the answers. I most certainly don't, but I do want to share what I do have.
Ok, I listened to the clip.
His discourse appears logical, but that doesn't mean it is. Ultimately, we use logic to filter through information that is collected through subjective means, our human senses, and as such it may or may not be accurate. So, in my view, no matter how perfect your logic is, if you are using inaccurate or incomplete data, the result will be flawed.
Obviously there is the millennia-old debate about subjective and objective reality, to which there may never be a definitive answer. But, accepting the fact that this subjective reality is all we are able to experience, and realizing that it does have some value and/or verity to it as we are somehow able to communicate with each other... we must strive to gather and analyze as much data as possible on everything we are able to perceive/conceive, subjective as it is.
So far, the Universe appears to be rather amoral to me. It rains on the just and the unjust alike. Lion eats gazelle. Some people do things that we consider 'evil' (like murder people) and get to live happily ever after, while others do nothing but 'good' things and live in pain and misery. To deal with this absurdity, the fact that the Universe does not seem to care at all about our feelings, we have drawn various assumptions, such as punishment after you die (hell), punishment in your next life (karmic stuff I think?), yet there is no effective way to prove, or disprove these assumptions.
This speaker assumes that in order for a morality to exist, there must be a moral giver, and that moral giver must be God. Yet, like he said, some people love their neighbors while others eat them. Who decides which one is valid and which one is not? How do we decide that it is our morality that is given by God, and not theirs.
We're always trying to decipher and understand the Universe, and based on what we've learned so far, there seems to be a certain pattern through time, a pattern of growing complexity, from single particles, to atoms, to molecules, life, intelligence/consciousness, and who knows what's next.
And by looking at the evolution of life on this planet you notice that its primary function/drive is to expand, and grow in complexity. It's being going on for a few billion years, without any morality. There was no good or bad, just success and failure and failure meant extinction. Trial and error. Nature is cruel.
So perhaps our morality should be something that is supposed to make this entire process faster and/or more efficient as The trial and error does not seem particularly fast - for instance it took a l
Then morality is something that WE must create by using our ability to Reason, with these simple premises at its core - grow and expand efficiently. If we are to take a teleological view on it, perhaps our purpose is to imprint our morality on the Universe - as the next step in this permanent process of evolving complexity?
There's also the matter of empathy and self-awareness but I think I might have digressed a bit...
A more immediate question would be, based on the title of the topic and what the guy says in the sound clip:
If God imposes these moral laws, based on faith and love, yet if this faith leads to hatred (and I think most of us have noticed how blind faith tends to lead to hatred, intolerance and ignorance) would he punish atheists for not having faith, or believers for not having love?
If he created this world, and us, yet here we are a thousand different religions, sects and cults, all claiming supremacy and authenticity of their god/beliefs, if this very notion of God and divine moral law based on love and peace leads to hatred and war, is he really about love?
If he is not clear enough to specify how these laws should be interpreted and we are required to believe without question, yet these beliefs are used by some people to manipulate others, does he really want us to believe?
Based on that I can see three options:
- God is cruel and not about love/doesn't care
- he does not exist
- he exists but does not demand belief/does not interfere with our social structure/laws
At least that's my take on it.
P.S. I just noticed my forum avatar... I'm a nice guy, really!
If you are dismissing his logic by saying that all logic is flawed what is the point in me considering any of your logic in this post? I don't understand why someone would make a self defeating argument like that.
Posting Permissions
77Thanks
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks