bushbasher, Very clear post, thank you. Yes, I’m with b). But, I’m mainly with a), and b) helps me to understand a).

One problem with b) is that it speaks about our nature to “know” not to kill. True. However, it is also our nature to kill (in my opinion). So, we really need a).

We might also agree with your “but i honestly don't see much practical difference”. This is true if neither of us is killing. However, if we feel like killing, what constrains us (apart from fear of consequences)? I don’t think your d) on its own is sufficient. We MIGHT have evolved a repugnance for killing, but we haven’t evolved out of the desire/need to kill. So, what constrains us if the need is stronger than the repugnance?

david f, You say “I don't like to be accused of making a leap of faith. ..... I just follow what the evidence I have indicates.”

I realise you’re just following what the evidence indicates. However, you’re assuming that that’s the way to go. You’re assuming that evidence is the only path, and that there is no other reasonable or respectable way of apprehending facts. Let’s just call it an assumption, then.

Now that the assumption is on the table, though, can you explain it? Why is evidence the only means of knowing or believing? More important, what is the evidence for such a claim? If there is no evidence to support your claim, then it's back to leap of faith. Which is fine, until you start bagging leaps of faith.

bennie, You say to under-one-god “All you believe may be based on faith. Others, myself included, prefer empiricism.”

I suppose my post to david f is also to you.

If atheists simply “preferred” empiricism, and didn’t call people like me deluded, I probably wouldn’t argue with you. I like my senses, too, and use them frequently. :)

I believe in God. Do you regard me as deluded? If so, then your empiricism is not merely a preference.

Pax,

Goodthief wrote:

"david f, You say “I don't like to be accused of making a leap of faith. ..... I just follow what the evidence I have indicates.”

I realise you’re just following what the evidence indicates. However, you’re assuming that that’s the way to go. You’re assuming that evidence is the only path, and that there is no other reasonable or respectable way of apprehending facts. Let’s just call it an assumption, then.

Now that the assumption is on the table, though, can you explain it? Why is evidence the only means of knowing or believing? More important, what is the evidence for such a claim? If there is no evidence to support your claim, then it's back to leap of faith. Which is fine, until you start bagging leaps of faith."

I have never contended evidence is the only way of believing. For believing one needs no evidence. IMHO that’s what’s wrong with belief. I have no reason to respect leaps of faith. A leap of faith shows lack of respect for reason. I respect reason. You are bagging reason, but I won't get upset over it. People who make leaps of faith bag reason.

To quote John Adams, second US president: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

In the Roman Empire most people believed in a divine pantheon. Now most people who believe in God believe in the Bible God. Belief in the ancient pantheon is no longer fashionable. You don't have to justify your lack of belief in what so many people believed in the past nor do I have to justify my lack of belief in the current and past fashion.

Yes, I think evidence is the only way to go. It is an assumption. I know of no better assumption.

Hi goodthief,

Thankyou for the compliment and can I return the sentiment by say well done on keeping at least four plates spinning (conversations) continuing. Damn aren’t these threads a different place without those 2 ‘unintended servants of Satan’ getting all our backs up.

Don’t get me wrong, just as I wouldn’t have a problem with an indigenous person relating their creation story I don’t really have a problem with you having yours. Where I have gone and had a nibble back is with the proposition implicit in your claim “Not sure how much of a morality can be built on the proposition, “Humans are nothing special”. If it’s a morality bent on nothing better than the reflex protection of the human species, I can see that morality being rather ruthless.”. That proposition here is that your morality is superior not only in span but also in quality than mine.

However I do recognise that by arguing that my morality may be more encompassing and more innate I am guilty of the same conceit. My only defence is that these arguments have been defensive in nature so to speak.

And this seems to be a common thread in some of the past discussions on OLO on this topic. It has been dominated by those who are not content with living their lives embraced in their own belief system but feel the need to decry the systems of others. You would be probably one of the most benign in this good thief but there are others who are not so reticent, those who indeed lack empathy.

Cont

Cont

So I am happy for you to enjoy what your faith brings, to revel in it, and yes even proclaim it. I will even acknowledge periods in my own life when I have looked with some envy at the comfort and security afforded those who have embraced a faith based system.

But I do reject the notion that these systems deliver real empathy directly through their moral codes. They certainly may afford opportunities for it to develop such as helping at a church run soup kitchen may expose people to the human stories present in those experiencing homelessness. But empathy can not be delivered by imposing a moral dictum. I have far greater respect for those who give to charity because of a compassion for the victims of calamities rather than because they are tithed within their churches or mosques.

I have always been bemused by the ’Christian’ bumper sticker ’Be kind to your enemies because it will drive them crazy’. Empathy is expanded from basic human interactions. By placing Jews in ghettos, or refugees behind razor wire in our deserts, our higher powers try to thwart this very human trait.

While you see them as coming from top down my position is our moral codes have been developed from the ground up. I think you sense that when you say “developing moral feelings like empathy would greatly increase our practical moral output.” It becomes almost a nature/nurture question. In many ways it is another creation story so I will respect your version and appreciate the fact we have achieved a little of that consensus that it so often rare in these conversations.

Geez, I had better stop before I break out a few bars of ‘Imagine’.

All religions, goodthief, I regard as mild hysteria.

well i don't want to make it a new age huggy thing, but i've also very much appreciated the company and the conversation on this thread. I'll now try to change that by telling goodthief what he (?) really thinks, that he really agrees with csteele.

yes, apart from moral impulses we have selfish impulses and vengeful impulses. so, we need some further authority, godly or stately. and assuming none of us here are psychopaths (on other threads, i'd hesitate to make that assumption ...), we at least acknowledge the substantial legal/practical authority of the "authority".

but i think csteele's onto it when she (?) says: "But empathy can not be delivered by imposing a moral dictum." that is, if it doesn't have that empathy, it is not morality, it is simply following authority. following authority may be rational, and it may do "good" from an external viewer's moral eye, but it's not moral: it's just not what the word means.

so, i think my (a) is not really a source of morality at all. (it wasn't meant to be a trick question: i have a bad habit of typing first and thinking second). and, goodthief, if i try to make sense of how you have talked about god, it actually seems to me that you agree.

forgive me if i'm misrepresenting you, but you have seemed to talk of just "knowing" god, a la (b) or (d). so, if this "known" god then "tells" you rules a la (a), this is really just an extension of (b). in effect, you "Know" these rules really just as an extension of "knowing" god.

so, it seems to me that your source of the morality is really (b), and that (a) is just your way of thinking about it!

of course, i'm not trying to tell you what you should believe. i'm just trying to make sense of what you say you do believe. (and of course i'm trying to make sense of my own beliefs, too).