A deist god has no interaction with the universe other than to create it. Specifically, such a god does not communicate with man. Given a lack of specific revelation, the notion that rights are granted by God must come from what is called general revelation, i.e., from observation about what is. That "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not self-evident to most governments, means either that man ignores the evidence around him, or that these self-evident rights are only evident within a framework in which God has communicated these rights. IMHO, the deists were so inculcated by general Christian principles that they put them into the Declaration of Independence without fully examining the implications of their deism on what they wrote. YMMV.
1) I would argue that the Pledge is no different in spirit than one of our official founding documents. 2) "Creator" is still a theistic concept. Should it be banned from school?
By that reasoning, I would argue that the Pledge of Allegience also has no legal bearing and can also be cheerfully ignored.
Except that is isn't, because it affirms a theistic worldview. If the Supreme Court says it must be changed, I don't see how we can escape the conclusion that the Declaration of Independence must be changed -- or not taught in school.
What, then, do you do with the Declaration of Independence? It states that our rights are granted by "our Creator", not government. Government is established to protect those rights, but it cannot change them. For the life of me, I can't figure out how to make this document fit within an atheistic worldview. Will the courts force us to change this document next?
It is the very relativism of morality that enforces reasonable, moderate behaviour. I can't declaim anyone else's belief as right or wrong - but I can say that they also can't do that to another.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that morality is relative and then inject the absolute "they can't do that to another."
Since morality is relative, you cannot say that persecution is wrong; all you can say is that you don't like it. But since everything is relative, why should any weight be given to your position over anyone else's?
Let me try to answer your second question first. I'm treating philosophy like geometry in that, given an axiom (atheism is true), using reason to see where it leads. You somewhat agree that if atheism is true that morality is relative. I don't see how you can say "typically", since it cannot be otherwise. If you can point to a moral statement to which all atheists must agree then a lot of people will be grateful to you. Anyway, being an engineer, we then test this against boundary conditions. The simple boundary condition is where two people who have opposing moralities come into conflict. There is no "meta-morality" to decide between them. So, in the extreme, either people do what they want to do without restraint (anarchy), or force of some type is used to decide between the opposing viewpoints. But few of us I think would argue that "might makes right". But this is what atheism leads to. And that's a bad thing.
As to your comment on point #1, I would ask how many of the people you have polled lead what some have termed "the examined life". That is, they don't always know how their starting point(s) integrate with their daily lives.
As to "point #2", I'm not sure what this buys you, except perhaps a blunting of disagreement over what is right and wrong. Maybe you could elaborate a bit here.
Our legal system hasn't degenerated to anarchy or despotism, yet, because the U.S. government is based upon the notion of absolute rights, granted by God, to be protected by governement: "... all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...". But this is beginning to change; a former president recently advanced the notion that it is government which grants rights. If this switch happens, then we're in trouble, even it it might take 500 hundred years. Some of us won't go quietly...
What does "debated, well considered morality" mean? That the majority is right? You know that isn't true. Something else?
Finally, as to your first question; we all end up choosing which path we take. But they have different results and different consequences.
Given atheism as a starting point morality must be relative; as such, it ends up being based solely upon personal preference. So my statement follows. If you don't like the result, show the flaw in the logic.
As for your other challenge, you can start with:
"Love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you." "Love your enemies..." "Forgive as your Heavenly Father has forgiven you."
Some, sadly and shamefully, may not achieve that ideal, but it's an absolute to either be lived up to, or rationalized away.
Of course its an indictment of dictatorships. Didn't I say earlier that atheism unchecked leads inevitable to anarchy or totalitarianism? There's a reason for this.
Please go back and re-read what I wrote. I said, "For example, atheists can be moral people, but they are usually this way in spite of the first principle that God does not exist. Atheism unchecked must lead to either anarchy or despotism"
Your moral code is "be nice to others". How is that derived from atheism? Another athiest seems to advocate "selfish pragmatism." Whose code is right? Suppose you come across a person whose moral code is "survival of the fittest". On what basis will you say that he is wrong? Furthermore, how would you live in a society based upon this?
As for your assessment of religion, I see something quite different. I see liberal giving, of time, self, and money to help the poor and needy. I see people loving those who hate them. I see kindness and compassion and a striving for freedom of the individual. As just one example, I had the privilege of working with a man in whose son, having converted to Christianity, was killed by the local Muslims. Instead of reacting with hatred, he forgave them and is working among them to relieve their oppressive poverty (with help from Christians in the West). And when I see the abuses that do happen, I agree with you that they are wrong. They are contrary to Christianity, not in accordance with it.
But the predator who lives by "survival of the fittest", or "might makes right", or "pragmatic selfishness" is quite in accordance with atheistic morality.
What is the moral basis in atheism that says persecution is wrong? It's still going on in China; what suasion are you going to use to stop them?
One could also argue that Soviet-style Communism is as much a religion as Christianity, which sort of negates the argument that these "atheistic" regimes are free from "religion." Replacing one fucked-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life.
Your only choices are theism or atheism. One of them can't be "reality denying". So which one is it?
Oops. My apologies. Your "right" was "I agree and here's why" not "riiiight, here are counter-examples." That's why I get for trying to do three things at once.
Of course I've heard of them. Take a look at http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathemati cians/Kepler.html, which says:
Throughout his life, Kepler was a profoundly religious man. All his writings contain numerous references to God, and he saw his work as a fulfilment of his Christian duty to understand the works of God. Man being, as Kepler believed, made in the image of God, was clearly capable of understanding the Universe that He had created. Moreover, Kepler was convinced that God had made the Universe according to a mathematical plan (a belief found in the works of Plato and associated with Pythagoras)
The same site has an article on Kepler which, if he wasn't Christian (it doesn't say), shows a strong influence of Christianity on his life.
Do you know whether or not Galileo was a Christian? It's certainly possible and, I would think, likely.
Concerning Faraday, the same web site says
The family were held closely together by a strong religious faith, being members of the Sandemanians, a form of the Protestant Church which had split from the Church of Scotland. The Sandemanians believed in the literal truth of the Bible and tried to recreate the sense of love and community which had characterised the early Christian Church. The religious influence was important for Faraday since the theories he developed later in his life were strongly influenced by a belief in a unity of the world.
I claim there is no objective moral reference (first principles, as you call it). I think that's the only intellectually honest answer to the human condition.
I don't agree with your first principles, either philosophically, personally, or historically.
Atheists commit no more crimes than the rest of the population
The modern atheistic regimes have killed more people than all of the "religious" wars in history. And they do it in concordence with their atheism; as opposed to the theists who do it in spite of their theism.
A false dichotomy. You've completely missed the benefits of collaboration.
Why should I collaborate with you if I can get what I want without it?
The method of science works whether one is a theist or an atheist. After all, natural laws don't care what you believe.
What you are actually saying is that your prefered philosophy is naturalism and you are using the method of science to try to prove the belief that God does not exist.
You confuse "being moral" with "being moral consistently according to first principles." For example, atheists can be moral people, but they are usually this way in spite of the first principle that God does not exist. Atheism unchecked must lead to either anarchy or despotism. The noted atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen has said:
We have been unable to show that Reason requires the moral point of view, or that really rationa, persons... need not be egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide how. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me... Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.
For the atheist, morality is based solely on personal preference, whatever that preference may be. Since there is no unanimity of preference, opposed preferences will clash -- which ends up either in anarchy or totalitarianism.
If you review your history, science first started to flourish in Christian regions. The reason for this is that Christianity provided an ordered worldview -- nature is not capricious since nature's God is not capricious. Therefore, it can be studied. Since God is the source of reason and intelligence, these traits can be applied to creation in order to "think His thoughts after Him."
The scientific method works regardless of worldview. When atheists try to use the method of science to prove a naturalistic philosophy, then Christianity will object.
After all, Christianity is anti-naturalism. And rightly so, since the evidence of history is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Privacy and fascism had nothing to do with it. Nor was census taking illegal (the book of Numbers is one counter-example). The reason God forbade this particular census was because David wanted to use it to build an army (cf 2 Sam 24:9) -- instead of relying upon the Lord God,
Slashdot Mirror
A deist god has no interaction with the universe other than to create it. Specifically, such a god does not communicate with man. Given a lack of specific revelation, the notion that rights are granted by God must come from what is called general revelation, i.e., from observation about what is. That "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not self-evident to most governments, means either that man ignores the evidence around him, or that these self-evident rights are only evident within a framework in which God has communicated these rights. IMHO, the deists were so inculcated by general Christian principles that they put them into the Declaration of Independence without fully examining the implications of their deism on what they wrote. YMMV.
1) I would argue that the Pledge is no different in spirit than one of our official founding documents.
2) "Creator" is still a theistic concept. Should it be banned from school?
By that reasoning, I would argue that the Pledge of Allegience also has no legal bearing and can also be cheerfully ignored.
Except that is isn't, because it affirms a theistic worldview. If the Supreme Court says it must be changed, I don't see how we can escape the conclusion that the Declaration of Independence must be changed -- or not taught in school.
What, then, do you do with the Declaration of Independence? It states that our rights are granted by "our Creator", not government. Government is established to protect those rights, but it cannot change them. For the life of me, I can't figure out how to make this document fit within an atheistic worldview. Will the courts force us to change this document next?
It is the very relativism of morality that enforces reasonable, moderate behaviour. I can't declaim anyone else's belief as right or wrong - but I can say that they also can't do that to another.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that morality is relative and then inject the absolute "they can't do that to another."
Since morality is relative, you cannot say that persecution is wrong; all you can say is that you don't like it. But since everything is relative, why should any weight be given to your position over anyone else's?
Let me try to answer your second question first. I'm treating philosophy like geometry in that, given an axiom (atheism is true), using reason to see where it leads. You somewhat agree that if atheism is true that morality is relative. I don't see how you can say "typically", since it cannot be otherwise. If you can point to a moral statement to which all atheists must agree then a lot of people will be grateful to you. Anyway, being an engineer, we then test this against boundary conditions. The simple boundary condition is where two people who have opposing moralities come into conflict. There is no "meta-morality" to decide between them. So, in the extreme, either people do what they want to do without restraint (anarchy), or force of some type is used to decide between the opposing viewpoints. But few of us I think would argue that "might makes right". But this is what atheism leads to. And that's a bad thing.
As to your comment on point #1, I would ask how many of the people you have polled lead what some have termed "the examined life". That is, they don't always know how their starting point(s) integrate with their daily lives.
As to "point #2", I'm not sure what this buys you, except perhaps a blunting of disagreement over what is right and wrong. Maybe you could elaborate a bit here.
Our legal system hasn't degenerated to anarchy or despotism, yet, because the U.S. government is based upon the notion of absolute rights, granted by God, to be protected by governement: "... all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...". But this is beginning to change; a former president recently advanced the notion that it is government which grants rights. If this switch happens, then we're in trouble, even it it might take 500 hundred years. Some of us won't go quietly...
What does "debated, well considered morality" mean? That the majority is right? You know that isn't true. Something else?
Finally, as to your first question; we all end up choosing which path we take. But they have different results and different consequences.
Given atheism as a starting point morality must be relative; as such, it ends up being based solely upon personal preference. So my statement follows. If you don't like the result, show the flaw in the logic.
As for your other challenge, you can start with:
"Love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you."
"Love your enemies..."
"Forgive as your Heavenly Father has forgiven you."
Some, sadly and shamefully, may not achieve that ideal, but it's an absolute to either be lived up to, or rationalized away.
Of course its an indictment of dictatorships. Didn't I say earlier that atheism unchecked leads inevitable to anarchy or totalitarianism? There's a reason for this.
Please go back and re-read what I wrote. I said, "For example, atheists can be moral people, but they are usually this way in spite of the first principle that God does not exist. Atheism unchecked must lead to either anarchy or despotism"
Your moral code is "be nice to others". How is that derived from atheism? Another athiest seems to advocate "selfish pragmatism." Whose code is right? Suppose you come across a person whose moral code is "survival of the fittest". On what basis will you say that he is wrong? Furthermore, how would you live in a society based upon this?
As for your assessment of religion, I see something quite different. I see liberal giving, of time, self, and money to help the poor and needy. I see people loving those who hate them. I see kindness and compassion and a striving for freedom of the individual. As just one example, I had the privilege of working with a man in whose son, having converted to Christianity, was killed by the local Muslims. Instead of reacting with hatred, he forgave them and is working among them to relieve their oppressive poverty (with help from Christians in the West). And when I see the abuses that do happen, I agree with you that they are wrong. They are contrary to Christianity, not in accordance with it.
But the predator who lives by "survival of the fittest", or "might makes right", or "pragmatic selfishness" is quite in accordance with atheistic morality.
What is the moral basis in atheism that says persecution is wrong? It's still going on in China; what suasion are you going to use to stop them?
One could also argue that Soviet-style Communism is as much a religion as Christianity, which sort of negates the argument that these "atheistic" regimes are free from "religion." Replacing one fucked-up, reality-denying philosophy (say, Christianity as it's been practiced traditionally) with another (say, Communism) isn't likely to lead to an improvement in anybody's quality of life.
Your only choices are theism or atheism. One of them can't be "reality denying". So which one is it?
Show me the statistics
I'll start w/ 20 million in the Soviet Union, 65 million under Mao and 2 million in Cambodia. I'll gather some follow-up statistics as time permits.
Just as importantly, please provide a reason why, given atheism as a starting point, this was wrong.
Because being collaborative benefits you in the long run.
So the basis of morality should be selfish pragmatism?
I really must switch to decaf...
Oops. My apologies. Your "right" was "I agree and here's why" not "riiiight, here are counter-examples." That's why I get for trying to do three things at once.
Do you know whether or not Galileo was a Christian? It's certainly possible and, I would think, likely.
Concerning Faraday, the same web site says
And so on. You were saying?
I claim there is no objective moral reference (first principles, as you call it). I think that's the only intellectually honest answer to the human condition.
I don't agree with your first principles, either philosophically, personally, or historically.
Atheists commit no more crimes than the rest of the population
The modern atheistic regimes have killed more people than all of the "religious" wars in history. And they do it in concordence with their atheism; as opposed to the theists who do it in spite of their theism.
A false dichotomy. You've completely missed the benefits of collaboration.
Why should I collaborate with you if I can get what I want without it?
The method of science works whether one is a theist or an atheist. After all, natural laws don't care what you believe.
What you are actually saying is that your prefered philosophy is naturalism and you are using the method of science to try to prove the belief that God does not exist.
If you review your history, science first started to flourish in Christian regions. The reason for this is that Christianity provided an ordered worldview -- nature is not capricious since nature's God is not capricious. Therefore, it can be studied. Since God is the source of reason and intelligence, these traits can be applied to creation in order to "think His thoughts after Him."
The scientific method works regardless of worldview. When atheists try to use the method of science to prove a naturalistic philosophy, then Christianity will object.
After all, Christianity is anti-naturalism. And rightly so, since the evidence of history is that Jesus rose from the dead.
Aquafina is a Pepsi product.
Privacy and fascism had nothing to do with it. Nor was census taking illegal (the book of Numbers is one counter-example). The reason God forbade this particular census was because David wanted to use it to build an army (cf 2 Sam 24:9) -- instead of relying upon the Lord God,