Morality Without God?

[Spock]

Actually, christians get banned as well. We had someone with a philosophy degree, who read Greek and Hebrew, but he was recently banned. Oh well.

Why was he banned? Was he rude and irrational?

So Spock. What is your purpose here?

My purpose is simple. I was a convinced Christian for about 15 years. I produced a website with hundreds of pages to present the evidence that convinced me that it was true. Curiously, most of the evidence I presented appears to remain valid, but I cannot believe in the Bible or the God it presents because of the kinds of things we have been discussing in this thread (and many other reasons too, as I explain in my article Why I Quit Christianity). So I am here to test my understanding and to have my arguments "put through the fire." I want to know if I have made any mistakes. What better place to have the validity of my arguments tested than here?

Simple as that.

[RickD]

jlay wrote:Actually, christians get banned as well. We had someone with a philosophy degree, who read Greek and Hebrew, but he was recently banned. Oh well.

Spock asked:
Why was he banned? Was he rude and irrational?

If he was banned for being rude and irrational, then we'd all be banned at some time.

BTW the person jlay is referring to was banned temporarily. He was not banned permanently, and is still a member here. He is welcome back if he chooses to come back.

My purpose is simple. I was a convinced Christian for about 15 years. I produced a website with hundreds of pages to present the evidence that convinced me that it was true. Curiously, most of the evidence I presented appears to remain valid, but I cannot believe in the Bible or the God it presents because of the kinds of things we have been discussing in this thread (and many other reasons too, as I explain in my article Why I quit Christianity). So I am here to test my understanding and to have my arguments "put through the fire." I want to know if I have made any mistakes. What better place to have the validity of my arguments tested than here?

I didn't know that was your website. I'll have to have a look at it more in depth now.

[jlay]

Spock,

You said,

I am familiar with all the major arguments of Christian apologists and would be rather surprised to find one that I have not already seen.

Then

What better place to have the validity of my arguments tested than here?

So, yes, I question whether you are sincere. It's up to mods to decide whether this is the place for you to test out your arguments.
As you already know, we'd be surprised to find one objection that we've not already seen. Peace.

[Spock]

This is why all the attempts to explain away the individual problems here or there like genocide, sexism, slavery, etc. will never work. An intelligent reading of the Bible cannot help but see that there is a "Big Picture" that portrays God as fundamentally irrational and violent. The only possible defense is to propose false limitations on God as if he had no other choice. This is what strikes me as so absurd. The attempt to justify God depend critically upon forgetting that he is supposed to be "God" - that is, an infinitely intelligent, wise, and loving creator who can do anything he wants. Why did he choose to create a world filled with violence, and then solve those problems with ever more violence?

What you are doing, which I am sure you are aware, is stating that an opinion COUNTER to YOU opinion on this matter is, unintelligent.
In short, you are calling those that don't agree with your opinion ( which is all you have been stating by the way, like us), unintelligent.
In short, stupid.

One could argue that the fact that you see NO OTHER recourse but to view God that way, to be rather myopic or perhaps even *gasp* unintelligent !

Paul, you are correct. My comment was dismissive. Please accept my apology. I should have made it clear that I was stating my opinion, not an absolute fact. I should have said "It seems to me that an intelligent reading of the Bible ...."

Fact is that you have chosen to interpret these verses and stories a certain way and I, for one, respect that since I h ave been there also.
There is NO NEED to say that a varying view is unintelligent or even to imply as such.
You are stating an opinion base don your views and interpretations and reasons there from.
So are we.

Agreed. Again, I will strive to be more accurate in my comments. Thank you for the correction.

I can't speak for others, but I think of myself as a fairly intelligent person, I have a Bach in Business and Mech. Engineering and working on my Bach, in Theology.
I run a business and have YET to do something so unintelligent as to make those that know me, call into question my intelligence.

Thanks for the background info. I have degrees in Physics and Mathematics. I worked on a Ph.D. focusing on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics but unfortunately never finished my dissertation.

In short, I think stating that you believe that any interpretation other than yours is "unintelligent" and "not based on reason" as you seem to imply is, well, insulting and uncalled for.

Again, I acknowledge the validity of your complaint. But while we are on the topic, I have noticed much more egregious offenses by Christians on this forum that didn't cause anyone to raise an eyebrow. I trust you see why this might strike an objective viewer as a double standard.

All the best.

[Butterfly]

B. W. wrote:No you have not countered any arguments because you cannot listen to reason due to the hurt inside that clouds your perception.

Spock replied:
B.W. - your ad hominem attack is fundamentally fallacious and irrational. And besides that, it is based a false assumption of knowledge that you simply do not have, namely, knowledge of Butterfly's motivations and psychology. And worse yet, it is false because Butterfly consistently gives reasons for her answers supported by logic and facts.

Butterfly wrote:
I have said nothing in my articles about my father, or other men in my life (except my wonderful husband ), so I think it best not to speculate on those things.

Rose, then what is this from your blog http://godandbutterfly.net/2010/05/

These are strong words, but nothing compared to the havoc wreaked in the lives of those women who have and are living under the oppression of power hungry, self-serving men who chose to inflict suffering on their fellow human beings instead of support. I speak from having had first hand experience with these self-serving men (starting with my father), who used their positions of authority to take advantage of women merely because they could. I have chosen this opportunity to purge my soul from this weight….allowing my butterfly the freedom to soar higher, and see farther then ever before, speaking out against those who stand in the way of the potential of each human life.

I stand corrected on mentioning my father on abusing his position of authority, but that in no way justifies your implications that my arguments are not rational, valid and based on biblical facts.

Looks like B. W. and I are pretty accurate when we say that your entire blog and arguments are based on a man(your Father), and/or men in your life that have, let's just say, been less than ideal, loving men.

So, you can continue blaming God for those who hurt you while claiming His name. OR, you can begin to move past this, and see God for who He really is. Your real loving Father. The One who loves you enough to send His son to die a agonizing death for YOU, Rose.

Both you and B.W. are totally in error in claiming that my arguments for the male bias of the Bible are based on anything other than my in-depth study of Scripture. You have both jumped to conclusions that my arguments are invalid based on your own speculations, NOT on what I have presented in my arguments.

[Spock]

Spock,

You said,

I am familiar with all the major arguments of Christian apologists and would be rather surprised to find one that I have not already seen.

Then

What better place to have the validity of my arguments tested than here?

So, yes, I question whether you are sincere. It's up to mods to decide whether this is the place for you to test out your arguments.

What is it about my comments that suggest any insincerity? The first quote states that I am familiar with the arguments. The second quote states that I am aware I could be wrong.

Your attack on my sincerity seems immoral to me, and I think you can easily understand why. All you need to do is apply the Golden Rule. How would you feel if I suggested similar things about you?

As you already know, we'd be surprised to find one objection that we've not already seen. Peace.

I don't think that is true. As far as I can tell, no one here has ever seen an argument like my argument for objective morality without God. If you had, you would have a prepared response. As it is, no one yet has touched my argument.

Shalom

[Spock]

So are you an anti-Semite, Butterfly? Your words can indict you of this.

Blatant ad hominem and deliberate misrepresentation by a MODERATOR on this forum?

The moderators are supposed to be prohibiting such behavior, not promoting it!

[RickD]

Butterfly wrote:
Both you and B.W. are totally in error in claiming that my arguments for the male bias of the Bible are based on anything other than my in-depth study of Scripture. You have both jumped to conclusions that my arguments are invalid based on your own speculations, NOT on what I have presented in my arguments.

If you haven't been in relationships with men who have abused their authority over you, or men who have made up an authority over you based on their sinful nature plus misinterpreted scripture, would you have started your woman's equality blog?

Rose, I disagree with what you presented in your arguments, because my interpretation of scripture is different. And, because the God inside me, is not the God that you are portraying Him as. And, because I don't blame God for man taking God's good name, and using it for evil purposes.

PaulSacramento wrote:I can't speak for others, but I think of myself as a fairly intelligent person, I have a Bach in Business and Mech. Engineering and working on my Bach, in Theology.
I run a business and have YET to do something so unintelligent as to make those that know me, call into question my intelligence.

Spock wrote:
Thanks for the background info. I have degrees in Physics and Mathematics. I worked on a Ph.D. focusing on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics but unfortunately never finished my dissertation.

Now that we've compared our qualifications to be able to speak here, I'm just a moron with a high-school education.

[Spock]

Looks like B. W. and I are pretty accurate when we say that your entire blog and arguments are based on a man(your Father), and/or men in your life that have, let's just say, been less than ideal, loving men.

Rick,

You have absolutely no justification to jump from a single parenthetical remark in two year old blog post to the assertion that the "entire blog and arguments are based on a man." Your assertion is blatantly irrational and demonstrably false. Butterfly does not base any of her ARGUMENTS on any such thing. You know this is true because you have read her blog. She presents evidence based on logic and facts. Your ad hominem attack is fundamentally fallacious.

Why is it that ad hominem is so common in this forum? You all would do well to pause and ponder that question.

[neo-x]

Spock » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:03 pm

neo-x wrote:
I know my Bible very well, and have studied it extensively.


Butterfly, you do not know the Bible very well in my opinion. the same way, as the reading of the the selfish gene does not make you an expert in evolutionary zoology or reading the Grand design makes you an expert in cosmology and astronomy; also then, reading the Bible, even extensively does not make you an expert in Biblical scholarship. Of course by expert I do not mean someone who is aggressively christian but someone who is qualified to handle these texts in their entirety, with learnt hermenutics and many other philosophical studies which are bound to directly affect the understanding of these texts.

You can argue that the simple pulpit preacher does not go into this much trouble to read his bible so why should I take an exception to you? The thing is anyone can pick up the English bible, reading it 8 times cover to cover and think they know it, is fine by me but as soon as they set foot on critical analysis, they face a challenge of scholarship which has evolved over 2000 years has plenty to offer and is quite solid in its foundations. You are good for the former reasoning because that is hardly challenging, meaning your view of the Bible. In that respect your opinion is no more greater or worse than the average christian believer or preacher who makes up God as he sees fit in his own mind but is that a scholarly take on the text itself? No, because it is not following any discipline seriously.

Hey there neo-x,

Your assertions imply the Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an argument does not depend upon any qualities of the person who states it.

But of course, if someone is ignorant of hermeneutics and the original languages, they will often assert false arguments. But then you need only show the error in the argument. Attacking someone's qualifications is simply a logical fallacy of the class ad hominem.

Its not the genetic fallacy, because I am not saying that she is wrong just because she is not qualified. I am not attacking someone's qualification, only asking them by what discipline they are actually making the arguments. See the bold part, that is partially my point. And if someone is not qualified why should anyone else see their point as legitimate scholarship, wouldn't you agree? Even if someone is not qualified as in academically, they at least should be open to the fact that the already established scholarship address their points. Saying that all of that is wrong, simply because I know a few languages, is not enough. You know Hebrew and Greek but let me ask you if you set out to write a book on the talmudic traditions, ignoring the research already done, would you be considered a serious scholar?

So please do not introduce red herrings in this. I think my assertion is fair enough.

Now to get you up to speed on the level of discourse I would like to see here: I have been studying the Bible for twenty years and was a convinced and rather fundamentlistic Christian for about 15 of those years. I can read both Greek and Hebrew and am very well grounded in all aspects of hermeneutics. I am familiar with all the major arguments of Christian apologists and would be rather surprised to find one that I have not already seen. This comes from decades of serious study. Of course, that doesn't give an ounce of support to any argument I present, since all arguments must stand on their own merit.

Very nice, and I am an ex-atheist, and I have been through all that arguments and stuff. I am three months away from finishing my doctorate in theology. Should be enough for you? Plus you can consider me the ignorant bloke as well, but mind you, I am aware of what I write.

If you want to present your opinion, that's fine, but when you do that with an apparent air of scholarship that is when I have to object about your qualification to accurately do so. Give me a reason to accept your take and study on the issues you cite, over my own take on these issues which are different in conclusion to yours. You can of course say that your wish here is not to convince anyone and I can respect that but you would realize that is not what I am asking, I am asking what makes your study any different than anyone else who think otherwise? What special discipline of scholarly analysis have you employed which is more True than I have studied?

This again is merely the Genetic Fallacy. We must evaluate the truth or falsehood of an argument solely on the argument itself.

Sorry, you are wrong, read my words, I am asking her the discipline and hermeneutic for her conclusions, hardly the genetic fallacy, I'd say. Again, just go around present an argument to any panel or bench of professors or scholars and see if they do not ask you this question, why? because it is a legitimate question. I didn't ask what was her qualification, I asked what makes her conclusion different than others, what technique has she employed, are there others who used the same technique and came out at different conclusion, it is her responsibility to check why this is the case. As you should be able to see that just reading the Bible cover to cover does not make anyone an expert. Just by reading biology at home you don't become a professional biologist and yes qualification to a certain degree does matter, even in theology.

neo-x wrote:
You want to be challenged? wish granted. Here we are, lets see what you have to offer?

Excellent! Is that for real? I ask because I get the impression that I would be banned if I presented my arguments as aggressively as the Christians on this forum.

Not unless you are a trash talking person(and most times we are patient with them as well), so you and I, won't be banned as long as we are civil. Don't get the wrong idea this isn't one of those forums where people just insult others and ban them before they can reply. I am not sure if you have been to one of those but if you have, you'd know what I am talking about.

[RickD]

Sorry, just to add:

Butterfly wrote:
I stand corrected on mentioning my father on abusing his position of authority, but that in no way justifies your implications that my arguments are not rational, valid and based on biblical facts.

You're not saying that your interpretation is the same as "biblical facts", correct?

[RickD]

Looks like B. W. and I are pretty accurate when we say that your entire blog and arguments are based on a man(your Father), and/or men in your life that have, let's just say, been less than ideal, loving men.

Rick,

You have absolutely no justification to jump from a single parenthetical remark in two year old blog post to the assertion that the "entire blog and arguments are based on a man." Your assertion is blatantly irrational and demonstrably false. Butterfly does not base any of her ARGUMENTS on any such thing. You know this is true because you have read her blog. She presents evidence based on logic and facts. Your ad hominem attack is fundamentally fallacious.

Spock, Butterfly presents her argument based on her experience with Her Father and/or men, which leads her to interpret scripture through the lens of her experience. I said her arguments are based on the fact(proven by Butterfly's own words in her blog) that her father, and/or other men emotionally abused her. The basis of her hurt is extremely evident in her blog. I think any objective person without personal bias can certainly see that. here:

These are strong words, but nothing compared to the havoc wreaked in the lives of those women who have and are living under the oppression of power hungry, self-serving men who chose to inflict suffering on their fellow human beings instead of support. I speak from having had first hand experience with these self-serving men (starting with my father), who used their positions of authority to take advantage of women merely because they could. I have chosen this opportunity to purge my soul from this weight….allowing my butterfly the freedom to soar higher, and see farther then ever before, speaking out against those who stand in the way of the potential of each human life.

Spock wrote:
Why is it that ad hominem is so common in this forum? You all would do well to pause and ponder that question.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]

Certainly you wouldn't say that her abuse is "a negative characteristic" that I'm pointing out? Certainly, you wouldn't claim that her emotional abuse is an "unrelated belief" in regards to her interpretations?

Spock, claiming God is the basis for emotional abuse by men, and the basis for all evil done by men, does nothing in the long run to help heal the effects of the abuse.

[Spock]

Hey there neo-x,

Your assertions imply the Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an argument does not depend upon any qualities of the person who states it.

But of course, if someone is ignorant of hermeneutics and the original languages, they will often assert false arguments. But then you need only show the error in the argument. Attacking someone's qualifications is simply a logical fallacy of the class ad hominem.

Its not the genetic fallacy, because I am not saying that she is wrong just because she is not qualified. I am not attacking someone's qualification, only asking them by what discipline they are actually making the arguments. See the bold part, that is partially my point. And if someone is not qualified why should anyone else see their point as legitimate scholarship, wouldn't you agree? Even if someone is not qualified as in academically, they at least should be open to the fact that the already established scholarship address their points. Saying that all of that is wrong, simply because I know a few languages, is not enough. You know Hebrew and Greek but let me ask you if you set out to write a book on the talmudic traditions, ignoring the research already done, would you be considered a serious scholar?

So please do not introduce red herrings in this. I think my assertion is fair enough.

I did not introduce a red herring. A red herring is an attempt to distract from the main point of an argument. I was directly addressing the words you wrote and showing why they were problematic. And now you have confirmed my criticism by doubling down on your Genetic Fallacy by focusing again on the qualifications of the arguer rather than the quality of the argument. Most members of this forum are anonymous. Nobody really knows their qualifications, but even if they did it would be irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of their arguments.

Furthermore, your appeal to "academic" qualifications is the fallacy of appeal to authority, and worse, it is absurd since the vast majority of academic conclusions (other than those of the conservative minority) strongly contradict the view of the Bible supported by Rich Deem and many, if not most, members of this forum.

And worse yet, you have falsely asserted that critics are not "open to the fact that the already established scholarship address their points." You have no justification for such an assertion. We have very good reasons to reject the assertions of apologists because I have never seen an apologist yet who did not commit blatant logical fallacies in their attempt to defend the Bible. Not one.

You have no justification for your false assertion that I have been "ignoring the research already done." On the contrary, I have thoroughly reviewed the attempts of many Christian apologists and found them consistently fallacious. See here for example.

Very nice, and I am an ex-atheist, and I have been through all that arguments and stuff. I am three months away from finishing my doctorate in theology. Should be enough for you? Plus you can consider me the ignorant bloke as well, but mind you, I am aware of what I write.

"Should that be enough for you?" - why do you ask that? I have told you that I do not base my criticism of any argument on the qualifications of the arguer. True can be spoken "from the mouth of babes."

Excellent! Is that for real? I ask because I get the impression that I would be banned if I presented my arguments as aggressively as the Christians on this forum.

Not unless you are a trash talking person(and most times we are patient with them as well), so you and I, won't be banned as long as we are civil. Don't get the wrong idea this isn't one of those forums where people just insult others and ban them before they can reply. I am not sure if you have been to one of those but if you have, you'd know what I am talking about.

Don't worry about that! I'm no trash talking person. On the contrary, I crave rational discourse - something that is very rare and precious on the internet. That's why I chose the persona of Spock. I'm interested in rational discourse based on logic and facts. And I freely admit when I'm wrong because I have nothing to lose but the errors I may hold. There is no more liberating condition of mind than to be free of any preconceived dogmas. I benefit any time anyone exposes an error in my thinking. They are like gardeners working for free to weed out errors from my Garden of Truth.

[domokunrox]

Your comment reveals a gross failure to understand the most basic elements of logic. When a proposition is written that refers to "persons A and B" it is understood to be referring to two arbitrary people and therefore necessarily applies to "ALL PEOPLE." A and B are merely variables, like in an algebraic equation.

If you want this conversation to continue, you will need to show that you understand your error since it will be impossible to reason with a person who cannot grasp the elementary principles of logic.

No, let me show you once again who is in error.

When a proposition is written, it refers to only things that are expressed in said proposition. You're guilty of a Non-sequitur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

I suggest you recognize your error since it is impossible to reason with a person who expresses disorderly thought and tries to pass it off as logic.

The standard of moral symmetry is independent of me and any particular individual because it is a symmetry constraint on any moral statement that involves persons A and B.

A statement on persons A and B IS and ONLY IS a statement on persons A and B.

Not only that, but there is no axiom present.

Again, if you are trying to pass it off as "ME TOO!", you are committing Tu quoque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Your statement that "Physics is a constant conjunction" is meaningless because the word "conjunction" always refers to at at least two things. Physics is a "conjunction" with what? You didn't say. Your comment is therefore irrational.

No, the statement is not meaningless. Talking physics, you are talking about matter in motion.
Constant conjunction
Whenever A has occurred, B has occurred
"Whenever I've seen smoke, I've seen fire"

If you are speaking of physics. The matter in motion is seen, but what is NOT SEEN is the NECESSITY. There is no necessary connection.

Necessary connection
Whenever A occurs, B MUST occur
Whenever A occurs, A has the POWER to MAKE B occur
Whenever A occurs in the future, B WILL occur.

Because there is no necessary connection, there is no explanatory power.

And we see the same error in your statement "There is no necessary connection." Connection with what? Who said it was necessary? I specifically stated that moral symmetry is "analogous to the symmetry principles used in physics to derive fundamental universal laws such as the conservation of angular momentum which is implied by the rotational symmetry of space by Noether's theorem." I get the impression that this is all way over your head.

No, again, there is nothing analogous with symmetry principals in physics to "derive" "fundamental" "universal" "laws". You are trying to smuggle in necessity in constant conjunction. If there is no necessary connection, there is no explanatory power.

And I am not "trying to pass off physics as metaphysics." I gave an analogy that you didn't understand. That's all.

No, thats EXACTLY what you are doing. I didn't misunderstand the analogy. You just don't know that you don't have the explanatory power that you think physics gives you. I've corrected you.

If there is any "constant conjunction" it is the conjunction between your comments and the set of sentences with no meaning.

Ironic that you briefly understood constant conjunction here to give another false analogy. When will you learn?

I explained but you have not understood my explanation, apparently because you don't understand basic logic that involves variables like "persons A and B."

No, I understood. However, you are wrong. You need a philosophy class to enroll in.

I have explained my argument many times in this thread. You appear oblivious to what I've written.

Not at all. You however appear incapable in carrying out a simple request to type out a single sentence and instead type out your complaining in typing out a single sentence.
Reason why I ask you to do something so simple is to show that no axiom exists in that single sentence.

If you want to challenge my argument, you need to demonstrate that you can accurately represent it. If you can't do that, then it would be absurd to try to discuss it with you.

I have challenged you, but you look more interested in dragging your feet. You need to write it. If you can't even write a simple sentence, there is just no discussion at all. This is where it is. Its time to put up or shut up.

Again, you fail to understand the most basic logic. Is the equation 1 + 2 = 3 "subjective" because "WE discern" it? Your comments make no sense at all. They are fundamentally irrational.

Where do these things called 1, 2, and 3 exist?

Even if you can prove that mathematics exist (and I seriously doubt you can prove such a thing exists), mathematics is the RELATIONS OF IDEAS and they are NECESSARILY CONNECTED. Its not the same thing when you are talking about PHYSICS, which is CONSTANT CONJUNCTION.

Of course you said "no" - you don't have a clue about what moral symmetry means or why it is objective despite the fact that I've repeatedly explained it.

I've repeatedly shown you that your explanation has NO EXPLANATORY POWER!

So you call me a "fool" for reading and understanding the plain and obvious meaning of the text? That explains a lot. If there were any truth to your claim, you wouldn't have to descend to such false and immoral insults.

Yes, you are a stubborn and ignorant fool because you don't understand academics, ancient history, ancient texts, and you don't want to understand in the proper context. I welcome you to continue discussing with everyone else on the subject. I am not interested in a debate on theology. There are plenty of other people who are well prepared to discuss that with you.

You say "God didn't order extermination" whereas the Bible says:

Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

I'm sure you have some very sophisticated theological definitions of "utterly destroy them" and "show no mercy" unto them. It should be quite a hoot.

Go to the theology section of the board and ask there. Its not a matter of "sophisticated", its a matter of CONTEXTUAL COMPREHENSION.


On another note,
jlay, you think you can take it from here? I'm REALLY BUSY at work. I think you guys are doing just fine. Where is Jac? He would be excellent in this discussion.

[PaulSacramento]

We ALL bring presuppositions and preconceived notions to the table, it is human nature.
We just need to be honest about them.
I myself have NO issues with religion and TONS of issues with organized religion.
I take the NT and "read back" into the OT and try to interpret it based on the NT.
I believe in the doctrine of "accommodation" in regards to how God speaks to Man.
Etc, etc...