(July 10, 2013 at 2:24 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 9, 2013 at 7:59 pm)Inigo Wrote: I, in common with, among others, professor Robin Le Poidevin use the term 'theist' to refer to what I have just said I use it to refer to.

Could you please provide sources? I've looked and couldn't find anything.

OK I found an interesting article. perhaps this warrants a new thread.

Some Varieties of Atheism:

William James: There is no atheism, as religion is defined to include any fundamental perspective on life.

a-theism : ‘Narrow’ atheism, involving only the rejection of monotheism.

atheism : ‘Broad’ rejection of the possible
existence of any and all divine (supernaturally
powerful) beings.

philosophynow.org/issues/78/The_Varieties_of_Atheist_Experience

Edit:

(July 10, 2013 at 12:39 am)simplexity Wrote: It could not be:
1)A gods commands/instructions because nothing is necessarily suffering and therefore these gods commands are not necessarily moral, in other words: euthypro's dilema

To:
It could not be:
1)A gods commands/instructions because those commands could involve unneeded and/or intentional suffering so therefore these gods commands are not necessarily moral, in other words: euthypro's dilema

(July 10, 2013 at 2:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: OK I found an interesting article. perhaps this warrants a new thread.

Some Varieties of Atheism:

William James: There is no atheism, as religion is defined to include any fundamental perspective on life.

a-theism : ‘Narrow’ atheism, involving only the rejection of monotheism.

atheism : ‘Broad’ rejection of the possible
existence of any and all divine (supernaturally
powerful) beings.

philosophynow.org/issues/78/The_Varieties_of_Atheist_Experience

Actually, even granting the broad definition of atheism and the definition of religion to include any fundamental perspective on life - this would still be wrong. It would just re-classify all philosophies - including atheistic ones - as being religions.

(July 10, 2013 at 3:26 am)genkaus Wrote: Actually, even granting the broad definition of atheism and the definition of religion to include any fundamental perspective on life - this would still be wrong. It would just re-classify all philosophies - including atheistic ones - as being religions.

Yes, that's exactly what it says it does... classifies all philosophies as religions. Your statement is confused. You don't grant the broad definition.

(July 10, 2013 at 2:33 am)simplexity Wrote: 2 and 3 are only true for most of us who are aware. Yes. But if you like to suffer, than you are not really suffering. Which brings up some other additions. I reasoned through that maybe a little too quickly... If Inigo keeps going on about his gmorality, though arg... Good one btw.

What other moralities do not require the existence of suffering to work, though? I'd be interested.

Putting aside Inigo's inane gmorality for the nonce - here would be my views on morality.

Simply put, morality is a set of principles that a person refers to when trying to decide whether or not he should do something. However, in practice, these principles are so strongly internalized that one does not need to explicitly think about them when considering a particular act - the feeling of wrongness becomes almost automatic and subconscious. A good analogy would be how when you see "2+2=7" or "he is doesing nothing", you don't need to refer to the principles of mathematics or the English language - you seemingly automatically know that this is mathematically wrong or semantically wrong - or in context of actions, morally wrong. But the fact is, it is not automatic. It is something you have been learning since childhood. It is the result of beliefs that you conceptually hold.

For example, I don't doubt that when Christians say that gay sex is wrong that their sense of moral revulsion is anything but genuine. Similarly, I don't doubt that when people used to say that interracial marriage was wrong that their moral compass was faulty or broken. Their sense of moral wrongness was the result of their deeply held beliefs.

And since different people, communities, societies and ages hold different beliefs, there can be innumerable moralities in existence. The next question for us usually is - which morality should I choose to live by? Which morality is correct? And since this question precedes acceptance of one, it does not have a moral aspect to it. Only someone who has already accepted and internalized a particular morality (which happens to be almost everyone in the world) would consider another person's choice to be morally wrong.

But the answer to that is simpler than that. Most of the time, you don't need to choose. That choice is often the automatic result of what you believe about the world, the nature of humanity and yourself. For example, if you believe that the world is created and ruled by a vengeful spirit, that humanity is corrupt and sinful and you yourself are destined to suffer unless saved by an external agent - then presto - you have a Christian morality. If you believe that world works according to specific rules, that humans are mostly rational and working for their own welfare and your own desire is to live a productive and fulfilling life, then you have the makings of a secular morality.

But, if it were a choice and someone were to ask me which morality one should choose to live by, I would answer, pick the one that is most rational. Morality is required to live in the real world. So, it makes sense that the one that best reflects reality is the better one. The idea morality - though one doesn't exist yet - would be the one that takes in account the universal facts about human psychology. And to hold this morality - and by that, I mean internalize to such an extent that your automatic, sub-conscious and seemingly instinctual moral sensations are in accord with it - one would need to have a completely rational worldview.

Consider empathy-based morality, for instance. Barring any great psychological damage, it is true for most humans that we do not wish to suffer. It is also true that if we identify someone as similar to us, we suffer due to their suffering. However, identifying someone as similar is an intellectual issue. Historically, we've seen that if we can irrationally consider someone to be "not like us" - such as another race - we can easily perpetrate suffering among them without feeling a twinge of guilt. Further, this morality requires us to suspend this instinctive response in certain cases - such as when punishing criminals. Also, if someone does not have that instinctive response (or has unlearned it), then this morality wouldn't apply to them either. So, while viable option, it is not perfect.

Another example would be ethical egoism with the premise of self-actualization. Consider, for the moment, that leading a happy and fulfilling life is the natural and universal desire of all human beings. It may not be true - of if it is, atleast it isn't evident yet. Also, assume that "true" happiness - as different from simple physical pleasure - is the effect of self-actualization and the degree to which you are happy is related to how actualized you are. This may very well be true, since we see that those living up to their potential are usually happier. These facts would then serve to be the premises of a morality where you should act in your rational self-interest and, assuming the universal nature of the premises, it'd be universally applicable as well.

Utilitarianism gives us another morality, where the ultimate goal is to maximize pleasure. Virtue ethics, which regard specific virtues as required for the ideal state of eudaimonia - which in turn serves as the ultimate goal - is another morality that wouldn't require you to empathize with others.

And then, of course, there is the old favorite gmorality, where your belief that there is a vengeful spirit issuing direct instructions that is the cause of your moral "sensations" and that it'll torture you if you don't comply.

---

(July 10, 2013 at 3:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 3:26 am)genkaus Wrote: Actually, even granting the broad definition of atheism and the definition of religion to include any fundamental perspective on life - this would still be wrong. It would just re-classify all philosophies - including atheistic ones - as being religions.

Yes, that's exactly what it says it does... classifies all philosophies as religions. Your statement is confused. You don't grant the broad definition.

I do grant the broad definition. All it would mean is that we atheists are religious people. There would be atheists who practice the religion of naturalism. Others who practice materialism. Others practicing rationalism, or humanism or objectivism or utilitarianism and so on.

(July 10, 2013 at 2:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: OK I found an interesting article. perhaps this warrants a new thread.

Some Varieties of Atheism:

William James: There is no atheism, as religion is defined to include any fundamental perspective on life.

a-theism : ‘Narrow’ atheism, involving only the rejection of monotheism.

atheism : ‘Broad’ rejection of the possible
existence of any and all divine (supernaturally
powerful) beings.

philosophynow.org/issues/78/The_Varieties_of_Atheist_Experience

Kind of a useless thing to talk about though, isn't it? I mean, fine, if you want to reclassify all these things so they're in the same basket, whatever. But where does it get us? At best all that can be said is now we've broadened the scope of one word to be an umbrella over many individual concepts. The thing is, those individual concepts still mean things on their own, so what has actually been accomplished?

Deflection and forced/percieved equivalence Esq....that's what's been accomplished...lol.

(July 10, 2013 at 7:55 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 2:58 am)fr0d0 Wrote: OK I found an interesting article. perhaps this warrants a new thread.

Some Varieties of Atheism:

William James: There is no atheism, as religion is defined to include any fundamental perspective on life.

a-theism : ‘Narrow’ atheism, involving only the rejection of monotheism.

atheism : ‘Broad’ rejection of the possible
existence of any and all divine (supernaturally
powerful) beings.

philosophynow.org/issues/78/The_Varieties_of_Atheist_Experience

Kind of a useless thing to talk about though, isn't it? I mean, fine, if you want to reclassify all these things so they're in the same basket, whatever. But where does it get us? At best all that can be said is now we've broadened the scope of one word to be an umbrella over many individual concepts. The thing is, those individual concepts still mean things on their own, so what has actually been accomplished?

No atheist is going to buy into calling every world view religious. Nor is there any need to when we can already talk about what is similar and different in our world views without blurring what is meant by calling something a religion.

It may be true to say that everyone holds certain values or ideas to be paramount. But that alone doesn't seem reason enough to say everyone is religious. On the other hand if someone holds some beliefs to be sacred, or essential to a meaningful life, then I think something about religion has crept in.

If religious experience is defined so broadly, then the question of gods or deities are not even necessary to the definition. I wonder though whether anyone holds the nonexistence of gods in such high regard. If atheists can be described as religious in regard to anything, I don't think it will be in terms of gods. If we hold anything to be sacred it won't be that gods do not exist.

My point was that morality isn't an actual thing you can touch or see, according to you they are made out instructions everyone has reason to comply with whatever their interests. the only person who could make these instructions would have to be powerful.

Quote:No. I am saying that real moral instructions would have to be the instructions of a powerful supernatural agent of some kind because this is what it would take for there to exist instructions with which everyone has reason to comply whatever their interests.

so to arrive at this conclusion I can only think that you either....

1 you researched the different definitions of morality, read about normative morality and how everyone has a reason to comply with them.

2 You feel you and others are receiving these instructions.


I can't think of a 3rd way

The first one makes no sense because this still doesn't prove that any instructions exist that are rationally inescapable, you don't know for sure of any that exist as you have said yourself

Quote:And the truthful answer is that I do not know exactly what morality instructs us to do.

So you don't know which instructions are inescapable, how do you know any of them are?

The second one is no reason to believe god exists either, you feel and sense things are right or wrong, most people do, except you seem to just have this feeling that your sense of right and wrong are instructions from god.

(July 10, 2013 at 4:32 am)genkaus Wrote: I do grant the broad definition. All it would mean is that we atheists are religious people. There would be atheists who practice the religion of naturalism. Others who practice materialism. Others practicing rationalism, or humanism or objectivism or utilitarianism and so on.

Right. So the second part of your statement is incorrect then

"this would still be wrong. It would just re-classify all philosophies - including atheistic ones - as being religions."