Theists: how do you account for psychopaths?

[Edwardo Piet]

You're right, I should have added that after realizing what their caricature God really is, they may or may not choose to carry on worshipping it. But it causes some to "snap out" of religion, even if it only brings them as far as deism.

I'm just guessing of course, as I'm still learning about how the religious mind works. It seems this way from a lot of stories I've heard.

I think it's largely based on (1) The being unable to cope with the alternative. A life without ultimate meaning or a caretaker to take care of them and say everything is okay. (2) This includes the inability to cope with the notion of no afterlife. Failure to face death (3) This all leads to the presupposition that God MUST be good (otherwise they wouldn't cope) (4) And when all else fails they fall back on God's "Mysterious ways" or "You gotta have faith."

When running out of reasons the theist temporarily switches their brain off on the matter.

It's emotional thinking I think. In fact, I think even the most rational of us are ultimately driven by our irrational passions A LOT of the time... it's just that some of us don't need to be driven that way in all areas because some of us can face reality. I think theism is basically a coping mechanism for how shit life is and most people need it. And THAT is how shit life is. The fact that MOST people are theists and MOST people need that crutch.

What it comes down to is this: How many theists do you know that believe in God but wish they didn't and wish God didn't exist? Can you think of ANY at all? I can't. Their reasons for belief are psychological.

On the otherhand I can already think of two people who wish there was a good God: LadyForCamus and myself.

I think it would be great if a truly good God really did make this universe and he truly could make things better at the end of it all (better, but not worth it). However, I don't think it's possible for such a God to be truly good and all powerful. An all powerful God wouldn't NEED to allow these things. A truly good God that was at least as intelligent as you and I would also know that none of this is worth his making things better in the end. But if we get to heaven at the end of it all that's still better than nonexistence. Perhaps his powers are very limited (of course I don't actually believe such a God exists lol. Being hypothetical here. I'd MUCH sooner believe that we are living in a simulation) . . . personally I think the most moral kind of afterlife would be EVERYONE going to heaven. Even the very worst people. As there's no point in punishing people in an afterlife as it isn't going to improve their behavior as it's the supernatural realm anyway and in Heaven there is no harm to protect anyone from anyway. And it isn't going to detain them to protect them from others as there's no harm to be protected from in Heaven anyway (once again). So, I think that for a truly good God threats of hellfire should just be a way to dissuade people from bad behavior on earth... but then at the end of it all there's a surprise and everyone gets to Heaven. Of course that would mean that people like me are breaking the spell if believed... the worst people have to BELIEVE they'll go to hell if they do bad things otherwise it won't dissuade them. But I'm not sure if that's effective anyway. So I'm defending a kind of Universalism where everyone gets saved, but told differently in order to stop people doing bad things on earth. And also the idea that God isn't as powerful as he claims to be as that's yet another trick. I'm defending the idea of a God that isn't fully honest The next level of greater good

Again, such a God couldn't be all-powerful if he is all-good as there's literally no excuse for allowing what he allows.

TBH it wouldn't make any sense, to me, for God to only be unable to do logically impossible things... he ought not to be able to do metaphysically impossible things either. As metaphysics literally covers all kinds of reality including immaterial reality, that's why the etymology of it literally means beyond physics. What is metaphysically possible should apply to the supernatural realm just as much as the natural realm. And if God is in all things and reality can only be a certain way... then God cannot go beyond it because it's just as much his nature as logic is. If I believed in God I'd defend a logical and metaphysical platonism where there are two realities, the natural and the supernatural world: But God isn't beyond any of it they are just both part of his nature. And logic would be part of reality as well, it would be the most basic and binary rule of everything basically and ultimately (the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction)....

I think I'd be a very interesting theist if I had any reason whatsoever to believe such a being existed.

Such a limited and NOT all-powerful Godly being perhaps WOULD use human form to visit humanity to help them at some point. But I don't see why it would have to be Jesus. There's been plenty other claimed messiahs throughout history. Or maybe he'd be all of them (or some of them) and then plenty more? God can take whatever form he likes. I don't think that's logically impossible or metaphysically impossible (When thinking about metaphysical possiblity I ask myself "Could a being with extremely advanced technology achieve it?". Metaphysical possibility would certainly be beyond the natural world if we imagine two worlds... the natural and the supernatural. BUT if we can imagine it being possible in the natural world then it's DEFINITELY metaphysically possible..... of course that doesn't make it at all likely, plausible or believable and there's absolutely zero evidence for it and no reason whatsoever to believe it).

[robvalue]

Okay, I haven't seen anything saying that abuse actually causes psychopathy (different from psychosis). Do you have any sources?

What about the psycopaths who have a normal upbringing?

Some may just choose evil.  It may actually be covered in Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 for a rebellious child.

Okay, well thanks for answering.

[Edwardo Piet]

This ignores science of course. Psychopaths aren't normal people who 'choose evil' they're neurologically different and brain scans confirm it.

[robvalue]

Indeed, and he even noted that in his post. I think all of the answers given here ignore science, but I guess I had to expect that.

I actually thought "the fall" would be the most popular.

[Edwardo Piet]

OVER 43,000 POSTS! W00T!

Yeah... Original Sin is as immoral as Karma—the abhorrent kind where people are born with horrible illnesses today because of what 'they' did in 'past lives'— and immoral for exactly the same reason, as far as I am concerned.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I don't have a job or a bible

Here's the condensed version just for you = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgZqnsytJI

[SteveII]

Sure there are reasons to assign "good" to something. But what makes those reasons good? You end up with a infinite regress of 'why's' if you can't find a stopping place that provides some objectivity. Note below...

What do you mean "what makes those reasons good"? Reasons are valid or invalid, logical or not logical. The reasons themselves aren't 'good' the reasons are what support the fact that something is good (or bad).

That is simply wrong. Reason are not either valid or invalid. Reasons are just statements of rationale. Take the murder example. My reasons are: increase my security, alleviate my suffering, or create some happiness for me. These are not invalid reasons. It is your opinion that they are not sufficient reasons. Why? 

Why is suffering and depriving others of happiness wrong?

Because that is what is meant by wrong and right. A universe without any conscious beings capable of suffering, a universe entirely made of rocks, for instance, would be an amoral universe.

Big time question begging. Again, answer the question why is causing the suffering of others wrong --especially since I might have reasons to do so. 

Murder might increase my security, alleviate my suffering, or create some happiness for me!

Yes but using yourself as a special pleading case is precisely the opposite of being objective or rational. This is why the veil of ignorance thought experiment is so helpful.

If it's objectively wrong when needless suffering happens then it makes absolutely no sense to say that it only matters when you suffer but not for others. If it's wrong it's wrong period.

Pointing out the subjective nature of morality is not special pleading. You moved the goal post. I did not say "needless suffering". I listed three reasons why and you have not told me why my reasons are wrong. Fair warning, if you do, I am going to ask why to whatever answer you give. 

The veil of ignorance is a political theory about rights of a group. I am 100% sure I can get away with murder. Why should I refrain?

[Edwardo Piet]

That is simply wrong. Reason are not either valid or invalid. Reasons are just statements of rationale.

Incorrect. Either you have a valid argument or you don't. There's also the matter of whether your premises are sound, of course. But assuming that your premises are indeed sound then your reasons certainly have to be valid. You can't just start with sound premises and then make non-sequiturs and expect to be considered rational. Non-sequiturs are the opposite of rational.

Take the murder example. My reasons are: increase my security, alleviate my suffering, or create some happiness for me. These are not invalid reasons.

What are your premises? And are they sound?

It makes no sense to start with a premise that says X is wrong for everyone else but not for me. Because you have absolutely no rational justification for special pleading.

It is your opinion that they are not sufficient reasons. Why? 

There's nothing wrong with your reasons as long as you accept that the same applies to everyone else and it's also wrong for you to murder others because it increases their suffering. Again, it is irrational to fall to special pleading. Bias is irrational: Like I said, this is why the veil of ignorance thought experiment is objective and fair.

Big time question begging. Again, answer the question why is causing the suffering of others wrong --especially since I might have reasons to do so. 

That's a nonsensical question as the axiom is that suffering is wrong in the first place. If you're asking me to prove that suffering is wrong that's just silly. Once we accept that needless suffering is, obviously, bad, then we can get objective answers to questions based on that.

In case you didn't know: All objective fields start with axioms.

Pointing out the subjective nature of morality is not special pleading.

That is not what I said. I said saying that the rules only apply to your suffering is special pleading. Why is your suffering any more special than anyone else's? You have absolutely no justification for such a bias. Either needless suffering is bad or it isn't.

You moved the goal post. I did not say "needless suffering".

I didn't move the goal post at all. The whole time I've been saying that needless suffering is bad. Yes, you did not say needless suffering. *I* said needless suffering.

I listed three reasons why and you have not told me why my reasons are wrong.

Yes I have. Because it's special pleading to say that only your suffering matters.

I said that needless suffering is bad, and your response was to say why shouldn't you only care about your own and no one else's. My response: Because you have no justification for that special pleading. If suffering is bad full stop it makes no sense to say it's only bad for you and not for anyone else.

Fair warning, if you do, I am going to ask why to whatever answer you give. 

I've already told you. If we accept that needless suffering is morally bad then it makes no sense to say that only yours is bad. That is bias and special pleading. If it's bad full stop it's bad for everyone, you'd need a justification to say that yours mattered more than everyone else's and you haven't got that justification.

The veil of ignorance is a political theory about rights of a group. I am 100% sure I can get away with murder. Why should I refrain?

You don't understand the veil of ignorance if you are going to dismiss it like that. The point is that by eliminating bias you are more objective and the best way to eliminate bias of all is to not know which person you are going to be when you are born into the world. Like I said, there's absolutely no justification for saying that one person's suffering matters more than another's... so to say that yours matters more needs a justification.

You should refrain from murder because it would cause suffering for yourself and others.

If you say you only care about your own. So what? Who cares what you care about? It's still wrong for you to make others to suffer as well. Like I said, you've got no justification whatsoever for considering yourself special. Everyone's self-interest matters to themselves. You aren't special. Everyone matters.

[Catholic_Lady]

That is simply wrong. Reason are not either valid or invalid. Reasons are just statements of rationale.

Incorrect. Either you have a valid argument or you don't. There's also the matter of whether your premises are sound, of course. But assuming that your premises are indeed sound then your reasons certainly have to be valid. You can't just start with sound premises and then make non-sequiturs and expect to be considered rational. Non-sequiturs are the opposite of rational.

Take the murder example. My reasons are: increase my security, alleviate my suffering, or create some happiness for me. These are not invalid reasons.

What are your premises? And are they sound?

It makes no sense to start with a premise that says X is wrong for everyone else but not for me. Because you have absolutely no rational justification for special pleading.

It is your opinion that they are not sufficient reasons. Why? 

There's nothing wrong with your reasons as long as you accept that the same applies to everyone else and it's also wrong for you to murder others because it increases their suffering. Again, it is irrational to fall to special pleading. Bias is irrational: Like I said, this is why the veil of ignorance thought experiment is objective and fair.

Big time question begging. Again, answer the question why is causing the suffering of others wrong --especially since I might have reasons to do so. 

That's a nonsensical question as the axiom is that suffering is wrong in the first place. If you're asking me to prove that suffering is wrong that's just silly. Once we accept that needless suffering is, obviously, bad, then we can get objective answers to questions based on that.

In case you didn't know: All objective fields start with axioms.

Pointing out the subjective nature of morality is not special pleading.

That is not what I said. I said saying that the rules only apply to your suffering is special pleading. Why is your suffering any more special than anyone else's? You have absolutely no justification for such a bias. Either needless suffering is bad or it isn't.

You moved the goal post. I did not say "needless suffering".

I didn't move the goal post at all. The whole time I've been saying that needless suffering is bad. Yes, you did not say needless suffering. *I* said needless suffering.

I listed three reasons why and you have not told me why my reasons are wrong.

Yes I have. Because it's special pleading to say that only your suffering matters.

I said that needless suffering is bad, and your response was to say why shouldn't you only care about your own and no one else's. My response: Because you have no justification for that special pleading. If suffering is bad full stop it makes no sense to say it's only bad for you and not for anyone else.

Fair warning, if you do, I am going to ask why to whatever answer you give. 

I've already told you. If we accept that needless suffering is morally bad then it makes no sense to say that only yours is bad. That is bias and special pleading. If it's bad full stop it's bad for everyone, you'd need a justification to say that yours mattered more than everyone else's and you haven't got that justification.

The veil of ignorance is a political theory about rights of a group. I am 100% sure I can get away with murder. Why should I refrain?

You don't understand the veil of ignorance if you are going to dismiss it like that. The point is that by eliminating bias you are more objective and the best way to eliminate bias of all is to not know which person you are going to be when you are born into the world. Like I said, there's absolutely no justification for saying that one person's suffering matters more than another's... so to say that yours matters more needs a justification.

You should refrain from murder because it would cause suffering for yourself and others.

If you say you only care about your own. So what? Who cares what you care about? It's still wrong for you to make others to suffer as well. Like I said, you've got no justification whatsoever for considering yourself special. Everyone's self-interest matters to themselves. You aren't special. Everyone matters.

Says who though? Isnt value subjective to the person who is doing the valueing? That's an argument I've seen said here many times. Obviously (and unfortunately) everyone doesnt matter to everyone.

[Edwardo Piet]

Says who though? Isnt value subjective to the person who is doing the valueing? That's an argument I've seen said here many times. Obviously (and unfortunately) everyone doesnt matter to everyone.

Like I said, once we accept that needless suffering is bad... to say that one person matters more than another is just bias and special pleading. That's my point, if suffering matters full stop there's no justification for saying that yours matters more than anyone else's or anyone else's matters more than you. The whole reason it's bad is because of the nature of suffering, and the reason why I say needless is because sometimes you have to suffer a little bit in order to reduce MORE suffering in the long run. So ultimately, suffering is intrinsically something to avoid. This is why I say needless suffering.

Someone would need to rationally justify the fact that they were special and mattered more than anyone else. And of course, they can't do that.

It's subjective to say that someone matters more than someone else. But it's objective to say that everyone matters equally once we accept what matters that we all have in common. The point is that your suffering and my suffering matters equally for exactly the same reason: needless suffering is bad in and of itself. WHO suffers is irrelevant.

Even when we punish a murderer and make them suffer, that's only because they made others suffer even more and we're trying to prevent further suffering. Of course, revenge is not justified. If someone is punished there has to be some benefit that comes out of it. The benefit being ultimately less suffering. Otherwise it is unjustified.

I mean, this is also why we lock criminals up, of course. To stop them hurting others.