Test my belief system

[robvalue]

Thanks again for all the very interesting questions! It's way deeper than I expected I hope I've addressed all points, if I've missed anything please let me know.

The point of all this is to try and see if I can at least attempt to answer any question put to me, about anything, without having to dodge it entirely as I have seen from some theists. And of course to test my beliefs are consistent, as far as possible. "I don't know", "that's a very complex moral issue" or "this is the answer to the best of my knowledge" are adequate answers, in my opinion. If anyone wants to make the case that they are not adequate, feel free to. I'm not claiming to know everything, or to put myself forward as an authority on anything. I'm answering personally, to the best of my ability.

As it happens, the questions have been great and are producing very interesting results

Wizard:

---

Yes, the position can change if the question becomes more specific. The ignostic position is just a general, pre-emptive one; as is "atheist". For all I know, the person may just say "apples are gods". So I then say I yes, I believe in apples. Or the universe, or whatever they say "is God" as well as just existing.

So basically, if anyone asked me "do you believe in God" I would always reply, "What do you mean by God?". (As Pyrrho said, it depends on the audience. I may just say no if I think there's no productive dialogue to be had.) My answer would then depend on what they say. I think definitions are incredibly important. I find when listening to debates, one of the participants has not at all made clear what they mean by one of the terms and is using multiple different definitions at various points; deliberately or otherwise. To ask the question "what is God" can be useful in itself. I don't think people in general have a fucking clue! It can help the person understand themselves what their beliefs actually mean.

If someone says, "the Christian God" then I can reasonably say no, I don't believe the character in the bible is real. I can't know that for sure; however, if the person adheres to a literal interpretation I can make the case that the being is self contradictory and so cannot exist.

---

Brewer:

---

Thank you! Yes, I mean all life has no inherent, objective purpose. Any purpose can only be assigned by a sentient being. I know what you're saying, certain life forms appear to just do something specific, and human brains have reflex actions and so on. However, this "purpose" is only apparent when we analyse what is going on and apply our notions of cause and effect. We then proclaim that the purpose is to produce such results.

So it's more like we are observing what happens, and then assigning meaning based on that observation. To us, it is meaningful that a certain bacteria always does this and that. The language becomes difficult, because we are always viewing things through our own filters. I suppose it's a matter of defining exactly what I mean by "purpose" in this context. I mean achieving something which objectively amounts to more than just performing the actions themselves. This "something more" is subjectively added by the importance to any particular observer. From the point of view of our entire reality, it's all just stuff moving about. Maybe "meaning" would have been a better word. Purpose and meaning are concepts granted only by thinking agents, and as such are subjective and not inherent properties.

---

Pyrrho:

---

Yes, morality is extremely complex! When I say quality of life, that is a huge sliding scale in itself. The examples you refer to are very difficult to answer definitively because there are a massive number of issues at hand. So I'd have to say that in both the morphine one and the "should we wipe out all life" one, these would require huge amounts of careful analysis to try and answer. In both of these, I would say that I would avoid as much as I possibly could being solely responsible for making such a decision, I'd want to include as many other relevant people in the discussion as possible.

Now, some theists may say "you didn't answer the question, you're belief system sucks!" To this, I'd say I did answer it, my answer is just that "I don't know". It's too complex to give a simple answer to.

These kind of situations are going to be very rare. And since they both have a whole lot at stake, they require a lot of careful analysis, not some glib binary answer (you know all this of course ). Most of the time, morality is much more simple. I'll give some examples:

-Someone asks me directions, to which I am confident I can give an accurate answer. Unless there is some compelling extra reason not to, I would always give them the directions. I have given them a small positive effect to them. I've saved them time it would otherwise take them trying to find the place. I've removed the worry of them not knowing where they are going. There appears to be no negative "cost" to balance. Of course, morality is a very complex subject (which is why religion fails at it so hard by trying to introduce black and white thinking). You could always make further arguments such as I'm robbing them of the experience of finding the place on their own. This is true. I don't put myself forward as some sort of ultimate authority on anything, let alone morality. I do my best, but ultimately every aspect could be debated. I don't have time to analyse in such detail every decision I make, it's not practical. In this example, the possible negatives don't appear tangible enough to withhold the information. And clearly they want the info, or they wouldn't ask me.

So it's really complex. Analysing benefits and cost is no simple matter, it's just the starting point of what is important.

Other random examples of improving the quality of someone's life: Intervening when someone/thing is hurting them, such as a rapist or an object pinning them to the floor. Providing a sympathetic ear to help someone unburden or think through their problems. Giving them some food when they are starving.

---