tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post3081223661045999144..comments2024-02-15T19:40:29.872-08:00Comments on neopolitan's philosophical blog: The modified William Lane Craig moral proofneopolitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-14934549450329736552012-07-30T22:00:27.875-07:002012-07-30T22:00:27.875-07:00I think you run into fundamental problems when try...I think you run into fundamental problems when trying to address the morality of someone's belief system in the way you've done here. You're looking at metaethical issues as if they were ethical issues.<br /><br />Imagine for a moment that the god as described in the Bible exists (and that his internal contradictions could be resolved somehow). Now that he exists, he does in fact define what is good and what is bad. He is the one who hands out the prizes and punishments, and he is well within his rights to distribute them as he sees fit - even if that means eternal reward for the rapist and eternal punishment for the noble non-believer. He's also well within his rights to torture and temporarily sacrifice an element of himself if he thinks it's a good idea. You can stop imagining now, if you like.<br /><br />What you might have stumbled upon here is the reason why so many theists seem to think in terms of atheists willing the non-existence of their god - as if, at some level, we know their god exists, but would prefer that he didn't. An atheist will just see the inconsistent justice, auto-torture, constant surveillance and notion of the total amorality of humanity as being a bit silly.<br /><br />A theist, on the other hand, might believe and not like what she sees. She might, at some level, understand that a universe without this contradictory, jealous, vengeful and capricious god would actually be preferable. A disconcerting thought when you take the constant surveillance into account!neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-7063624501852310832012-07-05T23:04:34.030-07:002012-07-05T23:04:34.030-07:00Part 2.
Of course two points I can make straig...Part 2. <br /><br /><br />Of course two points I can make straight away, I would imagine without needing to elaborate, is the Catholic belief that condoms are inappropriate, therefore any practicing Catholic is supposed to not use them. This leads to unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and if by some misfortunate circumstance a Catholic girl becomes pregnant, Abortion is not an option for her either. What a logical religion we have before us, a God who asks its followers not to use contraception, as Sex is only for procreation, which is not a reality of modern society, and then takes away the only chance for the mistake to be corrected. I guess his forgiveness doesn’t spread as far as we thought. <br /><br />The next obvious point is Christianity’s treatment of homosexuals and in addition a homosexual couple’s right to marry. I feel it unnecessary and even below me to have to speak as to the immorality of such ridiculous beliefs. Homosexuality is not a choice. These people aren’t sinful. In fact, the homosexual men I have been fortunate enough to be friends with have been some of the kindest, moral and good people I have ever known. <br /><br />We also still have conflict in the education system revolving around the revelations of evolution. In the Christian’s mind evolution undermines God and is simply a mere attempt by Atheist scientists to steer people away from their faith. So out of fear of evolution, fundamental Christians have created Creationism. This teaching denies evolution. I find it hard to understand how anybody, upon seeing the proof of evolution, can deny it, but it is a sad reality of Christianity attempting to live by a book that holds no place in a modern society. There are now schools who teach only Creationism, no evolution, teachers who are scared to teach evolution for fear of a backlash from the community, and consequently entire groups of children who are not being allowed to make their own minds up, about what to believe. <br /><br />Christianity leads to ignorance, cruelty, immorality and a bleak view of the world. Just think of all of those people who have the misfortune of being born into the wrong culture and practicing the wrong religion, who have only an eternal torment to look forward to. <br /><br />I’ll finish with a list of recent wars in which religion acted as the catalyst for the violence that followed. This is taken directly from Sam Harris’s text, The End of Faith (p.26)<br /><br />“Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past. The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these places religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of deaths in the last ten years.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-50193308956705760432012-07-05T23:04:08.081-07:002012-07-05T23:04:08.081-07:00Let’s take Christianity as an example, because it ...Let’s take Christianity as an example, because it would seem almost too easy and obvious to consider Islam. Christianity is a perfect example of where Religion is the cause of an overwhelming number of immoral acts, ideas, and beliefs. <br /><br />If we start with the bible and the central premise of a Christian’s belief system, we see that their faith is based on the idea that only those who worship their God will go to “heaven”, whereas everybody else, even those who profess religious faith, however have the misfortune of worshipping the wrong God, will burn in a the depths of a fiery hell. Is this not a perfect example a fundamental immorality? It doesn’t matter if a person lives a good life, loves their wife, fulfills their responsibilities, is kind to others, never has a bad word to say about anybody or anything, is a loving and doting father, that person is going to hell, because he doesn’t believe in a Christian God. <br /><br />On the other side of this, if you are a rapist and murderer, but beg for forgiveness from God and repent your sins on your deathbed, then you do get to go to heaven. Do I need to say more? <br /><br />This leads into another element of Christianity, which is immoral. In their belief system, the son of God was sacrificed (hmmm human sacrifice…..) for “our” sins. So now we have human sacrifice and a very convenient scapegoat for humans. Christianity has managed to abolish the concept of responsibility and enabled anyone who is this way inclined to act immorally, but then simply ask for God’s forgiveness, because a long time ago, he killed his son. <br /><br />Christianity is a system, which lays out the possibility, even supports the notion, for people to only act right, in order to evade punishment from the all-seeing man in the sky. God is forever watching, listening to our every thought and word, so we have to love him, and fear him at the same time. We have to act right, because Big Brother is watching. It’s compulsory; there is no way around it. Remember if you don’t, you are going to hell. <br /><br />Christianity also puts forward the belief that God is the reason for our moral values and responsibilities. Without God, and his 10 Commandments, we would have no objective morality. The only thing this has accomplished is it has once again removed an individual’s obligation to act morally. It suggests that people have no innate sense of right or wrong, no internal self-regulation. Without God, the world would be a cesspool of grotesque, drooling, amoral buffoons, who would as soon kill each other, as steal their food. <br /><br />Above I have addressed the immorality that results from the bible’s teachings. One I have failed yet to mention, is the narcissism that results from those pre-mentioned beliefs. God loves ME. God will forgive MY sins. God will save ME. But remember, only ME, not you heretics, or Buddhist-loving monks, just ME. <br /><br />It’s interesting that God himself is not constrained by the same moral values and responsibility he espouses. He appears to regularly visit suffering on people, even within the bible, which is the guide book for any practicing Christian. However maybe he limits suffering only to those who aren’t Christian. So now we move on to the immorality that is found within today’s society because of Christian faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-42096415589733202942012-07-02T01:59:15.966-07:002012-07-02T01:59:15.966-07:00Thanks again.
A problem with regard to morality a...Thanks again.<br /><br />A problem with regard to morality and religion is that many of the horrible things that are done in the name of the religion aren't actually from the religion per se. Maltreatment of women, for example, seems to be more of a cultural thing than a religious thing. As a specific example, honor killings are conducted by Christians as well as Muslims and the common factor seems to be their culture, as opposed to their religion.<br /><br />Indeed, religion can be used to justify many horrible things. But so can ideology and nationalism.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-30973873660894327102012-07-01T22:53:13.048-07:002012-07-01T22:53:13.048-07:00I don’t totally understand how you can contend tha...I don’t totally understand how you can contend that, when you consider the arguments against religion that the different members of the “Four Horsemen” have made, also after you look more closely at the members.<br /><br />The second half of Dawkin’s text “The God Delusion” is dedicated to explaining why one does not require a religion to be moral, and explaining through Science why people are moral, for example his “altruistic gene”. He has entire chapters that describe what he perceives as immoral actions performed, and immoral ideas held, by those who are religious. He is clearly outraged by the negative repercussions and immorality that is encouraged because of religious faith. <br /><br />Harris wrote a text called “The Moral Landscape”, in which he regularly criticizes religion because of its association as being the vestibule for objective morals, and yet being responsible for innumerable moral atrocities. <br /><br />Also the latest member, Ayaan Hirsi Magan is apparently a feminist, activist, writer and politician who is openly critical of Islam due, once again, to the immorality of the religion. She has also written texts that describe this immorality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-30974241968252351442012-06-22T18:56:57.766-07:002012-06-22T18:56:57.766-07:00Thanks Anonymous,
I agree that there is a potenti...Thanks Anonymous,<br /><br />I agree that there is a potential problem with giving Craig too much attention, but it's probably well past the time where he could be ignored as yet another crackpot. Now that comments like "WLC puts the fear of God into atheists" are out there and versions of it spoken by people like Harris, it is time to look closely at the arguments and see just why they seem convincing.<br /><br />Fortunately I have little sway in the Middle East (nor do the other parts of the world with less coverage but more pain and suffering seem to pay much attention to what I have to say), so I can devote some time to looking at why WLC seems to be a problem. If by doing so, I might save some time for those who can redirect their rationality towards fixing the problems of the world, then I am doing my bit :)<br /><br />BTW the corrosive effects of religion that the Four Horsemen seem to be addressing, in my humble opinion, are in the area of science, not morality. That may be my own bias, since I think religion has little to do with any real morality, but am convinced that religious thought is incompatible with proper science.neopolitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02501854905476808648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5944248932558389199.post-85496842460092112222012-06-16T22:52:00.906-07:002012-06-16T22:52:00.906-07:00The problems with Craig’s argument have been clear...The problems with Craig’s argument have been clearly explained above. Also this is not the only instance where Craig has produced such an argument. Craig has had much time to hone his debate skills, which becomes glaringly obvious when one carries out a YouTube search of his name. He is a skilled and slippery debater on a topic that he is well-versed in (one need only hear his CV read to them), and he now seems to have made a profession out of it. <br /><br />Craig’s become the guy atheists want to beat. He is the pin-up for religious ignorance. One could imagine his poster being used as a dartboard in many atheist homes. However atheists continue to fail miserably in their debates with him. <br /><br />Upon completion of a little research on Google today, I found many atheist blogs providing tips on how to beat Craig, and other pages on why nobody really stands much of a chance. It’s almost as if he has become a symbol of fear in some atheist camps. <br /> <br />And here again Craig wins. Why? Well for two reasons Craig gains notoriety and power, and also because the focus dramatically shifts to atheists striving to beat Craig at his own game, about his own topic. One will never convince Craig that there isn’t a God, and as Wolpert said in his own debate against Craig, “I am not against people being religious”. Yet this is the genuine feeling that one walks away with, after any surfing of the Internet related to Craig, and more importantly after watching one of Craig’s debates. He is so adamant in his belief, the person debating him is left trying to disprove God with “evidence”, and fails to touch on any issues of genuine importance. <br /><br />So what are these issues of importance? Well this where I think Harris has got it right. Harris too, in my opinion, failed in his debate with Craig, but not because he fell into Craig’s “trap”, but because he chose not to engage with him, and one can never win a debate, by avoiding the issue at hand. Harris, similar to Wolpert, recognises the benefits that can be found in religious belief. The sense of comfort that people gain in being able to give an answer, where there really is none to be found. So Harris steers clear of trying to prove that there is no God. He focuses on the devastating effects that can come about, when one follows a religious doctrine, which support immorality. <br /><br />Weak Atheists (the likes of Dawkins and Dennett) don’t believe there isn’t a God, they simply recognise there isn’t enough evidence to prove his existence. The reason the Four Horsemen (some of the more infamous atheists) are speaking out against religion is not to steal away a person’s faith, but to bring to the forefront the immorality that can abound in a society, where one blindly follows a religious doctrine which encourages negative behaviour and thought. <br /><br />So what I would say is this. Atheists in your many, stop trying to defeat Craig, and focus upon the more important issues, like the atrocities in the Middle East. <br /><br />On an endnote, to add support to what I have said. Dawkins recently wrote an article to explain why he has consistently refused to accept Craig’s invitation to debate with him. Dawkins: A shining beacon of a reason in a world of insanity. Below is the link to his article…. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craigAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com