You reasoned out that theists should use the same principle. You were the first to mention theists in this regard. You thought it through; you reasoned it out. Or, I thought you did. Now, you seem to forget the thought process you used, or even that you used it. You seem to forget entirely who made what comments.
But, if you look, my thought process for why there is no rational reason for an atheist to do anything not in his own benefit is clearly laid out. “As soon as your suffering benefits me, I don’t need to justify it; it’s good. for. me.” etc.
I wasn’t backing away from the claim. I was backing away from your claim that that makes them selfish. (although, I don’t know about all theists. I’m only speaking of the ones who would follow a benevolent deity; one who wants the best for us, and is developing us into something greater than we are now.) Just because I may be doing what is best for me doesn’t make me selfish. If an atheist uses my suffering for his benefit, here in this life, that would be selfish. If I do what I believe God is telling me is best for me in the next life, i.e. to be a better, less selfish person… even though I’m doing what is ultimately best for me, I’m doing it by thinking less of myself, and more of others. I think it would be odd to call that selfish. And that’s already a start on answering the next question.
Actually, I’m saying that I believe that you can’t trick God. You can’t circumvent His rules to your own benefit; for one thing, His rules are for your benefit. You would only think you are gaining… in this life… while neglecting your development for the next. Theists end up using the principle, “there’s no reason to do anything not in your best interest,” by being less selfish, because that’s the way the system is set up, and by being in grateful awe that that ends up being to our benefit.
I assumed that secular ethics was your ethical basis, since you were defending secular ethics, while not telling me what your real ethical basis was, and demanding that I tell you what my objectives were. Of course I assumed that.
If you prefer, you can now be my go-to defender of secular ethics.
“I’d rather be a heck of a lot more insulting about it.” When something less would have sufficed. How… something or other… of you.
Asked several times and always in such a way that I could have spent days detailing my beliefs while having people who had no real interest in understanding what I believed nit-pick them. Sounds like pearls before swine to me. Of course I had no interest in detailing them. There was no reason to, as the discussion was about generic objectives, and not about specific ones.
And at the same time, I’ve been asking all along how a secular ethicist gets to the same place as theistic ethicist, and the best answer I’ve seen only gets them as far as don’t get thrown in jail. And no one has shown how to get beyond my reading of secular ethics, “there’s no reason to do anything that isn’t in your own best interest.”
I will continue to do what I’ve already done, which is answer questions like this…
By using an understanding of the whole bible, rather than taking one aspect out of context and thinking you know that it is commanding human sacrifice when the intent is exactly the opposite. Maybe you can tell me, as a Jew… was my interpretation of what that story meant at odds with what you understand has been the meaning for the 3 thousand years it’s been in existance? Maybe I’m wrong and Judaism was about human sacrifice at the beginning??? I don’t think so, though.
had, more, but I’m out of time, don’t know when I’ll get back to it. sorry.
I reasoned out that what you were saying about atheists would apply likewise to theists. You later agreed, proving that I’d correctly deduced the ramifications of your position. I remain happy to keep on granting both for the sake of argument.
Yes, you laid it out quite explicitly. I then extrapolated that, by that same logic, the same lack of a rational reason would apply just as much to theists in your proffered framework.
And that’s the argument I want to have. That’s why I’m so willing to grant stuff for the sake of argument: I want you to supply this, not get us bogged down in side debates, because I believe this is the most promising route for discussion:
That’s good, but it’s only relevant if we can’t say the same about atheists. So tell me: do you believe it’s possible for an atheist to likewise follow the principle of “there’s no reason to do anything not in your best interest” by being less selfish? That, by thinking less of oneself and more of others, an atheist can likewise become a better and less selfish person to do what’s ultimately best for himself?
The only answer I’ve seen from you about theistic ethicists gets you as far as “you can’t trick God. You can’t circumvent His rules to your own benefit”. Morally, they seem indistinguishable.
And you haven’t shown how – in your view – a theist would get beyond that principle either; you’ve merely agreed that theists use that exact same principle. If you can show us how theists get beyond it, we’ll be better positioned to consider whether atheists can do likewise; if you can’t, then it’s irrelevant when comparing theists and atheists. Which brings me to this:
First off, I wasn’t objecting to your assumption that about my ethics; you assumed that I’m an atheist, while refusing to answer the questions you were copy-and-pasting – which is doubly reprehensible.
Second, I’m not sure the posts bear you out even in the more limited regard. My first post in this thread asked you to “postulate any definition of ‘ethical’ you like, and see whether you can find a bunch of atheists who do just as fine a job of it as Christians and Jews.” My second noted that “secular philosophies likewise often come up with some form of the golden rule; they were doing it loooong before Christianity got up and running, in greatly varying cultures at rather impressive distances.” My point then, as in this thread, was merely that atheists using secular ethics can match theists working from religious premises; I’m less interested in trumpeting one over the other than in arguing for equivalence.
Well, “champion of equivalence” isn’t as euphonious, but perhaps more accurate.
You jumped to an incorrect conclusion instead of simply asking for the right answer. You cited me as your atheist of choice when copy-and-pasting questions while refusing to address them. I wanted to strongly emphasize that I disagree with that approach. Here, let me give you a quick example of how to at least make a token effort to address a question:
Just as Czarcasm did, I’ll note that you refused to answer HK’s question. And I’ll then refuse to answer yours while oh-so-briefly addressing it – because, to quote you: "Is there some reason you needed to state that 3 times as if you’ve told me this before? If I didn’t previously have this information, then it would have sufficed to tell me once. I would have said, “oh, interesting. I would be interested in what you actually believe, but it’s not germane to this argument.” You were quite right; as far as I can tell, it’s not germane to this argument.
No, you didn’t. He asked: “If God spoke to you and ordered you to kill your son, would you do it?” Your answer: “Since everything tells me God wouldn’t do this again, it would be almost impossible for anything to convince me”. You refuse to address the question of what you would do if God ordered you to kill your son; you merely say it would be difficult – but not impossible – to convince you that God gave that order.
I(and I suspect everyone else but you) thought it was pretty evident what I meant when I made my query, but to clear it up for you: You refused to answer the question posed.
Ahhhh. I think I get it now. You didn’t want an actual debate. You wanted a trick. A question of the form, “Do you still beat your wife? No debating the question, just answer Yes, or No!” An evil lawyer trick. Do you want to play evil lawyer? If there is no debating the question, the question as asked is evil. So, are you deliberately perpetrating evil, are you shilling for someone else, or is the evil just inadvertant?
Personally, the question looked like a trick, so I didn’t feel like answering yes or no. If you never beat your wife, the answer to “do you still beat your wife?” isn’t “yes, I still do” or “no, I’ve stopped beating her.” But, I can play that game if you want. Do you want me to answer the question as asked? (And if we’re playing that game, you don’t get to debate this question either. Do you want me to answer the question as asked, yes or no? If my being literally truthful to that question doesn’t get you the answer you seek, then you can ask a different question.) You won’t like the result: it will be tedious, and annoying, but, it will eventually get you the answer you’re looking for.
Since the question isn’t actually as simple as it would seem on it’s face… (it’s actually designed to get you to admit from the start that the Judeo-Christian God condones human sacrifice and is evil, and ask if you agree or disagree with him.) I gave a reasoned answer that that God doesn’t actually condone human sacrifice, so the question is moot. And after that, you still have to ask if I personally condone human sacrifice? Sounds like an evil lawyer trick to me. At the very least to waste my time. You can either reason it out from my posts… If you’re actually willing to look at them and think… probably not. Well then you’re going to have to play the game outlined above.
I’m sort of surprised that The Other Waldo Pepper appears to have fallen for, or agree with the ploy being used. Having professed to be a Jew, he should have known that the God of our mutual backgrounds doesn’t support human sacrifice, and has been known not to for more than 3 thousand years, and that the question was ridiculous and not worth answering on it’s face.
Now, someone may say that my playing the same game should be just as evil, right? Wrong. I’m going to do it for illustrative purposes. and besides, the stakes are different. In’my version, you’ll risk a bit of frustration, and you’ll know that going in. In the case of the question asked of me, the stakes were to misrepresent my whole philosophy with a lie in order to convince people it was something other than it is and to discourage them from following it on that basis. (the ends justify the means, possibly?)
No, I wanted an actual answer, and I suspect The Hamster King wanted an actual answer likewise. It’s a fairly straightforward question; no trick involved.
Yes. For clarification, I’ll repeat THK’s question, as asked: “If God spoke to you and ordered you to kill your son, would you do it?”
Er, no; you didn’t, really. You merely stated that it would be almost impossible to convince you that God was asking you to do such a thing, rather than ruling out the possibility altogether. If you’d now like to shift your answer from “almost impossible” to “absolutely impossible”, then, by all means, do so, explicitly.
I hardly know where to begin with this one.
First off, you’re the one arguing that God is so far beyond us that mere mortals can’t be expected to understand His ways – in which case we can’t readily close off a given possibility as moot.
Second, as a Jew I’m of course quite well aware that the God of the Old Testament made explicit that folks were supposed to kill any number of people – from homosexuals right on down to the guy who was gathering sticks upon the sabbath day and was put to death by stoning as the Lord commanded Moses – with no exceptions made for one’s own son (and with specific mention of one’s own son, yet, in the oft-quoted Deuteronomy 13:
Third, though, it’s a bigger question than you’re letting on; it’s a meta-question, in a sense. You’re claiming that it’s right to do God’s will; why? How do you know that? What gives you so much confidence that you’d find it “almost impossible” to believe a good God would command you to do something like that? Now, someone who starts from secular ethics would have no trouble with such questions; he’d explain that he knows good from evil regardless of whether there’s a God, and could then field hypothetical questions about a good God by saying “Ah, Well, A Good God Wouldn’t Authorize That,” or some such.
But someone who starts with the proposition that We Shouldn’t Do X Because God Says So rather than a proposition like We Shouldn’t Do X And God Would Be Wrong To Say Otherwise – well, a guy like that can’t so easily rule out the possibility of God saying otherwise as moot, since cause and effect are reversed.
The question is, essentially, whether God condemns stuff because it’s wrong, or whether stuff is only wrong because God says so. If it’s the former, I want to hear your philosophy. If it’s the latter, I want to hear your philosophy.
I’m not trying to discredit your philosophy with a lie. I’m trying to understand your philosophy with a question.
And, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t go against “everything that has been said since”, because God went on to codify just what he expects of us: kill your son if he has sex with another man, kill your son if he so much as gathers sticks on the sabbath, kill your son if he says let us go and serve other gods, and so on.
It is not. I don’t understand the story as establishing that He will never again ask someone to sacrifice a son, since we’re later given specific instructions from on high to that exact effect, during the aforementioned “everything that has been said since”.
Man, don’t cut off the Wiki quote; post the whole thing:
And, of course, he went on to serve as Judge of Israel for years and years and years. But never mind that now; as I said, leave him aside. There’s ample mention in the OT of other folks God wants put to death, for any number of reasons. Speaking of which, there’s a missing factor in your argument: you write about “everything that has been said since” in order to declare that He would never say anything of the sort – because, if something He’d said since did change it, that would be evidence. You can’t, as of Genesis, deduce that everything yet to come in Exodus and Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy and on through Kings and Chronicles and Isaiah and Jeremiah and so on won’t call for such deaths; indeed, He goes on to change His position on a number of issues thereabouts; so if we couldn’t realize what’s to come then, why conclude with 100% certainty what’s to come now?
Especially since – again – your position is that he’s so far above us as to defy understanding?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The rules required to run a nation are going to be different than those needed to maintain a functioning set of voluntary converts, (i.e. a church.) The rules we ask of children are more restrictive than the ones we ask of adults, for example. The purpose of a nation is different than that of a church. The purposes of a nation are different than that of a church. A church body can simply tell people who are divisive, not following the rules, and not commited to the lifestyle not to come back next week. A nation usually can’t do that. The purposes of a church may still be served if it is attacked by marauders and everyone is killed. (for instance, if one of the purposes is to maintain faith in adversity.) The purposes of a nation usually aren’t served if that nation ceases to exist. A church may be able to maintain a set of rules that wouldn’t let a nation survive.
Where did I say that a teenager can understand nothing of what adults mean? Where did I say even that a five year old can understand nothing that an adult tells him? The analogy is meant to describe that we won’t understand everything… Not that we can’t understand anything.
Ok. Game on.
Well, my first thought would be, “that’s odd, since I don’t have any son, (or any child at all.)” My next thought would be, “well, I can’t conceivably kill something that doesn’t exist.”
So, I wouldn’t, I couldn’t. I wouldn’t be able to.
I would not kill him here or there.
I would not kill him anywhere.
…
Not in a box.
Not with a fox.
Not in a house.
Not with a mouse.
…(I would not eat green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam-I-am.)
Somehow, I don’t think that’s the answer you’re looking for. Hmmm, maybe not as simple a question as described after all. [sarcasm mode] I mean, I thought I had determined some implications of the question previously, but, you dissuaded me of that idea, so I’m trying to understand it without implications at all. [/sarcasm mode]
One thing I do want to clarify, though. The example was of sacrifice, not simply killing for any reason, right? Though the question simply says kill, I didn’t expect you to mean that God convinces me someone is a serial killer and it’s my job to execute them. You mean sacrificing an innocent, right? Although, you’ve already confused the pure sacrifice of Issac, with executing people who disrupt the cohesion of the nation, (even if those disruptions are only what the people in society itself could not tolerate.)
Yep, the question is murdering an innocent, not simply kill.
Ok, I’ve answered the question, (literally.) Would you like to modify the question and try again?
Here, I’ll answer my own question.
**
NO. I would not kill my son if God asked me to. That would be an evil thing to do.**
See. It’s not a hard question to answer. It’s not a trick like “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
The Other Waldo Pepper is exactly right in understanding the significance of this question. You’re claiming that good is only good because God says it is. If God tells you that killing is good, then killing IS good. And you can’t argue that God would never do such a thing – after all God lets babies die in tsunamis. If something horrible like that is necessary to serve some higher purpose then it may very well be that killing your son also serves some higher purpose. God works in mysterious ways, after all. It’s a shame that you have to do it, but necessity demands it.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s largely a distinction without a difference. Take the specific examples I mentioned: killing your son because he – has sex with a guy? Killing your son because he – gathered sticks on the sabbath? All else being equal, that strikes me as being no different than killing your son because he got a tattoo or ate some bacon. It’s like sacrificing an innocent in that, as far as I can tell, he still is – and, were my neighbor to call for death under such circumstances, doing so would involve murder rather than simply killing, IMHO. And, were my God to call for it, doing so would involve murder rather than simply killing, IMHO.
But maybe you don’t see it that way:
Gladly! What’s important is getting to the truth. So:
Imagine you have a son. Imagine he’s of course not a serial killer or anything, but happens to be gay. Imagine that God appears and tells you to kill him, because, well, your son sleeps with a guy instead of a girl. Do you kill him?
As above, except your son is heterosexual – but gathers sticks on the sabbath. God appears and tells you to kill him. Do you kill him?
As above, except the offense is saying let us go and serve other gods. Do you kill him?
Just for the record, I’d like a specific answer: imagine your hypothetical son is completely innocent, and imagine that God seemingly appears and tells you to sacrifice him. Do you conclude that it’s almost impossible that God is asking this of you, or do you conclude that it is impossible that God is asking this of you?
No. Not, “rather than play it…” The evil lawyer game is exactly about “looking for cheat codes.” Ask Bill Clinton. It’s about picking the definition of words that specifically allows you to say something “technically” true while intending to mislead. It’s specifically about asking a question in such a way that any answer allows you to unfairly malign the opponent… (like the “do you still beat your wife” question.) I said that’s what this game was going to be. I was quite clear.
This is where the evil lawyer game lets me ignore all definitions of “would” that indicate intent, and focus on “could…” is it possible to complete the act. def 7:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/would
Since, (as I’m about to tell The Hamster King again,) the story of Abraham sacrificing Issac actually shows that God doesn’t want human sacrifice, and prevented the act. It wouldn’t matter if I intended it or not, it would be prevented.
The four options as I see them:
God asks me for human sacrifice:
1a. I don’t intend to, so I don’t
1b. I do intend to, but God prevents me, just like he prevented Abraham, so I don’t.
Some one else asks me for human sacrifice pretending to be God. Possibly Satan, or someone else intending evil.
2a. I don’t intend to, so I don’t
2b. I do intend to, and do, but God didn’t ask me to do it.
in the two options where it actually was God asking, I don’t do it.
Oh… You actually wanted to know if I would have the intent to sacrifice a son?
If the question is implying that this example shows that the God of Abraham wants human sacrifice, then it is a trick. Are you implying that the God of Abraham wants human sacrifice? If it’s clear that he doesn’t want human sacrifice, then any time he actually asked it, it would be for a different purpose. (Like if He asked me to sacrifice my child… Not having one, I would know He meant something else.)
For a given group, at a given time, for a given purpose. The same command isn’t given to everyone at every time. I am not the nation of Israel. There is a different purpose in what I am asked to do from what they were asked to do.