Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est

04-11-2011 , 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunny
Just subjective - ie 'repugnant to' or 'preferred by' the speaker respectively.
It depends on the context. As a consequence of moral wrongdoings by a society, it does not seem to me to be repugnant any more than punishing an individual for a crime is repugnant.

If the genocide happens "just because" then it would be repugnant. I've addressed this distinction before:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Death is a consequence of immorality. And the Bible seems to indicate that societies can bear the consequence of societal sins. Furthermore, death as an act of judgment is not the same as death imposed for arbitrary reasons.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eman6969
I find it funny how atheists are all stuck in the old testament. Their whole refutation of god always comes back to the old testament. Just to hear you guys come up with god supposedly talking to people now and telling them to do horrible things is against anything the bible stands for.
How is it against anything the Bible says? Be specific. Do you know for a fact that God will never command a person to be the next Moses? How have you come to such a conclusion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eman6969
Is it that hard to differentiate what was told to moses to what is told to us? Some orders are given to all, some are given to specific people in specific situations in specific times.
Were there different morals back then which justified some pretty cruel commands by God?
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
It depends on the context. As a consequence of moral wrongdoings by a society, it does not seem to me to be repugnant any more than punishing an individual for a crime is repugnant.

If the genocide happens "just because" then it would be repugnant. I've addressed this distinction before:
I don't mean within your framework. A moral relativist can label something 'morally superior' it's just that what they mean is 'I like this better'.

I think calling it meaningless is too strong, it just means something different from what you or I do. (Presumably you'd agree with me that 'morally superior' means 'closer to the objective/absolute moral standard').
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
This doesn't fix anything.
You receive a vision you believe to be of divine origins that instructs you to kill your family or all of humanity will suffer immeasurably. You cannot attribute your experience to anything you've ever experienced previously or anything you've ever heard of others experiencing. Immediately after it is over you feel as if you've experienced something miraculous. In the vision, the being makes it clear that it must be done despite any (obvious) objections you may have.

Do you obey?

Last edited by Aytumious; 04-11-2011 at 10:06 PM.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
No.
Why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Also, I think your concept of "morally regressive" is wrought with the same issues as la6ki's "morally superior." In the absence of an absolute moral standard, these concepts are meaningless.
We aren't in the absence of absolute moral standards in this instance. Our whole argument is based upon the assumption that God is providing our moral standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I'm saying that he didn't.
It doesn't mean he couldn't and in an instant. You're selling God's powers short here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Theological ones.
Can you elaborate?
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aytumious
You receive a vision you believe to be of divine origins that instructs you to kill your family or all of humanity will suffer immeasurably. You cannot attribute your experience to anything you've ever experienced previously or anything you've ever heard of others experiencing. Immediately after it is over you feel as if you've experienced something miraculous. In the vision, the being makes it clear that it must be done despite any (obvious) objections you may have.

Do you obey?
You're still not fixing anything. On what basis am I concluding that this vision is attached to reality in some way?

I can turn the hypothetical back around to you and posit some sort of spiritual experience completely other than what you've ever experienced before. How would you respond to this abstract thing that is far removed from anything that you can compare it to?
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aytumious
You receive a vision you believe to be of divine origins that instructs you to kill your family or all of humanity will suffer immeasurably. You cannot attribute your experience to anything you've ever experienced previously or anything you've ever heard of others experiencing. Immediately after it is over you feel as if you've experienced something miraculous. In the vision, the being makes it clear that it must be done despite any (obvious) objections you may have.

Do you obey?
Aaron -

Please treat this as it's intended. The stipulation is that for [compelling reason] you genuinely believe you have received an instruction from the specific god you worship.

We all know the answer is that you'd do as instructed (I would too, if that helps). Stonewalling just makes you look either stubborn or outright dishonest.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
You're still not fixing anything. On what basis am I concluding that this vision is attached to reality in some way?

I can turn the hypothetical back around to you and posit some sort of spiritual experience completely other than what you've ever experienced before. How would you respond to this abstract thing that is far removed from anything that you can compare it to?
Same reason the time you "had a thought that was not your own" was interpreted as a message from god. Just instead of being told to go talk to the person, you're now supposed to kill your family.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nittyit
Why not?
By definition

Quote:
We aren't in the absence of absolute moral standards in this instance. Our whole argument is based upon the assumption that God is providing our moral standards.
See the side conversation with Bunny. I'm not sure how you're asking me to respond to the question. If you're asking me about a personal view, then I've already given it. If you're asking about a viewpoint from the perspective of an absolute moral standard, the answer is obvious.

Quote:
It doesn't mean he couldn't and in an instant. You're selling God's powers short here.
Maybe. But until such a time arises, I consider the this to be akin to the scenario that Aytumious is positing, to the point that I don't really have a frame of reference to even begin to understand how I would respond to such a situation.

Quote:
Can you elaborate?
On what basis would I conclude that killing the Palestinians is something that had been commanded by God?
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin A
Same reason the time you "had a thought that was not your own" was interpreted as a message from god. Just instead of being told to go talk to the person, you're now supposed to kill your family.
The difference is that there the previous (and only) experience did not instruct me to do anything incongruous with what I had already believed I was supposed to be doing at the time.

If I had that type of experience with regards to killing family, it would be disregarded as a just a weird thought.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Aaron -

Please treat this as it's intended. The stipulation is that for [compelling reason] you genuinely believe you have received an instruction from the specific god you worship.
I don't think you understand the theological implications of these stipulations. I'll go back to asking you what the universe would look like if the fundamental forces were missing from it. In order for me to accept the premise, I have to abandon so many theological structures that what I have left has little relationship to what I currently believe.

Quote:
We all know the answer is that you'd do as instructed (I would too, if that helps). Stonewalling just makes you look either stubborn or outright dishonest.
I don't know if this is true. I literally don't know how I would respond under a completely foreign structure of thinking.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:34 PM
Even God is baffled by your responses to this scenario.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
The short answer is that you must know your theology. If it falls outside of the theological bounds of who God is, then it's not from God. If it falls inside the theological bounds, then it might be from God, but it is still not necessarily from God. At this point, you ask yourself the question of the wisdom of the action and decide based on that. Unwise decisions require a stronger sense of conviction than wise decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janabis
Then practically speaking your absolute morality is actually based on your subjective evaluation of the wisdom of the action in question. I don't see how it makes any difference at all whether there is an absolute morality or not if it comes down to a personal evaluation in the end either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Absolute morality is not based on anything having to do with me.

It makes a difference insofar as morality makes a difference in anything at all. Think about it: if I happen to kill all the Palestinians, then it makes no difference whether it was a moral or an immoral act as far as "practical consequences" are concerned. In the end, the Palestinians would all be dead, and I would have been the one who killed them.
So if I understand you correctly, you believe that absolute morality exists, but that it has no real bearing on our decisions since the best that we can do is use our own judgement in determining what that absolute morality happens to entail. Therefore, despite believing in absolute morality, you have no choice but to behave exactly as a moral relativist does and choose the actions that seem most wise from your own subjective position.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aytumious
Even God is baffled by your responses to this scenario.
It's only baffling because you think that receiving a message from God is somehow supposed to happen in the absence of other thoughts.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I don't think you understand the theological implications of these stipulations. I'll go back to asking you what the universe would look like if the fundamental forces were missing from it. In order for me to accept the premise, I have to abandon so many theological structures that what I have left has little relationship to what I currently believe.
It's not a premise, it's a stipulation of a hypothetical scenario. So to repair the analogy, you would be asking me "What would the universe would look like if the fundamental forces were missing from it?" and I would be answering "The same." When the dogs in the street know that's simply not true.

Quote:
I don't know if this is true. I literally don't know how I would respond under a completely foreign structure of thinking.
It isn't completely foreign, and you are flying in the face of basic facts of Judeo-Christian history by claiming that it is.

Are you really trying to sell us that you might genuinely believe you were receiving instruction from your god and not know whether to obey? Please.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janabis
So if I understand you correctly, you believe that absolute morality exists, but that it has no real bearing on our decisions since the best that we can do is use our own judgement in determining what that absolute morality happens to entail.
It really depends on how much connection is possible between the absolute morality and our understanding of it. For example, if it turns out that torturing babies is wrong, and our moral intuitions are guided to the conclusion that torturing babies is wrong, then there is a very real sense in which the absolute morality did bear upon the decision not to torture babies.

Quote:
Therefore, despite believing in absolute morality, you have no choice but to behave exactly as a moral relativist does and choose the actions that seem most wise from your own subjective position.
How else am I supposed to make a decision? I certainly can't act upon full knowledge of the absolute moral standard because I don't have that. I'm limited to what I know.

What you're really highlighting here is the is-ought fallacy again. The absolute morality directs us on how we ought to behave. But how we actually behave is based on what we understand about how we ought to behave.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janabis
So if I understand you correctly, you believe that absolute morality exists, but that it has no real bearing on our decisions since the best that we can do is use our own judgement in determining what that absolute morality happens to entail. Therefore, despite believing in absolute morality, you have no choice but to behave exactly as a moral relativist does and choose the actions that seem most wise from your own subjective position.
Quality summation.

He's a moral relativist in fancy dress.

Last edited by Aytumious; 04-11-2011 at 11:04 PM.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
It's not a premise, it's a stipulation of a hypothetical scenario.
Uhhh... what's the difference?

Quote:
So to repair the analogy, you would be asking me "What would the universe would look like if the fundamental forces were missing from it?" and I would be answering "The same." When the dogs in the street know that's simply not true.
Except that I'm not answering the question at all. I'm saying that I don't know what I would do or how I would respond.

Quote:
It isn't completely foreign, and you are flying in the face of basic facts of Judeo-Christian history by claiming that it is.

Are you really trying to sell us that you might genuinely believe you were receiving instruction from your god and not know whether to obey? Please.
I'm telling you that I don't know *if* I would obey (I don't know what I would do). If I were somehow in that situation, I think it's reasonable to say that I might conclude that I *should* obey, but that doesn't say anything about whether I would follow through with anything. And this is where the "I don't know" comes from. I don't know what I would do.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Uhhh... what's the difference?
Heh. A premise is either accepted or rejected. A stipulation is either acknowledged or ignored. So you can either answer the question or ignore it - you have no third option here.

Quote:
I'm telling you that I don't know *if* I would obey (I don't know what I would do). If I were somehow in that situation, I think it's reasonable to say that I might conclude that I *should* obey, but that doesn't say anything about whether I would follow through with anything. And this is where the "I don't know" comes from. I don't know what I would do.
Right, but this is stupefyingly nitty, and you know it's stupefyingly nitty. The point is that you acknowledge you should obey - we all know you're a sinner (ie, a habitual disobeyer of god's will); that's a stipulation of Christian theology. The point is that disobedience of god's direct command to murder your family is no less a sin than your disobedience of god's general command to love your enemy - no?
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 11:02 PM
I'm starting to think that cliffs picture had a different meaning itt..

Maybe it meant jump while you can
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Heh. A premise is either accepted or rejected. A stipulation is either acknowledged or ignored. So you can either answer the question or ignore it - you have no third option here.
I still don't get the difference, but whatever.

Quote:
Right, but this is stupefyingly nitty, and you know it's stupefyingly nitty. The point is that you acknowledge you should obey - we all know you're a sinner (ie, a habitual disobeyer of god's will); that's a stipulation of Christian theology. The point is that disobedience of god's direct command to murder your family is no less a sin than your disobedience of god's general command to love your enemy - no?
I thought the question was whether I would obey. And I've answered that as fully as I can (I don't know whether I would obey). So if that's not the point, then I don't know what the point is.

If the point is to say something about my theology, then I don't see how a point has been made because in order for me to "acknowledge" the premise, I would have to abandon much of my theology.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Even though you're not really looking for an answer, I think it's important to clarify: I would be rejecting it as actually being a command from God, not that I would conclude that it is from God and then decide to behave otherwise.
Well i figured that and its a part of whats interesting. Gods objective morality would have to fit your morality (at least at the extreme ends) in order for you to accept it. Otherwise you would dismiss God as not God.

If you can say what the God of the universe has to have as his objective morality otherwise you wont see him as God. Well idk but...
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Aaron -

Please treat this as it's intended. The stipulation is that for [compelling reason] you genuinely believe you have received an instruction from the specific god you worship.

We all know the answer is that you'd do as instructed (I would too, if that helps). Stonewalling just makes you look either stubborn or outright dishonest.
Really? I'd suspect the onset of schizophrenia and check into a mental hospital. On the other hand, if I genuinely believed it was God giving me the winning lottery numbers along with the command to use the winnings to feed the hungry, I'd comply.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
If the point is to say something about my theology, then I don't see how a point has been made because in order for me to "acknowledge" the premise, I would have to abandon much of my theology.
Why concern yourself with 'the point'? Just answer the question - should you obey the commands of your god? The question really is that simple.
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote
04-11-2011 , 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffe
Really? I'd suspect the onset of schizophrenia and check into a mental hospital. On the other hand, if I genuinely believed it was God giving me the winning lottery numbers along with the command to use the winnings to feed the hungry, I'd comply.
On what other hand? The stipulation is that for a compelling reason you genuinely believe it to be the case. Do you check yourself into a mental hospital whenever you suspect you may need new car tires?
Harris and Craig Debate To Stream Live April 7th - 7pm est Quote

      
m