God Creation

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You generally don’t get too involved in deconstructions of your faith,

In more than 22 years online I have read hundreds upon hundreds of actual deconstructions of my faith.

You don’t personally get involved into deconstructions into your faith. You could’ve read whatever, but I’ve seen you dip repeatedly when someone wants to take your faithful proclamations to task and start deconstructing them.

Anyway.

You’re just back to tone policing. It’s weird because you’re “Jersey Girl” with the cussin’ and all that, but for whatever reason you saw yourself in SS’s statements and felt attacked.

Think of it this way. You’re a Detroit Lions fan. You go to the games, cheer, you have a few pieces of paraphernalia, and you even discreetly wear a Lions pin because you just love the goddamn Lions so much. People see your pin, they banter a bit, and it’s generally alright. Even if people think the Lions are crap, because they really love the Atlanta Falcons, they keep it to themselves outside of polite teasing. Perfection.

But guess what we actually have?

tHe DeTrOiT LiOnS aRe ThE tRuE fRaNcHiSe aNd tHe NfL iS tHe TrUe LeAgUe

And this:



^ that image represents all the assholes who can’t shut the “F” up about their franchises and how damned spectacular it is

And here’s your politician:



And your damned teachers:



And your stupid neighbor:



Your police:



A past Saint we all know about for some goddamned reason (clue: the Lions can’t shut the “F” up about Lions):



Your laws that were just passed:



Meanwhile, I’m just sitting over here not talking to you about how I could two craps less about the Lions or the NFL.

But, the thing is it’s getting so bad, the constant drumbeat to infuse the Lions and the NFL into every damned aspect of our lives that people are speaking up and speaking out that they don’t care about the Lions and the NFL, and would actually like the Lions, their fans, and the NFL to stay out of schools, separate your fandom from the government, and to please just keep that to yourself.

NOPE.

wE’rE vIcTiMs Of BiGoTrY



- Doc

[Hawkeye]

Schmo do you believe in any objective truth that exists independent of human minds? Or does our ability to conjure a truth only exist to the extent that it is beneficial to us and our descendants as evolutionary biology would say? In other words does 2+2=4 only because it is evolutionarily beneficial or because 2+2=4 is a truth that exists independent of the human mind?

What is morality without a baseline assumption that human beings have an inherent worth? You can't determine the greatest good for the greatest number without determining the greatest good. The belief in any moral oughts require us to believe unprovable truths that must descend from outside ourselves.

Do you believe in free will Schmo? If we're just balls of meat wondering about in space, how exactly do we make choices? God or even the possibility of God is necessary for these thoughts. If you trash God altogether than you have no way to explain why you would believe an objective truth, morality, or in your own ability to choose.

[Some Schmo]

The amusing thing about all this is that I had mostly stopped talking about religion. I was bored of the subject. I haven't looked at the Mormon related threads in ages. I was happy to live and let live.

The the Supreme Court has forced us all to reevaluate religion's poisonous influence. I'm not happy to have to think about this crap again.

No one is forcing you to think about this crap again. You are choosing to think about it, dwell on it, until you want to pop off which is fine by me. Lord knows I do my fair share of popping off though not much lately.

You're right. I could totally bury my head in the sand and let the freaks do what they want unchallenged. Given that I have a daughter, however, I would suck as a father if I didn't care about her future and speak up.

And frankly, I see this as a bigger issue than just abortion rights. This is a move toward authoritarianism, and I'm going to fight that damned nonsense till the day I die. Certain people (and you know who they are) are trying to use their religion to control everyone else; that is going to make me mercilessly criticize the god freaks and their idiot ideas.

[Res Ipsa]

Schmo do you believe in any objective truth that exists independent of human minds? Or does our ability to conjure a truth only exist to the extent that it is beneficial to us and our descendants as evolutionary biology would say? In other words does 2+2=4 only because it is evolutionarily beneficial or because 2+2=4 is a truth that exists independent of the human mind?

What is morality without a baseline assumption that human beings have an inherent worth? You can't determine the greatest good for the greatest number without determining the greatest good. The belief in any moral oughts require us to believe unprovable truths that must descend from outside ourselves.

Do you believe in free will Schmo? If we're just balls of meat wondering about in space, how exactly do we make choices? God or even the possibility of God is necessary for these thoughts. If you trash God altogether than you have no way to explain why you would believe an objective truth, morality, or in your own ability to choose.

Objective reality doesn't logically imply objective morality. I used to own a rifle. I believe that rifle exists independent of whatever I or any other human believes about it. But there is no way to objective reason from the fact that the rifle exists to the answer to this question: when is it moral for me to use the rifle to kill a fellow human.

My view of morality is that it originates entirely from humans. When it comes to personal morality, we all pick and choose words and ideas from things that other humans have said or written down. When it comes to morality -- it's humans all the way down. You don't get your morals from God. You get them from a collection of things written and spoken by other humans. Just like I do. You may get yours from a narrower range of sources that you identify as having something to do with God. But you still pick and choose within those sources. And I pick and choose from some of the same sources you do and very likely some that you don't. But if you think the basis for your personal morality is qualitatively different from mine, I would say you are simply in denial. But beyond that, by pretending you are getting your morals from an objective source, you are shirking responsibility for the choices you are making. I, on the other hand, don't get to use "God" as an excuse for my bad behavior. My personal code of morals is my responsibility and mine alone. And that understanding leads me to think through my moral choices much more carefully than if I convinced myself I was simply following an outside, objective source.

I'm completely agnostic on the subject of free will. Subjectly, I experience making choices. But I have no idea whether I am or that the experience of free choice is just a story my brain is telling me. Currently, I'm satisfied with a variation of Pascal's wager. If I don't really have free will, acting as if I do does not harm, because I cannot choose otherwise. If I do, then acting as if I do mirrors reality and forces me to think about and accept the consequences of my own choices. So, for me, it's a no brainer: assume that I have free will.

So, I don't need God in order to believe in an objective reality and I don't believe in an objective morality. Yet, you and I can have a conversation and agree on certain ideas that would be a good foundation for a moral code or system. You mentioned one: every human has intrinsic worth. Another could be the Golden Rule. Another could be "first, do no harm." And then we could start from that basic agreement and create an entire moral code or system. But the foundation is some kind of agreement.

[Res Ipsa]

Holy cow!! I would.

That reminds me of one of my favorite Mormon jokes. A Mormon Bishop, a Jewish Rabbi and a Catholic Priest who were members of the same country club and mutual friends got into a friendly argument about who had the most faithful and loyal parishioners. The Mormon bishop bet that he could get his members to worship him as a holy cow. They went out together to visit, in turn, their most loyal parishioners. When the priest and rabbi's most loyal parishioners answered the knock on the door, they each demanded "I'm a holy cow, kneel and worship me! They both only got the door slammed in their faces. When it was the Mormon Bishop's turn, the member who answered the door immediately said, exasperatedly, "Holy cow! What do you want this time?"

[Some Schmo]

I was indoctrinated to God belief in childhood.

I knew I wanted to comment on this when I read it, but I wanted to form my thoughts first.

So, if you were to analyze what what happening in your mind when this happened, how would you describe it? Would you say that as they were telling you about god for the first time, you were accepting information about something you were already familiar with, or was this completely new to you? When they said "god" did you have a mental picture ready for that or did you have to imagine something?

When people talk about their various gods, do you accept everything they say about them, or do you accept some things and reject others? If god was definitive, would you be able to do that and maintain integrity?

If I say, "China is an Asia" and you say, "I don't believe that" then you are clearly denying a certain reality, because we all know where China is located. There's a definitive definition of what and where China is.

But if I say something about any god, you are free to agree or disagree, because the definition of god is personal. There isn't a definitive object we can all refer to in order to verify or reject any given proposition about it. Therefore, whenever you accept or reject a proposition about your god, you are simply further defining a god you find acceptable to you.

I'm not sure how anyone can deny they made up their own god, except in an attempt to claim it's real. Even if there is a god, everyone's definition is still made up, because the little rascal has apparently chosen to stay hidden.

[Some Schmo]

My view of morality is that it originates entirely from humans. When it comes to personal morality, we all pick and choose words and ideas from things that other humans have said or written down. When it comes to morality -- it's humans all the way down. You don't get your morals from God. You get them from a collection of things written and spoken by other humans. Just like I do. You may get yours from a narrower range of sources that you identify as having something to do with God. But you still pick and choose within those sources. And I pick and choose from some of the same sources you do and very likely some that you don't. But if you think the basis for your personal morality is qualitatively different from mine, I would say you are simply in denial. But beyond that, by pretending you are getting your morals from an objective source, you are shirking responsibility for the choices you are making. I, on the other hand, don't get to use "God" as an excuse for my bad behavior. My personal code of morals is my responsibility and mine alone. And that understanding leads me to think through my moral choices much more carefully than if I convinced myself I was simply following an outside, objective source.

It occurred to me last night that religion actually rejects truly moral acts. This idea that men are flawed and can only do what's right out of fear of god as about as amoral as it gets.

If we do the right thing because we fear the consequences (a.k.a. hell/god's wrath) then we aren't doing it because we want to be a good person. What is moral, doing the right thing because you're motivated by your own intrinsic goodness, or doing it because we think someone's watching?

If you're the type of person who says, "Without god, what's to stop me from raping and murdering?" you certainly need those parental controls because you are the very definition of amoral.

[Res Ipsa]

My view of morality is that it originates entirely from humans. When it comes to personal morality, we all pick and choose words and ideas from things that other humans have said or written down. When it comes to morality -- it's humans all the way down. You don't get your morals from God. You get them from a collection of things written and spoken by other humans. Just like I do. You may get yours from a narrower range of sources that you identify as having something to do with God. But you still pick and choose within those sources. And I pick and choose from some of the same sources you do and very likely some that you don't. But if you think the basis for your personal morality is qualitatively different from mine, I would say you are simply in denial. But beyond that, by pretending you are getting your morals from an objective source, you are shirking responsibility for the choices you are making. I, on the other hand, don't get to use "God" as an excuse for my bad behavior. My personal code of morals is my responsibility and mine alone. And that understanding leads me to think through my moral choices much more carefully than if I convinced myself I was simply following an outside, objective source.

It occurred to me last night that religion actually rejects truly moral acts. This idea that men are flawed and can only do what's right out of fear of god as about as amoral as it gets.

If we do the right thing because we fear the consequences (a.k.a. hell/god's wrath) then we aren't doing it because we want to be a good person. What is moral, doing the right thing because you're motivated by your own intrinsic goodness, or doing it because we think someone's watching?

If you're the type of person who says, "Without god, what's to stop me from raping and murdering?" you certainly need those parental controls because you are the very definition of amoral.

Let's deconstruct that a little. I would suggest that the vast majority of POF in the U.S. don't try to be good because they fear hellfire and damnation. I suggest they try to be good for the same reason as you – they want to be good people. You can characterize this as an aspiration to be a good person or a fear of being a bad person. For example, I could say that you do good things only because you fear being a bad person. Which would mean you aren't "truly moral" either. You are drawing an artificial and superficial distinction between you and POF that leads you to "other" them. That othering is what enables bigotry.

I've had lots of serious discussions with lots of POF about these kinds of issues. Even someone who makes the "without God" argument, when pressed on it, will admit that even if it were proved that there was no God, they wouldn't become a murdering and raping maniac. Although I wouldn't claim it's true for every single person, I think most people try to be good people because they want to be good people -- not out of the threat of hellfire or some other eternal consequence.

It's pretty easy to deconstruct the whole idea of "true morality." For every good dead or moral act, I can argue that the actor is getting something out of the action -- even if what they get is that nice feeling you get when you've done the right thing. So, you do the act because you get something out of it. What's the difference between "it makes me feel good" and "I stay out of hellfire" or "God wants me to"? Isn't it all at some level selfish.

in my opinion, the distinctions you're drawing have only a single function: to paint your fellow humans as somehow worthy of contempt. It's no difference than racial, sexual or any other form of bigotry. And, in my opinion, it's madness.

[Some Schmo]

Let's deconstruct that a little. I would suggest that the vast majority of POF in the U.S. don't try to be good because they fear hellfire and damnation. I suggest they try to be good for the same reason as you – they want to be good people.

Maybe.

You can characterize this as an aspiration to be a good person or a fear of being a bad person. For example, I could say that you do good things only because you fear being a bad person. Which would mean you aren't "truly moral" either. You are drawing an artificial and superficial distinction between you and POF that leads you to "other" them. That othering is what enables bigotry.

Not quite.

First of all, I'm not sure why you jump to the conclusion that I want to "other" them. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in the human race being functional, which requires criticism where it's not working. The first person I criticized in this thread was me for having succumb to making up my own god rather than being skeptical out of the gate. I know I'm susceptible to human imperfections. I also know that if I can be reasoned out of bad thinking, so can others.

And no, I don't agree that trying to be a good person is out of fear of being a bad person, and if you suggested that for real, I would criticize it. If I feared being a bad person, I wouldn't get up in the morning.

It's pretty easy to deconstruct the whole idea of "true morality." For every good dead or moral act, I can argue that the actor is getting something out of the action -- even if what they get is that nice feeling you get when you've done the right thing. So, you do the act because you get something out of it. What's the difference between "it makes me feel good" and "I stay out of hellfire" or "God wants me to"? Isn't it all at some level selfish.

While you could potentially argue that, you wouldn't be accounting for the degrees of selfishness any given act might take. Some acts are clearly more selfish than others.

in my opinion, the distinctions you're drawing have only a single function: to paint your fellow humans as somehow worthy of contempt. It's no difference than racial, sexual or any other form of bigotry. And, in my opinion, it's madness.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. It's not an accurate reflection of my thoughts, but you can think whatever you want.

You accusing me of bigotry has only a single function: to paint me as somehow worthy of contempt. Does that strike you as your true motivation?

[canpakes]

Schmo do you believe in any objective truth that exists independent of human minds? Or does our ability to conjure a truth only exist to the extent that it is beneficial to us and our descendants as evolutionary biology would say? In other words does 2+2=4 only because it is evolutionarily beneficial or because 2+2=4 is a truth that exists independent of the human mind?

That’s a good question, ajhawkx. As you suggest, it depends on the subject. With regard to people and behavior, would you have a few things in mind that you would consider objectively true?

What is morality without a baseline assumption that human beings have an inherent worth? You can't determine the greatest good for the greatest number without determining the greatest good. The belief in any moral oughts require us to believe unprovable truths that must descend from outside ourselves.

Human beings may have an inherent worth, but for just about everyone - including the most deeply religious amongst us - that inherent worth is always ‘less than’ what we might consider for ourselves or immediate family, in a situation involving our safety (exclusions given for self-sacrifice, of course). What makes that moral?

Is a God, or a belief in God, necessary for that to be the case?

Most higher-order animals exhibit a tendency to protect and defend their young against danger and predation. Even spiders carry around their spiderlings. Is this behavior a moral one, requiring a conscious belief in a God?

Do you believe in free will Schmo?

Well, I’m sure that you’ve encountered the flip side of that. If free will is conferred by God, can any individual that it was conferred upon truly have ‘free will’?