10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[Figleaf]

...Building your ethical and moral framework on a concept means your worship that concept.

See, I told you he'd have a private meaning for worship. This sort of nonsense would be funny, if it weren't so stupid.

[gc1765]

IOW - you place your faith in reason. Any decision you make must be based on reason and basing one on gut feel or intuition violates your belief system.

I think "faith" is the wrong word to use here. I suppose faith can have different meanings, but when I think of faith I think of This definition

"Belief without evidence"

[Riverwind]

"Belief without evidence"

What evidence do you have that a decision based on 'reason' is always better than a decision based on 'intuition'?

I guess you could argue that empirical evidence tells you that decisions based on reason are generally better. However, a theist will usually say the same thing when they make personal decisions after 'meditation' or 'prayer' and they would be just as correct.

So I don't see the difference between having faith in a deity and having faith in reason when it comes to making personal decisions. Both approaches can lead to wrong decisions but a person will generally find that they are happy with the outcomes when they use the approach that they have faith in.

[gc1765]

What evidence do you have that a decision based on 'reason' is always better than a decision based on 'intuition'?

Ok, then use This definition

"Faith - Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason."

You may disagree with the definition, but that's what a lot of people think when they hear the word "faith".

[Riverwind]

"Faith - Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason."

Consider the example of someone who frequently flies into a rage over insignificant things such as being cut off in traffic. This rage causes numerous social problems so the person needs a solution. His atheist friend advises him to breathe deeply and to think about the potential negative consequences. Unfortunately, he finds it impossible to think rationally once the rage starts. His theist friend recommends asking god for help. He thinks it is a ridiculous suggestion but he tries it anyway and discovers that repeating a prayer for help over and over again does allow him to calm down after the rage starts.

This person uses the prayer technique over and over again an eventually comes to believe that there is a deity helping him. This belief is re-enforced by the fact that he can conduct an experiment (prayer when the rage starts) and get repeatable results (calming down).

His experiments do not prove that there is a deity, however, the effects are real. That makes his beliefs completely rational. In retrospect it would have been irrational to reject the advice of his theist friend. If he had placed his faith in reason then he would have rejected the theist's advice and deprived himself of a solution to a difficult problem.

That is why I think it is reasonable to say that people who believe that reason is a solution to every personal problem are people who place their faith in reason.

[gc1765]

This person uses the prayer technique over and over again an eventually comes to believe that there is a deity helping him. This belief is re-enforced by the fact that he can conduct an experiment (prayer when the rage starts) and get repeatable results (calming down).

His experiments do not prove that there is a deity, however, the effects are real. That makes his beliefs completely rational. In retrospect it would have been irrational to reject the advice of his theist friend. If he had placed his faith in reason then he would have rejected the theist's advice and deprived himself of a solution to a difficult problem.

The next day his other friend tells him to count to 10 when he feels the rage. At first he thinks it is ridiculous, but tries it anyway. To his surprise, it works. He starts to question his belief in this deity and decides to conduct further experiments. The day after, he decides to try his atheist friend's suggestion and breathe deeply. It too works. Each day he tries a new (relaxation) technique, and all of them work. Sooner or later, he comes to the conclusion that staying calm & relaxed helps him deal with his rage, and he rejects the idea of a deity (not because this disproves the deity, but because any positive evidence of a deity that he had disappears).

[Riverwind]

It too works. Each day he tries a new (relaxation) technique, and all of them work.

Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. Now that he has a solution that he know works, he (unconsciously) does not put the same level of effort into the other techniques. As a result, he discovers that the prayer technique is the most effective. His atheist friend insists that the effects have nothing to do with a deity but he has no reason to change his mind because prayer solves his problem. His experimental evidence tells him his atheist friend is simply being closed minded and irrational.

The human mind is quite complex and rational approaches are not always the best. Believing that superficially 'rational' approaches are the only solution for every person requires an irrational leap of faith.

[Figleaf]

So I don't see the difference between having faith in a deity and having faith in reason when it comes to making personal decisions.

I don't know what to make of this peculiar construct of yours "having faith in reason". One doesn't 'have faith' in reason, you APPLY reason (or you don't). Reason is not a philosophy, it is a method. As such, it has elements that if not present disqualify the effort from conforming with reason. As such it is entirely different from having faith in a deity, because having faith in a deity does not involve the same elements as applying reason.

[Figleaf]

"Faith - Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason."

Consider the example of someone who frequently flies into a rage over insignificant things such as being cut off in traffic. This rage causes numerous social problems so the person needs a solution. His atheist friend advises him to breathe deeply and to think about the potential negative consequences. Unfortunately, he finds it impossible to think rationally once the rage starts. His theist friend recommends asking god for help. He thinks it is a ridiculous suggestion but he tries it anyway and discovers that repeating a prayer for help over and over again does allow him to calm down after the rage starts.

This person uses the prayer technique over and over again an eventually comes to believe that there is a deity helping him. This belief is re-enforced by the fact that he can conduct an experiment (prayer when the rage starts) and get repeatable results (calming down).

His experiments do not prove that there is a deity, however, the effects are real. That makes his beliefs completely rational.

Absolutely not.

In your highly contrived hypothetical, his expectation of the efficacy of the prayer method for helping his rage is experientially based and reasonable. However, the attribution of that effect to the action of a 'higher power' has no such basis.

If he had placed his faith in reason then he would have rejected the theist's advice ...

This phrase again, 'placed his faith in reason', is the problem. Rejecting an alternative out of hand because it has theistic connections may be 'placing faith in reason' if you want to define it so. But it is NOT applying reason. He applied reason by experimenting with the theist's suggestion.

[Mad_Michael]

Yet the rational-based moral system that he logically constructed stands entirely independent of any existence or non-existence of God.

He was only able to construct such a system because he started with the assumption that 'God is outside of human reasoning'. The statement: 'God is outside of human reasoning' _is_ a statement of metaphysical beliefs. This means that Kant's own arguments are based on his metaphysical beliefs and cannot be separated from them.

About the only thing you are proving here is that you've never read Kant.

Just because you apparently like to make big assumptions and claim them to be metaphysical, doesn't mean that's how Kant came to his conclusions. Indeed, there is epistemological reasoning to Kant's conclusion that God exists outside of human understanding. It is not a blind assumption that he just happened to like.

Consider the equation: 1+1 = 10. Is this equation true or false? You cannot answer that question unless you make an assumption about the number system. If you assume that the number system is Base10 then the statement is false. However, the statement is true if the number system is Base2.

A resonable illustration of the nature of relativism.

What's the point?

A moral framework without a statement on metaphysical beliefs is like an equation without a stated numeric base. The metaphysical belief provides the context that allows someone to develop a moral framework. That is why I say they are inseperable.

This is not a substantive argument. It is a series of statements of your subjective opinion.

Yes, people with different metaphysical views of the universe would likely have different moral frameworks, but not necessarily so. People who share the same metaphysical views often have entirely different moral frameworks.

Of course, a person's metaphysical beliefs are only one part of their moral framework.

This is becoming comical. Can you please hold consistent to your own argument? The way you negate your own assertions from post to post and then pretend you didn't is quite tiresome.

If one's own metaphysics are ONLY ONE PART of their moral framework, how is it that ANY change in one's metaphysics MUST cause a change in moral framework as you stated earlier?

Where's the logical basis for this conclusion that you assert?

Your moral beliefs and your metaphysical beliefs must be consistent. If they are inconsistent then you would experience 'cognitive dissonance'. Over time one (or both) of these beliefs would change to ensure consistency. That is why I say the two are always connected.

You are only stating why you believe your own opinion.

You have not given any substative reasoning as to why moral and metaphysical beliefs must be consistent other than your own statement that they must be so otherwise you wouldn't like it.

I've given you an example (Kant's moral system) that shows a clear distinction between a moral system and a metaphysical belief. That is an exception to your 'rule'.

Btw, cognitive dissonance is a lovely term. It is also apparently extremely common. Apparently human beings have no trouble at all engaging in cognitive dissonance on a regular and/or longterm basis. Ergo, anything that causes a congnitive dissonance is not impossible by definition (as you are trying to assert).

[Riverwind]

In your highly contrived hypothetical, his expectation of the efficacy of the prayer method for helping his rage is experientially based and reasonable. However, the attribution of that effect to the action of a 'higher power' has no such basis.

First, the example is not contrived. Millions - if not billions of people use prayer or meditation in similar ways every day and do get similar, tangible results from the activity.

Second, the hypothesis that the intervention of a deity is perfectly rational given the experiment and the results. In fact, it is completely irrational to reject the hypothesis given the information available. The fact that you arbitrarily reject a rational hypothesis illustrates how your world view is built on a set of unproven assumptions.

gc1765 is correct to suggest that additional experiments with other relaxation techniques might demonstrate that the deity hypothesis unlikely. However, the person with the anger management problem has a solution that works and other techniques would not necessarily be more effective. In fact, choosing to believe in the deity hypothesis would likely make the prayer approach even more effective.

Rejecting an alternative out of hand because it has theistic connections may be 'placing faith in reason' if you want to define it so.

An atheist would have rejected the alternative out of hand because of its theistic connections. That would be irrational and demonstrates how a world view that specifically excludes a deity _is_ a world view that requires a certain amount of faith without proof.

[Mad_Michael]

That is why I think it is reasonable to say that people who believe that reason is a solution to every personal problem are people who place their faith in reason.

That is reasonable. Many non-critical thinking people do base their beliefs on faith - reason or religion, it doesn't really matter.

But most serious thinking people don't believe that reason is a solution to every personal problem.

Your point is thus a strawman.

[gc1765]

Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. Now that he has a solution that he know works, he (unconsciously) does not put the same level of effort into the other techniques. As a result, he discovers that the prayer technique is the most effective. His atheist friend insists that the effects have nothing to do with a deity but he has no reason to change his mind because prayer solves his problem. His experimental evidence tells him his atheist friend is simply being closed minded and irrational.

The human mind is quite complex and rational approaches are not always the best. Believing that superficially 'rational' approaches are the only solution for every person requires an irrational leap of faith.

If our enraged driver was thinking 'rationally' he would have realized that his experience does not prove one way or another that there is a deity. Given enough 'experiments' he could show that simply relaxing has the same effect as praying.

To put it another way, there is a scientific explanation to everything. (It's easy to understand that everything must have an explanation. Science, IMO, means the truth (even if, as humans, we don't know what that truth is). Thus, any explanation is necessarily a scientific explanation)). But just because there is a 'rational' explanation does not mean that our enraged driver knows that. For example, a hundred or so years ago, people thought that mass and energy were two separate things. The 'rational' idea at the time was that they are different things. Further experiments showed that is not the case, mass and energy are equivalent. Nowadays, the 'rational' explanation is that they are equivalent, and the old explanation is wrong (even though it appeared rational at the time). If our enraged driver was infinitely smart, he would have realized (by thinking rationally) that his rage was calmed by relaxation and not necessarily by a deity. The reason why he thought the deity was the one solving his problem was a mistake on his part, it is not a flaw with the way he was thinking (rationally), because rational thinking would have showed that relaxation was the solution to his problem.

[Riverwind]

Indeed, there is epistemological reasoning to Kant's conclusion that God exists outside of human understanding.

Any statement about god is, by definition, a statement of metaphysical beliefs. Kant may have constructed a rational framework to justify his beliefs but that does not change the fact that they are his beliefs and not absolute truths.

Kant does go on to develop is case for rational morality but that entire case is built on his initial assumptions regarding the nature of god.

If one's own metaphysics are ONLY ONE PART of their moral framework, how is it that ANY change in one's metaphysics MUST cause a change in moral framework as you stated earlier?

Your are being deliberately obtuse. The tires on a car are only one of many things that affect its performance. You are trying to claim that the tires have no effect on the performance because they aren't the only thing that affects performance. Such a statement is absurd.

You have not given any substantive reasoning as to why moral and metaphysical beliefs must be consistent other than your own statement that they must be so otherwise you wouldn't like it.

Cognitive dissonance is a well documented phenomena. People cannot maintain conflicting beliefs over time. A person cannot have a moral framework that contradicts their metaphysical beliefs. If one changes then so must the other. I don't see how you can deny this.

Incidentally, this is a discussion of philosophy which means every argument can be described as opinion - including your own. Dismissing arguments because they are 'opinion' is simply silly. My reference to cognitive dissonance does provide substantive reasoning to support my opinion and you have not bothered to address it.

I've given you an example (Kant's moral system) that shows a clear distinction between a moral system and a metaphysical belief. That is an exception to your 'rule'.

I have already explained that Kant's moral framework starts with a set of assumptions regarding the nature of god. I don't see how anyone could interpret a statement like 'god is outside of human reasoning' as anything other than a statement of metaphysical beliefs. Kant's moral framework would not be logically consistent if he did not make assumptions that removed god from the equation.

[Drea]

If everyone believed in human rights and no one believed in god we would all be better off.

The doctrine of "Human Rights" is simply another form of religious dogma which can be as oppressive as any theological dogma.

No it's not. Human rights have nothing to do with any type of god outside of ourselves. They have everything to do with treating humans humanely with no "reward" at the end. No "you get to go to heaven 'cause yer a good boy".

Geez.

There has been how many threads on this topic now? And as always the religies cannot (or will not) admit that they believe in a fantasy.

Yes the belief in god is pure fantasy. Just because the fantasy has been around for 2000 years does not make it any more real than someone "making up" a god today. If someone wrote a book about a god named "Bob" would you believe it? Of course not. Silly people.

I was on a really good site last night at home. I'll link it later -- the best I've ever read regrading religion and how it has outlived its usefulness.

[M.Dancer]

Yes the belief in god is pure fantasy. Just because the fantasy has been around for 2000 years does not make it any more real than someone "making up" a god today. If someone wrote a book about a god named "Bob" would you believe it? Of course not. Silly people.

The belief in human rights is also a fantasy. except we got there throuygh the belief in God.....ergo, human rights are poison.

[Drea]

That is exactly what I mean.

Religies are so brainwashed into thinking everything is a "beleif".

I believe I'll go have a cig before I start work.

Cheerios heathens! LOL

[Riverwind]

If our enraged driver was infinitely smart, he would have realized (by thinking rationally) that his rage was calmed by relaxation and not necessarily by a deity.

You are assuming that the effect of prayer is simply a matter of relaxation. What if the effect is caused by the activation of certain neural pathways in the brain and that the activation of these pathways requires a sincere belief in god? Would you insist that this person abandon his belief in a deity because it does not conform to your opinion on what is scientific?

[Riverwind]

No it's not. Human rights have nothing to do with any type of god outside of ourselves. They have everything to do with treating humans humanely with no "reward" at the end.

Try answering the question: "Why should humans treat other humans 'humanely?". You will likely find that your argument would be nothing more than 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Unfortunately, such an argument is not that effective when dealing with groups of people which have the ability to impose their will on others and have no fear that the others will be able to do the same to them.

[M.Dancer]

That is exactly what I mean.

Religies are so brainwashed into thinking everything is a "beleif".

I believe I'll go have a cig before I start work.

Cheerios heathens! LOL

I believe he's trying to kill himself.....

[Drea]

My my aren't we full of wit this morning. OooOOoOooo.

[Mad_Michael]

Try answering the question: "Why should humans treat other humans 'humanely?". You will likely find that your argument would be nothing more than 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Unfortunately, such an argument is not that effective when dealing with groups of people which have the ability to impose their will on others and have no fear that the others will be able to do the same to them.

If Drea doesn't mind, I'll take this one.

Why should humans treat other humans humanly? Because it is in our own self interest to do so. This reply is entirely based upon subjective utility. No appeal to the 'golden rule' is required here.

In other words, your argument is yet another strawman.

[Mad_Michael]

Indeed, there is epistemological reasoning to Kant's conclusion that God exists outside of human understanding.

Any statement about god is, by definition, a statement of metaphysical beliefs. Kant may have constructed a rational framework to justify his beliefs but that does not change the fact that they are his beliefs and not absolute truths.

Kant does go on to develop is case for rational morality but that entire case is built on his initial assumptions regarding the nature of god.

Absolute truth is 100% dependent upon the existence of God. No God, no truth.

And your pronouncements about Kant are becoming comical. You have not read and have not studied Kant, but you continue to lecture us about Kant's work.

Kant most certainly did not "construct a rational framework to justfy his beliefs". As I have already noted (and you apparently have ignored) Kant was a devout Christian-theist. His moral system is not dependent upon God in any way. The two are entirely independent of each other.

Please read or study Kant before you presume to lecture us about what Kant was doing, why or how. It is quite obvious that you have not done so.

If one's own metaphysics are ONLY ONE PART of their moral framework, how is it that ANY change in one's metaphysics MUST cause a change in moral framework as you stated earlier?

Your are being deliberately obtuse.

And you are now being insulting.

The tires on a car are only one of many things that affect its performance. You are trying to claim that the tires have no effect on the performance because they aren't the only thing that affects performance. Such a statement is absurd.

Your analogy is bizarre. Please stick to the issue under discussion.

You asserted that one's metaphysics and one's moral framework were linked together, always in tandem (by definition).

Then you assert that one's metaphysics is only one part of one's moral framework.

Which is it? Please spare us an absurd analogy in your reply.

You have not given any substantive reasoning as to why moral and metaphysical beliefs must be consistent other than your own statement that they must be so otherwise you wouldn't like it.

Cognitive dissonance is a well documented phenomena. People cannot maintain conflicting beliefs over time. A person cannot have a moral framework that contradicts their metaphysical beliefs. If one changes then so must the other. I don't see how you can deny this.

Your inability to imagine the internal thought processes of other human beings is not a valid negation of the existence of the internal thought processes of other human beings.

I deny your statement because it has no obvious or logical validity and runs counter to all my experience of dealing with other human beings.

And you've been unable to substantiate it other to repeat your statement over and over. Just you saying so doesn't make it so. I've given you counter arguments and counter examples which you just ignore and restate your point with increasing exasperation.

Incidentally, this is a discussion of philosophy which means every argument can be described as opinion - including your own. Dismissing arguments because they are 'opinion' is simply silly.

Bemused giggles. Now you are letting your frustrations get the best of you.

Logic is not an opinion.

If you construct a logical argument (premise1, premise2 therefore conclusion) then it is not an opinion.

My critique of your argument has taken the form of logical critique. It is not an opinion.

My reference to cognitive dissonance does provide substantive reasoning to support my opinion and you have not bothered to address it.

I did address it. Cognitive dissonance is quite common amongst humans. Humans can apparently go through life with various cognitive dissonances on various issues or another. It does not apparently affect their health or state of mind.

Your assertion that cognitive dissonance absolutely requires immediate resolution is just another fanciful opinion that is not substantiated by anything save your own assertion.

I've given you an example (Kant's moral system) that shows a clear distinction between a moral system and a metaphysical belief. That is an exception to your 'rule'.

I have already explained that Kant's moral framework starts with a set of assumptions regarding the nature of god.

And I have pointed out that this is categorically wrong. You clearly have not read/studied Kant.

I don't see how anyone could interpret a statement like 'god is outside of human reasoning' as anything other than a statement of metaphysical beliefs.

Once again, your lack of imagination or inability to understand it does not negate the statement. Kant does supply substantive logical reasoning for every single statement that Kant makes. Absolutely nothing is assumed by Kant.

Kant's moral framework would not be logically consistent if he did not make assumptions that removed god from the equation.

Bemused giggles.

Once again you presume to lecture us about Kant's philosophic work and at the same time prove you have never read or studied Kant. This is getting silly.

[Mad_Michael]

That is exactly what I mean.

Religies are so brainwashed into thinking everything is a "beleif".

With all due respect, it is statements like this that feed the animosity between 'believers' and 'non-believers'.

Religious people do not need 'brainwashing' to think everything is a 'belief'. It is a logical process of projection that almost all humans are guilty of.

Accusing religious folks of being 'brainwashed' is not helpful or condusive to a meaningful discussion.

[Mad_Michael]

I was on a really good site last night at home. I'll link it later -- the best I've ever read regrading religion and how it has outlived its usefulness.

I'd be interested in this. I strongly disagree with the assertion as it contradicts a primary tenet of academic political science based on the influential work of Alex de Tocqueville.