If God is

JemyM · November 20, 2009

I have to take the position that good/evil is relative to who makes the distinction. That entity sets up it's goals. Moving towards the goal is good, moving backwards is evil. This can be an individual, but an individual will probably not match the majority in his/her society. Rather the society sets up universal principles to benefit the individuals in it. In most cases these principles tend to match human desires, needs and emotions. A free democracy is a forum in which most opinions get out, thus it's more effective to approach an universal understanding of good/evil than what a minority can. Then there are lower and greater principles. An individual may be protected even if his/her opinion is disliked by the majority, as long as the majority have agreed that the principle of free speech is beneficial to the society as a whole.

peko · November 21, 2009

DArtagnan said:
In this, I'm not really too concerned with anything but my opinion that there's no such thing as evil actions or evil people. If my argument resembles another, then so what?

Evil is a concept that goes beyond simply harmful behaviour - but implies a moral deficiency and willful malice or whatever term you want to use. It implies that the person in question DESERVES punishment and is less of a person because that person is evil.

You can use the word evil if you like and say it equates to harmful, but I'm not really interested in semantics. I'm saying that when someone does something harmful (willfully or not), that person is not evil - where some people might disagree.

I think punishment can be a pragmatic necessity, but I don't believe in punishment for punishments sake. If it has no beneficial effect, then punishment is meaningless.

I like this train of thought, almost all people act according to their own conception of what is good and true. If you're not God, then who are you to challenge my conception of Good.

Damian Mahadevan said:
Evil is just the reverse of good. A good deed for example may not a loving will behind it. Same is true of an evil deed.

But i think here we will just have to agree to disagree or we would probably have to get into a semantics debate which neither fo us seem interested in.

Then what is a "good" deed? If you want to classify "evil" as that which is opposite if "good" you'll need a pretty thourough definition of what "good" is.

Rithrandil said:
My view:

There is no god (or at the very least there is no god that cares one whit about human affairs) - the claims of all religions are false; additionally, there is no such thing as objective morality.

To me this seems to be just about the only reasonable standpoint. Nothing riles me up as much as claims of "objectivity".

Objectivity is in my view at best a delusion, even if there was such a thing, how would we from our subjective standpoints come to know what is objectively true as opposed to what is only subjectively true.
/Classic Aristotlean critisism

Damian Mahadevan · November 21, 2009

peko said:
Then what is a "good" deed? If you want to classify "evil" as that which is opposite if "good" you'll need a pretty thourough definition of what "good" is.

Essentially good and evil are concepts made up by the masses(or a God) to make a positive environment.

Ubereil · November 21, 2009

peko said:
To me this seems to be just about the only reasonable standpoint. Nothing riles me up as much as claims of "objectivity"

So if I were to come home to you, take all your stuff, take you and keep you in my basement where I occasionally came down and cut off a few of your body parts for my own amusement there would be nothing wrong with that? Should I go to jail for it?

Übereil

JemyM · November 21, 2009

Damian Mahadevan said:
Essentially good and evil are concepts made up by the masses(or a God) to make a positive environment.

"Positive" in this regard is relative to what kind of society you have. In Sweden it's positive if as many as possible is able to live a happy fulfilling life. Positive in the US is more related to being to earn as much wealth as possible. Positive by islamic standard is very different. The goal of the society must be known before good/evil and positive/negative can be determined.

Most societies have norms, Sweden have this old idea of fulfilling a standardized life. Somewhat jokingly we say we need a VVV (Villa, Volvo, Vovve = A villa, a volvo and a dog). We also have a pretty standardized "fulfilment in a certain age". If you break the norm you are seen as odd. This means that at a certain age you should have had sex, you should have had your drivers license, you should have found a partner for life, you should have been married, you should have children etc.

In the US you have the American Dream which focus on "success" as a positive norm.

I know that in Germany it's popular to work as little as possible. Those who can reduce their work hours have greater status. Instead of earning +10-25% of others, working 1-2 hours less is considered good.

DArtagnan · November 21, 2009

Each individual is a culture unto himself, and whether or not his nationality influences his idea of what's good or evil - it doesn't necessarily dominate his set of values and beliefs. I might be danish - but have many conflicting ideas that set me apart from the danish "norm".

As such, there is no identifiable objective moral certitude - but because we can't recognize it or detect it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

The same goes for truth as a whole, within which objective morality could fit and I'm a firm believer in objective truth whether I can be certain of anything or not.

So, in the end, in pragmatic terms it's impossible to know what's harmful or beneficial in an overall sense - but I think there's a good chance something is objectively better in every single instance of making a choice. But it's not for us to see, so we have to guess according to the best of our ability.

This is why I don't randomize my actions throughout life, and why I do try to understand and perceive harm or benefit at every turn. If nothing was ever the better choice, then any choice would be meaningless - and fortunately for me, I don't go around with that kind of disposition.

Rithrandil · November 21, 2009

Ubereil said:
So if I were to come home to you, take all your stuff, take you and keep you in my basement where I occasionally came down and cut off a few of your body parts for my own amusement there would be nothing wrong with that? Should I go to jail for it?

Übereil

I would argue there is a difference between good and evil (Whether subjective or objective) and what laws are necessary for an orderly society. For instance - I would define most instances of adultery as evil. Do I want adultery to be outlawed? No.

Remember, too, everyone can *subjectively* agree upon something. I'm pretty sure, subjectively, that the vast majority of us would agree being dipped in acid would be an unpleasant experience, and so forth.

I was reading a book about this recently (Being Good by Simon Blackburn) and he said the only real universal thing seems to be that we all have views/norms/"rules" on what is ethical in certain situations. So while you and I may differ on when taking a life is justified, we both at least have some sort of rule we operate using, making compromise and such possible.

Rithrandil · November 21, 2009

peko said:
To me this seems to be just about the only reasonable standpoint. Nothing riles me up as much as claims of "objectivity".

Objectivity is in my view at best a delusion, even if there was such a thing, how would we from our subjective standpoints come to know what is objectively true as opposed to what is only subjectively true.
/Classic Aristotlean critisism

Yup. Now, that doesn't mean I am unwilling to fight for my subjectively belief (and perhaps force others to it). For instance, I subjectively view pedophilia as wrong. I find it so repugnant I would have no issue forcing this belief upon some other society. Same goes for slavery, torture, etc.

Now can I objectively demonstrate these things as wrong? No. All I can do is explain why I believe they are wrong using my own personal metrics - such as harm vs. benefit and so forth.

JemyM · November 21, 2009

I thought I could as well post this here…

The irony is so thick you can cut it…

Some might remember the british "Atheist Bus Campaign"… just when they were about to launch the new campaign (below), Times Online decided to do some journalistic work, and completely proves the validity of the new campaign…

Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals

Something tells me that a child of 7 and 9 haven't done much evangelical work, but the article seems to suggest it would be better if they found some outspoken atheist toddlers for the campaign, or perhaps there's something in the message they missed…

The campaign say; "PLEASE DON'T LABEL ME".
Are the children evangelicals, or children of evangelical parents?

peko · November 21, 2009

Ubereil said:
So if I were to come home to you, take all your stuff, take you and keep you in my basement where I occasionally came down and cut off a few of your body parts for my own amusement there would be nothing wrong with that? Should I go to jail for it?

Übereil

I would certainly dislike it and I'd say that you'd deserve to go to jail for it. I even believe most people would agree with me, but in no way or form does my or anyones opinion of your actions make them objectively right or wrong.

skavenhorde · November 21, 2009

peko said:
I would certainly dislike it and I'd say that you'd deserve to go to jail for it. I even believe most people would agree with me, but in no way or form does my or anyones opinion of your actions make them objectively right or wrong.

really? I kinda believe in what DA is saying. Evil and Good are all about perception. But there are some things that are just wrong. I'm sorry. It's foolish to say otherwise.

I go by a simple belief system Good = Helpful on purpose, Evil = Harmful on purpose. These change depending on the pov. For instance it might be helpful to experiment on rats for us. That is good. But to a rat it's evil in the worst possible way.

Now let's skip to humans. It's good to help someone who can't help themselves, like getting in a car crash. From the pov of the person in the crash, it's evil if someone just walked away without even trying to help him. Once again, change the POV and the person was rushing home because his wife was dying or something more pressing. Then what he was doing was good. It all changes depending on your own personal perception. These are basic laws that I can live by with my goddess. These help me to try and do what is right.

peko · November 21, 2009

Which is exactly what I was saying. I'm not saying that I don't have conceptions of what is right and wrong I'm saying that there is nothing objective about them.

I study philosophy and the definition of objective might be somewhat stricter than the one that is generally used. For something to be objectively right it would need to be necessarily right for any concievable observer.

Damian Mahadevan · November 21, 2009

JemyM said:
I thought I could as well post this here…

The irony is so thick you can cut it…

Some might remember the british "Atheist Bus Campaign"… just when they were about to launch the new campaign (below), Times Online decided to do some journalistic work, and completely proves the validity of the new campaign…

Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals

Something tells me that a child of 7 and 9 haven't done much evangelical work, but the article seems to suggest it would be better if they found some outspoken atheist toddlers for the campaign, or perhaps there's something in the message they missed…

The campaign say; "PLEASE DON'T LABEL ME".
Are the children evangelicals, or children of evangelical parents?

Yet i somehow doubt he would approve of science being taught from both sides(from the idea there is a God and there isnt a God and let the third agnostic child choose which he likes the best).

Rithrandil · November 21, 2009

You doubt who would approve? Dawkins?

Damian Mahadevan · November 21, 2009

Rithrandil said:
You doubt who would approve? Dawkins?

Yeah, Dawkins.

JemyM · November 21, 2009

Damian Mahadevan said:
Yet i somehow doubt he would approve of science being taught from both sides(from the idea there is a God and there isnt a God and let the third agnostic child choose which he likes the best).

Even the science done by the catholic scholastics back in the late middle ages had nothing to do with God. Nothing have changed since. Science is the study of repeatable observable phenomenon and that's it. Science is a tool that can predict the outcome of something before it happens, thanks to testing, testing and testing, data-collecting, collecting and collecting. It makes no assumptions, that's why it's useful regardless if you are a hindu in india or a muslim in the middle east.
Anyone who worked in science (theists and nontheists) can tell you that. Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin… most central figures in science +100 years ago were all Christians.

Damian Mahadevan · November 21, 2009

JemyM said:
Even the science done by the catholic scholastics back in the late middle ages had nothing to do with God. Nothing have changed since. Science is the study of repeatable observable phenomenon and that's it. Anyone who worked in science (theists and nontheists) can tell you that. Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin… most central figures in science +100 years ago were all Christians.

I dont think that Charles Darwin was a christian in the end though.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Charles_Darwin_a_Christian

Anyhow in teaching we have a habit of skipping to the interpretation rather than teaching the data and then going on to the interpretation. Probably because the data is too complex for young ears in which case (I believe) it should be taught later in a childs life.

It makes no assumptions

Well what about carbon dating and the various dating methods? They all make atleast 3 assumptions I believe.

Dating rocks by radioactive timekeepers is simple in theory, but almost all of the different methods (except for the isochron methods - see below) rely on these few basic assumptions:
* Beginning Conditions Known
* Beginning Ratio of Daughter to Parent Isotope Known (zero date problem)
* Constant Decay Rate
* No Leaching or Addition of Parent or Daughter Isotopes
* All Assumptions Valid for Billions of Years
* There is also a difficulty in measuring precisely very small amounts of the various isotopes

JemyM · November 21, 2009

Damian Mahadevan said:
Well what about carbon dating and the various dating methods? They all make atleast 3 assumptions I believe.

When a tool is inaccurate, the inaccuracy is counted for. One god, two gods, fifty gods, no gods, spirits, ghosts, magic... it makes no difference in science since that have nothing to do with what science is about. It thanks to how science is done that makes it possible to guess an outcome before it happens. You count on this accuracy whenever you plug in an electronic device, whenever you pass a bridge, whenever you watch a weather report, whenever you take a flu shot.

Damian Mahadevan · November 21, 2009

It thanks to how science is done that makes it possible to guess an outcome before it happens. You count on this accuracy whenever you plug in an electronic device, whenever you pass a bridge, whenever you watch a weather report, whenever you take a flu shot.

And all those examples are directly observable.

Rithrandil · November 21, 2009

We've seen evolution in action, Damian. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for creationism. None.

If God is

Okay, now roll sanity.

Watchdog

Keeper of the Watch

Keeper of the Watch

Okay, now roll sanity.

DArtagnan

Guest

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

Okay, now roll sanity.

Watchdog

Little BRO Rat

Watchdog

Keeper of the Watch

SasqWatch

Keeper of the Watch

Okay, now roll sanity.

Keeper of the Watch

Okay, now roll sanity.

Keeper of the Watch

SasqWatch