tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post5408254886333860201..comments2023-04-05T09:07:08.419-07:00Comments on Fides et Ratio: "Would you be immoral if you were an atheist?"Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-18138146671712844502013-07-09T15:45:22.300-07:002013-07-09T15:45:22.300-07:00I might end up an absurdist, believing that there ...I might end up an absurdist, believing that there are no objective moral obligations, but acting as if there were. Of course, that's just playing "pretend," which I (as of right now) wouldn't be fond of as someone committed to truth.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-36264672760582641942013-05-28T22:30:17.189-07:002013-05-28T22:30:17.189-07:00Would I be immoral if I was an Atheist?
I think I...Would I be immoral if I was an Atheist?<br /><br />I think I would weep for humanity because I would go full Dark Lord!<br /><br />OTOH people who are Atheists and are basically good people...could be Saints if they believed. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-31991201396233396532013-05-21T23:17:02.367-07:002013-05-21T23:17:02.367-07:00No, people do not realize their inconsistencies al...No, people do not realize their inconsistencies all the time. But if you abandoned you belief in God I would expect you, as a life-long defender of all sorts of argument for theism, to realize the inconsistency, or , as I do, to realize it is not an inconsitsnecy and hance the moral argument is wrong.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-67444256208800648352013-05-19T10:34:39.931-07:002013-05-19T10:34:39.931-07:00I probably wouldn't realize the inconsistency....I probably wouldn't realize the inconsistency. People don't recognize their inconsistencies all the time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-55272189899684021652013-05-19T10:16:54.901-07:002013-05-19T10:16:54.901-07:00I am not, actually. The porblem is that if you ar...I am not, actually. The porblem is that if you are right and atheist's perception is inconsistent with their atheism, then if you became an atheist, your would realize your perception was a delusion, and there would be nothing really preventing you from becoming an immoral person. <br />But the very fact that you think there would still be something preventing this, is a strong indication that, in reality, you do not really believe that morality is dependent on God.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-47857119110774877622013-05-19T09:46:09.294-07:002013-05-19T09:46:09.294-07:00No, you're conflating moral epistemology with ...No, you're conflating moral epistemology with moral ontology. Atheists can <i>perceive</i> moral obligations without <i>belief in</i> God, but that doesn't mean that those moral obligations aren't necessarily dependent on God. I can deny the sun's existence all I want, even while basking in its rays.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-53180491479104917552013-05-19T00:27:52.911-07:002013-05-19T00:27:52.911-07:00Doug
"Not necessarily. As you know (and I...Doug<br /><br />"Not necessarily. As you know (and I'm not trying to raise another debate on the matter), I also believe that the objectivity of the laws of logic are dependent on God. Yet, atheists can still perceive the objectivity of the laws of logic. I just happen to think their perception is inconsistent with their atheism. The same would presumably hold with the laws of morality."<br /><br />Sure, but now you are admitting that objective morality does not necessarily depend on God. Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-60573996425726372802013-05-18T16:13:27.850-07:002013-05-18T16:13:27.850-07:00Walter: "First, let me tell you that I am som...Walter: "First, let me tell you that I am sometimes horrified by the fact that some Christians (also Catholics) do admit they would start acting immorally if they were to abandon their belief in God."<br /><br />I would also be horrified by this.<br /><br />"But if you abandoned your belief in God, you would not think you were created in the image of God and, if the (rather simplistic) moral argument is correct, you might have a feeling that some actions were immoral, but that would just be a feeling without any ground. If I told you I felt those actions were moral, it would just be a matter of opinion."<br /><br />Not necessarily. As you know (and I'm not trying to raise another debate on the matter), I also believe that the objectivity of the laws of logic are dependent on God. Yet, atheists can still perceive the objectivity of the laws of logic. I just happen to think their perception is inconsistent with their atheism. The same would presumably hold with the laws of morality.<br /><br />"A deeper problem is that the moral argument entails that, hypothetically, in a perfect copy of this world, complete with the same kind of inhabitants, with the same feelings,with the sole exception that it wasn't created by God, the same action that is now considerd immoral, would be moral. IOW, in such a world, raping and killing children would be moral."<br /><br />As I mentioned, debating the moral argument wasn't the purpose of this entry. However, what you're essentially doing is affirming the antecedent: if there is no God, then there is no objective morality. You say this is a problem, but I say the impossibility of the consequent entails the impossibility of the conditional. So yes, there would be no action that would be wrong if there were no God, but since it's impossible for there to be no action that's wrong, there must be a God. This is a transcendental argument, which has been common since Kant.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-38243126728203587022013-05-18T01:11:20.397-07:002013-05-18T01:11:20.397-07:00Doug
It's a bit more complicated than that.
F...Doug<br /><br />It's a bit more complicated than that.<br />First, let me tell you that I am sometimes horrified by the fact that some Christians (also Catholics) do admit they would start acting immorally if they were to abandon their belief in God.<br />You say, "The reason I would remain moral (assuming I'm considered a moral person) even if I abandoned my belief in God is because I would still be created in the image of God." But if you abandoned your belief in God, you would not think you were created in the image of God and, if the (rather simplistic) moral argument is correct, you might have a feeling that some actions were immoral, but that would just be a feeling without any ground. If I told you I felt those actions were moral, it would just be a matter of opinion. <br />A deeper problem is that the moral argument entails that, hypothetically, in a perfect copy of this world, complete with the same kind of inhabitants, with the same feelings,with the sole exception that it wasn't created by God, the same action that is now considerd immoral, would be moral. IOW, in such a world, raping and killing children would be moral.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.com