Fine tuning specifics: Reasons for God (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, April 28, 2017, 18:11 (2766 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: Only if you define “miracle” as an act of God. It can also be defined as “any amazing or wonderful event” (Encarta).
TONY: And of course you ignore the primary definition of miracle that says " event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency".

The work of a divine agency is an “act of God”. I merely pointed out that atheists are perfectly capable of appreciating the “amazing and wonderful event” of life, which is another definition of “miracle”.

TONY: I did NOT say that they COULD NOT be responsible, nor that they were only capable of destruction. Do not twist my words, please. I simply asked what reason they have to hold themselves responsible or accountable if all of this is just a happy accident in an otherwise cold and indifferent universe.

Let me give you a reason. This life is the only reality atheists know, and they are just as capable as theists of loving their fellow creatures and of treasuring life, which entails both responsibility and accountability to themselves and to others. In addition to our natural human feelings for one another, we are social beings. Society cannot function without responsibility and accountability. Our laws are based on precisely that ethos, which can be summed up as “do as you would be done by”.

You go on to summarize “naturalistic” philosophy, and I will cherrypick comments in order to respond to each point you make:

TONY: In a naturalistic world view, whether Agnostic or Atheistic, humanity is truly neither more nor less than any other animal.

Yes, we all end up as dust. But I am more intelligent than other organisms, and although I eat and use them, if they do not threaten me I should respect them as fellow beings that feel and suffer as I do. What else do you mean by “neither more nor less”.

TONY: […] Pain, pleasure, joy, sadness, none of these things are real. They are simply the firing of synapses in your brain that illicit a biochemical response your brain interprets a different way.

Of course they are real. Why on earth should the materiality of their source make them unreal? (NB I am wearing a naturalist hat here – I am neither a materialist nor a dualist.) Do I not feel the reality of pain, pleasure, joy, sadness if I don't believe in God? And am I so stupid as to believe that others can’t feel what I feel?

TONY: Because of that, there is no logical grounds for any form of morality except that which produces pleasurable biochemical responses for the individual.

Gratification of selfish desires is NOT the only pleasure for an atheist. Loving and being loved, respecting and being respected are every bit as natural, and the individual lives in a society of other individuals, all of whom are subject to the same “logical grounds” for morality.

TONY: …if you have no free will, then by definition you are NOT responsible for your actions.

This would apply just as much to those who do good as to those who do evil, but it does not make evil natural and good unnatural, and I doubt very much whether the majority of criminals have actually delved into the complexities of determinism versus free will anyway. In the social framework, if we did live in a world governed by “naturalistic” philosophy, logic would demand that we enforce the same rules as theists in order to protect ourselves. Nothing to do with theism versus atheism.

DHW:And philosophically can you not see that the sheer temporality of our lives renders every moment precious? […] what better way can there be than seeking happiness for ourselves and others? What makes you think atheists only enjoy destruction?..
TONY: The temporality actually makes them less meaningful in most cases, not more so. While it may make our PERSONAL life more meaningful to us as individuals, it can just as easily be used to cheapen life. I mean, why NOT drop a bomb that will kill millions? After all, they were all going to die soon anyway. […] And before you respond, note that I am not blaming any of the deaths in those places purely on Atheism, but merely pointing out how easy it is for life to become cheap and dispensable…I can't even watch the news anymore without getting sick.

I don’t like shortening this paragraph, because it is intensely moving and a tremendous indictment of man’s appalling inhumanity to man. There is nothing here for me to disagree with. But I am pleased that you do not lay the blame “purely on Atheism”. That, you will recall, was my vehement objection to Olasky. In my view, it should not be laid on atheism at all but on the flaws in human nature that manifest themselves regardless of religious or non-religious beliefs. In the moral context, the do-as-you-would-be-done-by rule underlies all humanistic philosophy as well as most religions.

TONY: As for your reference to Buddhism; Buddhist believe in a cycle reincarnation and karma known as Samsara, which provides the 'supernatural' consequences for their actions. Despite their not believing in a God, they still have an externally imposed morality.

The same function is fulfilled by society.

Xxxx

Please note: I may not be able to post any responses until Monday. Apologies in advance.