How do agnostics live? (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, June 12, 2008, 23:25 (5794 days ago) @ Mark

Mark, I don't think we need to look for new terms, so long as we agree that "real" has different connotations. - I argued that if there were no humans, there would be no wrong. You believe that "there are such things as right and wrong independently of whether humans exist." You also believe that "God is the ultimate good and that his being depends on nothing but himself." Leaving aside the possibility of other life forms, if God is the ultimate good, in what context could wrong exist without humans? What need would there be for wrong, who would have the choice, and to whom would God say which choice was right? Of course, if I put myself into my theist mode, I must acknowledge that God is the ultimate arbiter, the all-powerful judge, the creator of right and wrong, but without us humans, to whom does he apply his morality? His all-good self? - Mark: "It seems that it is not...a difficulty to you that morals are all subjective." - You use "subjective" in the sense that it depends on human minds, and I accept that, but the term carries connotations of arbitrariness and individualism. That is why I stress the importance of the social function of morality: it matters to me (a) what I think of myself, but also (b) what others think of me. Perhaps it matters more to you what God thinks of you, but since you can't know what he thinks, your code of morality is equally subjective, bolstered only by the belief that it is based on something objective. In a moment, I hope to explain why in fact I think your subjectivity is far more dangerous than mine, but first let's deal with your next point. - Mark: "Ask a humanist why he believes humans have dignity, and I think all he can say is 'because we do, it just so happens that most of us think that way intuitively'." - I agree, we don't know where our "intuitive" values, our consciouness, conscience, emotions, aesthetic sense, inventiveness etc. come from. Maybe from God. Maybe from electrical impulses sparked off by chance combinations of matter gradually honed by physical, mental and social evolution. I don't know. As I have mentioned many times, this is one reason why I am not an atheist. - To illustrate your argument, you present us with a scenario which I will try to summarize. In order to save the world, I must torture and kill an innocent child and then die myself. You believe it would be morally right to allow the world to end. And this, you say, "demonstrates that maximising human happiness or valuing human life are not adequate bases for morality." To be frank, I am shocked. Do you honestly believe that exposing approximately 6 billion people, including millions of children like the one I am to kill, to a death maybe even more horrible than his/hers would win you God's approval? God, who according to Christianity was willing to sacrifice his own son in order to save the world? You say that if a humanist did torture and kill the child, it would show that "humanism is more free to slide down the slippery slope..." because "any offence against my neighbour is directly an offence against God." What about the other 6 billion neighbours? Don't tell me they're all atheists, so they don't count. I would, I must confess, have great difficulty torturing and killing the child (and myself), but if I believed wholeheartedly in God, I have no doubt that I would pray to him to give me the strength to go ahead. I can only reverse your argument and say that your choice is an illustration of how your subjective theism is more free than my subjective humanism to slide down the slippery slope: you would sacrifice 6 billion for two in the belief (I hope deluded) of winning God's favour. If you put God's favour before the lives of 6 billion people, I see no difference between your morality and that of the suicide bombers who believe that God will approve if they kill themselves and take lots of innocent bystanders with them. No, thank you, I'll stick to humanism.