How do agnostics live? (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, June 28, 2008, 11:53 (5990 days ago) @ Mark

Mark set me two moral conundrums in addition to my having to torture and kill a child to prevent the end of the world: 1) millions of children are dying, and scientists say they can only find a cure by experimenting on (and causing immense suffering to) 100 healthy children; 2) 6 men are about to be killed by a runaway trolley, and I must push a fat man off a bridge in order to stop the trolley. - The reason why I was reluctant to deal with these two was that there were extraneous factors that would sidetrack us from the issue of humanist versus Christian ethics. There is no way that scientists could guarantee finding a cure by experimenting on healthy children, and there is no way that I can guarantee being able to push the man off the bridge, let alone make sure that he will fall in the path of the trolley. In my new godlike position, I therefore prefer to consider only the clear-cut scenario. However, it's not a matter of numbers but of moral criteria. There will always be borderline cases, and not even Christians know where to draw dividing lines. My guiding principle in all situations would have to be which is the lesser of the two evils, by which I mean the one that will cause less harm to humanity at large. There were no ifs and buts in the original conundrum: God/Goldfinger had his finger on the button, and I had to choose. I tortured and killed one of God's children, and you sentenced 6 billion of God's children to death. I have told you my criterion, but I still don't know yours. - I asked you why you did good, and pointed out that I could only measure good in terms of the happiness, welfare etc. of my fellow creatures. You say this is a short term view whereas you have an "eternal perspective". I'm not sure what this entails. What "eternal" good can you do that does not involve helping people in the here and now? You say you need principles to live by, which suggests that atheists and agnostics have no principles, but society itself lays down principles without which it cannot function. You are right in so far as atheists/agnostics do not have patterns of prayer, reading, listening etc. But you are, if I may be so bold, wrong to say they have no "community accountability". Atheists are social beings just like Christians, they depend on relations with their neighbours just as Christians do, and are just as capable of loving their neighbours as Christians are. Once again, let me refer you to the code I quoted in my posting of 5 June at 21.02 under this thread. Can you find fault with it? - My complaint against theistic codes is that they are based on what various interpreters think might be what God wants, and not on what seems best for humanity. I keep pointing out ad nauseam that the consequences of this are atrocities that range from the Inquisition and the Crusades to suicide bombings. (One might also mention the ban on the use of condoms in an AIDS-ravaged society.) But I don't want to swing the pendulum too far. In an ideal world, everyone would abide by the humanist code I have quoted, and it would make no difference what religion or non-religion they followed. The fact that the world is not ideal is not the fault of religion, and it's not the fault of atheism or agnosticism. It's the fault of human nature as God and/or evolution made it. - (P.S. I had drafted this before reading George's latest posting, and am broadly in agreement with him, which makes a nice change!)