Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

The problem with claiming that their is an objective morality is that it depends on an independent observer and once you go their the whole concept is a bunch of hocus-pocus magic fairy potion.It hasn't got an objective leg to stand on.
If you believe in God, OK then it works but if your saying that God exists because objective morality exists? Well just don't, it's circular reasoning.
None of which sheds any light on how subjective morality would work, muddling through seems to be the only option. Epistemology of atheist ethics anyone? Marien, want to have a go?

marienbad

tommy2bad wrote: »

The problem with claiming that their is an objective morality is that it depends on an independent observer and once you go their the whole concept is a bunch of hocus-pocus magic fairy potion.It hasn't got an objective leg to stand on.
If you believe in God, OK then it works but if your saying that God exists because objective morality exists? Well just don't, it's circular reasoning.
None of which sheds any light on how subjective morality would work, muddling through seems to be the only option. Epistemology of atheist ethics anyone? Marien, want to have a go?

As PDN outlined tommy, except without the god and the bible bit and you would'nt be too far off.

Consult your concience , your life experience, your friends, read books, look to other cultures ,look to past history and civilisations.

Morbert

marienbad, I think you are losing track of what is being discussed.

Firstly, the notion that a common-ish morality is evidence against atheism has been put to bed. I don't think anyone you are talking to advocates that position. Moral nihilism is consistent with what we observe.

But, at the same time, the idea of an objective morality is also consistent with what we observe.

For this reason, it is actually an uninteresting topic in relation to atheism and the existence of God.

marienbad

Morbert wrote: »

marienbad, I think you are losing track of what is being discussed.

Firstly, the notion that a common-ish morality is evidence against atheism has been put to bed. I don't think anyone you are talking to advocates that position. Moral nihilism is consistent with what we observe.

But, at the same time, the idea of an objective morality is also consistent with what we observe.

For this reason, it is actually an uninteresting topic in relation to atheism and the existence of God.

We can call it objective if we wish Morbert, but the issue is how it is arrived at.

Morbert

marienbad wrote: »

We can call it objective if we wish Morbert, but the issue is how it is arrived at.

There is no such issue.

If God exists, then morality transcends humanity.
If God doesn't exist, then morality is a construct of humanity.

Both notions of morality are consistent with what we observe, so we cannot argue for or against the existence of God by pointing to the moral behaviour of people.

You might not personally like how some people arrive at what they believe to be a moral truth, but that is neither here nor there.

marienbad

Morbert wrote: »

There is no such issue.

If God exists, then morality transcends humanity.
If God doesn't exist, then morality is a construct of humanity.

Both notions of morality are consistent with what we observe, so we cannot argue for or against the existence of God by pointing to the moral behaviour of people.

You might not personally like how some people arrive at what they believe to be a moral truth, but that is neither here nor there.

Yeah , well put, but the argument is the very same issue, by proving the existance of a transcendant morality you prove the existance of a god. And that is what we have being arguing about, and my point is simply that it is a human construct.

I have no problem how others arrive at what they believe.

Rasheed

I believe totally and completely in God, our Lady and in catholic teaching. I have found great comfort and solace in praying during difficult times. I think it comes down to if you believe, no proof is necessary but if you don't believe, no proof will be be enough. Can't remember where I heard that quote but I think it sums it up fairly well!

Morbert

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah , well put, but the argument is the very same issue, by proving the existance of a transcendant morality you prove the existance of a god. And that is what we have being arguing about, and my point is simply that it is a human construct.

I have no problem how others arrive at what they believe.

But nobody, as far as I can tell, is trying to prove the existence of a transcendent morality. Belief in such a morality comes from a belief in God, not the other way around. They are simply arguing that a transcendent morality is not contradicted by the behaviour of Christians.

marienbad

Morbert wrote: »

But nobody, as far as I can tell, is trying to prove the existence of a transcendent morality. Belief in such a morality comes from a belief in God, not the other way around. They are simply arguing that a transcendent morality is not contradicted by the behaviour of Christians.

No , i don't think you are correct there Morbert. The argument at this stage have gone back and forth , The existance of an objective morality per se is meaningless as far as I am concerned and I have long ago for the sake of argument said what if it exists ?

I gave the examples of thinks before discovery that existed nonetheless.But so what ?

Unless we look at how such a proposition affects the world as we find it I have very little interest in the discussion.

And in that context how Christians or anyone else define it , interpret it and apply it is very much the point.

Morbert

marienbad wrote: »

No , i don't think you are correct there Morbert. The argument at this stage have gone back and forth , The existance of an objective morality per se is meaningless as far as I am concerned and I have long ago for the sake of argument said what if it exists ?

I gave the examples of thinks before discovery that existed nonetheless.But so what ?

Unless we look at how such a proposition affects the world as we find it I have very little interest in the discussion.

And in that context how Christians or anyone else define it , interpret it and apply it is very much the point.

I can't understand this post, or how it relates to what I said.

KyussBishop

I'm not really experienced in the detailed arguments against religious belief, so excuse me if this has been covered at length already, I'm kind of starting at a root level:
Even if you accept the existence of God, and just that alone, how do people extrapolate an entire system of morality from that?

There's not much you can determine purely from the belief in God, so is this system of morality not based upon an entirely more elaborate set of beliefs, which are little to do with belief in God, and all to do with trusting the writers of the bible, and trusting that some of that information is sourced from God.

The bible is well documented as having a large number of authors, many unknown; how can you trust any claims of authorship, or the authors themselves?

The 'leap of faith' in believing in God is one thing, but the bible itself seems like it requires hundreds if not thousands of added 'leaps of faith', in believing its individual statements/interpretations, which are no less significant in enormity to the initial leap of faith in belief of God.

PDN

KyussBishop wrote: »

The bible is well documented as having a large number of authors, many unknown; how can you trust any claims of authorship, or the authors themselves?

The 'leap of faith' in believing in God is one thing, but the bible itself seems like it requires hundreds if not thousands of added 'leaps of faith', in believing its individual statements/interpretations, which are no less significant in enormity to the initial leap of faith in belief of God.

Your trust in a book is based on the number of authors? So a textbook written by one author is inherently more trustworthy than a textbook with an editor and articles by different authors?

Good luck with trying that argument in any academic field whatsoever.

By the same logic, if a historian draws on many sources does that mean his work is less trustworthy than if he relied on a single source?

KyussBishop

That's not quite what I was saying, but the trustworthiness of the book depends upon the trustworthiness of the authors, yes?

The bible had a lot of authors, many of whom are unknown, and I don't think the identities of any of them are verifiable (thus neither their personal reputations/integrity), and it has been reinterpreted several times throughout history I think, by yet more authors.

That's a large web of trust isn't it? Every step of trust in each author, a leap of faith in its own right; how can you verifiably trace from the current bible, back through every author (the trust you place in each one a new individual risk), and trace it to God?

It's a very weak chain of trust basically; you can believe in God, take that step, but you have to take hundreds of more such leaps of faith by putting trust in the bible, and you are putting all that faith not into god, but into a large number of unverifiable authors, who might not be trustworthy, and whose moral principals that shaped the bible may just be the authors personal opinions (with no link to God), and not overly sound a base to build an entire moral philosophy.

PDN

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's not quite what I was saying, but the trustworthiness of the book depends upon the trustworthiness of the authors, yes?

The bible had a lot of authors, many of whom are unknown, and I don't think the identities of any of them are verifiable (thus neither their personal reputations/integrity), and it has been reinterpreted several times throughout history I think, by yet more authors.

That's a large web of trust isn't it? Every step of trust in each author, a leap of faith in its own right; how can you verifiably trace from the current bible, back through every author (the trust you place in each one a new individual risk), and trace it to God?

It's a very weak chain of trust basically; you can believe in God, take that step, but you have to take hundreds of more such leaps of faith by putting trust in the bible, and you are putting all that faith not into god, but into a large number of unverifiable authors, who might not be trustworthy, and whose moral principals that shaped the bible may just be the authors personal opinions (with no link to God), and not overly sound a base to build an entire moral philosophy.

Not at all.

You misunderstand the Christian doctrine of inspiration. This affirms that God inspired the writers of the Scriptures. So just one step of faith (that an omnipotent God can do something so comparatively easy) is required.

Btw, as an author myself, I would trust a book that has undergone careful revision and editing more than one which hasn't.

tommy2bad

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's not quite what I was saying, but the trustworthiness of the book depends upon the trustworthiness of the authors, yes?

The bible had a lot of authors, many of whom are unknown, and I don't think the identities of any of them are verifiable (thus neither their personal reputations/integrity), and it has been reinterpreted several times throughout history I think, by yet more authors.

That's a large web of trust isn't it? Every step of trust in each author, a leap of faith in its own right; how can you verifiably trace from the current bible, back through every author (the trust you place in each one a new individual risk), and trace it to God?

It's a very weak chain of trust basically; you can believe in God, take that step, but you have to take hundreds of more such leaps of faith by putting trust in the bible, and you are putting all that faith not into god, but into a large number of unverifiable authors, who might not be trustworthy, and whose moral principals that shaped the bible may just be the authors personal opinions (with no link to God), and not overly sound a base to build an entire moral philosophy.

It is a large 'web' or chain of trust, yes but not inasmuch that you have to trust hundreds of different people as trust in God. Anyway we live by trust in hundreds even thousands of people, thats being human and sociable.
A moral philosophy isnt built on one persons opinion. It's a collaborative effort thats been going on in all cultures and times, are you suggesting that we abandon this because theirs too many cooks?

Step 1 believe in God.
Step 2 see how that fits with all the stuff you believed before that.
Step 3 Get on with it.
Alternatively;
Step 1 don't believe in God
Step 2 work away with what you believe already
Step 3 get on with it.
Both ways, theirs lots of stuff we take on faith and trust and are no worse off for and lots of stuff where that trust is misplaced.

KyussBishop

PDN wrote: »

Not at all.

You misunderstand the Christian doctrine of inspiration. This affirms that God inspired the writers of the Scriptures. So just one step of faith (that an omnipotent God can do something so comparatively easy) is required.

Btw, as an author myself, I would trust a book that has undergone careful revision and editing more than one which hasn't.

The leap of faith there isn't faith that God can inspire people like that, it is faith that the authors are truthful in claiming they were inspired by God.

What is that faith in the trustworthiness of the authors based on? Why could they not simply be wrong, believing themselves that they are inspired by God, but are in fact wrong in that belief?

Anyone can claim they are inspired by God, what's so special about these authors? There doesn't seem to be any basis to the trust put in them.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It is a large 'web' or chain of trust, yes but not inasmuch that you have to trust hundreds of different people as trust in God. Anyway we live by trust in hundreds even thousands of people, thats being human and sociable.
A moral philosophy isnt built on one persons opinion. It's a collaborative effort thats been going on in all cultures and times, are you suggesting that we abandon this because theirs too many cooks?

Step 1 believe in God.
Step 2 see how that fits with all the stuff you believed before that.
Step 3 Get on with it.
Alternatively;
Step 1 don't believe in God
Step 2 work away with what you believe already
Step 3 get on with it.
Both ways, theirs lots of stuff we take on faith and trust and are no worse off for and lots of stuff where that trust is misplaced.

That's not the same kind of trust I'm talking about though; it's trust in the factual correctness a claim (that the authors are inspired by God), not trust in that we have to depend upon other people sometimes.

There doesn't seem to be any solid way of linking the authors of the bible to God, other than the authors own claims that they were inspired by God; I could write a book tomorrow outlining my own moral philosophy (completely in contradiction to the bible), claiming I was inspired by God, would that be any less credible than the bible?

PDN

KyussBishop wrote: »

The leap of faith there isn't faith that God can inspire people like that, it is faith that the authors are truthful in claiming they were inspired by God.

More a step than a leap.

What is that faith in the trustworthiness of the authors based on? Why could they not simply be wrong, believing themselves that they are inspired by God, but are in fact wrong in that belief?

Anyone can claim they are inspired by God, what's so special about these authors? There doesn't seem to be any basis to the trust put in them.

You need to understand, being on the Christianity Forum, that the central figure here is Jesus Christ.

He endorsed the books of the Old Testament as the Word of God.

The books of the New Testament were those that found acceptance with early Christians as being consistent with the teaching of the apostles and other eye-witnesses of Jesus Christ.

So the basis is, at its most basic level, Jesus.

I could write a book tomorrow outlining my own moral philosophy (completely in contradiction to the bible), claiming I was inspired by God, would that be any less credible than the bible?

Try it and see. I predict your credibility will be pretty low. Which, while it might say plenty about you, would say nothing about the Bible.

KyussBishop

Ah I see, it's grounded in Jesus assumed endorsement of the Old Testament; okey.

How verifiable is the claim that Jesus endorsed the Old Testament? Assuming Jesus did exist, and that he had a connection to God (not anything I personally believe now, as I'm agnostic ), where does the claim that he endorsed the Old Testament come from, and why are the sources of that claim trustworthy?

PDN

KyussBishop wrote: »

How verifiable is the claim that Jesus endorsed the Old Testament? Assuming Jesus did exist, and that he had a connection to God (not anything I personally believe now, as I'm agnostic ), where does the claim that he endorsed the Old Testament come from, and why are the sources of that claim trustworthy?

The Gospels were in circulation among churches while there were still eye-witnesses around who could remember the words of Jesus. Therefore it is historically reasonable to assume that they accurately reflect Jesus' views on the Old Testament (which were pretty much those of every other Jew at the time).

marienbad

Morbert wrote: »

I can't understand this post, or how it relates to what I said.

The only issues I am concerned with are those that affect world in which I I live. If an objective morality exists - so what ? Unless it has an affect on every day life I don't care about it . So the issue for me is how those than believe it does exist interpret and implement it .

And one of the fundamental properties advocated by those that do believe in objective morality is that it is eternal and unchanging . I believe that it is what ever people want it to be and have tried to demonstrate that, as it does have a bearing on society.

As for proving the existance/non existance of a transcendant morality , plenty of posters have been trying to prove that.

KyussBishop

PDN wrote: »

The Gospels were in circulation among churches while there were still eye-witnesses around who could remember the words of Jesus. Therefore it is historically reasonable to assume that they accurately reflect Jesus' views on the Old Testament (which were pretty much those of every other Jew at the time).

That seems a somewhat tenuous connection though; even though there were people around at the time The Gospels were circulated, who remember Jesus words, it doesn't logically follow that that lends credibility to the claim that Jesus endorsed The Gospels or the Old Testament.

To put credibility in that, you need to trust the authors of The Gospels, and it can not even be certain who they are so you have to believe the claims about their identities are true, you have to believe that none of these texts were altered by other writers (the earliest Gospel fragments date to 150AD I believe; a long time).

So that is quite a weak set of connections; it may seem like a few relatively isolated steps of faith, but when you look at it bit by bit, there really are a towering amount of unbacked assumptions (which necessarily require leaps of faith) surrounding it all.

philologos

The existence of Jesus is relatively non-controversial. We have sound historical evidence from others to back it up for example, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and also other works including the Babylonian Talmud. Just to put that out there.

The fact that he was crucified, is also relatively non-controversial amongst historians.

PDN

KyussBishop wrote: »

That seems a somewhat tenuous connection though; even though there were people around at the time The Gospels were circulated, who remember Jesus words, it doesn't logically follow that that lends credibility to the claim that Jesus endorsed The Gospels or the Old Testament.

To put credibility in that, you need to trust the authors of The Gospels, and it can not even be certain who they are so you have to believe the claims about their identities are true, you have to believe that none of these texts were altered by other writers (the earliest Gospel fragments date to 150AD I believe; a long time).

So that is quite a weak set of connections; it may seem like a few relatively isolated steps of faith, but when you look at it bit by bit, there really are a towering amount of unbacked assumptions (which necessarily require leaps of faith) surrounding it all.

Not at all.

The earliest churches contained those who were eye-witnesses of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Therefore, if anyone had tried to pass off written accounts that misrepresented Him, there would have been plenty of people who would have said, "Hang on! He never said that!"

You are the one who seems to be suggesting that people have invented stuff, or somehow changed the Gospels, even though you have not one shred of evidence to suggest that actually happened. So you are the one who is taking leaps of faith based, not on evidence, but on what you imagine might have happened. Do you understand that Christians are unlikely to be unduly swayed by your imaginations?

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by KyussBishop ;
So that is quite a weak set of connections; it may seem like a few relatively isolated steps of faith, but when you look at it bit by bit, there really are a towering amount of unbacked assumptions (which necessarily require leaps of faith) surrounding it all.

I think your reading it wrong, The gospels are not a set of letters or emails from management to the staff on the shop floor. The are accounts of various peoples experience of God and their relationship with Him. The same for all the bible.
Sacred texts exist as part of a tradition, not as the source of that tradition.

You have to use them as a guide not a users manual.
I understand that the language is odd to our ear but when someone says "God spoke to me", it might not mean that they heard a voice but rather that they had a change of perspective so profound that they expressed it as hearing Gods voice.

I suppose it depends on how you define revelation, I see it as the opening of eyes seeing through Gods eyes or with the light of God illuminating your view.

KyussBishop

PDN wrote: »

Not at all.

The earliest churches contained those who were eye-witnesses of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Therefore, if anyone had tried to pass off written accounts that misrepresented Him, there would have been plenty of people who would have said, "Hang on! He never said that!"

You are the one who seems to be suggesting that people have invented stuff, or somehow changed the Gospels, even though you have not one shred of evidence to suggest that actually happened. So you are the one who is taking leaps of faith based, not on evidence, but on what you imagine might have happened. Do you understand that Christians are unlikely to be unduly swayed by your imaginations?

I'm not interesting in swaying Christians, mainly in exploring how strong a connection there is between God/Jesus and the bible, and the solidity of the foundations of the moral system derived from that.

Since the earliest evidence of the gospels appears to be 150 years after Jesus was born, it seems like there really isn't all that solid of a connection; there's equally little evidence to suggest the gospels represent things falsly, as there is to suggest that they represent things truly, and the number of assumptions (i.e. 'leaps of faith') you have to take to accept them is a lot larger than seems to be acknowledged.

In any case, it's interesting to get a better view of the foundations of it not much left to discuss as I can see where we principally differ.

PDN

KyussBishop wrote: »

Since the earliest evidence of the gospels appears to be 150 years after Jesus was born,

Where on earth are you getting that dating of 150 years after Jesus was born from?

There are letters and other works written by early church fathers that quote the Gospels (particularly Matthew). These letters are dated by historians as follows:

1 Clement - 96AD

The Didache - 100AD

Letters of Ignatius - 110AD

Polycarp 120AD

The oldest fragment we know of so far of a Gospel manuscript is the Rylands P45 Fragment of John (ironically considered to be the last of the Four Gospels to be written) which most scholars date between 117 and 138AD.

So the earliest evidence of the Gospels would be 65 years or so after the death of Jesus. Of course we have other evidence concerning Jesus in the Epistles of Paul (some written less than 25 years after the death of Jesus).

Pushtrak

PDN wrote: »

Where on earth are you getting that dating of 150 years after Jesus was born from?

There are letters and other works written by early church fathers that quote the Gospels (particularly Matthew). These letters are dated by historians as follows:

1 Clement - 96AD

The Didache - 100AD

Letters of Ignatius - 110AD

Polycarp 120AD

So, the Apostolic Fathers? Not in the New Testament. Also, those dates are for when they were written. Is it true that they are when the earliest scrolls have been dated to? The scrolls would have been copied by hand, and mistakes can easily be made when copying one scroll to another. Bart Ehrman brings up this point a lot. There is a debate between him and William Lane Craig, and another one with another biblical scholar which are both brilliant. I'm sure there are others that I haven't gotten to watching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
Edit: In particular, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Dating_the_New_Testament_manuscripts
Edit 2: I'm sure people here will want to follow this with interest. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/earliest-manuscript-of-the-new-testament-discovered/

philologos

^^ Not to mention that the New Testament fares a whole lot better than any other ancient text. Which begs the question KyussBishop, are you going to give up considering any ancient history?

Pushtrak: And according to Bruce Metzger only 40 verses in the entire New Testament are in doubt. Surely if you are well acquainted with this, rather than being interested in confirming your previously held beliefs about the New Testament, you could show us each one of these, and show us how it significantly alters the meaning of the passage.

Pushtrak

philologos wrote: »

Pushtrak: And according to Bruce Metzger only 40 verses in the entire New Testament are in doubt. Surely if you are well acquainted with this, rather than being interested in confirming your previously held beliefs about the New Testament, you could show us each one of these, and show us how it significantly alters the meaning of the passage.

I confirmed inaccurate dates were being presented and my bias was such to present better dates. How about responding to the substance of the post, rather than the poster? I should think you'd be interested at least in the prospect of possibly the earliest textural documents being discovered. I'll be interested to see what comes of it.

philologos

You confirmed which?

I don't believe the dates I gave you were inaccurate. I showed you that the John Ryland's fragment dates about 30 years after the writing of John's Gospel. The first manuscript evidence we do have is well within the range.

The same question applies to you. Why do you place a completely different standard on the New Testament than other ancient texts, despite the fact that there is way way more manuscript evidence that it is authentic than other texts?