Christian Atheists

[Xray]

Why sometimes means how as in how does it come to be that... .

Exactly. "Why" questions can also address causality, not ony goal-directedness ('purpose').

Very neat. You guys are switching context. You do know this topic is all about agnosticism, atheism and

creation-ism? We all accept evolution, right? (Everything else is in the hands of physicists now.)

But this is not referring to science or causality.

No, I submit that the question as phrased, is equally "why?" AND "how?" (did-existence-come-to-exist) Implying a

Creator- and a purpose - whichever way you put it.

Xray was expressing uncertainty about atheism, with - "the unsolvable mystery ...of why [how?] there is something

rather than nothing." Hers is a metaphysical doubt, not a scientific one, self-evidently. Otherwise it would be 'solvable'.

Tony,

There is is no switching of context. For it is all connected.

The title of the thread is "Christian Atheists", which addresses the issue of ethics. A 'Christian ethics', in which the "moral teachings of Jesus" are followed while the belief in the "God of Christianity" is rejected.

http://en.wikipedia....ristian_atheism

On which I commented that, Occam's razor applied, the Christ figure would not be needed anymore here. Instead this "Jesus" has been transformed into something like a secular guru giving people "how to" advice on life.

I called this „religion fraying at the seam", and wrote that imo this is going to happen with all dogmatic religions over time. That they won't vanish with a "big bang", but will become more and more 'frayed' instead; and if there should be anything in their teachings that makes some sense (like e. g. the Golden Rule), that it will be absorbed into secular ethics.

After which followed quite a controversial exchange about the use of the term 'secular', with which you seem to connote something that I do not.

I use the term "secular" in a purely descriptive sense (secular = non-religious).

But if you feel that uncomfortable using the term "secular", I can use 'non-religious' instead.

For all I had intended with my posts about secular (= non-religious) ethics was to advocate disregarding - on epistemological grounds - religion in an ethics discussion.

For what cannot be known (a god's will) cannot serve as the foundation of an ethics that has to pass the litmus test of being grounded on facts.

Since ethics is so closely related to life, to life practice, one has to argue from a firm empirical basis, which religion cannot provide.

Hence every religion that establishes moral rules dictated by a deiity, or by 'fate' (or by whatever other 'supernatural agent') acts on irrational premises:

For to claim that a god commanded this or that, or that e. g. people have to bear the consequence of their bad deeds 'reincarnated' in a future life can be rejected as irrational since not not a smidgen of evidence exists to support the assertions.

As the discussion progressed, you asked me:

Therefore, rejecting "God's Will"-as-ethical-base, you as agnostic could accept the premise of "God", alone"?

After which I replied: Accepting the god premise would raise the question of the "why" of it all. Of this god's 'motive', so to speak.

But even if no motive reveals itself to me, still I stand in awe confronted with the fact that the cosmos exists at all.

Not to know, even never to know the cause of something that exists does not automatically stop me from wondering. My agnosticism is purely epistemological.

[Brant Gaede]

There has to be some congruence, Xray, between religious ethics and natural ethics or no one would grok them. Go out and slice and dice your enemies is only from the Muslim religion today in any big way and secular Marxism seems to have played out its bloody hand in the previous century, refuting itself.

--Brant

[Mikee]

"One God" to me appears to be the breaking point between the ignorance of the past (10's (perhaps 100's) of thousands of years of human tribal living without understanding of nature) and the accumulation of knowledge resulting in the modern era. I believe this insight [One God] was a glimpse into the unification of the laws of nature by a early genius (perhaps Abraham) but could not be explained, there were no words to explain this insight in the primitive tribal society of the time. So a literal "One God" was passed down through the generations. But what also passed down was that all of nature followed one source of law. It ended the capriciousness of understanding nature and started the process of discovery of the unifying underlying laws of nature. Likewise, ascribing ethics laws to "God" is simply a response to the nature of the humans doing the ascribing. Man's true nature is the driving force.

[anthony]

Mikee, An accurate insight, I believe. Interesting to compare with the 'multi-Gods' of the earlier

pagan times. But was unifying all those gods (gods of trees, earthquakes, etc) into One, really a metaphysical

forward step in this light? One might say too, that at least the pagans identified phenomena of nature better!

(maybe not - you're likely right.)

[Mikee]

What I meant to say was one source of law (nature->god->nature), same law everywhere for everyone. So yes, a metaphysical step forward.

[Xray]

There has to be some congruence, Xray, between religious ethics and natural ethics or no one would grok them. Go out and slice and dice your enemies is only from the Muslim religion today in any big way and secular Marxism seems to have played out its bloody hand in the previous century, refuting itself.

Where exactly do you see the congruence?

Go out and slice and dice your enemies is only from the Muslim religion today in any big way and secular Marxism seems to have played out its bloody hand in the previous century, refuting itself.

I don't see them as 'enemies' in the first place. I see them as being in error about facts.

[Xray]

"One God" to me appears to be the breaking point between the ignorance of the past (10's (perhaps 100's) of thousands of years of human tribal living without understanding of nature) and the accumulation of knowledge resulting in the modern era. I believe this insight [One God] was a glimpse into the unification of the laws of nature by a early genius (perhaps Abraham) but could not be explained, there were no words to explain this insight in the primitive tribal society of the time.

But the 'One [Abrahamitic] God' was still a tribal god.

[Mikee]

"One God" to me appears to be the breaking point between the ignorance of the past (10's (perhaps 100's) of thousands of years of human tribal living without understanding of nature) and the accumulation of knowledge resulting in the modern era. I believe this insight [One God] was a glimpse into the unification of the laws of nature by a early genius (perhaps Abraham) but could not be explained, there were no words to explain this insight in the primitive tribal society of the time.

But the 'One [Abrahamitic] God' was still a tribal god.

You misunderstood my thought, the insight was a personal insight of an individual who perceived, comprehended, the unity of nature. This person rejected the "gods" as drivers of nature. When he tried to explain his insight it was interpreted by the people of his day as 'one god' driving nature. I think the insight was more like Einstein's conception of god being nature and natural laws. But it was an important change, focusing the search for understanding on the universal. It's just an idea of mine, I don't have sources. This person was obviously a very respected person of his day but simply misunderstood after his passing.

[anthony]

Why sometimes means how as in how does it come to be that... .

Exactly. "Why" questions can also address causality, not ony goal-directedness ('purpose').

Very neat. You guys are switching context. You do know this topic is all about agnosticism, atheism and

creation-ism? We all accept evolution, right? (Everything else is in the hands of physicists now.)

But this is not referring to science or causality.

No, I submit that the question as phrased, is equally "why?" AND "how?" (did-existence-come-to-exist) Implying a

Creator- and a purpose - whichever way you put it.

Xray was expressing uncertainty about atheism, with - "the unsolvable mystery ...of why [how?] there is something

rather than nothing." Hers is a metaphysical doubt, not a scientific one, self-evidently. Otherwise it would be 'solvable'.

Tony,

There is is no switching of context. For it is all connected.

The title of the thread is "Christian Atheists", which addresses the issue of ethics. A 'Christian ethics', in which the "moral teachings of Jesus" are followed while the belief in the "God of Christianity" is rejected.

http://en.wikipedia....ristian_atheism

On which I commented that, Occam's razor applied, the Christ figure would not be needed anymore here. Instead this "Jesus" has been transformed into something like a secular guru giving people "how to" advice on life.

I called this „religion fraying at the seam", and wrote that imo this is going to happen with all dogmatic religions over time. That they won't vanish with a "big bang", but will become more and more 'frayed' instead; and if there should be anything in their teachings that makes some sense (like e. g. the Golden Rule), that it will be absorbed into secular ethics.

After which followed quite a controversial exchange about the use of the term 'secular', with which you seem to connote something that I do not.

I use the term "secular" in a purely descriptive sense (secular = non-religious).

But if you feel that uncomfortable using the term "secular", I can use 'non-religious' instead.

For all I had intended with my posts about secular (= non-religious) ethics was to advocate disregarding - on epistemological grounds - religion in an ethics discussion.

For what cannot be known (a god's will) cannot serve as the foundation of an ethics that has to pass the litmus test of being grounded on facts.

Since ethics is so closely related to life, to life practice, one has to argue from a firm empirical basis, which religion cannot provide.

Hence every religion that establishes moral rules dictated by a deiity, or by 'fate' (or by whatever other 'supernatural agent') acts on irrational premises:

For to claim that a god commanded this or that, or that e. g. people have to bear the consequence of their bad deeds 'reincarnated' in a future life can be rejected as irrational since not not a smidgen of evidence exists to support the assertions.

As the discussion progressed, you asked me:

Therefore, rejecting "God's Will"-as-ethical-base, you as agnostic could accept the premise of "God", alone"?

After which I replied: Accepting the god premise would raise the question of the "why" of it all. Of this god's 'motive', so to speak.

But even if no motive reveals itself to me, still I stand in awe confronted with the fact that the cosmos exists at all.

Not to know, even never to know the cause of something that exists does not automatically stop me from wondering. My agnosticism is purely epistemological.

Your argument against God seems only to be one against religious morality (as 'handed down' by Him.)

Creation, minus religious dogma, equals deism - I think (I don't know much about theology.)

Those are two distinct concepts, Creator and Moralizer.

Rand's Razor may be of use: "Concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity - the corollary of

which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."

An improvement on Occam's.

My point being that discounting religious ethics, in no way disproves a creator, of course.

Nor does "why is there something...?" prove a creator.

Agnosticism is a form of skepticism, reliant on collective knowledge, or received wisdom, by a consensus and majority - (Who am I to know, if 'they' don't?) - when it is essential to trust one's own perception, observation and induction, to find out for oneself.

"How can you stand not knowing, Peter?" - said your favourite character, in your favourite novel, by your

favourite author . (approx. from memory.)

[Xray]

Your argument against God seems only to be one against religious morality (as 'handed down' by Him.)

My position is the rejection of any morality grounded in religion. The reason being complete absence of empirical evidence of any deity having anybody ever told anything about how to live a 'moral' life. It's that simple

Creation, minus religious dogma, equals deism - I think (I don't know much about theology.)

Deism regards god as the 'builder' of the cosmos who does not interfere in 'his' creation. I had a deist phase during my teenage years.

Today this model seems too dualistic to me. If I were religious, I would lean more toward pantheism-like models.

Those are two distinct concepts, Creator and Moralizer.

Both often go together in organized religion.

Rand's Razor may be of use: "Concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity - the corollary of

which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."

An improvement on Occam's.

It would be a variation of Occam's razor. If the 'god' idea is not necessary for establishing an ethcs, it can be discarded.

My point being that discounting religious ethics, in no way disproves a creator, of course.

That's correct, but if the ethics cannot stand on its own without the idea of a creator, it can be rejected as not meeting empirical criteria.

And in case an ethics can stand on its own without the the idea of creator, then that creator idea is not needed and can be 'shaved off' with Occam's razor.

Nor does "why is there something...?" prove a creator.

Correct.

Agnosticism is a form of skepticism,

Indeed it is!

reliant on collective knowledge, or received wisdom, by a consensus and majority - (Who am I to know, if 'they' don't?) - when it is essential to trust one's own perception, observation and induction, to find out for oneself.

I think that agnosticism is a very individual issue and the opposite of relying on consensus. For most people become agnostics because they begin to doubt the doctrines of the religion they were born into. And it is precisely this doubt and skepticism which moves them away from the collective consensus of their birth religion.

[Brant Gaede]

Your argument against God seems only to be one against religious morality (as 'handed down' by Him.)

My position is the rejection of any morality grounded in religion. The reason being complete absence of empirical evidence of any deity having anybody ever told anything about how to live a 'moral' life. It's that simple

What morality might that be?

Before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, might it not be instructive, possibly, to take a good gander at what you are actually doing?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

"One God" to me appears to be the breaking point between the ignorance of the past (10's (perhaps 100's) of thousands of years of human tribal living without understanding of nature) and the accumulation of knowledge resulting in the modern era. I believe this insight [One God] was a glimpse into the unification of the laws of nature by a early genius (perhaps Abraham) but could not be explained, there were no words to explain this insight in the primitive tribal society of the time. So a literal "One God" was passed down through the generations. But what also passed down was that all of nature followed one source of law. It ended the capriciousness of understanding nature and started the process of discovery of the unifying underlying laws of nature. Likewise, ascribing ethics laws to "God" is simply a response to the nature of the humans doing the ascribing. Man's true nature is the driving force.

The pre-Socratic Greeks managed to find an underlying reason in Nature and they did it without the benefit of monotheism. It was the Ionian pre-Socratics the began to banish the gods from Nature.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Agnosticism is a form of skepticism,

Indeed it is!

reliant on collective knowledge, or received wisdom, by a consensus and majority - (Who am I to know, if 'they' don't?) - when it is essential to trust one's own perception, observation and induction, to find out for oneself.

I think that agnosticism is a very individual issue and the opposite of relying on consensus. For most people become agnostics because they begin to doubt the doctrines of the religion they were born into. And it is precisely this doubt and skepticism which moves them away from the collective consensus of their birth religion.

Xray, Glad you agree with me, but you may have forgotten I use 'Skepticism' as philosophy.

Whichever way, I have never understood how one can find anything admirable in agnosticism ("without knowledge"!) Perhaps as a phase some of us have gone through, - a half-way house, not a destination - but that's all.

The God Concept is like being told as a youngster that there's an invisible elephant in your lounge, and then you spend your whole life tip-toeing around it. Skepticism/Agnosticism implies/avers - How do I know? they might be right - after all, no-one can ever be certain...

But that inescapable question - "How can you stand not knowing, Peter?"- remains.

"Know" has no context without the "I". Basically, "I know" presumes and requires self-authority, and so, selfishness. Which explains the collectivist morality of Skepticism for me.

[Xray]

My position is the rejection of any morality grounded in religion. The reason being complete absence of empirical evidence of any deity having anybody ever told anything about how to live a 'moral' life. It's that simple

What morality might that be?

All the various moral rules listed in religious texts.

Before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, might it not be instructive, possibly, to take a good gander at what you are actually doing?

I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Instead I'm throwing away a rusty, leaky bathtub unsuitable for bathing the baby.

The 'rusty leaky bathtub' being a symbol for irrational premises.

Since there exists no empirical evidence to support the existence of a deity, the premises from which any religious morality operates are irrational.

[Brant Gaede]

My position is the rejection of any morality grounded in religion. The reason being complete absence of empirical evidence of any deity having anybody ever told anything about how to live a 'moral' life. It's that simple

What morality might that be?

All the various moral rules listed in religious texts.

Before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, might it not be instructive, possibly, to take a good gander at what you are actually doing?

I'm no throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Instead I'm throwing away a rusty, leaky bathtub unsuitable for bathing the baby.

The 'rusty leaky bathtub' being a symbol for irrational premises.

Since there exists no empirical evidence to support the existence of a deity, the premises from which any religious morality operates are irrational.

All the "various rules" are a conglomeration of bits and pieces you have pulled off the shelf. Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and countless others you may have examined. They do not constitute a morality as such. So, again, what "morality" are you talking about?

My metaphor was for illustrative purposes only. Countering one metaphor with another is not good ratiocination.

--Brant

[Xray]

All the "various rules" are a conglomeration of bits and pieces you have pulled off the shelf. Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and countless others you may have examined. They do not constitute a morality as such. So, again, what "morality" are you talking about?

My focus was not on the various moral values propagated by religions. Instead I wanted to point out that it makes no sense to base an ethics on religion because the belief that a deity has established moral rules can be rejected as irrational.

My metaphor was for illustrative purposes only. Countering one metaphor with another is not good ratiocination.

I couldn't resist using your 'baby/bathwater' metaphor and modifying it a little.

[Xray]

Whichever way, I have never understood how one can find anything admirable in agnosticism ("without knowledge"!) Perhaps as a phase some of us have gone through, - a half-way house, not a destination - but that's all.

I don't regard agnosticsm as admirable. The term simply refers to a fact: the not-knowing the answer to the question whether there is a god.

The God Concept is like being told as a youngster that there's an invisible elephant in your lounge, and then you spend your whole life tip-toeing around it. Skepticism/Agnosticism implies/avers - How do I know? they might be right - after all, no-one can ever be certain...

These phases are stages which imo virtually everyone goes through who has been indoctrinated by a religion and begins to questions its tenets.

BTW, Have you read Smith's Wager? It is an excellent response to the famous Pascalian Wager.

But that inescapable question - "How can you stand not knowing, Peter?"- remains.

"Know" has no context without the "I". Basically, "I know" presumes and requires self-authority, and so, selfishness. Which explains the collectivist morality of Skepticism for me.

But doesn't rationality also involve the realization that we just cannot know the answer to certain questions?

[Brant Gaede]

All the "various rules" are a conglomeration of bits and pieces you have pulled off the shelf. Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and countless others you may have examined. They do not constitute a morality as such. So, again, what "morality" are you talking about?

My focus was not on the various moral values propagated by religions. Instead I wanted to point out that it makes no sense to base an ethics on religion because the belief that a deity has established moral rules can be rejected as irrational.

My metaphor was for illustrative purposes only. Countering one metaphor with another is not good ratiocination.

I couldn't resist using your 'baby/bathwater' metaphor and modifying it a little.

Let's say a morality seems based on religion. Might it be possibly true that the religion is a facade and there is something underneath which isn't religious at all? But when you hit religion you seem to pull the emergency cord to stop your brain from going on down the tracks as it King Kong were waiting to rip up the elevated in 1930s New York.

--Brant

bring on the metaphors; I'll beat you with a stick all over your logical pop ups!

[anthony]

But that inescapable question - "How can you stand not knowing, Peter?"- remains.

"Know" has no context without the "I". Basically, "I know" presumes and requires self-authority, and so, selfishness. Which explains the collectivist morality of Skepticism for me.

But doesn't rationality also involve the realization that we just cannot know the answer to certain questions?

This isn't too far from "We can't know everything (individually) so how can we know anything?"

Beating my favourite -for now - drum, skepticism is the premise of this. Obviously you or I can't know more

than 0.000...1% of the sum of presently known facts and data, and this is exactly where the skeptic tries to score.

if he sees knowledge as all that information laid evenly out on the floor, he won't ever get it.

But if you come at it from the concepts and principles, and know how the facts hierarchically can become

principles, then you can certainly "know the answer to certain questions".

That's rationality: it is, as only one element, certainty. Not just 'logic'.

The biggest, most life-impacting questions and answers (which we can't function properly without) :- Is mankind at its best when it's free from force? Is it the nature of man to be self-directing, and self-generating? can one man live, and think for another? Is there a supernatural, or a God? What should I have for lunch?

(Send 50 Euros, and I'll let you in on all the answers at a special bulk discount rate.)

[Xray]

Let's say a morality seems based on religion. Might it be possibly true that the religion is a facade and there is something underneath which isn't religious at all?

That's what I wanted to point out. See my post # 70:

Now one could argue that surely there also exists, here and there in religious texts, some ethical advice that makes sense.

But on closer examination of these examples, you will see that they are often just the expression of human common sense (like i.e. the Golden Rule), and common sense is a human trait. The god premise is not needed in order to establish such rules. They work perfectly without it.

Feel free to list any religious moral rules that you think make sense - I'm convinced you will, in each case, be able to trace them back to some human common sense, and /or human benevolence. Like for example "Peace be with you", which is uttered quite often by the Jesus character. I really liked that phrase as a kid. Still do.

The reverse is also true: religious moral commandments that we would regard as unethical today often reflect the blind tribal hatred, and patriarchalism prevalent at the times when these religions were founded. Again, a god premise is not needed.

It would be interesting to list more examples of that "something underneath" in religious texts "which isn't religious at all" and examine them.