Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?

[CRGreathouse]

Reference:

The assumption is that the purpose of the democratic state is to protect our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" by instituting and enforcing a social order that reflects the will of the people. To that end, we give the state a monopoly on violence to be used only to enforce just laws to maintain a social order that provides greatest benefit to the greatest number of people and guarantees everyone "certain inalienable rights."

The problem then is when the state is seen to abuse this monopoly. The calculus is that the state should use violence/coercion only to the extent that is justified to bring violations of the social order into balance. If someone does something 'bad' by breaking a law they should be punished and the victims compensated only to the extent of rectifying the violation. Too much, and the state becomes abusive. Too little, and society tends toward anarchy.

My example is intended to show that even when the state appears to achieve this goal, our idea of justice may or may not realized. In this example enforcement of contracts and property rights is seen as a social good. I simply ask if you think that when the laws to protect these social "goods" are properly enforced, the result is really compatible with some of idea of justice (which is presumed to be "good"). I didn't say that the outcome was 'bad'. At best it was neutral which is what is it should be. The social balance was restored after it was violated. But are you happy with the outcome? Maybe it's not so simple. Maybe your question doesn't have an obvious answer.

Do you want to go deeper than I did in post 55? I referenced the general principles that were set forth in the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Assuming a functioning democracy carries out the will of the people, these concepts, and the laws based on them, would seem to come into play because they reflect some basic and widely held views on the ways humans should behave.

Your post said that the purpose of the state was to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and also to reflect the will of the people. Beyond that you mostly talked about potential abuses of the state's monopoly on violence. (I'm not interested in the state's actions here, just those of the people.) So I'm really left with four maxims for the state from your post:
1. The state should protect the lives of its people.
2. The state should protect the liberty of its people.
3. The state should protect its people's pursuit of happiness.
4. The state should reflect the will of the people.

But I find these to be both too much and too little. #4 can easily contradict the others, and the first three can also contradict themselves. Of course each principle can even contradict itself, when people's rights collide.

Further, I'm extremely wary of using #4 as a basis for an ethical theory. I'd like an ethical theory that says that slavery is wrong, even if it's popular.

Importantly, though, these principles don't seem to address the questions I want to address. Should theft be illegal? Does the thief's desire for liberty and pursuit of happiness (no jail and the ability to steal, respectively) trump the people's will to ban theft? I can't appeal to a common notion that stealing is wrong because that's precisely what I've set out to justify (in this example). What if I want to consider whether downloading copyrighted music is OK, or jailbreaking an iPhone?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Often, the victimizer however will in some way or another bring harm to themselves by committing the act of violence against another. For example, you may lose the respect, and trust of others who know what happened. You may turn people against yourself, you may invite a counter attack, or fuel the hatred of others against yourself.

As well as the external implications of your actions, there may be internal implications. In breaking the trust between yourself and others, and in self centering your justifications and your motives, you might iscolate yourself in a way.

Deep down inside, you will know your not trustworthy, or truly worthy of being loved. I think this will eat away at a person from within.

So don't harm people because:
1. They might harm you back.
2. You know that it's wrong.

But I'm discussing what should be considered wrong. What if bar fights weren't considered to be wrong? If someone said something bad about your or your friend, you could just punch them out, break a bottle over their head, knife them, or whatever. People wouldn't think it strange, and it would be legal. Alternately, suppose that insulting people was a crime, and that it drew the same shock from people as mugging does in the real world. I'd like some ethical principles that would let me distinguish between them and other actions, without reference to the prevailing morals of the day (because I'm talking about what those morals, those assumptions, those laws would/should/could be).

Edit: I'll be a little more explicit, because I may not have made myself clear. In the case where fighting is the norm, #2 does not apply (but I'd like to be able, perhaps, to say that it's wrong). In the real-world where, unlike the second example, insulting people is generally allowable (no strong societal prohibition, no major legal restrictions), #1 applies but it's still considered OK. (I can say, "Bush is an awful person who destroyed our liberties" or "Obama is a terrible person who wastes our money" and be neither jailed nor scorned.)

 

[apeiron]

I'd like an ethical theory that says that slavery is wrong, even if it's popular.

This illustrates the central flaw in your search for deep principles. It never works when you are seeking the philosophical essence of something, because every figure requires a ground, every essence a context. The deep principle must thus concern the relationship between the local and the global.

If you ask questions like what is violence, or is slavery essentially and intrinsically wrong, then the obvious answer is always "it depends".

Now, many people go on from there to assume that all judgements about such matters are merely just relative. So many different contexts can be imagined, ones which change the meaning of the essence (the violence, the slavery, etc), that there can be no general objective (ie: model-able and measure-able) principles at work.

However I have argued otherwise based on systems thinking. The systems approach says that local and global have to form a tight mutual relationship - there has to be a mutual interaction going on that is fruitful enough for something to exist, and then persist. So whatever you observe locally, must have its synergistic counterpart globally.

Therefore, in this particular challenge you set, if you are asking what role does violence play in the human social system, you must also direct as much attention to asking what role does non-violence play. Furthermore, you need to reduce one of these properties to the local scale, the other to the global scale (so as to have a proper local~global hierarchical model).

It seems easy enough to say that violence is bad when it harms the integrity of the social system as a whole. Part of the definition of a system is that local and global are mutually supporting.

But this is a negative definitional approach to then modelling the social system we want to talk about. Which is why I suggested switching it round to a description based on "good" versions of violence (and non-violence). That is competition and co-operation.

Local competitive effort within the broad context of global co-operation obviously is the basis of functional societies (well, tell me how it's not?).

Violence is how we would describe instances of over-competition. And I like the matching term of blandness to describe instances of over-co-operation.

What about slavery? Is it always wrong? Well, it depends. If we apply the lens of competition~co-operation, we should actually be able to provide some credible answers.

Here goes. Slavery was obviously functional in early societies. Social groups were in competition with each other (city state against city state). And before engines and machinery, city states ran on slave power. You stole the natural resources of your rivals in terms of their people, and then used them. In the long run, a more co-operative balance might reassert itself. The slaves would become integrated to their new owner state and gradually become free. But anyway, slavery is wrong to the degree that it represents a destabilising over-competitiveness (at the level of city states). So wrong in a clearly defined context, not wrong in some essential, intrinsic, sense.

Slavery is also wrong if it stiffles local competition (the natural place to have competition remember). What you want in a smoothly functioning social system is a healthy variety of people, ideas and skills. This makes the system adaptive, dynamic. And enslaved people are less productive than a free people (rewarded if they strive within a broadly socially cooperative context).

I'm not an expert, but it seems that certain slaving societies, like Rome, did find ways to harness the talents of its slaves - their creative, competitive, freedoms were largely stiffled, but not completely stiffled. And so this would be why we feel moved to say slavery was less wrong in such a context.

Again, if you try to define any concept in isolation, you will just go round in baffled circles. Every definition needs also a definitional context. And then, it is not good enough to say oh well, there can be no answer for a different reason - one context looks as good as another and so it is all subjective, just someone's point of view. The relations between local and global, figure and ground, event and context, can be defined in a rigorous way for functional systems. Georg may scoff, but there is indeed a science of these things.

Why is this not more widely known? Maybe just because it is a more complex view of reality and it takes a little more effort to get it?

 

[jreelawg]

Your argument is based on the idea that the "victimizer" will suffer consequences, including social isolation and loss of self esteem. But hardened criminals are largely immune from these consequences, although they may fear the sanctions of the law. A criminal culture has its own rules. Whole cultures of violence have existed in the past such as the Vikings. They had no trouble dehumanizing their victims and acting accordingly.

Not entirely. That was just one component. There is still the threat you bring upon yourself by inviting revenge, or counter attack. There is still the fact of having enemies who wish you ill. You very well might be equipped to provide security for yourself, but you will constantly be looking over your shoulder.

Sometimes there is warranted violence, and there is self defense.

Clearly people do have no trouble dehumanizing their victims and cultures of violence have and do exist. That says nothing about wether the effect it has on their phycological framework is good or bad. People are undoubtedly most often the cause of their own problems. It is hard to prove, or say what is good or bad I suppose.

My general point though, is that from an outside and non-bias perspective, violence, generally as defined by the OP, is more bad than it is good in terms of net negative impact.

 

[jreelawg]

So don't harm people because:
1. They might harm you back.
2. You know that it's wrong.

Doesn't it depend on perspective? For me, an outside observer, I see a victim, and a victimizer. For me to judge wether it was good or bad, assuming I am not a benefactor of the act, is dependent on my judgment.

But, your viewing the question of if something is bad, from the first person perspective only. So in essence, you asking if it is bad for the victimizer? Surely if your were the victim, you would say it is bad. So perspective is important.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Clearly people do have no trouble dehumanizing their victims and cultures of violence have and do exist. That says nothing about wether the effect it has on their phycological framework is good or bad. People are undoubtedly most often the cause of their own problems. It is hard to prove, or say what is good or bad I suppose.

I would say that any psychological damage a Viking incurred would probably be due to the rejection he would have experienced from failing to kill enough people in a raid, or certainly failing to bring in enough booty. Showing mercy would have been definitely be viewed as a sign of weakness. Viking warriors lived in and were sustained by a culture of violence. They were very successful for several centuries and one of their ilk established the royal family of England which in turn ruled much of France. I don't think they worried much about retaliation either. As far as I know, no non-Vikings ever attacked their Scandinavian homelands.

My general point though, is that from an outside and non-bias perspective, violence, generally as defined by the OP, is more bad than it is good in terms of net negative impact.

It depends from where and when this 'unbiased' point of view is taken in a cultural and historic context. Do I think the cultural values of the modern western democracies are the best the human race has yet achieved? Yes, I do; but I'm biased.

 

[jreelawg]

I would say that any psychological damage a Viking incurred would probably be the rejection he would have experienced from failing to kill enough people in a raid, or certainly failing to bring in enough booty. Showing mercy would have been definitely be viewed as a sign of weakness. Viking warriors lived in and were sustained by a culture of violence. They were very successful for several centuries and one of their ilk established the royal family of England which in turn ruled much of France. I don't think they worried much about retaliation either. As far as I know, no non-Vikings ever attacked their Scandinavian homelands.



It depends from where and when this 'unbiased' point of view is taken in a cultural and historic context. Do I think the cultural values of the modern western democracies are the best the human race has yet achieved? Yes, I do; but I'm biased.

Yes, but now from the perspective of the Vikings, you argue the violence they had committed against others may be considered good. But it was certainly bad for those they murdered. In arguing that the violence they had committed wasn't bad, you have to apply the bias that what is good for the vikings is more important than what is bad for their victims.

 

[jreelawg]

It depends from where and when this 'unbiased' point of view is taken in a cultural and historic context. Do I think the cultural values of the modern western democracies are the best the human race has yet achieved? Yes, I do; but I'm biased.

Yes, but if you applied cultural and historical context, you are adding bias.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But it was certainly bad for those they murdered. In arguing that the violence they had committed wasn't bad, you have to apply the bias that what is good for the vikings is more important than what is bad for their victims.

I never argued it wasn't bad. It was horrific! I said I doubt the Vikings suffered any psychological damage, as you supposed they might, as a result of their pillage, rape and slaughter. Their culture supported it and would have ostracized or perhaps even killed "wimps". They got what wanted because they had such a fearsome reputation.

 

[jreelawg]

I never argued it wasn't bad. It was horrific! I said I doubt the Vikings suffered any psychological damage, as you supposed they might, as a result of their pillage, rape and slaughter. Their culture supported it and would have ostracized or perhaps even killed "wimps". They got what wanted because they had such a fearsome reputation.

It is common in modern warfare for intense combat to have a negative phycological effect on people. I don't know wether it is the fear they experienced, the people they killed, or other, but PTSD, is very common among veterans, and I don't think it is really associated with cultural influence as much as their experiences.

For example, a person I know is in support of violence and ruthless killing of the enemy. At the same time, the way he has been affected by his combat experiences is a destabilizing factor in his life.

How successful the Vikings were as a nation doesn't really tell us about how individuals who committed acts of violence were affected personally. Common affects are having a short temper, sleeplessness, higher suicide rates, wanting to isolate yourself from society etc.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is common in modern warfare for intense combat to have a negative phycological effect on people. I don't know wether it is the fear they experienced, the people they killed, or other, but PTSD, is very common among veterans, and I don't think it is really associated with cultural influence as much as their experiences.

For example, a person I know is in support of violence and ruthless killing of the enemy. At the same time, the way he has been affected by his combat experiences is a destabilizing factor in his life.

How successful the Vikings were as a nation doesn't really tell us about how individuals who committed acts of violence were affected personally. Common affects are having a short temper, sleeplessness, higher suicide rates, wanting to isolate yourself from society etc.

I am having a really tough time swallowing the idea that Vikings thought what they did was wrong.

Same with native North Americans. Many tribes were extremely violent (arguably much worse than the Vikings, don't know if Vikings tortured their enemies to death).

I do not believe these cultures saw their enemy as equals; which is what would be required for them to empathize (i.e. to put themselves in their enemy's shoes).

 

[jreelawg]

I never said the Vikings thought what they did was wrong. PTSD doesn't require the belief in self wrongdoing, I don't think. If so it may be sub-conscious. I find it hard to believe that any human being no matter the culture would be immune entirely to the negative psychological impact of intense violence.

Also I think much of how the Vikings are perceived is myth.

 

[JoeDawg]

Also I think much of how the Vikings are perceived is myth.

Much of it was cultivated by the Vikings themselves, for obvious reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_Geld

 

[Galteeth]

I am having a really tough time swallowing the idea that Vikings thought what they did was wrong.

Same with native North Americans. Many tribes were extremely violent (arguably much worse than the Vikings, don't know if Vikings tortured their enemies to death).

I do not believe these cultures saw their enemy as equals; which is what would be required for them to empathize (i.e. to put themselves in their enemy's shoes).

The thing is, you really don't know, one way or the other.

 

[JoeDawg]

That "philosophical branch

Boy are you dense. Ok... you want a definition war... here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

'Supernatural' is also very often abused by you. What do you mean by it

Spiritual.

BTW i never implied freewill was 'supernatural', i never use that word as i don't understand what it's supposed to mean in the first place.

From dictionary.com

spir·it·u·al   /ˈspɪrɪtʃuəl/ Show Spelled[spir-i-choo-uhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.

su·per·nat·u·ral   /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Show Spelled[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

And how do you know the internal processes are YOU?

That is an epistemological question. Whether freewill exists is ontological.
More evasion, typical.

I said we don't understand what 'physical' is...

phys·i·cal   /ˈfɪzɪkəl/ Show Spelled[fiz-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the body: physical exercise.
2. of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3. noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy other than those peculiar to living matter.
4. pertaining to the physical sciences, esp. physics.

The fact that we don't understand something completely is not the same as not understanding anything at all. You keep doing backflips emphasizing what we don't know, as if that means we know nothing. Science can tell us quite about about our world. Yes, we have to make certain assumptions, but as long as we recognize our assumptions and where they exist, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

You don't understand anything

But I'm free enough to enjoy it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Georg, Joe: dial it back a notch with the insults, K?

This is a thread for all to participate in. No need to derail it by throwing poo around.

 

[disregardthat]

How successful the Vikings were as a nation doesn't really tell us about how individuals who committed acts of violence were affected personally. Common affects are having a short temper, sleeplessness, higher suicide rates, wanting to isolate yourself from society etc.

I don't think the symptoms of today can be translated to any society. For example: A society in which ruthlessness in war is a treasured quality, the feeling of isolation will be lower. If whole structure of values is different, the criteria for symptoms will also differ. I think it is plausible that the negative effect of war on vikings were much lower than today.

 

[jreelawg]

I don't think the symptoms of today can be translated to any society. For example: A society in which ruthlessness in war is a treasured quality, the feeling of isolation will be lower. If whole structure of values is different, the criteria for symptoms will also differ. I think it is plausible that the negative effect of war on vikings were much lower than today.

That's possible I guess.

I figure they probably had it worse. If you think about it, they fought with brutal weapons face to face. Many died. They wore conical helmets so swards would hopefully deflect off of their heads.

Had they been fighting orcs, I bet they still get PTSD.

Also, you have to consider that the Vikings were not a tribe or a nation or anything like that. It was a name given to solders who went out on missions and expeditions. It's kind of like how we have the marines.

There is actually no evidence that the Vikings were any more brutal than any other warriors at the time.

 

[dx]

He who knows the Bliss of Truth..does not distress himself with the thought "why did I not do what is good? why did I do what is evil?". Whoever knows this bliss regards both of these as Self, indeed he cherishes both as Self. Such, indeed, is the Upanishad, the secret knowledge of Truth.


- The Upanishads

 

[jreelawg]

He who knows the Bliss of Truth..does not distress himself with the thought "why did I not do what is good? why did I do what is evil?". Whoever knows this bliss regards both of these as Self, indeed he cherishes both as Self. Such, indeed, is the Upanishad, the secret knowledge of Truth.


- The Upanishads

Why is it you have to be taught "secret knowledge of truth" to overcome your conscious. Why does it not read---"Why did I not do what is evil?" "Why did I do what is good?" Because had you not done the evil, you would have no need to convince yourself not to be distressed.

When then asking yourself not of the past, but the future, why should I do what is good, and not what is evil? This is different. This involves obvious truth. You don't need to be in a cult to figure it out, and the less you use abstract poetry in your reasoning the better.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Why is it you have to be taught "secret knowledge of truth" to overcome your conscious.

I think you mean "conscience". Where does conscience come from? Are you born with it? Does a one year old child have a conscience? Would you expect the conscience of a Viking warrior would have been the same as yours? I believe Viking warriors had feelings for, and loyalty to their own kind, and observed a certain moral code of conduct within their clans. Otherwise how could they have been as chillingly effective as they were? They may not have feared death because a warrior's death in battle was the way to Valhalla.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm looking for a sound philosophical argument in (what seems to be) an obvious case so that I can apply it to other, less-obvious situations.

Why is violence bad? I mean nonconsentual forceful interactions or transactions between people, taking something of value from another for one's own gain: assault/battery, theft, or even murder. Actually I'll even include taking things by threat of violence, like protection rackets. These seem like bad things that should not be allowed, and indeed society generally does not sanction this kind of behavior. But why?

I think the standard response is Hobbes' social contract, but this is an incomplete answer to me. Yes, these things exist in a state of nature, but a social contract could provide for protection from some but not all of these, or could provide protection from outside dangers (wildfire, other tribes) but not from internal. Alternately, a social contract could provide for protection from entirely different threats (positive rights rather than negative rights, say) without protecting from these.Please be explicit; assume that nothing is obvious to me. Thanks. :shy:

I agree with those who've replied that violence isn't 'bad'. It's how we settle most disputes. Outside of purely academic circles, violence, or the threat thereof, is the ultimate arbiter of virtually all disputes. There you have it. It doesn't matter what you know, or how you know it, or who you know. What matters is what you want and whether or not you have the means to enforce your will. Period.

Why do we have laws against preemptive violence? Because it's a precursor to societal dysfunction. Why doesn't this apply at the international level? Because there are large armies ready to enforce the will of politicians who control them, and large armies, via the politicians who control them, ready to violently argue against your claims to ... whatever.

Without thinking, we approve of international violent actions that we ostensibly abhor wrt interpersonal behavior. Think about it. Most Americans seem to approve of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. However, if you were to attack and kill another human being simply because, in your estimation, he/she might do harm to you, then you would, most likely, be spending the rest of your life in prison, or executed, if caught.

Why doesn't the US face such consequences? Because it can do more violence to those who might hold it accountable for its actions than they can do in response.

Might makes right. It's always been so, and it will continue to be so. Period. Argue all you want. If I have a gun and you don't, then you will do my bidding, regardless of what is right or correct wrt any analysis.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If I have a gun and you don't, then you will do my bidding, regardless of what is right or correct wrt any analysis.

Yes, but I'm not asking what people would do if you had a gun, I'm asking what is right. Even if the man with the gun can force his will.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Might makes right. It's always been so, and it will continue to be so. Period. Argue all you want. If I have a gun and you don't, then you will do my bidding, regardless of what is right or correct wrt any analysis.

I disagree that 'might makes right" in the sense that we have biological predispositions. Clearly violence is bad for the sentient creature that experiences it, and for those who might in some way have attachments that creature. Our individual sense of right and wrong, our conscience, is initially rooted in small social circles, but not always strongly. Did you ever steal anything from your sibling? Do family members always agree on what's right and what's wrong? Our social conscience is a very pliable thing. Criminals will justify to themselves that their actions are right and society and it's laws are wrong.

Having said that, who posting here wants live in a society without laws; laws to protect our lives, our liberty (reasonably circumscribed to protect others), our property and other "certain inalienable rights."?

 

[ThomasT]

Yes, but I'm not asking what people would do if you had a gun, I'm asking what is right. Even if the man with the gun can force his will.

You're asking if moral criteria and behavior have a biological, an objective physical, basis. Yes -- and so do immoral and nonmoral and amoral behavior.

Preemptive violence, per se, isn't bad or wrong. We make rules against it's various manifestations because it tends to produce dysfunction of one sort or another.

 

[ThomasT]

I disagree that 'might makes right" in the sense that we have biological predispositions. Clearly violence is bad for the sentient creature that experiences it, and for those who might in some way have attachments that creature. Our individual sense of right and wrong, our conscience, is initially rooted in small social circles, but not always strongly. Did you ever steal anything from your sibling? Do family members always agree on what's right and what's wrong? Our social conscience is a very pliable thing. Criminals will justify to themselves that their actions are right and society and it's laws are wrong.

Having said that, who posting here wants live in a society without laws; laws to protect our lives, our liberty (reasonably circumscribed to protect others), our property and other "certain inalienable rights."?

I think most people have consciences and like the idea of living by rules (even if they don't like certain ones). But if it's a matter of life or death, or viewed as such, then the ability to do violence supercedes the constructions, the rule sets, that we might otherwise use to evaluate our actions and determine a best course.

 

[poor mystic]

I have lived among South Pacific tribal gangs and can tell you that among many of those people "right" and "wrong" are simply theories. Life and Death seem to be the only coins in the game... but might does not make right all by itself.
Even in the roughest parts of society a physically powerless person with courage is respected and protected; a person who cares about his fellows is loved.
A powerless person can survive a stand-over by demonstrating that his principles are more important than his life.
.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I think most people have consciences and like the idea of living by rules (even if they don't like certain ones). But if it's a matter of life or death, or viewed as such, then the ability to do violence supercedes the constructions, the rule sets, that we might otherwise use to evaluate our actions and determine a best course.

Yes. I think there are vital interests which we feel we must secure. We are willing to observe the law, but in desperate situations, we must act as we see fit.

The corollary to that is we may tend to ignore "petty" rules, but obey the vital ones. Family squabbles occur all the time about who has priority or ownership, but this only results in the use of lethal force in the most dysfunctional families.

There are also critical issues that remain unresolved in modern democracies. Take the issue of human fetal abortion on demand. Is it right or wrong? (I'm not asking for a debate on this issue. It's only an example of where there are clear divisions as to the fundamental ethical principles involved.) The law, as decided by the US Supreme Court is that it is a legal and protected right up to the age of viability. After that, it is legal only if it's performed to protect the "life or health" of the mother. These guidelines are subject to a lot of interpretation.

I think we could take some set of principles such as those I referenced in my previous post as axioms and try to justify all laws in those terms. Spinoza offered an axiomatic system of ethics, but it's based on the monist philosophy of an extended deity that gives humans the ability to reason and reason alone can give us our ethical principles. I think this is difficult to defend in the light of history.

http://users.erols.com/nbeach/spinoza.html

EDIT: Somewhat against this is Kant's Categorical Imperative which states we should act as if every action we take could become universal law. That is: "What if everyone did it?".

http://philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_categorical_imperative_of_immanuel_kant

 

[brainstorm]

While violence is omnipresent, as noted by Ghandi professing the Hindi word "himsa" to describe the violence inherent in all life processes, Ghandi also promoted "ahimsa" as the morality of reducing or resisting violence through the exercise of compassion and conscious control over one's voluntary actions.

I used to think that the concepts of good and bad were completely arbitrary linguistic constructs, but in studying theology and the linkage I believe to exist between the words "good" and "God," I think that good has a more definite basis in the notion of constructive or creative actions. In contrast, "bad" should then refer to actions or occurrences that harm or destroy processes of positive/constructive creation, or their products.

If this basis for interpreting the logic of "good" and "bad" holds, then violence would be bad when it is destructive, deleterious, etc. and good when it serves some positive constructive purpose. Additionally, the same action or occurrence could be simultaneously good (creative/constructive/positive) in some ways and bad (destructive/harmful/deleterious) in another.

The same forest fire, for example, can destroy the habitats of many animals while the same violence causes pine cones to germinate to initiate new tree growth. Both effects are the product of the same violence of combustion, but one is creative and the other destructive. In terms of human culture, discipline is the main form of social interactive violence that is conceptualized in terms of its positive/constructive effects. All creative acts can be analyzed, I believe, in terms of disciplining some raw material or inputs. Eggs are disciplined (broken) to make an omelette, just as bad habits/culture in humans are deconstructed in order to supplant them with ones deemed better.

The ethics of applying violence for the presumed good of the "victim" are complex, but I doubt it would be possible to find any individual who doesn't recognize some occurrence of violence where they themselves were the victim and they nevertheless value the results of the violence as outweighing the suffering they endured. This may be a question of pain appearing less significant in retrospect than in anticipation or while it is taking place, though.

The most ethical situation is when an individual is able to issue informed consent for disciplinary violence prior to initiation of the violence. The problem with this, though, is that people can base their will to endure suffering on propaganda designed to convince them that the benefits outweigh the costs, when the ultimate interest behind the propaganda is in someone else's interest in ultimately exploiting the person submitting to the discipline.

 

[DaveC426913]

...in studying theology and the linkage I believe to exist between the words "good" and "God,"...

Gee, that's really bad news for us atheists...

 

[brainstorm]

Gee, that's really bad news for us atheists...

Not really. In my observation, most atheistic thought could be better described as "post-theist." It's not like atheism really re-invents the wheel of culture based on theological foundations. It just translates philosophy into terms that seem theologically neutral - even though they are often traceable to ideas that emerged and evolved within theological paradigms. Nietzche's book, Beyond Good and Evil, comes to mind as relevant to this issue, but I can't remember the specifics. I don't think it is ultimately possible for atheism to totally transcend theistic thought, mainly because theology itself is a form of human culture founded on universal ideas generalized from human experience. I.e. there's a reason all religions share numerous elements and ideas in common. Whether or not God actually exists and how, there is no denying that the concept of God is firmly hard-wired into some aspect of human experience and cognition, or maybe the interface between them.

 

[JoeDawg]

Not really. In my observation, most atheistic thought could be better described as "post-theist." It's not like atheism really re-invents the wheel of culture based on theological foundations. It just translates philosophy into terms that seem theologically neutral - even though they are often traceable to ideas that emerged and evolved within theological paradigms.

Philosophy actually has a long history of being separated from theology. And theological paradigms are just that, constructed frameworks. Just because an idea evolved within a paradigm doesn't mean it evolved from that paradigm or is inseparable from it. Langauge does present problems, as some words have huge amounts of religious connotations and baggage, but most atheists I know have little problem with this sort of housekeeping.

Even before the english language existed distinguishing between good and god was something people did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro

I don't think it is ultimately possible for atheism to totally transcend theistic thought, mainly because theology itself is a form of human culture founded on universal ideas generalized from human experience.

Cultures change. Human experience has to do with the natural, not the supernatural. What we do is seek patterns in an endless sea of chaos. This means sometimes the patterns we see are created by our own minds. I see nothing intrinsic in religions, they are merely individual manifestations of the way we think. So is art and language itself.

I.e. there's a reason all religions share numerous elements and ideas in common.

Because they were all created by the human brain.

Whether or not God actually exists and how, there is no denying that the concept of God is firmly hard-wired into some aspect of human experience and cognition, or maybe the interface between them.

God is an empty word, it means whatever you decide it does... as such this is an easy claim, but not a useful one. There are gods with diametrically opposed properties. And some cultures have no gods.

I could much more easily claim that justice and courage are hard-wired.

 

[DaveC426913]

Whether or not God actually exists and how, there is no denying that the concept of God is firmly hard-wired into some aspect of human experience and cognition, or maybe the interface between them.

Personally, I think that the concept of God is simply the child (with their experience of an all-powerful, benevolent parent), now grown into an adult, elevating the concept to a supernatural level.

 

[brainstorm]

Philosophy actually has a long history of being separated from theology. And theological paradigms are just that, constructed frameworks. Just because an idea evolved within a paradigm doesn't mean it evolved from that paradigm or is inseparable from it. Langauge does present problems, as some words have huge amounts of religious connotations and baggage, but most atheists I know have little problem with this sort of housekeeping.

I know they try to separate theological notions from their thinking, but it's just not possible because theology expressed universal concepts in a certain style. The story of Adam & Eve expresses the universal conflict of choosing between life and death and between true and false knowledge. Is this theology expressing something more fundamental than the theological discourse that expresses it, or it is a theological idea that evolved into secular variations?

Even before the english language existed distinguishing between good and god was something people did.

I didn't say they are indistinguishable. I said that they draw on each other's meaning. I'm not claiming that one is the basis for the other. I'm saying they are related concepts. God is goodness and goodness is God-ness, so to speak. I explained an underlying logic of creative/constructive/positive as distinct from destruction/harm/deletion, but you seem to have ignored that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro

I suffered through this story of pompous categorizing and definitional games about what is pious. I don't see how it is relevant unless you're just trying to prove that obnoxious definition-pushers are able to use absolutism to obfuscate discussion of meanings and culture.

Cultures change. Human experience has to do with the natural, not the supernatural. What we do is seek patterns in an endless sea of chaos. This means sometimes the patterns we see are created by our own minds. I see nothing intrinsic in religions, they are merely individual manifestations of the way we think. So is art and language itself.

Who said that theology necessarily has anything to do with supernature? Theology and deism might be "natural" human cultural constructions, and this might be why theological ideas are not ultimately separable from any other type of philosophy or science, because it is just another way of expressing the same things that the others do, barring the most superficial distinctions of course.

Because they were all created by the human brain.

Sounds about right.

God is an empty word, it means whatever you decide it does... as such this is an easy claim, but not a useful one. There are gods with diametrically opposed properties. And some cultures have no gods.

Well, I have experimented with that idea, but I've found that the ideology actually contains logics that prevents you from defining God however you want. For example, God is inherently a true God. If God is only God because something that is not really God is representing itself as God, then it would be a false God and therefore evil. Can you come up with a definition of God that constructs false-representation as good and therefore a non-God as God?

I could much more easily claim that justice and courage are hard-wired.

Well, they are to some extent aren't they? Isn't courage the ability to overcome fear? Doesn't justice rely on a fundamental ability to identify humans as inherently similar? If they all recognized themselves as totally different from any other, how could justice ever be conceivable?

Personally, I think that the concept of God is simply the child (with their experience of an all-powerful, benevolent parent), now grown into an adult, elevating the concept to a supernatural level.

Absolutely, God is a personification of an ultimate super-human authority. But if you look at physics, for example, you also see the idea that there are laws that cannot be subjugated by any human authority because they are more powerful than any human. You're implying, I think, that truly mature adults would give up the idea of all-powerful, benevolent authorities - but I doubt there is anyone who doesn't believe in some form of authority that protects them against all imaginable human and/or natural threats. For someone it might have to do with faith in the economy as a system that guarantees their well-being beyond the ability of any human forces to take away their position in it. Then, when there's a big crash or recession hits them personally very hard, they suddenly discover the "savior-psychosis" of a benevolent and helpful God. Apparently you've been lucky enough as an adult not to have been reduced to this level of desperation, yet, but many adults are.

 

[DaveC426913]

I doubt there is anyone who doesn't believe in some form of authority that protects them against all imaginable human and/or natural threats.For someone it might have to do with faith in the economy as a system that guarantees their well-being beyond the ability of any human forces to take away their position in it. Then, when there's a big crash or recession hits them personally very hard, they suddenly discover the "savior-psychosis" of a benevolent and helpful God. Apparently you've been lucky enough as an adult not to have been reduced to this level of desperation, yet, but many adults are.

Ah. Death bed converts.
No athiest really knows how sure they are of their convictions in a godless universe.

 

[GeorgCantor]

You're implying, I think, that truly mature adults would give up the idea of all-powerful, benevolent authorities - but I doubt there is anyone who doesn't believe in some form of authority that protects them against all imaginable human and/or natural threats. For someone it might have to do with faith in the economy as a system that guarantees their well-being beyond the ability of any human forces to take away their position in it. Then, when there's a big crash or recession hits them personally very hard, they suddenly discover the "savior-psychosis" of a benevolent and helpful God. Apparently you've been lucky enough as an adult not to have been reduced to this level of desperation, yet, but many adults are.

"One feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be 'happy' is not included in the plan of 'Creation.'"

Sigmund Freud, "Civilization and Its Discontents"

I have lived among South Pacific tribal gangs and can tell you that among many of those people "right" and "wrong" are simply theories. Life and Death seem to be the only coins in the game... but might does not make right all by itself.
Even in the roughest parts of society a physically powerless person with courage is respected and protected; a person who cares about his fellows is loved.
A powerless person can survive a stand-over by demonstrating that his principles are more important than his life.
.

Freud is always correct:


“The very emphasis of the commandment: Thou shalt not kill, makes it certain that we are descended from an endlessly long chain of generations of murderers, whose love of murder was in their blood as it is perhaps also in ours".

Personally, I think that the concept of God is simply the child (with their experience of an all-powerful, benevolent parent), now grown into an adult, elevating the concept to a supernatural level.

Compare to:

"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father." --Sigmund Freud

 

[brainstorm]

Ah. Death bed converts.
No athiest really knows how sure they are of their convictions in a godless universe.

The assertion that the universe is godless serves the same purpose as the belief in God of theists. Both reflect a need to justify subjective beliefs according to the external existence or non-existence of a supreme-being. Of course, no external referent is necessary for understanding the human belief in superhuman power, but atheists like theists avoid facing that because it would block them from facing their subjectivity head on for what it is, i.e. inner-subjectivity, complete with divine imagery, the capacity to deny existence of certain aspects of imagination, etc.

"One feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be 'happy' is not included in the plan of 'Creation.'"

Sigmund Freud, "Civilization and Its Discontents"

No, I think actually that the whole theory of divinity is predicated on the idea that creation and constructive/positive living produces greater happiness ultimately than what Freud would call the death drive. Sure, you get that little rush from cutting people down but in the long run you feel worse about yourself and others as a result. On the other hand, when you find happiness in interacting with others constructively and positively, that happiness has more intertia, imo. You can build on constructive/positive actions, but negative/destructive actions are always short-lived highs followed by negative emotions and regret.

“The very emphasis of the commandment: Thou shalt not kill, makes it certain that we are descended from an endlessly long chain of generations of murderers, whose love of murder was in their blood as it is perhaps also in ours".

True. No sin would be tempting if it wasn't inherent in human nature. But then again, what isn't ultimately inherent in human nature? It's always a weak argument to claim that something should be legitimated just because it is part of human nature. Killing might be natural, but so is avoidance of being killed. Hence the naturalness of morality, social-contracts. ethics, and the like.

"At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father." --Sigmund Freud

And your father might be nothing more than an exalted superego. The reason the idea of God is distinct from an actual flesh-and-blood father is because authority over God ultimately belongs to no human besides you yourself as an individual. So the idea of God is an authority-figure that liberates individuals from social-authority by providing them with a replacement for it. Once you realize that your flesh-and-blood father is an imperfect human-being, you can seek ideal authority by projecting your ideals of goodness and truth onto a "heavenly father" that is more perfect than any worldly human. This gives people a way of exploring ideals of authority without submitting to EITHER the authority of another person OR that of their personal desires or ego. I.e. they can reason about what is true and good and when faithfully convinced that they've reached an impeccable conclusion, attribute it to "holy spirit" and ultimately a "heavenly father."

 

[JoeDawg]

I know they try to separate theological notions from their thinking, but it's just not possible because theology expressed universal concepts in a certain style.

Sure it is. Analogy, symbolism, metaphor, allegory, theme, motif... all of these are ways of expressing concepts... universal or not. Theology is just one manifestation. And its rather recent. Prior to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_age" , theology was mainly about what to sacrifice and how. So its really not integral at all to human thought.

The story of Adam & Eve expresses the universal conflict of choosing between life and death and between true and false knowledge.

So does the stories of Gilgamesh and Beowulf... even King Arthur and Robin Hood. That is how stories function. It doesn't have to involve dieties or theology.

God is goodness and goodness is God-ness, so to speak.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro" makes the distinction between God choosing to do good because it is good, and what God chooses is good, by definition.

I explained an underlying logic of creative/constructive/positive as distinct from destruction/harm/deletion, but you seem to have ignored that.

Well, its one opinion.
Personally, I think good and bad are entirely relative to circumstance and the chosen goal... so I'd say your underlying logic is faulty.

I suffered through this story of pompous categorizing and definitional games about what is pious. I don't see how it is relevant unless you're just trying to prove that obnoxious definition-pushers are able to use absolutism to obfuscate discussion of meanings and culture.

LOL.

Who said that theology necessarily has anything to do with supernature? Theology and deism might be "natural" human cultural constructions, and this might be why theological ideas are not ultimately separable from any other type of philosophy or science, because it is just another way of expressing the same things that the others do, barring the most superficial distinctions of course.

You might want to give what you consider a definition of theology, because the loose way you are using it doesn't make sense to me.

Well, I have experimented with that idea, but I've found that the ideology actually contains logics that prevents you from defining God however you want.

And yet people do.

For example, God is inherently a true God.

Is this your way of appealing to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument" ?
If so, sounds like a simple tautology.

If God is only God because something that is not really God is representing itself as God, then it would be a false God and therefore evil.

And I bet evil is not good.

Can you come up with a definition of God that constructs false-representation as good and therefore a non-God as God?

God is an imaginary friend that gives comfort to people when they are feeling bad. Psychological defense mechanism.

Well, they are to some extent aren't they? Isn't courage the ability to overcome fear? Doesn't justice rely on a fundamental ability to identify humans as inherently similar? If they all recognized themselves as totally different from any other, how could justice ever be conceivable?

Universals are just glorified generalizations.

... but I doubt there is anyone who doesn't believe in some form of authority that protects them against all imaginable human and/or natural threats.

That seems a childish idea.

 

[brainstorm]

So does the stories of Gilgamesh and Beowulf... even King Arthur and Robin Hood. That is how stories function. It doesn't have to involve dieties or theology.

Of course not, but why does it matter to atheists so much if it does? Call something a force or a decentralized pattern of occurrences and atheists can handle it. Express it as a personified entity and they go up in arms. If it's just metaphorical personification, why do people have to fight against it so hard? Personally, I think Santa Clause is a nasty lie that teaches children that it's ok for adults to lie - but I have learned that I should regard SC as "the spirit of giving" and accept the personified image as being more comprehensible to children than a "spirit." I look at God the same way.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro" makes the distinction between God choosing to do good because it is good, and what God chooses is good, by definition.

God is a personification of goodness. Neither God nor goodness defines the other. They are two ways of expressing the same thing.

Well, its one opinion.
Personally, I think good and bad are entirely relative to circumstance and the chosen goal... so I'd say your underlying logic is faulty.

They may be, but then they're still logically opposed in the terms of the specific goal, aren't they? I challenge you to give an example of goal-specific or relative good and evil that contradict my associative definition where good = creative/constructive/positive and bad = destructive/harmful/detelerious.

You might want to give what you consider a definition of theology, because the loose way you are using it doesn't make sense to me.

I define theology as the study of God, however God/gods is/are defined or constructed. I arrived at this definition of theology as a means of understanding atheism as an approach to God, because I was an atheist and it fascinated me the way atheism was so fixated on the (non)existence of God/gods as its central concept. I wanted to figure out what it was about the concept of deity/divinity that required resistance in atheism.

And yet people do.

In good faith, though? I know there are Satanists who attribute divinity to evil, but I wonder if they don't get tripped up at some point trying to reconcile opposing concepts.

And I bet evil is not good.

I actually have a friend who claims that evil is part of goodness because it evolved from creation generally. Evil/sin/destruction/etc. all do seem to result in positive/constructive results in certain ways, but it makes more sense to call this a miracle of goodness than to try to attribute goodness itself to evil. In other words, creative destruction isn't creative because destruction is essentially creative but because creation can be a side-effect of destruction. The destructiveness is not eliminated by the fact that some creation occurs as a result.

God is an imaginary friend that gives comfort to people when they are feeling bad. Psychological defense mechanism.

This is maybe one effect/usage of God-faith, but it's not the only one.

Universals are just glorified generalizations.

Does a universal have to be a generalization? If I say that all living humans have hearts, that is a universal claim but not a generalization.

That seems a childish idea.

How so? Define "childish."

 

[JoeDawg]

Of course not, but why does it matter to atheists so much if it does?

Why do people object to lies?

If it's just metaphorical ersonification, why do people have to fight against it so hard?

I don't have a problem with metaphors, but that is not what you were saying. Metaphors don't require gods or theology.

Personally, I think Santa Clause is a nasty lie that teaches children that it's ok for adults to lie - but I have learned that I should regard SC as "the spirit of giving" and accept the personified image as being more comprehensible to children than a "spirit." I look at God the same way.

Make believe is fun for children. Spirits are nonsense.

God is a personification of goodness. Neither God nor goodness defines the other. They are two ways of expressing the same thing.

Gods are the personification of whatever believers value. Thor was the personification of violence and power. He was a good warrior. But good and god are not synonymous. You can be good without gods. Its easy. In fact, given the amount of atrocities commited in the name of gods, I'd say, being good isn't even in the same ballpark as gods.

I challenge you to give an example of goal-specific or relative good and evil that contradict my associative definition where good = creative/constructive/positive and bad = destructive/harmful/detelerious.

Hitler lived, which was bad, he is dead, which is good.

I define theology as the study of God, however God/gods is/are defined or constructed. I arrived at this definition of theology as a means of understanding atheism as an approach to God, because I was an atheist and it fascinated me the way atheism was so fixated on the (non)existence of God/gods as its central concept. I wanted to figure out what it was about the concept of deity/divinity that required resistance in atheism.

Well, first, the word atheist(and atheism) were originally insults, created by religious people to describe other people, people who didn't believe in their god. Many modern atheists see belief in gods as harmful, because it involves irrational belief and can lead to poor decision making.
Atheists want people to make decisions based on the observable facts. This is important because atheists are a minority, and in a democracy, decisions are made by the group. So its very much in the best interest of atheists to make it clear that god-belief is not rational... and while people certainly have a right to believe what they like, using god as a justification for a course of action, especially one that affects other people is something atheists have every right to vigorously oppose.

In good faith, though?

According to many, you don't need logic for faith.

I actually have a friend who claims that evil is part of goodness because it evolved from creation generally.

There are all sorts of logical inconsistencies with believing in an 'evil' force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Evil/sin/destruction/etc. all do seem to result in positive/constructive results in certain ways, but it makes more sense to call this a miracle of goodness than to try to attribute goodness itself to evil. In other words, creative destruction isn't creative because destruction is essentially creative but because creation can be a side-effect of destruction. The destructiveness is not eliminated by the fact that some creation occurs as a result.

Sounds like you're getting confused by your own binary of good/evil.

Our sun is a sustained nuclear explosion, entirely destructive... and it gives us life.
I think you need to unchain yourself from your useless good/evil binary, and admit that what is constructive or destructive is all a matter of point of view, not any actual good or evil, in a thing.

If I say that all living humans have hearts...

Why do you say this?
Why is this better than: all living humans have wings.

How so? Define "childish."

Because it is naive and not true.

 

[brainstorm]

Why do people object to lies?

Because people don't like to be manipulated by someone else giving them false information when those people have better information. Lying involves the belief that you have the right to more or better information than someone else. Who would want to be kept in a subordinate position by someone else lying to them?

I don't have a problem with metaphors, but that is not what you were saying. Metaphors don't require gods or theology.

My point was that gods ARE personified metaphors. That's why the holy spirit and Jesus are included in the holy trinity - because they are all elements to teach about the same hard-to-define conceptual complex. Each is a personified metaphor for a concept, although holy spirit is less personified than God or Jesus.

Make believe is fun for children. Spirits are nonsense.

Spirit is another word for "subjective state." When you say someone is in a certain spirit, or does something in a certain spirit, it means they are in a certain state of mind. You could call it a cognitive-emotional framework if you wanted.

Gods are the personification of whatever believers value. Thor was the personification of violence and power. He was a good warrior. But good and god are not synonymous. You can be good without gods. Its easy. In fact, given the amount of atrocities commited in the name of gods, I'd say, being good isn't even in the same ballpark as gods.

Well, if you believed that it was good to renounce personification of goodness in terms of gods, you could invent an "ethic," "doctrine," "manifesto," or some other institutionalized expression of atheism as a force of social goodness. It would be no different than institutionalizing such a force of social goodness in terms of a personified god. There are just different ways of institutionalizing ideas and gods, spirits, angels, etc. are the ones that involve personification in supernatural forms. There are also many instances of personifying goodness in historical individuals. For example, right now Tiger Woods is being used to personify sexual excess. Hitler is used to personify the evil of despotism. Etc. etc.

Hitler lived, which was bad, he is dead, which is good.

You're assuming a lot here. Of course, it is comfortable for people to believe that Hitler somehow caused everything that happened while he was chancellor. Who is to say, however, that all the same attrocities wouldn't have occurred if Hitler had refused to act as a leader? Who is to say his death prevented anything else bad from happening?

Well, first, the word atheist(and atheism) were originally insults, created by religious people to describe other people, people who didn't believe in their god. Many modern atheists see belief in gods as harmful, because it involves irrational belief and can lead to poor decision making.

Many institutions involve irrational belief and can lead to poor decision making, but why don't atheists target those then?

Atheists want people to make decisions based on the observable facts. This is important because atheists are a minority, and in a democracy, decisions are made by the group.

In democracy, decisions are discussed openly among any people who want to discuss them. Decisions are ultimately made by those with power to execute them in the situation they are executed in.

So its very much in the best interest of atheists to make it clear that god-belief is not rational... and while people certainly have a right to believe what they like, using god as a justification for a course of action, especially one that affects other people is something atheists have every right to vigorously oppose.

You can oppose whatever you want for whatever reason you want, but it is not rational to react against something just because God is claimed as a motivation for it. I could be responding to your post in this way because it is the will of God, in my belief, but that doesn't alter the content of what I'm saying or your ability to critically argue with it on the basis of its content. When you start trying to undermine people's thoughts purely on the basis that they belief in God, that is a form of ad hominem attack imo.

According to many, you don't need logic for faith.

No, you need faith where logic fails.

There are all sorts of logical inconsistencies with believing in an 'evil' force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Yes, the most typical argument I've heard for atheism is that if God existed, s/he/it wouldn't allow such terrible things to occur. You don't understand the theology of how evil emerged and the goodness inherent in not destroying it. You haven't read the story of Job or Christ and understood why God would allow these characters to suffer as they are mythologized to have. You can't understand why it makes sense to conceptualize goodness as something that can emerge from suffering without defining suffering as goodness in and of itself. These are just philosophical logics, but I think you reject them purely on the basis they have roots in theological philosophy.

Our sun is a sustained nuclear explosion, entirely destructive... and it gives us life.
I think you need to unchain yourself from your useless good/evil binary, and admit that what is constructive or destructive is all a matter of point of view, not any actual good or evil, in a thing.

Destruction can have positive results. You could call that a miracle. There's no need to confound you ability to distinguish between destruction and creation. Like you say, fusion is destructive in the sense that it eliminates hydrogen atoms but it is life-giving in that it generates energy for all life on Earth. From a physics standpoint, the fusion is actually a transformation of hydrogen to helium, which liberates energy creating life and light. Still, sunlight can damage your skin and crops. Nothing is absolute, hence the emergence of evil from goodness.

Why do you say this?
Why is this better than: all living humans have wings.

It was an example of a universal that is not a generalization. All humans don't have wings so it is neither a universal nor a generalization.

Because it is naive and not true.

I think it is childish that you avoid understanding the psychological truth about why humans personify philosophy in terms of God/gods. I think it is childish to use denial of God's existence as a physical entity as a substitute for reasoned critique of theological philosophy and ethics. At this point, I study both theological philosophy and atheist philosophy and the atheist arguments tend to be much weaker and more superficially nominalist or otherwise empty. Theology may be confusing because it personifies its subject matter, but I am still in search of some anti-theology that can sufficiently undermine its epistemological value.

I mean this honestly, not because I am a mindless and uncritical believer. I began studying theology as an atheist and I can still claim to be an atheist from a materialist point of view. I actually began studying theology with the intent to undermine it for the sake of atheism, but I found it to contain such valuable philosophical ideas that I now think it is a waste to obfuscate it. I am seriously looking to find some alternative that surpasses it in terms of ethical rigor and metaphysical validity.

 

[cesiumfrog]

In my observation, most atheistic thought could be better described as "post-theist."

Interesting term. On the one hand it sounds loaded, on the other it seems unencumbered..

 

[JoeDawg]

Because people don't like to be manipulated by someone else giving them false information when those people have better information. Lying involves the belief that you have the right to more or better information than someone else. Who would want to be kept in a subordinate position by someone else lying to them?

This is why atheists object when people say gods exist.

My point was that gods ARE personified metaphors.

Good then we agree, but then all you are talking about is conceptual thinking. Theology is just one manifestation of this, so it is not central to anything.

Spirit is another word for "subjective state." When you say someone is in a certain spirit, or does something in a certain spirit, it means they are in a certain state of mind. You could call it a cognitive-emotional framework if you wanted.

This is not what most people mean by spirit. You seem to have your own language... this is not a problem, except when you assume others understand your definitions.

Well, if you believed that it was good to renounce personification of goodness in terms of gods

Atheists don't object to personification, which is a function of their mind, they object when people confuse personification with what exists outside their mind.

Hitler is used to personify the evil of despotism. Etc. etc.

Metaphors can be useful, as long as you don't confuse them with definitions.
Logic relies on definitions, poetry relies on metaphors.

Who is to say his death prevented anything else bad from happening?

Who is to say monkeys won't fly out my butt?

Many institutions involve irrational belief and can lead to poor decision making, but why don't atheists target those then?

Many do... but given that they are 'atheists', targeting religious institutions would seem to be their common interest... that is, showing how god-belief is bad.

You can oppose whatever you want for whatever reason you want, but it is not rational to react against something just because God is claimed as a motivation for it.

Since god-belief is irrational, being motivated by god, would not be rational. Irrational motivations rarely lead to rational decisions, so yes, it is rational.

I could be responding to your post in this way because it is the will of God, in my belief, but that doesn't alter the content of what I'm saying or your ability to critically argue with it on the basis of its content. When you start trying to undermine people's thoughts purely on the basis that they belief in God, that is a form of ad hominem attack imo.

That's crap. I didn't say religious people always make wrong decisions, when they base their decisions on gods. I said I don't trust them to make decisions, because their decision making process is flawed. That is not ad hominem.

No, you need faith where logic fails.

No, you don't.

Yes, the most typical argument I've heard for atheism is that if God existed, s/he/it wouldn't allow such terrible things to occur.

Allowing evil to exist at all is not good, therefore god cannot allow evil to exist and be good.

That is just one logical fallacy associated with godbelief. There are many others.
The reason I don't believe is because not only are religions illogical, god is not an observable phenomena. So, like with any imaginary thing, its irrational to believe.

You don't understand the theology of how evil emerged and the goodness inherent in not destroying it.

I'm sure I do. I just think its nonsense.

You haven't read the story of Job or Christ and understood why God would allow these characters to suffer as they are mythologized to have.

God let Job suffer the loss of everything he cared about... because of a bet.

God couldn't forgive Adam for disobedience, so he cursed all humanity. Then God knocked up Jesus' mother, and convinced him to sacrifice himself for humanity. Once Jesus was tortured to death, god forgave humanity... except for those who don't believe in Jesus. Those people are still cursed to an eternity of being tortured.

The God of the bible is psychotic.

You can't understand why it makes sense to conceptualize goodness as something that can emerge from suffering without defining suffering as goodness in and of itself. These are just philosophical logics, but I think you reject them purely on the basis they have roots in theological philosophy.

I reject it because it is nonsense... which isn't surprising. Most of theology is devoted to the logical gymnastics necessary to make sense of scriptural contradictions.

Nothing is absolute, hence the emergence of evil from goodness.

Then god is not absolute... so god is both good and evil.

It was an example of a universal that is not a generalization. All humans don't have wings so it is neither a universal nor a generalization.

Universals are derived from generalizations, that is where they get their value.

Theology may be confusing because it personifies its subject matter, but I am still in search of some anti-theology that can sufficiently undermine its epistemological value.

Theology is confusing, because it is self-contradictory.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Let's ease up on the church chat please.

 

[brainstorm]

This is why atheists object when people say gods exist.

That is reasonable. I have the same problem with institutional realism. The problem is when people go from denying (physical) existence to obfuscating theological ideas and meanings because they dislike them, which is what you seem to be doing from this post.

Good then we agree, but then all you are talking about is conceptual thinking. Theology is just one manifestation of this, so it is not central to anything.

Except that it was a central basis for most thought and study for many centuries.

This is not what most people mean by spirit. You seem to have your own language... this is not a problem, except when you assume others understand your definitions.

How do you think "most people" understand spirit? What is meant by "school spirit" or "team spirit" or "to be in good spirits," or "to do something in the spirit of a patron founder?" All these expressions refer to a subjective state or frame of mind in doing something.

[/quote]Atheists don't object to personification, which is a function of their mind, they object when people confuse personification with what exists outside their mind.[/quote]
You are aware that you have no transparent access to anything outside your mind that doesn't involve the mediation of your mind, right?

Metaphors can be useful, as long as you don't confuse them with definitions.
Logic relies on definitions, poetry relies on metaphors.

Check out Lakhoff and Johnson's cognitive linguistics. They analyze the metaphorical structures of everyday language.

Who is to say monkeys won't fly out my butt?

You made a statement about Hitler. I responded in good faith and you say this?

Many do... but given that they are 'atheists', targeting religious institutions would seem to be their common interest... that is, showing how god-belief is bad.

I'm an atheist but I'm trying to salvage the baby from the bathwater of religion and theology. There are many good ideas if you can decipher them from the cynical interpretations you've been fed to lead you into anti-theism.

Since god-belief is irrational, being motivated by god, would not be rational. Irrational motivations rarely lead to rational decisions, so yes, it is rational.

This kind of if-then logic applied to abstract generalities only obfuscates valid thought. Both rationality and irrationality may result from theological study. It depends how people apply the idea of God. If God is applied as a means of superceding wordly authority with critical truth, it can lead people to overcome the tendency to submit blindly to irrational human authority, which increases rationality in human behavior.

That's crap. I didn't say religious people always make wrong decisions, when they base their decisions on gods. I said I don't trust them to make decisions, because their decision making process is flawed. That is not ad hominem.

Humans who can't overcome submitting to worldly authority are flawed in their critical ability. They are driven by fear of death and fear of not being powerful enough in themselves to challenge external power and authority.

Allowing evil to exist at all is not good, therefore god cannot allow evil to exist and be good.

Believing that it is good to eliminate evil from existence completely is bad. Evil exists as an inevitable dark side to the full range of possibilities available to humans as a result of their freedom and the way life works. Goodness lies in accepting the freedom of others to choose evil and intervening by providing knowledge and warnings instead of controlling them or manipulating them without enlightening them as to why.

God let Job suffer the loss of everything he cared about... because of a bet.

I used to say the exact same thing. But look at the message of the story. It is saying that as long as you don't give up faith in goodness through bad times, the rain cloud will always have a silver lining. Have you ever experienced that not to be true? If so, you're either not alive or you've never experienced something bad enough to necessitate hope and faith to make it through without going insane.

God couldn't forgive Adam for disobedience, so he cursed all humanity. Then God knocked up Jesus' mother, and convinced him to sacrifice himself for humanity. Once Jesus was tortured to death, god forgave humanity... except for those who don't believe in Jesus. Those people are still cursed to an eternity of being tortured.

Why was Jesus sacrificed? What was the cause of Jesus' death. If you don't want to read the bible, check out the movie Passion of Christ.

I also used to think that suffering was God's punishment for disobedience. This is a bad interpretation of these stories. Suffering is a direct result of sin, not punishment by God or anyone else. When someone kills, someone else dies. When someone steals, someone else loses property, etc. God just warns people of the consequences of sin and gets disappointed when they still harm each other. The story of the flood describes God's realization that humans are flawed and his promise not to kill them all ever again. The story of Jesus describes how humans' killing of another human is destruction of God's gift to them of each other. If you would look for the ethical messages in the stories, you'd get more out of them than with your cynical superficial interpretations.

The God of the bible is psychotic.

Then wouldn't the creation be his psychosis?

Then god is not absolute... so god is both good and evil.

That's why the emergence of Satan is described as God's greatest angel falling from grace. Satan is technically part of God; i.e. the part that fell to sin. The sin that caused the fall is actually logical, too - i.e. pride and opposition to God. Lucifer was supposedly so enamored by his own beauty as God's greatest angel that he became competitive with God's will. You could say that this describes the inherent temptation in having any kind of power to become self-glorifying and prideful instead of harnessing the power to do good.

Universals are derived from generalizations, that is where they get their value.

I gave you the example that all living humans have a heart. That is not a generalization, but it is universal. A generalization would be that all living humans have organs. Organs generalizes the existence of hearts, livers, kidneys, lungs, etc. All living humans having organs would be a universal generalization. All living humans having hearts would be a specific universal.

Theology is confusing, because it is self-contradictory.

It's only contradictory if you believe good and evil to be radically separate from each other. Theology acknowledge how the two are interwoven and connected. Theology also recognizes that individuals are capable of both good and evil in contrast to naive social philosophies that divide the world into good people and bad people. Sure it is comforting to believe that because you've done good things or are often good that you are a good person and don't ever have to worry about doing anything wrong. It is also comforting to think that as long as you avoid bad people, nothing bad will ever happen to you. Both are naive obfuscations of the reality of how moral choice works and how bad actions can emerge from good people with good intentions and vice versa.

 

[disregardthat]

Sorry to jump right in, but I just have some things to say. Langauge does not rely on definitions. A common personification or a manifestation of a word is an important part of the 'definition'. God may not exist in some ways (mind-independent), but in many ways god does exist, as god has a definite function in language. God is not always used in reference to some outer supernatural spirit.

Take the following example of a common use of the word: "Only god knows". God has a clear function here, but the meaning of this sentence does not rely on the objective existence of a supernatural spirit.

In such ways god does exist, and a personification of these notions is to me what religion is all about. Not that I'm religious, I just think this is a reasonable way to think about it. Religion has always been the way of talking about that which doesn't really make sense to talk about. That's probably why theology is confusing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Take the following example of a common use of the word: "Only god knows". God has a clear function here, but the meaning of this sentence does not rely on the objective existence of a supernatural spirit.

In such ways god does exist, and a personification of these notions is to me what religion is all about. Not that I'm religious, I just think this is a reasonable way to think about it. Religion has always been the way of talking about that which doesn't really make sense to talk about. That's probably why theology is confusing.

I'm sure that, in a perfect world, people would keep their public statements about God to purely metaphorical or euphamistic uses. And in that perfect world, atheists would not have any issue.

But somehow I don't think that most Believers are interested in promoting God as merely a metaphor.

 

[disregardthat]

I'm sure that, in a perfect world, people would keep their public statements about God to purely metaphorical or euphamistic uses. And in that perfect world, atheists would not have any issue.

But somehow I don't think that most Believers are interested in promoting God as merely a metaphor.

Surely, but then again isn't putting god in the context of a metaphysical being just another way of 'making sense' of something which doesn't really make sense? Whatever a religious person might say or believe, this is what's going on. It doesn't make it a true or false belief, metaphysics is senseless anyway.

 

[brainstorm]

I'm sure that, in a perfect world, people would keep their public statements about God to purely metaphorical or euphamistic uses. And in that perfect world, atheists would not have any issue.

But somehow I don't think that most Believers are interested in promoting God as merely a metaphor.

This is why it makes less sense to claim atheism as it does to claim a theism that fits your particular sense of what is true and legitimate to believe in. If you believe in the power of God as a subjective institution that drives human imagination and action, but you think it is irresponsible and deceitful to project that power onto an externalized personification, then why can't you claim to believe in God as a form of subjective power? I would even say that the holy spirit means exactly that, the subjective form of God-power as it exists within human individuals.

Claiming a personal religious truth enables you to stand up to the theists you disagree with. Claiming atheism only enables you to reject and flee from them. As a theist with personal convictions, you can actually recognize most followers of religion as falling short of their own ideals, which most don't thoroughly understand or even care that much about understanding. This was the reason why critics like Kierkergaard and Nietsche were so upset with church-religion, which they thought perverted and killed the true idea of God.

Many atheists have a deeper faith in possibility of ultimate truth than many church-goers, so why should the atheists flee from the glory of proclaiming God-knowledge. If truth is part of God's image, than admission that science cannot prove the existence of God is an embrace of divine truth. This is actually the approach des Cartes took to proving God's existence, I believe. Baudrillard took the opposite approach of noting how the Catholics at the time of the iconoclast were completely content to accept the church as simulacra without really believing in any God behind the representations. In other words, the people who truly don't care about God's existence are the one's who accept the church unproblematically as a social institution. Questioning church-life and religion requires a certain will to God, and atheism's denial of God's existence requires a will to truth that surmounts the will to conform to social belief that recognizes human authority and power as supreme in the universe.

 

[JoeDawg]

I would even say that the holy spirit means exactly that, the subjective form of God-power as it exists within human individuals.

Like I said before, you're redefining words. I'm not sure why you seem to be obsessed with using religious language to describe things which even you claim are not religious in nature. I suppose this is part of supporting your claim that theology is somehow central... but all you are really doing is using words out of context... to confuse, which I suppose is one of the standard shell game strategies for theology. So I guess it fits.

Claiming a personal religious truth enables you to stand up to the theists you disagree with.

No, then its just dogma vs dogma. A good example of this would be what happened with Communism vs Christianity. Ideology vs ideology gets you nowhere quick.

Claiming atheism only enables you to reject and flee from them.

I don't see any need to flee... reject works for me though.

Many atheists have a deeper faith in possibility of ultimate truth than many church-goers, so why should the atheists flee from the glory of proclaiming God-knowledge.

Because as human beings, we have no access to truth, only evidence and logical theories. Proclaiming 'glory' and 'truth', is simply mouthing empty platitudes and apeing religion.