Not a trick question: Why is violence bad?

[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.

 

[Pythagorean]

the holy spirit of christianity reminds me a lot of the atman of advaita school of hinduism.

 

[Math Is Hard]

This has gone way off topic, and discussions of theology and comparative religion are not suitable for this forum.