Dumsum said:
Biblical faith is not the same as dictionary faith.
I beg to differ. Faith is belief without proof. If Biblical faith is different, please explain how it is.
Dumsum said:
MoonlightSonata said:
2. Morality. First of all you make the enormous mistake of assuming that such a thing exists.
Oh, okay. Would you kill a random person on the street? Answer honestly now. And not just "no" because you'd get busted.
Just because I would behave inline with the socially acceptable norm does not mean that there is any true right or wrong. I would recommend reading David Hume. He makes a very important point about morality. According to Hume it is a logical fallacy to go from stating propositions of fact (what is) to then conclude propositions of morality (what ought to be done). This is called the "is-ought" gap. There is absolutely no objective evidence in the world that can produce moral truths. As Hume says:
"Take any action allow’d to be vicious: Willful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice… You can never find it, till you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, toward this action. Here is a matter of fact; but ‘tis the object of feeling, not reason."
Do not rule out the very plausable possibility that morality is a fiction. It is only the work of feelings and not an objective fact.
Dumsum said:
Indeed, this is debateable, and something I'm still having trouble coming to terms with. A strong argument proposed to me once by a friend is that morality is based on society and culture--whatever you are taught as a child is what you end up believing as morally "right" or "wrong." I don't claim to have a response to that, I haven't looked into it enough. Nevertheless, the Bible is explicit. There is an objective "right" and there is an objective "wrong." I think everyone knows what they are, even if they convince themselves otherwise.
If you're interested I recommend taking a course in moral philosophy. The last part of what you refer to is called "divine command theory" -- essentially "x is good" means "God commands x". (It is unfortunately one of the worst theories out there.)
Dumsum said:
No, I haven't heard of utilitarianism. I'll have to check it out. "in ethics, the theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing about the most happiness of all those affected by it." I'll read a bit more into it, let me know if this is a good definition to start from.
Basically yes. Utilitarianism works at achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, counting each person equally. Good is usually defined as happiness or pleasure (though some have gone into more detail).
Dumsum said:
As I said before, the Bible is explicit. God tells us what is right and what is wrong, and since I believe everyone has some sense of morality, even before they are taught as a child, I believe we are created like so.
I don’t think we are. And Hume has an answer for you. Our feelings of morality stem from
empathy for other people. That is why all humans have it - because all humans have the ability to empathise with another.
I really recommend you read
A Treatise on Human Nature. Once you read through these different theories you will see there is no need to account for the unexplainable with a deity.
+Po1ntDeXt3r+ said:
its also irrational not to believe in God as we cant prove he doesnt not exist... its the converse..
No, the burden is on the person who believes in God, not the other way around. If I said that I met an alien last night you would not believe me without proof. Indeed, given the extraordinary nature of the claim, you would be acting irrationally to believe me without proof.
