Topic: Are atheists more "moral" than Christians? (Read 15201 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #40 on:** May 26, 2006, 01:26:46 PM »

Trust me. "Heresy" will bore you out of your mind.

"I'm not sure I see where you're going with this."

I know you don't. I'm going to try to explain something to you that would be a lot easier to do if we were sitting face to face. Given the medium, I'm trying to think of a way that will help initiate you into what I think you will have to agree (even without knowing what it is yet) is a whole different way of looking at the world. So, I ask you for your patience. I'm trying to explain to you the Christian paradigm, and its definately of more value than a pairofnickles (badduhboom).

"Well, it used to be gold and silver."

Right. But why should gold and silver have any value? Why, for example did we have gold and silver standards but not copper, zinc, or even steel standards? Do gold and silver have intrinsic value?

"Now, it's not much of anything except that we all agree that it has value. It's easier to carry around little pieces of paper than to lug things around to trade."

That puts the finger on it pretty well. The gold and silver standards co-existed with paper money in a way that assured folks that their paper money would be linked to something with more objective value than pieces of paper we agreed were valuable. You could go and get a certain amount of gold and silver for it... but from what source does the gold and silver get ITS value?

Isn't it really the case that even the value that gold and silver had came from our mutual agreement that it had value?

I don't think anyone would think that gold and silver has intrinsic value for its own sake. Would you agree with me that any and all item or material that we might discuss as having value only has that value because we agree between ourselves that it has value?

Ragnar · « **Reply #41 on:** May 26, 2006, 02:53:45 PM »

Isn't it really the case that even the value that gold and silver had came from our mutual agreement that it had value?

I don't think anyone would think that gold and silver has intrinsic value for its own sake. Would you agree with me that any and all item or material that we might discuss as having value only has that value because we agree between ourselves that it has value?

Well, gold and silver isn't really the same as paper, because there is a finite amount of gold and silver. Environmentalists aside, paper money can be made anytime we feel like it, dependent only on other economic factors that start to get beyond me, but having nothing to do with the ready availability of paper.

Silver is rarer than paper, and gold is rarer than silver. Diamonds are rarer than gold - rare enough that it wouldn't have made sense to base currency on diamonds, because there just aren't enough diamonds.

So beyond our mutual agreement of what has value, value is also determined by how rare a substance is. Of course, something that is rare is valuable only if a lot of people want it, just like something that a lot of people want is not necessarily valuable if they are easy to get. It's supply and demand.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #42 on:** May 26, 2006, 03:18:40 PM »

Sure. They key in all of this is that something only has value if someone wants it. We decide what is valuable and what isn't. Gold may be rare, but if we are in the desert water will be far more valuable to us than gold ever could. And yet, we need water, and not gold, so even when we have plenty of it, you could argue its something of value.

But again, only insofar as it is of some benefit to us, does it have value. The thing does not have value. A THING only has value insofar as WE value it.

A fair summary?

Copernicus · « **Reply #43 on:** May 26, 2006, 04:33:21 PM »

That's a very good way of putting it, sntjohnny. Ragnar said roughly the same thing. He just put it in terms of a market, which is governed by supply and demand. That is what gives things value. Money is a proxy for the goods and services that are supplied and demanded, and that is how it acquires its real value. It's value changes when people reassess its value as a proxy. So, if gasoline becomes scarce, the value of money declines relative to that commodity. More money is required to purchase gasoline. We can print more money, but that only causes inflation. It is the supply of gasoline that is desired. Having a gold standard (a relatively fixed amount of money) prevents inflation by preventing people from increasing the supply of the money proxy. It doesn't address the underlying supply of the desired commodity.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #44 on:** May 26, 2006, 09:01:41 PM »

So, before I expound on it as it relates to this seeming paradox in Christian theism, let's pull up just short.

Given that things do not have value unless WE value them (impart value onto it), from where might we say that WE derive OUR value from?

Does it still reduce to collective agreement?

Copernicus · « **Reply #45 on:** May 26, 2006, 10:05:37 PM »

That's not a question that has a simple answer. Value is a scalar concept. At one end of the scale is necessity--food, shelter, safety. At the other end is convenience--the freedom and power to indulge our whims--entertainment, relaxation, pleasure.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #46 on:** May 26, 2006, 10:40:44 PM »

Well, give it a shot. Do humans have inherent value, or do they only derive their value from common agreement by other humans?

If you'd prefer not to offer an answer, I'll wait for Ragnar's response. If he doesn't want to try his hand at an answer, I'll skip it and go on to the paradox.

Copernicus · « **Reply #47 on:** May 27, 2006, 12:37:50 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Well, give it a shot. Do humans have inherent value, or do they only derive their value from common agreement by other humans?

Nothing has "inherent" value. All senses of value imply a scale on which to rank the object in comparison to other objects. What is the scale of value that you are talking about? Importance to the welfare of society? Importance to my personal welfare? Importance to the continued existence of life on earth? I can't really answer the question unless you clarify the sense of "value" that you want us to measure humans on.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #48 on:** May 27, 2006, 01:17:53 AM »

"Nothing has "inherent" value."

Right. So, as such, how does one get from that position to Ragnar's position that an atheist would nonetheless say, "I would definitely prefer that my doctor was an atheist." or, "The atheist knows the universe is not perfect, and wants to do all they can to improve themselves and their environment." or, "As a corollary, the atheist would do all they can to stave off death" ?

Nobody in this view has an inherent or intrinsic value. The measurement framework reduces simply to one's own set of interests. Why should an atheistic doctor perceive that life of ANOTHER has value? That he would perceive that his own life has value is self-evident. Perhaps the atheistic doctor in Ragnar's scenario values feeling good about himself, and so out of purely selfish reasons tries to 'stave off death,' but this is still centered in on his own person.

If we say that people only have 'value' because people have agreed that people have 'value,' what is to keep people from deciding in this place or that that people don't have value, or this particular group of people doesn't have value? And in such a situation, on what grounds could you disagree with them? Some people value butter, others value milk. Neither has inherent value- they only have the value that people decide amongst themselves to give?

To step in when some group of people decides that one group of people have no value (and act on it) is to affirm somehow that there is a HIGHER value that allows you to trump THEIR value...

Or, it reduces again to just one group of people feeling better about themselves when they stop others from wiping out or exterminating another group of people....

Christianity resolves this all with a paradox.

Ragnar · « **Reply #49 on:** May 27, 2006, 10:03:21 AM »

Ah, now I see a little bit where you're going with this. I'm still not sure how you can resolve the paradox, though.

At any rate, I don't believe humans have inherent value. I know that I don't want to die, and I know that I don't want others to purposely cause me harm or discomfort, so I try not to harm others. I believe you call this the Golden Rule

However, I also believe that if every individual acts in his own best interests, then everyone can get ahead, at least as much as your ability will allow.

Doctors try to save lives because that is their job. That is what they get paid for. The better they are able to do their job, the more they can advance, and the more job satisfaction they have. I'm not denying that there can also be an emotional aspect when someone's life is at stake, but I think a doctor needs to know how to set aside emotional responses in some cases in order to be the most effective at their job.

The point I made about the atheist not accepting death as readily as the Christian was illustrated well on a recent episode of the TV show "Grey's Anatomy." A patient was waiting for a heart transplant. He was on the list, but several had fell through already for various reasons. He signed a DNR because he said he was tired of fighting. This wasn't an issue of him living like a vegetable for the rest of his life. If he crashed they could resuscitate him, and it would be possible for him to recover when a heart became available. But he said "I believe in Heaven. If it's a choice between living in this hospital and Heaven, I choose Heaven."

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #50 on:** May 27, 2006, 11:36:34 AM »

"Ah, now I see a little bit where you're going with this. I'm still not sure how you can resolve the paradox, though."

Soon. :)

"At any rate, I don't believe humans have inherent value."

Yup. So long as people as a group happen to share the views you do about the Golden Rule, which pretends that others have value, it may very well work out. The problem is when you are faced with individuals or groups that refuse to go along with your premise. Say, right now the genocide that is plunking along right now in the Darfur region of the Sudan. They don't value a certain class of folks... who are we to say that they are wrong without either,

A. Appealing to some 'higher' value or
B. merely trying to make ourselves feel better as individuals? (ie, we get warm and fuzzy when we save people, but don't want to attribute any 'higher' notion to it)

"Doctors try to save lives because that is their job. That is what they get paid for. The better they are able to do their job, the more they can advance, and the more job satisfaction they have."

Sure, and clearly you could argue that they are looking to their own self-satisfaction in doing that job. It need not mean at all that the people he's helping have value in his eyes.

"The point I made about the atheist not accepting death as readily as the Christian was illustrated well on a recent episode of the TV show "Grey's Anatomy."

Ok, but now let's contrast that with a real life example- the Terry Schiavo case.

This makes a good segue into the paradox, but I'll leave you one more post to react to this one. Euthanasia is commonly condemned by Christians, but it is commonly supported by non-Christian doctors. IE, the proof is in the pudding, and the truth seems to be that secular doctors tend to value life entirely differently than you suppose. The 'Right to Die' movement is packed with secularists, while those who oppose them are 'Religious Right Groups.'

So, given the actual facts on the ground- regardless of whether or not you think either side is acting inconsistently, wouldn't you prefer to have Terri Schiavo's parents on your side instead of Michael Schiavo? When the chips are down- even if you can make no sense of it- don't the real manifestations of the belief systems suggest to you that you'd prefer to have the Christian doctor that bizarrely fights for every life as a matter of principle even while the person is at the gates of heaven than the Atheist doctor only fighting for his paycheck, and perhaps some warm and fuzziness in his own body?

Deep Thought · « **Reply #51 on:** May 27, 2006, 02:05:38 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar

Doctors try to save lives because that is their job. That is what they get paid for. The better they are able to do their job, the more they can advance, and the more job satisfaction they have. I'm not denying that there can also be an emotional aspect when someone's life is at stake, but I think a doctor needs to know how to set aside emotional responses in some cases in order to be the most effective at their job.

Most especially surgeons and such like, as they're the ones who'll have to deal with the most emotional strain.

Quote

The point I made about the atheist not accepting death as readily as the Christian was illustrated well on a recent episode of the TV show "Grey's Anatomy." A patient was waiting for a heart transplant. He was on the list, but several had fell through already for various reasons. He signed a DNR because he said he was tired of fighting. This wasn't an issue of him living like a vegetable for the rest of his life. If he crashed they could resuscitate him, and it would be possible for him to recover when a heart became available. But he said "I believe in Heaven. If it's a choice between living in this hospital and Heaven, I choose Heaven."

Well, if someone believes there's an after, OF COURSE they'll be more accepting of death. The atheist looks at death as the end, right? And who wants to end? I don't.

I don't see how that makes a Christian's mindset more or less moral, though.

Cogito · « **Reply #52 on:** May 28, 2006, 08:45:17 AM »

Quote

Well, if someone believes there's an after, OF COURSE they'll be more accepting of death. The atheist looks at death as the end, right? And who wants to end? I don't.

I don't see how that makes a Christian's mindset more or less moral, though.

I can see how it could.

Some true-believing Christians do not take their children to doctors when those children fall ill or have serious accidents. Instead, they leave their fates to the will of God.

To me, that is a result of having faith in God and in an after-life and it is immoral.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #53 on:** May 28, 2006, 09:27:20 AM »

Those are profoundly rare events. 1 in a hundred million Christian circumstances.

I'm willing to bet that you are thinking of "Christian Scientists," who behave the way you say but not for the reasons you cite. And are not Christians. They are gnostics under the Christian label.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #54 on:** May 28, 2006, 09:55:30 AM »

Quote from: Cogito

I can see how it could.

Some true-believing Christians do not take their children to doctors when those children fall ill or have serious accidents. Instead, they leave their fates to the will of God.

To me, that is a result of having faith in God and in an after-life and it is immoral.

I wouldn't call that "immoral" so much as "idiotic," but I see where it's coming from.

In any case, that kind of behavior is not intrinsic in the mindset, only an extreme it's taken to--an extreme, moreover, for which the mindset displays no real reasons for that I can see.

It's quite rare, though, so far as my knowledge goes. The only time I heard of that kind of thing, I think it involved a Jehovah's Witness family...

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #55 on:** May 28, 2006, 10:09:38 AM »

Yes, that's right. The JWs would also be an example of a group that would do such a thing, in particular with blood transfusions. Again, its another gnostic group, but not nearly as profoundly so as the Christian Scientists are.

Cogito · « **Reply #56 on:** May 28, 2006, 08:49:47 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

I wouldn't call that "immoral" so much as "idiotic," but I see where it's coming from.

Allowing a child to die is only idiotic to you, but not immoral?

Interesting.

Can you clarify what you mean by "I see where it's coming from"? Does this mean that you find such behavior in any way justifiable?

Quote from: Deep Thought

In any case, that kind of behavior is not intrinsic in the mindset, only an extreme it's taken to--an extreme, moreover, for which the mindset displays no real reasons for that I can see.

But you just said that you can "see where it's coming from."

No real reasons? How about this? These people believe that an omnipotent, omniscient being actually exists with whom they can communicate. If their belief is true then this being can heal their children of any disease or illness of which the being desires to heal them. Medical science in this case ought to be strictly superfluous and not the curative agent. Even many so-called mainstream Christians believe that God works his will through medicine. These others simply decide to skip the middle man.

Quote from: Deep Thought

It's quite rare, though, so far as my knowledge goes.

Quote

J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion, was interviewed on this topic by ABC News duirng 2002-OCT. He said that since the 1960s, there have been increasing numbers of members of other denominations ["others" besides Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists] who have been charged with crimes for turning to prayer rather than medicine for their kids. These are often members of Charismatic Christian groups. They emphasize the power of the Holy Spirit and point to certain scriptures, notably from Acts and Paul's epistles. Being from conservative Christian denominations, many believe that God inspired the authors of the bible to write text that is free of errors -- inerrant. Certain texts in the Bible promise healing to believers who pray, or go through certain rituals. They are driven by their religious beliefs to trust prayer -- perhaps in place of medical assistance.

A better question, perhaps, would be, Are atheists more moral than theists? It's the whole "faith versus reason" thing that we're discussing, isn't it?

Christians, like other theists, are odd in that they believe that it is entirely reasonable to believe their unjustified claims but that it's not reasonable to believe any other faith's unjustified claims. Like the old saw goes, Christians are just as atheistic as atheists are about all beliefs in gods except one.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #57 on:** May 28, 2006, 09:24:36 PM »

Quote from: Cogito

Quote from: Deep Thought
I wouldn't call that "immoral" so much as "idiotic," but I see where it's coming from.

Allowing a child to die is only idiotic to you, but not immoral?

Interesting.

Can you clarify what you mean by "I see where it's coming from"? Does this mean that you find such behavior in any way justifiable?

No, it's actually very immoral, by my reckoning of immoral. It's just more idiotic than immoral, by leagues and lightyears. The more important points were the rarity of it, and the fact that it's not even close to a required extreme of the mindset.

Quote from: Deep Thought

But you just said that you can "see where it's coming from."

Oops, slip of the hand. Meant where "you're" coming from. Moving on...

Quote

No real reasons? How about this? These people believe that an omnipotent, omniscient being actually exists with whom they can communicate. If their belief is true then this being can heal their children of any disease or illness of which the being desires to heal them. Medical science in this case ought to be strictly superfluous and not the curative agent. Even many so-called mainstream Christians believe that God works his will through medicine. These others simply decide to skip the middle man.

And those others are just speculative morons. So? What "ought to be" doesn't matter. I've been stressing that bloody point for eons and eons, Cog.

Quote

Quote
J. Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion, was interviewed on this topic by ABC News duirng 2002-OCT. He said that since the 1960s, there have been increasing numbers of members of other denominations ["others" besides Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists] who have been charged with crimes for turning to prayer rather than medicine for their kids. These are often members of Charismatic Christian groups. They emphasize the power of the Holy Spirit and point to certain scriptures, notably from Acts and Paul's epistles. Being from conservative Christian denominations, many believe that God inspired the authors of the bible to write text that is free of errors -- inerrant. Certain texts in the Bible promise healing to believers who pray, or go through certain rituals. They are driven by their religious beliefs to trust prayer -- perhaps in place of medical assistance.

How is that not an unwarrented extreme?

Quote

A better question, perhaps, would be, Are atheists more moral than theists? It's the whole "faith versus reason" thing that we're discussing, isn't it?

Define "moral" and maybe we can answer that question.

Maybe.

Quote

Christians, like other theists, are odd in that they believe that it is entirely reasonable to believe their unjustified claims but that it's not reasonable to believe any other faith's unjustified claims. Like the old saw goes, Christians are just as atheistic as atheists are about all beliefs in gods except one.

Well, it's certainly not reasonable to believe in those other unjustified claims if their religious text specifically says they're false. What, pray tell, is thy point?

Cogito · « **Reply #58 on:** May 28, 2006, 10:33:11 PM »

Quote from: Deep Thought

No, [allowing a child to die] actually very immoral, by my reckoning of immoral. It's just more idiotic than immoral, by leagues and lightyears.

I respectfully disagree. I believe that it is more immoral. Human life to we humanists represents the highest value in the universe.

I do see your point (Any immoral act, from a certain point-of-view, can be viewed as an idiotic act, too) but I don't see how it relates to this thread.

Quote

And those others are just speculative morons. So?

And the others who believe in the same invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being aren't just speculative morons???

Why?

The only difference I see is that one group seems to take their beliefs seriously and is willing to act on them while the other group chooses to hedge their bets.

Quote

How is that not an unwarrented extreme?

Sorry. Now that I read my post I realize that I didn't make it clear to which of your points the quote that I copy'n'pasted referred.

It was intended to show that this type of behavior is probably not quite so "extremely rare" as some may believe it to be.

Whatever the case there, the mere fact that we both agree that it does occur and that it is a consequence of theistic belief is enough to demonstrate the point.

Quote

Well, it's certainly not reasonable to believe in those other unjustified claims if their religious text specifically says they're false. What, pray tell, is thy point?

Isn't the point obvious?

If Christians apply the same criticisms to their own religious text that they apply to other religious texts when they determine that those other religious texts are false, then if they're reasonable they would have to believe that their own religious text is false, as well.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #59 on:** May 28, 2006, 10:47:05 PM »

Quote

The only difference I see is that one group seems to take their beliefs seriously and is willing to act on them while the other group chooses to hedge their bets.

It was intended to show that this type of behavior is probably not quite so "extremely rare" as some may believe it to be.

It has nothing to do with 'believing it to be' anything. It is rare. The JWs and Christian Scientists are an extremely small set of people, are not even orthodox Christians (Christian Scientists are not Christian in any respect).

"Human life to we humanists represents the highest value in the universe."

Yes, that about sums up the view. That's why the humanists are the ones typically in favor of abortion and euthanasia, while the Christians nearly always oppose the former and largely oppose the latter.

"If Christians apply the same criticisms to their own religious text that they apply to other religious texts when they determine that those other religious texts are false, then if they're reasonable they would have to believe that their own religious text is false, as well."

That is not true. DT's point is that the Christian 'religious texts' do not support the views expressed by the JWs or Christian Scientists.

You don't need any special revelational skills to learn that either. Just use 8th grade reading comprehension and apply basic literary techniques and it comes out alright.

Author Topic: Are atheists more "moral" than Christians? (Read 15201 times)