Significance And Atheism

[Alvino]

To follow on similar lines to the other, now closed, thread on hope and atheism, I think some of you might find this debate between Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig useful.

The full debate can be found easily on youtube.

I personally find Craig's account of the moral landscape left for the atheist to be very simplistic. What sayest thou?

[Maidservant]

I appreciate deeply many of the challenges that atheism provides religion, and this is particular issue is one of the more essential ones.

I cannot and will not defend 'religion' as one big team versus 'atheism', imagining it's on the 'other' side. I cannot and will not say that any religion is better than any atheism. I think there are often more healthy ways of living self-identified as an atheist than sometimes is found in living by religion (or what passes as it).

As a religionist, I have discarded this element that a cosmic significance is a necessity to doing good and being good (hate the word 'ethics', it is meaningless to me). I think that is a failing of (much of) religion.

My point of view has almost wholly been brought to the present and to the now and the only way that anything in atheism or religion can matter IS located at the position of the human (body and/or soul) and our relation to each other. There is no God necessary to that relationship. There is you and there is me. And either you are going to hurt me or help me and vice versa. We are responsible, and the buck stops here. We cannot hand it off to a future salvation, to an afterlife, to a Savior even. It's US.

What I find in Mormonism, I find this God: one, a fellow traveller. Yes, my heavenly Father and my Savior are fellow travellers (que lyrics: What if God was one of us? Just a slob like all of us, trying to get home?). In fact, I find this in the New Testament ('done unto one of the least of these my brethren'). Also in Mormonism, I find GOD, that which is sacred in all of existence just by BEING--a drop of rain, air, the struggles of humanity.

I don't think a religion is required in order to make comment on either of those Gods nor to proceed in relationship with them. We have created religions; and some people have had experiences encountering God, but these encounters are also independent of religion or ought to be (in my opinion). My religion IS being alive and being a person. (Hmmm, sounds similar to atheism . . .)

However, I do think that Jesus Christ (and heavenly Father) visited Joseph Smith and that Jesus Christ continues to lead his Church. Since I think that was the case, then it is important to me to proceed in life according to what I hear there until and unless I ever learn differently.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Maidservant

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Jeez. So many *facedesks* it's not even funny. "Naturalism" and "Theism" are perfectly compatible, especially in LDS theology. Even if they were incompatible, naturalism leaves plenty of room for non-illusory ethics and "deeper meaning", as Guy On The Left showed, and Theism has no particular advantage in establishing ethics in the first place, since it simply pushes the issue one moral agent back. (Guy On The Left was absolutely correct that evolution does not imply that ethics are illusory, since we simply create moralis/ethikos/ethos/idioma/whatever in the first place, and they're certainly not "objective" in the sense Second Guy was trying to establish.) Our moral lives might not be "meaningful" or have "cosmic significance", but they certainly have meaning to us in our little primate communities. Even if our actions don't have personal "everlasting" significance to ourselves as individuals, we're still responsible for what we do and any pain we may cause. Even if all we are is a temporary swirl of particles which will dissolve upon our deaths (in a different way, apparently, than how we're dissolving all the time throughout life, with every atom in our bodies being switched out and replaced every five years or so, and dust being something like eighty percent dead skin cells we've shed), we're still part of the universe/kosmos, and so when we feel pain, that is of "cosmic" significance. "Inconsequential" is of course a relative term, and there are certainly consequences in our daily lives that we should be morally accountable for. "Theism" provides no particular "moral accountability" - the term "moral" isn't even found in the Bible, and it certainly doesn't teach us particularly good morals in some places, what with all the, y'know, genocides.

Guy On The Left owned Guy On The Right but good.

[Or, you know, what Maidservant said much more nicely.]

Edited January 26, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Alvino]

Jeez. So many *facedesks* it's not even funny.

What other things said in the discussion in that video gave you reasons to facedesk? In this post you only mentioned one, I think.

"Naturalism" and "Theism" are perfectly compatible, especially in LDS theology.

Well, WLC is a protestant Christian; you can't really blame in on Kagan there for addressing the beliefs of his debating opponent and of a vast majority of Christian believers.

I wonder what kind of nature you think God has, miracles, spirits, etc.

Even if they were incompatible, naturalism leaves plenty of room for non-illusory ethics and "deeper meaning", as Guy On The Left showed, and Theism has no particular advantage in establishing ethics in the first place, since it simply pushes the issue one moral agent back. (Guy On The Left was absolutely correct that evolution does not imply that ethics are illusory, since we simply create moralis/ethikos/ethos/idioma/whatever in the first place, and they're certainly not "objective" in the sense Second Guy was trying to establish.) Our moral lives might not be "meaningful" or have "cosmic significance", but they certainly have meaning to us in our little primate communities. Even if our actions don't have personal "everlasting" significance to ourselves as individuals, we're still responsible for what we do and any pain we may cause.

I don't think I disagree much here though you did say here that we create "moralist/ethikos" etc. Kagan's point, though, is that there are reasons that we recognize when we have certain intellectual capacities and that because of that we are responsible. We don't create anything, we discover morality.

Even if all we are is a temporary swirl of particles which will dissolve upon our deaths (in a different way, apparently, than how we're dissolving all the time throughout life, with every atom in our bodies being switched out and replaced every five years or so, and dust being something like eighty percent dead skin cells we've shed), we're still part of the universe/kosmos, and so when we feel pain, that is of "cosmic" significance.

It isn't that what once made us up is gone and now we have other atoms and molecules but that structures of atoms give rise to memories, interests, worries, tendencies, intelligences, etc. To die is to be denatured, not just to have atoms gone. Just addressing what you wrote in parenthesis. About the cosmic significance, I think Kagan was just granting as much as possible just to have a more fruitful conversation but there are definitely problems with such an idea as that of 'cosmic significance'. Certainly that I last forever doesn't mean what happens to me will have absolute cosmic significance because I'm just not the whole cosmos. We have to grant more to show the believer where her real problem lies, though. Showing that the idea of cosmic significance is to arbitrary or too slippery to manage more rigorously probably won't help the believer to either see what the cause of her anguish is or to dispel it.

"Inconsequential" is of course a relative term, and there are certainly consequences in our daily lives that we should be morally accountable for. "Theism" provides no particular "moral accountability" - the term "moral" isn't even found in the Bible, and it certainly doesn't teach us particularly good morals in some places, what with all the, y'know, genocides.

Inconsequential isn't relative as used in such philosophical discussions. It simply means something like the following: A or B are inconsequential to C if you could go either way, A or B, and nothing about the truth of C would change. That's a matter of logical consistency, nothing relative about that.

Also, that the word "moral" isn't used in the Bible doesn't mean the Bible doesn't shed light or answer questions about what's moral or not. Even if the authors were ignorant of ethics they could have been doing ethics unbeknownst to them.

Now, there is a way Kagan granted that Theism could provide a satisfactory theory of moral accountability and that is if there is a God who will enforce just punishments and just rewards. In WLC's version of Christianity it doesn't really seem to work, though, but there is a way in which a world where Theism is true could have an advantage over one where it isn't.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Alvino

[TAO]

Alvino, that is one of the pros/cons (depending on how you look at it)... divine justice. The idea that you will be punished or rewarded for your acts regardless of whether any other human sees you or not.

Edited January 26, 2013 by TAO

[Mudcat]

I personally find Craig's account of the moral landscape left for the atheist to be very simplistic. What sayest thou?

I think Craig's depicition of it is accurate. I think what Kagan did was to attempt to establish some meaning to that moral landscape.

[Alvino]

I think Craig's depicition of it is accurate. I think what Kagan did was to attempt to establish some meaning to that moral landscape.

Reasons for why you think this would be appreciated.

[Rivers]

I appreciate deeply many of the challenges that atheism provides religion, and this is particular issue is one of the more essential ones.

I cannot and will not defend 'religion' as one big team versus 'atheism', imagining it's on the 'other' side. I cannot and will not say that any religion is better than any atheism. I think there are often more healthy ways of living self-identified as an atheist than sometimes is found in living by religion (or what passes as it).

Same here. If I decided I didn't want to be a mormon anymore, I would probably be an agnostic.

[Mudcat]

Reasons for why you think this would be appreciated.

Sure Alvino!

Based on what the video you posted. I'd say a couple of things. First off, I haven't watched the whole debate but will when I have time. From what I did see, this may be the most challenging debate Craig has had with an atheist, so I am interested in how it plays out. Based on their conversation, it seems Craig has granted a premise or two, which is something that is unusual and speaks well to his opponents points.

Secondly Kagan is an excellent communicator and seem to know his own topic quite well. Seems he is challenging Craigs well rehearsed argument about that God is most the logical reason that objective morality is true. Rather than try and dismantle Craig's argument it seems like he more or less disregards it and then Kagan seems to present his own ethical theory. Not quite sure what it is completely, though it sounds like an "is/ought" utilitarian type theory.

Kagan seems to assert, based on his own theory, that there are things that are wrong and right and that their doesn't have to be some sort of overarching "Cosmic" standard of morality that Craig's argument provides, for such things to be objectively true. He was saying something along the lines, that because 'what good he did had no cosmic value, didn't mean that he didn't think it was objectively good.'

Realistically, what he is offering a well presented theory of rational moral relativism.But he doesn't seem to be able to completely tie that bow, because he hasn't taken down Craig's argument. He just side stepped it. Honestly this was probably the best thing he could have done, because I don't think Craig's argument can be dismantled and it allowed him time to forward a fairly compelling alternate of how morality might work, if there was no God... But his assertion that such a theory is "objective" is by no means true in the sense of "objectivity" as Craig is utilizing.

Kagan made his case and possibly is a better communicator than Craig, but Craig keeps the point though. As I said, this is likely the best debate snippet of Craig's that I have watched. It's the closest thing to a tie that I have seen. Kagan took a different approach than Craig's other debaters... if it was a game of chess, he seemed to be playing for a stalemate rather than a victory, which was to his benefit I think.

I see one significant mistake that Kagan made. He was actually getting Craig out of his comfort zone, when he pointed out that Craig's beliefs were that there was a backend payment for doing good in an eternal sense. But dropped his line and went back to his own ideas. He had been letting Craigs objective premise stand anyways, so he could have just openly granted it and could have challenged the view that if that is true, then good actions are just a form of some sort of eternal narcissim and therefore are possibly self refuting as actually being good. I would like to have seen Craig's response if he had.

At least that my two bits.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited January 26, 2013 by Mudcat

[pogi]

My point of view has almost wholly been brought to the present and to the now and the only way that anything in atheism or religion can matter IS located at the position of the human (body and/or soul) and our relation to each other. There is no God necessary to that relationship. There is you and there is me. And either you are going to hurt me or help me and vice versa. We are responsible, and the buck stops here. We cannot hand it off to a future salvation, to an afterlife, to a Savior even. It's US.

I like what you have to say, but disagree with the part I bolded and underlined. First, we would not exist without God to have a relationship. There is you and there is me because there is a God. Second, a healthy loving relationship cannot exist without God's influence whether you acknowledge Him or not. I do take credit and responsibility for my choices, but I do not take credit for the good that comes from my choices.

[thesometimesaint]

It is really pretty simple. Show me what you do, and I'll know what what you believe.

[changed]

... our relation to each other. ... There is you and there is me. And either you are going to hurt me or help me and vice versa. ..

I agree that the purpose of morality is to improve our relationships with one another, and our relationship with ourself.

I think that belief in an afterlife raises the bar though, because eternal moral goals transcend what can be achieved in mortality. With eternity, love becomes grander. With God there is something greater to be humble towards, there is a deeper amount of faith and trust, and of coarse the atonement provides a level of forgiveness and hope that is unattainable in the secular world. In comparison to the loftier goals that come from an eternal perspective, the morals of limited mortality seem to be more along the lines of "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" 2 Nephi 28:7 which rob those of limited perspectives of realizing their greater potential, with greater depths within our relationships.

Edited January 26, 2013 by changed

[Calm]

Show me what you do, and I'll know what what you believe.

I would change that last part to "what you value" because I know plenty of people who believe quite strongly, for example, that exercise is good for them and still don't do it because they value their comfort more.

[changed]

I would change that last part to "what you value" because I know plenty of people who believe quite strongly, for example, that exercise is good for them and still don't do it because they value their comfort more.

there are also those Pharisees who go through the motions, but miss the spirit. It's best if both the outside and the inside of the cup are clean.

[mfbukowski]

I haven't read the thread but I have listened to the video. The editing makes it appear pretty one sided- I wonder if it really was that bad for Craig.

I wish I could root for Craig because he is a Religionist- YAY!- but no I can't. He makes a poor argument in my opinion, at least in this edited version.

Hume showed that values and reason are on independent tracks, as it were.

Because Craig ultimately has to uphold Neoplatonic views because of his sectarian Christian view, he is stuck in an untenable position in linking "cosmic significance" to all that is good true and beautiful. There is no such link.

This is a good article on the subject and I think shows where Craig's position goes wrong.

Hume's position in ethics, which is based on his empiricist theory of the mind, is best known for asserting four theses: (1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions” (see Section 3) (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason (see Section 4). (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action (see Section 7). (4) While some virtues and vices are natural (see Section 13), others, including justice, are artificial (see Section 9). There is heated debate about what Hume intends by each of these theses and how he argues for them. He articulates and defends them within the broader context of his metaethics and his ethic of virtue and vice.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/

In my opinion, there needs to be no conflict between an atheistic view of ethics and a theist view- indeed I think that they can both be based on an affirmation of what we call "humanism"- the affirmation that human life is to be affirmed and upheld at all costs, postulated simply as a moral axiom with no other basis necessary.

This of course fits well with Mormonism when one realizes that indeed if God is a man, man is the measure of all things and humanistic values are indeed theistic values.

Craig is stuck upholding outmoded Neoplatonic ideas which Mormons have no need to uphold.

I am super busy and though this looks like a very interesting thread I am not sure when or if I will be able to get into it. I just wanted to put in my two cents- as I said I have not yet read past the OP and may not!

[Mudcat]

In my opinion, there needs to be no conflict between an atheistic view of ethics and a theist view- indeed I think that they can both be based on an affirmation of what we call "humanism"- the affirmation that human life is to be affirmed and upheld at all costs, postulated simply as a moral axiom with no other basis necessary.

This of course fits well with Mormonism when one realizes that indeed if God is a man, man is the measure of all things and humanistic values are indeed theistic values.

Craig is stuck upholding outmoded Neoplatonic ideas which Mormons have no need to uphold.

I am super busy and though this looks like a very interesting thread I am not sure when or if I will be able to get into it. I just wanted to put in my two cents- as I said I have not yet read past the OP and may not!

Bold mine underline mine.That is an interesting take Bukowski.

I had always been under the impression that LDS thought that there was some overarching prinicple about morality that God adhered to. Sort of like mathematics, 2+2=4 no matter where you live.

So do you think God adheres to an axiomatic postulation that comes from something other than himself, or do you think God determines what is axiomatically true?

edit add.. yes it's a Euthyphro redux, but I am curious to see your answer

Edited January 27, 2013 by Mudcat

[Alvino]

Sure Alvino!

Based on what the video you posted. I'd say a couple of things. First off, I haven't watched the whole debate but will when I have time. From what I did see, this may be the most challenging debate Craig has had with an atheist, so I am interested in how it plays out. Based on their conversation, it seems Craig has granted a premise or two, which is something that is unusual and speaks well to his opponents points.

That is unusual indeed.

Secondly Kagan is an excellent communicator and seem to know his own topic quite well. Seems he is challenging Craigs well rehearsed argument about that God is most the logical reason that objective morality is true. Rather than try and dismantle Craig's argument it seems like he more or less disregards it and then Kagan seems to present his own ethical theory. Not quite sure what it is completely, though it sounds like an "is/ought" utilitarian type theory.

Kagan seems to assert, based on his own theory, that there are things that are wrong and right and that their doesn't have to be some sort of overarching "Cosmic" standard of morality that Craig's argument provides, for such things to be objectively true. He was saying something along the lines, that because 'what good he did had no cosmic value, didn't mean that he didn't think it was objectively good.'

They were talking about cosmic significance, though, not cosmic standard of morality. Craig argues that there are no objective moral values if God doesn't exist because, without God, helping people (for example) has no cosmic significance even if it matters to the people involved. In fact, Kagan does believe there are objective reasons to not, say, kill our neighbors for entertainment and that these reasons don't depend on anyone but are discovered.

Realistically, what he is offering a well presented theory of rational moral relativism. But he doesn't seem to be able to completely tie that bow, because he hasn't taken down Craig's argument. He just side stepped it. Honestly this was probably the best thing he could have done, because I don't think Craig's argument can be dismantled and it allowed him time to forward a fairly compelling alternate of how morality might work, if there was no God... But his assertion that such a theory is "objective" is by no means true in the sense of "objectivity" as Craig is utilizing.

Mudcat, utilitarian theories of ethics are the exact opposite of moral relativism. Look, Craig argues for his premises by saying they are true given that without a God objective value doesn't exist - that is, without God what we do has no cosmic significance so what we do, good or evil, is insignificant through and through. Kagan rejects that, which means that Craig's argument can't even get off the ground. I don't understand why you say Kagan somehow dodged Craig's argument when he is directly attacking one of its supporting pillars.

Kagan made his case and possibly is a better communicator than Craig, but Craig keeps the point though. As I said, this is likely the best debate snippet of Craig's that I have watched. It's the closest thing to a tie that I have seen. Kagan took a different approach than Craig's other debaters... if it was a game of chess, he seemed to be playing for a stalemate rather than a victory, which was to his benefit I think.

Craig doesn't tend to debate professional philosophers and the other two times (besides this) I've seen him do it he really ends up looking like a layman.

[Alvino]

I haven't read the thread but I have listened to the video. The editing makes it appear pretty one sided- I wonder if it really was that bad for Craig.

In this video the editing actually made Craig look less bad in the Q&A. You may find the whole video on youtube and skip to the Q&A.

I wish I could root for Craig because he is a Religionist- YAY!- but no I can't. He makes a poor argument in my opinion, at least in this edited version.

Hume showed that values and reason are on independent tracks, as it were.

Because Craig ultimately has to uphold Neoplatonic views because of his sectarian Christian view, he is stuck in an untenable position in linking "cosmic significance" to all that is good true and beautiful. There is no such link.

This is a good article on the subject and I think shows where Craig's position goes wrong.

http://plato.stanfor...ies/hume-moral/

In my opinion, there needs to be no conflict between an atheistic view of ethics and a theist view- indeed I think that they can both be based on an affirmation of what we call "humanism"- the affirmation that human life is to be affirmed and upheld at all costs, postulated simply as a moral axiom with no other basis necessary.

I'm sure you can see the problems with said supposed axiom, specially given the Bible (Noah's story, Abram/Isaac, etc). I don't get how that's relevant, though.

This of course fits well with Mormonism when one realizes that indeed if God is a man, man is the measure of all things and humanistic values are indeed theistic values.

You would need more to justify that because even if God were a man I don't see how you go from that to, "then man is the measure of all things." God may be a man and morals not depend on him or on any other man, for that matter.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Alvino

[Maidservant]

I like what you have to say, but disagree with the part I bolded and underlined. First, we would not exist without God to have a relationship. There is you and there is me because there is a God. Second, a healthy loving relationship cannot exist without God's influence whether you acknowledge Him or not. I do take credit and responsibility for my choices, but I do not take credit for the good that comes from my choices.

This is also what I believe about myself, for myself. Although I would then elaborate that there is not a huge distinction between myself and God--it's all US. As you know, in Mormonism we say that we are co-eternal with God, so to say definitively that we would not exist without God, I don't think Mormonism even makes that claim in terms of heavenly Father. But I also imagine GOD to be LIFE, and if there is LIFE breathed into the universe, this is God/is created by God (same thing to me).

I also believe about myself, for myself that a healthy, loving relationship cannot exist without God's influence whether you acknowledge Him or not--I rely on this moment by moment in my ability to have relationships. I also know for myself that all that I see out there that is good, including what is good, in atheism, arises from this GOD/LIFE. It's the same garden we are all growing in, whatever we call it.

However, when I speak to another human being, I let them tell me their experiences. When I say "God is not necessary for that relationship" or something similar, I think this is also true in the sense that a human being may say, "I do not worship God (or as I have ever understood him, which is likely not the God I worship either, a God that I have discarded due to my acceptance of a God I learned in the Church and with personal revelation), I do not think there is a God, BUT I love you and I love people and I will treat people right." I think that a person who thinks this way, who has arrived at this conclusion in their life is also correct. (Reason? Because they are God/man or man/God, just as we all are. So if THAT person determines to love, then THAT person is God/life/love. There doesn't need to be another.)

I think that all love out there is from the Spirit and/or the light of Christ. That is my understanding of how it works in the energetic universe, in the energetic mortal world we find ourselves in. But there is no necessity of me convincing someone otherwise, because it is just as practically true that 'God is not necessary' at least to the thought processes of the person who thinks so. It's a local effect that 'God is not necessary'. It's not my job to make choices for them or convince them that their paradigm is incorrect; I take it as my place to affirm the best of where they are at: "Neighbor, it's obvious that you are a good, loving person, and you did this without God [or as he understands, from my point of view, but we aren't at my point of view at that point]."

So I find "Love comes from God" and "Love comes from people (without God)" to be almost identical sentences; and that the LOVE part of the sentence to be the most important one I want to nurture in myself and in others. Because even those of us who believe in God have a wide spectrum of ideas on his nature, but still we emphasize, I hope the LOVE part rather than the KIND OF GOD. So I can't really disagree with an atheist who has a problem with an old God on a throne ruling the universe and who condemns people (to just reference a meme), because I discarded that kind of God a long time ago also. I'm an atheist to that kind of God (for example).

So the LOVE part is the most critical part to me; and the GOD part--well, we'll find out won't we? who saw the best through the glass darkly?

For me, I agree with you, and that is how I see the universe, yes. I can also say that I believe I am good because of God, because I've had personal experience on that. But I also think that God has taught me (only speaking of myself and the lessons I needed) to care strongly and strongly and more strongly about what I choose and to not 'wait' for him all the time--to know myself, and to know principles, and not to reference whether or not 'God will judge me' or 'I'm doing this for the celestial kingdom'. I don't think that's what you're saying either.

In a worldwide communal sense, I maintain that a reference to God is NOT necessary to loving relationships--just a reference to ourselves as (sacred) human beings; and that there should not be criticism afforded anyone willing to love and be good on any basis they have chosen for themselves--and I tend to think God/heavenly Father would agree with me. Or as I understand.

I agree that the purpose of morality is to improve our relationships with one another, and our relationship with ourself.

I think that belief in an afterlife raises the bar though, because eternal moral goals transcend what can be achieved in mortality. With eternity, love becomes grander. With God there is something greater to be humble towards, there is a deeper amount of faith and trust, and of coarse the atonement provides a level of forgiveness and hope that is unattainable in the secular world. In comparison to the loftier goals that come from an eternal perspective, the morals of limited mortality seem to be more along the lines of "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" 2 Nephi 28:7 which rob those of limited perspectives of realizing their greater potential, with greater depths within our relationships.

While I can respect this approach to a degree (and I love things you have to say), I just don't agree with it or at least not for everyone.

I'm an 'eternity' kind of gal when I get to daydreaming. I mean, wouldn't I like my handsome Paladin, my high priest, king and God to arrive in my life and we go on this grand adventure into eternity together, and hey, maybe we even knew each other in the pre-existence and fell in love there!!

But I don't know if that's the deal, really. And what is it that God is going to give me in any future that he hasn't already given me here?

I find life as it is now to be unutterably precious and sacred, and I think this is what God wants me to know. He has brought my sight back to more humbler, immediate, NOW things. That messy life IS the answer.

But I know that is what I choose to believe, so again, I respect what you think and why. But I don't think it's necessary to find things grander or more longer time to be

precious and depending on the paradigm, may even be the opposite--that what is fleeting is more precious.

I consider and experience myself as an eternal being. I don't think this mortal life is my first trip around the multi-metaverse block, so to speak. I have been around for eons. And if I am here, in mortality, it is because I deliberately participated for some very important reasons of which I was once completely aware and of which are slowly being revealed to me over time due to the covenant I have with my heavenly Father. And I love knowing that I am eternal. And I think that my progress in eternity ought to result in me being a burning being of light in constant ecstacy (sanctified)--unless I already was that before I arrived here (i.e. fell from that condition), haven't quite decided if that was the case or not.

But I don't know if that's "morality" proper. In a world where we are still shooting each other, I pretty much think the principle is "Stop shooting." I don't know where outside of mortality I have to go to find that principle.

If you are talking about deepening a bond between a husband and wife to cosmic levels and becoming one flesh--sure, maybe thinking on eternity and God expands these kinds of possibilities. *I* think they do. I am absolutely bought into God--I experience God constantly. God is not an opinion with me--it's my reality.

BUT in working with and being in society and fashioning 'morality' on this planet with my planetmates with a wide variety of backgrounds -- if we can't be a family and if we can't be good to each other and we can't live cleanly WITHOUT talking about God, religion, eternity, then I think we are very weak people indeed. It ought to be obvious without recourse to doctrine of any sort that we ought not to hurt each other. If we NEED a doctrine to be good to each other, then I have a hard time respecting that about ourselves, we're pretty wimpy beings, then.

Of course, there is doctrine of God, and there is experience of God/spirit/light of Christ. It ought to be obvious without God in the sentence: let's be good to each other, let's love each other, let's stop doing evil things to each other. This ought be obvious with or without a reference understanding of God, and regardless of the 'length' of time involved (ten minutes, 80 years til death, or an expanded eternity) (and it might be said that WE are the gods in that sentence, us the humans). Energetically speaking, I would say that as soon as there was love between people at any time, then God has arrived; but I might have to keep that to myself in the twinkle of my eye if the other person wasn't ready to hear that.

It doesn't take a religion for me to belong to my (earthly) family. I have a mom, 2 dads, a step mom, six siblings, spouses, kidlets. Then the in-laws of course. We agree on very little ideologically and conceptually. There is no doctrine of my family. I just get to BE a mom/wife/daughter/sister. I bring a potluck dish to Thanksgiving no matter if I have a different political and religious take on things. So this is how I view the world--I don't need to have the same conceptual conversation with my neighbor (might be atheist or hindu) about the shape of God to know that I still need to bring the potluck (treating each other right based on our properties as human beings).

the affirmation that human life is to be affirmed and upheld at all costs, postulated simply as a moral axiom with no other basis necessary.

This of course fits well with Mormonism when one realizes that indeed if God is a man, man is the measure of all things and humanistic values are indeed theistic values.

I had always been under the impression that LDS thought that there was some overarching prinicple about morality that God adhered to. Sort of like mathematics, 2+2=4 no matter where you live.

So do you think God adheres to an axiomatic postulation that comes from something other than himself, or do you think God determines what is axiomatically true?

edit add.. yes it's a Euthyphro redux, but I am curious to see your answer

I'm sure mfb will express himself much better, but you are right that many LDS have a paradigm like the one you describe. Mfbukowski and myself (if I might be so bold as to put myself anywhere near the same category) have some other elements of thought that we have arrived at in our spiritual journey that shape some of the truths we enjoy in the gospel in a little bit different shape (paradigm). Speaking only for myself, not him, I would say that the truth that there is, is located in Beings NOT outside of beings independently, some floaty essence of law out there. I would say that any law or property only arises once there is a being that would be expressing those laws or properties. And YES it is VERY different than the mechanistic universe that is often found in the thinking among LDS and even spoken of in generally by leaders (i.e. Joseph Smith's ideas).

Edited January 27, 2013 by Maidservant

[Mudcat]

That is unusual indeed.

Not sure I follow. You agree with my conclusion?

They were talking about cosmic significance, though, not cosmic standard of morality. Craig argues that there are no objective moral values if God doesn't exist because, without God, helping people (for example) has no cosmic significance even if it matters to the people involved. In fact, Kagan does believe there are objective reasons to not, say, kill our neighbors for entertainment and that these reasons don't depend on anyone but are discovered.

If you could explain how cosmic significance exists without a cosmic standard, I am all ears.

Craig argues what he always argues. Kagan can't get to the term "objective" without some overarching standard that goes beyond his own reasoning.

Mudcat, utilitarian theories of ethics are the exact opposite of moral relativism. Look, Craig argues for his premises by saying they are true given that without a God objective value doesn't exist - that is, without God what we do has no cosmic significance so what we do, good or evil, is insignificant through and through. Kagan rejects that, which means that Craig's argument can't even get off the ground. I don't understand why you say Kagan somehow dodged Craig's argument when he is directly attacking one of its supporting pillars.

Bold mine, I disagree. Could you explain why a utlitarian theory of moral ethics doesn't acutally defer to moral relativism?

Craig doesn't tend to debate professional philosophers and the other two times (besides this) I've seen him do it he really ends up looking like a layman.

I though Austin Dacey gave him a run for his money, dunno that I have seen another one that got close. I certainly wouldn't say he looked like a layman in any debate he's been in. Fellow is educated and expresses himself well. Sad you don't see that.

[Alvino]

Not sure I follow. You agree with my conclusion?

You said, "Based on their conversation, it seems Craig has granted a premise or two, which is something that is unusual..." to which I said that it was unusual indeed. Sorry for the miscommunication there.

If you could explain how cosmic significance exists without a cosmic standard, I am all ears.

Why would I explain that? I'm with Kagan in that there can be objective moral reasons without cosmic significance. Their discussion in the video was centered over whether there needs to be cosmic significance for there to be significance at all, to which the answer is clearly "no".

Craig argues what he always argues. Kagan can't get to the term "objective" without some overarching standard that goes beyond his own reasoning.

Bold mine, I disagree. Could you explain why a utlitarian theory of moral ethics doesn't acutally defer to moral relativism?

Part of Utilitarianism is that there is a fact of the matter as to whether a particular moral judgment is true or false (and some epistemological ideas about it), while moral relativism denies that.

I though Austin Dacey gave him a run for his money, dunno that I have seen another one that got close. I certainly wouldn't say he looked like a layman in any debate he's been in. Fellow is educated and expresses himself well. Sad you don't see that.

I do see he is educated and that he expresses what he believes well, but in comparison he is hardly an academic.

[Mudcat]

Why would I explain that? I'm with Kagan in that there can be objective moral reasons without cosmic significance. Their discussion in the video was centered over whether there needs to be cosmic significance for there to be significance at all, to which the answer is clearly "no".

Oh, okay. Thanks for the chat then.

All the best,

Mudcat

[Alvino]

Oh, okay. Thanks for the chat then.

All the best,

Mudcat

Sure, though the point is that what you asked was irrelevant to the discussion.

[mfbukowski]

Bold mine underline mine.That is an interesting take Bukowski.

I had always been under the impression that LDS thought that there was some overarching prinicple about morality that God adhered to. Sort of like mathematics, 2+2=4 no matter where you live.

So do you think God adheres to an axiomatic postulation that comes from something other than himself, or do you think God determines what is axiomatically true?

edit add.. yes it's a Euthyphro redux, but I am curious to see your answer

It could be either or both really but I like to think that He has defined these laws for himself- that makes it more compatible with classic Christianity in my opinion, but they could also just be natural laws like evolution for those who want to take an atheistic view and use such an ethic without even mentioning God. That is what i meant by saying that an atheistic position needs not to be incompatible with a theistic morality except in the particulars of where the morality came from.

Remember I see these "problems" as resulting from confusions which would be satisfied all this as coming up with a consistent model which satisfies all the requirements and I believe this model does.

I think God adheres to natural laws which perhaps he has defined for himself- that is actually my view, but I think the more classically LDS position which does not conflict with my position's results, is that God is governed by "natural laws" the violation of which would cause him to cease being God.

There is view about "self determination" which says that we create (organize) our own freedom by accepting laws for ourselves which actually give us greater freedom than we would have without law at all. Sometimes this position is called "positive liberty" as put forth in a famous essay by a guy named Isaiah Berlin.

In a nutshell the idea put simply is that we are better off and in fact have more "freedom" driving down the street in a society where we have all agreed to be bound by traffic laws instead of one where there are no traffic laws and chaos ensues. In such a chaotic society where everyone did whatever they wanted driving down the street, no one could get anywhere due to people pushing through intersections, driving on whatever side of the street they wished, etc. Such chaos does not lead to anybody getting anywhere efficiently, but with rules, such chaos is avoided. So essentially the view is that rules that we all decide to accept actually create freedom

I think the idea of a human God would allow one to apply a Humanistic ethic to God, making humanism compatible with theology. So the idea would be that God himself either creates or accepts rules which he voluntarily decides for himself NOT to violate.

This is represented in LDS scripture where it is said that if God violated these laws, he would cease to be God. That is because he would be contradicting himself by on one hand, accepting these laws (or creating them in the first place- defining them really) and then violating the law he created and accepted for himself.

So on this view, God is no "less" by being bound by the laws he has created for himself than our freedoms are "less" because we accept traffic rules which give us more freedom. So the whole idea of God being bound by law and therefore interfering with his "omnipotence" disappears- he is still omnipotent, he has just defined himself to be the kind of being which obeys the laws he has created for himself (and by extension, all other humans like him)

I think Kant's categorical imperative (to make it easy let's just call it the Golden Rule and leave it at that though of course I know those two are not exactly the same) is indeed one of the postulates one must use in defining such a Humanistic morality as well as placing human life above all other values- just by definition if you will- by defining it as perhaps "properly basic" and leaving it at that.

On the other hand, atheists can believe that these same moral principles "evolved" in society in a utilitarian sense- that because these principles just "work" they in effect become just pragmatic rules of society because a society which affirms them runs better and the people who inhabit it survive better and have more children, peace, freedom, and all the joys of living.

So you end up having the same rules seen as compatible with both theism and atheism- and even with naturalism if you like.

Evolution can be seen as a natural law by which God creates and instills morality if one wants to see it that way. There is really no reason for all this strife over these questions, it is all just a question of seeing them in terms which are compatible to both sides, and I firmly believe that such a position exists which explains both views.

[mfbukowski]

In this video the editing actually made Craig look less bad in the Q&A. You may find the whole video on youtube and skip to the Q&A.

I'm sure you can see the problems with said supposed axiom, specially given the Bible (Noah's story, Abram/Isaac, etc). I don't get how that's relevant, though.

You would need more to justify that because even if God were a man I don't see how you go from that to, "then man is the measure of all things." God may be a man and morals not depend on him or on any other man, for that matter.

I know.

I have discussed this all with Mudcat pretty extensively and this all fits together with other views I hold which include a pragmatic/constructivist view of epistemology and whatever metaphysics might be dragged screaming along with that view.

Don't know if you know Rorty, but at the end of his life he was pretty sympathetic arguably toward a kind of humanistic religion if such a thing could exist though of course he did not even consider or perhaps see the possibilities in Mormonism. For a quick summary of where I am coming from, think Rorty's ideas mentioned here mixed with Mormonism.

Ultimately I differ from Rorty about a lot of stuff- mainly contingency of the self, but that isn't relevant here. If I had the time I would detail it all out for you, but I don't have the time at the moment.