Comments on: With or Without God? http://emonk.org/2009/03/with-or-without-god/ a many-brained bioethics blog Sun, 17 May 2009 21:26:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dmitri Pisartchik http://emonk.org/2009/03/with-or-without-god/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Dmitri Pisartchik Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:17:37 +0000 http://emonk.org/?p=143#comment-68 Having been an atheist for a good while now I have come to a interesting conclusion, for myself anyway. Theism and atheism are simply philosophical, indeed metaphysical, positions and nothing more. I am increasingly skeptical as to the relevance of morality to to the debate over the existence of God. Morality will have to exist whether or not there is a God. It is not dependent on Gods existence, nor is it incompatible with it. Both positions are equally plausible in my view. But, again, this is just a personal reflection. To the thought experiment proposed above. It is indeed an interesting case, but I would disagree with some of John's conclusions. True, if there are only two people on the ship there is no one else to keep moral score. But, why are you so quick to discount the astronauts themselves? While this is a speculation, if I was in that situation I would very much care about my own internal scoreboard. It would matter to me that I have killed, regardless of who else is witness to the act. You seem to be assuming a rather Hobbesian conception of human nature and I do not think that it is all that justifiable. That being said, I am myself assuming a certain moral upbringing that would hold a norm against unjustified killing. Interestingly enough, there has been a recent poll that suggests that Catholics are very much in line with the general opinion on many issues that are seen as divisive (homosexuality, abortion, etc): http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx Having been an atheist for a good while now I have come to a interesting conclusion, for myself anyway. Theism and atheism are simply philosophical, indeed metaphysical, positions and nothing more. I am increasingly skeptical as to the relevance of morality to to the debate over the existence of God. Morality will have to exist whether or not there is a God. It is not dependent on Gods existence, nor is it incompatible with it. Both positions are equally plausible in my view. But, again, this is just a personal reflection.

To the thought experiment proposed above. It is indeed an interesting case, but I would disagree with some of John’s conclusions. True, if there are only two people on the ship there is no one else to keep moral score. But, why are you so quick to discount the astronauts themselves? While this is a speculation, if I was in that situation I would very much care about my own internal scoreboard. It would matter to me that I have killed, regardless of who else is witness to the act. You seem to be assuming a rather Hobbesian conception of human nature and I do not think that it is all that justifiable. That being said, I am myself assuming a certain moral upbringing that would hold a norm against unjustified killing.

Interestingly enough, there has been a recent poll that suggests that Catholics are very much in line with the general opinion on many issues that are seen as divisive (homosexuality, abortion, etc):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx

]]> By: admin http://emonk.org/2009/03/with-or-without-god/comment-page-1/#comment-63 admin Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:34:45 +0000 http://emonk.org/?p=143#comment-63 Jeremy, you say: "Though an atheist, Singer still displayed a genuine care for people." Why should it surprise anyone that an atheist cares about people? It surely isn't controversial that we all care for other people. Empathy is ingrained. However, I agree with you that, without a God, it's difficult to argue that humans are obliged to be good in any deep sense. We are obliged by our laws (for the most part) as well as the implicit social contract that underlies them. Imagine two people in a spaceship far from Earth with zero chance of contact with other intelligent beings. If one kills the other, there are no consequences beyond that spaceship if there is no God. No moral scoreboard exists that is keeping track of sin everywhere. Other people are the only ones keeping score. If I were posed the question that Singer and Hare were posed by the audience member--what would make me "switch sides" and become religious--this would be a good test case. If I became convinced that somehow there is a moral scorekeeper in the universe, that the murder of one lost spaceman by another has consequences beyond their spaceship, then I would be forced to consider some kind of theism. Until then, I happily (or at least resolutely) have no reason to believe in God. And yet I care deeply about other people. Explain that. --John Bohannon Jeremy, you say: “Though an atheist, Singer still displayed a genuine care for people.” Why should it surprise anyone that an atheist cares about people? It surely isn’t controversial that we all care for other people. Empathy is ingrained. However, I agree with you that, without a God, it’s difficult to argue that humans are obliged to be good in any deep sense. We are obliged by our laws (for the most part) as well as the implicit social contract that underlies them. Imagine two people in a spaceship far from Earth with zero chance of contact with other intelligent beings. If one kills the other, there are no consequences beyond that spaceship if there is no God. No moral scoreboard exists that is keeping track of sin everywhere. Other people are the only ones keeping score. If I were posed the question that Singer and Hare were posed by the audience member–what would make me “switch sides” and become religious–this would be a good test case. If I became convinced that somehow there is a moral scorekeeper in the universe, that the murder of one lost spaceman by another has consequences beyond their spaceship, then I would be forced to consider some kind of theism. Until then, I happily (or at least resolutely) have no reason to believe in God. And yet I care deeply about other people. Explain that.
–John Bohannon

]]> By: Jeremy Olson http://emonk.org/2009/03/with-or-without-god/comment-page-1/#comment-62 Jeremy Olson Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:18:10 +0000 http://emonk.org/?p=143#comment-62 I was also privileged to be able to watch the debate at MIT and personally interact with Singer afterwards. As a Christian I was divided by the views expressed by Singer. On the one hand, I was impressed by how reasonable and approachable Singer's views were. Specifically, I was impressed by how consistent he was in interfacing his life with his ethical theory. Though an atheist, Singer still displayed a genuine care for people. To him, the "death of God" did not necessarily lead to amorality. However, this is where I think Singer's argument falls short. Singer clearly explained that we as humans evolved a capacity to empathize with others and thus discern how we should treat others by realizing how we ourselves would like to be treated by those around us. I understood how he claimed we could have morality apart from a God. However, I find his atheistic view on morality to be completely lacking in any sense of obligatory motivation. So I know what might be a good thing to do. Who cares? In Singer's world, I have no obligation to do anything I don't want to do. I might be able to see a difference between a good action and a bad action, but ultimately there is no one and nothing binding me to take the moral higher ground. I think Singer is pretty naïve in glossing over the inherent selfishness of all of us. This is where Hare seemed more compelling to me. He openly confessed that leading a moral life is extremely demanding. I agreed with his comment that said that we are less motivated toward morality when we see it in conflict with our happiness. Without a God who has ordered our universe with a sense of justice and judgment there is no justification for obligatory morality. And I believe that Hare would agree with me when I say that Christianity goes beyond just obligatory morality. The Gospel states that God has shown his love to the world by offering a solution to our inherent selfishness. God not only has the power to ultimately judge us for this selfishness, but His greater desire is that we be changed from the inside out into people who enjoy doing good. Christianity can be summed up by the following truth: God can change our hearts from being self-centered to being deeply loving toward both God and others. Singer made some pretty harsh accusations against the Christian church in America. In a lot of ways I agree with his view that many Christians have wrongly overemphasized such issues as abortion and homosexuality and neglected the deeper issues of greed and lack of compassion for the suffering around the world. But this is not how Jesus would have had it. True followers of Jesus joyfully act as Jesus acted, with sacrificial love. This is because true followers of Jesus are fully aware of the love that God has shown them. So while I was not deeply persuaded by Singer's ethical arguments, I was challenged by his accusations against Christians. I still happily believe in God and believe that the reality of God is by far a better basis for any substantive morality. I was also privileged to be able to watch the debate at MIT and personally
interact with Singer afterwards. As a Christian I was divided by the views expressed by Singer. On the one hand, I was impressed by how reasonable and approachable Singer’s views were. Specifically, I was impressed by how consistent he was in interfacing his life with his ethical theory. Though an atheist, Singer still displayed a genuine care for people. To him, the “death of God” did not necessarily lead to amorality.

However, this is where I think Singer’s argument falls short. Singer clearly explained that we as humans evolved a capacity to empathize with others and thus discern how we should treat others by realizing how we ourselves would like to be treated by those around us. I understood how he claimed we could have morality apart from a God. However, I find his atheistic view on morality to be completely lacking in any sense of obligatory motivation. So I know what might be a good thing to do. Who cares? In Singer’s world, I have no obligation to do anything I don’t want to do. I might be able to see a difference between a good action and a bad action, but ultimately there is no one and nothing binding me to take the moral higher ground. I think Singer is pretty naïve in glossing over the inherent selfishness of all of us.

This is where Hare seemed more compelling to me. He openly confessed that leading a moral life is extremely demanding. I agreed with his comment that said that we are less motivated toward morality when we see it in conflict with our happiness. Without a God who has ordered our universe with a sense of justice and judgment there is no justification for obligatory morality. And I believe that Hare would agree with me when I say that Christianity goes beyond just obligatory morality. The Gospel states that God has shown his love to the world by offering a solution to our inherent selfishness. God not only has the power to ultimately judge us for this selfishness, but His greater desire is that we be changed from the inside out into people who enjoy doing good. Christianity can be summed up by the following truth: God can change our hearts from being self-centered to being deeply loving toward both God and others.

Singer made some pretty harsh accusations against the Christian church in America. In a lot of ways I agree with his view that many Christians
have wrongly overemphasized such issues as abortion and homosexuality and neglected the deeper issues of greed and lack of compassion for the
suffering around the world. But this is not how Jesus would have had it.
True followers of Jesus joyfully act as Jesus acted, with sacrificial love.
This is because true followers of Jesus are fully aware of the love that God
has shown them.

So while I was not deeply persuaded by Singer’s ethical arguments, I was challenged by his accusations against Christians. I still happily believe in God and believe that the reality of God is by far a better basis for any substantive morality.

]]>