If There Is No God...

[Era Might]

Atheism, then, is simply one physical movement of particles, and Catholicism is another.  It would be pointless to argue about whether either is "true" or "false."  They're simply physical activity - particles bouncing off one another.

 

Our ideas are nothing more than physical activity in the brain, and this discussion is nothing more than pixels on a computer screen.

 

Indeed...I think the virtual reality of television, etc. are very bad for humanity. I am constantly aware when I watch TV that I am not seeing anything but pixels on a screen, and if I believe I am seeing something (which is the purpose of TV, to convince us of something that does not actually exist) then I have become hypnotized into a fantasy.

 

Our conceptions of things like knowledge, memory, etc. are constructed according to physical conditions. There was a time when humanity did not have books...in which case, "memory" could not be conceived as the writing of information on an inner page. Plato, closer to pre-literate society, warned against the alphabet...he described memory as logs running downstream, never to be seen again, not permanent markings on a page. Even when it comes to our own perceptions we are lost in our constructions of meaning. Right now as I type I am, unconsciously, identifying my ability to think with this artificial system of communication. I become the computer, it defines how I perceive human communication, even though computers are completely unnecessary to human communication, just as one believes in a god because it is there...whether it is Apollo, Jesus, or Allah.

Nobody grows up in isolation and conceives of Apollo, Jesus, or Allah. They believe in the conception of their society, which changes across centuries, even if the general concept remains the same.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Era Might

[Papist]

If no God, then why not be evil?  

[Era Might]

If no God, then why not be evil?  

 

I'm sure there are any number of ways to answer, but when an animal does something "good" it has no rational reason for doing so, it has no knowledge of a god.

 

If no god, why not kill everyone? Because human experience tells us that living is good, that pain is bad...that alone is justification for not hurting other people. Really, when you introduce god,evil gets complicated. That's when dropping bombs becomes god's will, and killing a few people becomes okay if it's for the right cause.

 

And the existence of god is not necessary for the concept of god. One can believe in what god represents for humanity, just as one believes in any myth for what it represents (what is patriotism but the actualization of myth, of invisible boundaries, of mythic heroes).

Edited February 7, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

If no God, then why not be evil?

There would be no evil, it would only be a human construct. If something or some action was thought to be evil by someone or some people it would only be their subjective opinions, an imaginary device to explain away a cold and indifferent world.

[Era Might]

There would be no evil, it would only be a human construct. If something or some action was thought to be evil by someone or some people it would only be their subjective opinions, an imaginary device to explain away a cold and indifferent world.

 

That's not necessarily true...as I asked in my first post, if there is no god, is 2+2=4 meaningless? The search for truth IN OUR EXPERIENCE would not cease just because there is no god. Happiness is still happiness, whether there is a god or not...and people would still experience it...ditto with sadness, hurt, joy, and all the other range of human experience by which we navigate our way in the world.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

That's not necessarily true...as I asked in my first post, if there is no god, is 2+2=4 meaningless? The search for truth IN OUR EXPERIENCE would not cease just because there is no god. Happiness is still happiness, whether there is a god or not...and people would still experience it...ditto with sadness, hurt, joy, and all the other range of human experience by which we navigate our way in the world.

Math isn't morality. Emotions, which are highly subjective, aren't proof of good and evil or moral right and wrong. The words we use to explain our emotions would also be constructs. A animal may feel pain and fear when it is being killed by another, a mouse being eaten by a cat for example, but the feelings don't make it wrong. After all the cat would feel good about killing the mouse, and if their be no God we are but mere animals. It is not evil for one animal to harm another.

[Era Might]

Math isn't morality. Emotions, which are highly subjective, aren't proof of good and evil or moral right and wrong. The words we use to explain our emotions would also be constructs. A animal may feel pain and fear when it is being killed by another, a mouse being eaten by a cat for example, but the feelings don't make it wrong. After all the cat would feel good about killing the mouse, and if their be no God we are but mere animals. It is not evil for one animal to harm another.

 

No, emotions are not themselves vindicators of experience, but they teach us how to behave. The existence of god is not necessary in order to observe that people enjoy being happy, enjoy not being harmed, enjoy being alive.

 

Are those the only things that teach us how to behave? Of course not. But not even the concept of god solves all complicated situations. Incest was (supposedly) allowed in the first few generations after Adam. Blasphemers were stoned to death.

 

The newness of Christianity was in not appealing to a "moral law" but to the law of love, which surpassed all understanding, and which elevated man to something that moral meanderings could never accomplish.

 

And it is "evil," strictly speaking, for one animal to harm one another, because all animals strive to live, not to die. In Isaiah's messianic prophecy, Christ brings peace to all creation:

 

 

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,

and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
and the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.

 

--Isaiah 11:6

Math and morality are both based on natural phenomena, which would exist whether there is a god or not. Christianity is not based on morality, but on a supernatural vocation to transcend morality.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

No, emotions are not themselves vindicators of experience, but they teach us how to behave. The existence of god is not necessary in order to observe that people enjoy being happy, enjoy not being harmed, enjoy being alive.

Are those the only things that teach us how to behave? Of course not. But not even the concept of god solves all complicated situations. Incest was (supposedly) allowed in the first few generations after Adam. Blasphemers were stoned to death.

The newness of Christianity was in not appealing to a "moral law" but to the law of love, which surpassed all understanding, and which elevated man to something that moral meanderings could never accomplish.

And it is "evil," strictly speaking, for one animal to harm one another, because all animals strive to live, not to die. In Isaiah's messianic prophecy, Christ brings peace to all creation:




Math and morality are both based on natural phenomena, which would exist whether there is a god or not. Christianity is not based on morality, but on a supernatural vocation to transcend morality.

I still see no objective evidence that evil would exist.

[Era Might]

I still see no objective evidence that evil would exist.

 

Perhaps not "evil" as you conceive it. But that's like saying happiness would not exist because your experience of happiness were not satisfied.

 

We have millions of years of human experience to give us a sense of what is positive and negative, helpful and hurtful, enjoyable and not enjoyable, peaceful or not peaceful. There is no need for a supreme lawgiver in order to construct a meaningful way to live in the world, which one could call "morality."

 

Most of what we mean, even in a religious society, by "morality" is just applying experience. What does one do about a beggar in the street? Christians can find all kinds of morality to justify anything they do in that situation. Thankfully, Christ never appealed to morality, but to something greater, to love.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Era Might

[Fidei Defensor]

I still see no objective evidence that evil would exist.

 

If evil is the lack of goodness, evil can exist without a god.  And since it is usually argued the reason why evil can exist in a world of an all-good God is because evil is the lack of good, you have to go with that explanation.

[KnightofChrist]

If evil is the lack of goodness, evil can exist without a god. And since it is usually argued the reason why evil can exist in a world of an all-good God is because evil is the lack of good, you have to go with that explanation.

If good existed without God. I see no evidence of that either, other than people applying what they think good is to something someone else could think was bad.

[Fidei Defensor]

If good existed without God. I see no evidence of that either, other than people applying what they think good is to something someone else could think was bad.

 

The problem is that placing "goodness" as some stand alone thing means you need to give a definition of it.  Saying that God = goodness doesn't really give an answer, it avoids it. What is goodness?

[Papist]

I'm sure there are any number of ways to answer, but when an animal does something "good" it has no rational reason for doing so, it has no knowledge of a god.

 

If no god, why not kill everyone? Because human experience tells us that living is good, that pain is bad...that alone is justification for not hurting other people. Really, when you introduce god,evil gets complicated. That's when dropping bombs becomes god's will, and killing a few people becomes okay if it's for the right cause.

 

And the existence of god is not necessary for the concept of god. One can believe in what god represents for humanity, just as one believes in any myth for what it represents (what is patriotism but the actualization of myth, of invisible boundaries, of mythic heroes).

 

But my experience is that when I hurt people, I feel good. If no God, why should I use self-control to not do something that makes me feel good?

 

There would be no evil, it would only be a human construct. If something or some action was thought to be evil by someone or some people it would only be their subjective opinions, an imaginary device to explain away a cold and indifferent world.

 

I mean, why should I not do the evil that our society understands is evil.

[Fidei Defensor]

But my experience is that when I hurt people, I feel good. If no God, why should I use self-control to not do something that makes me feel good?

 

 

I mean, why should I not do the evil that our society understands is evil.

 

Why don't you do it anyway? Are you afraid of hell? Doesn't seem to bode well for showing what kind of person you really are if you only do things to avoid punishment.

[Era Might]

But my experience is that when I hurt people, I feel good. If no God, why should I use self-control to not do something that makes me feel good?

 

 

I mean, why should I not do the evil that our society understands is evil.

 

Your experience is not the only one that matters.

 

In what situation do you feel good hurting people?

 

There's a famous photo of a sailor kissing a woman in Times Square after the United States dropped the atom bombs on Japan. That, to me, says everything about "good" and "evil" in human society.

 

It's true we often act without really considering whether our actions are good or bad...but one can live an examined life without the existence of a god. One can reflect on the toll of, say, war, in the history of humanity, and come to decisions about that photo in Times Square. Believing in a god doesn't necessarily resolve the issue.

 

Does the message of "The Iliad" and what it says about war, cease to be valid because Zeus and Apollo do not actually exist?

Edited February 7, 2013 by Era Might