A discussion

I have recently been involved in a debate on You Tube comments. The exchange became prolonged and I invited my opponent to continue it on here. I hope that he accepts.

I have pasted below his last contribution but have removed his name as I do not have permission to use it. I will add my reactions throughout the text in italics and I hope it remains clear. Because this forms part of an on-going conversation, some of the points may be confusing to others. I can only trust that reading will explain the context.

1. Yes, but notice --- and this was my point --- the words 'belief' and 'worship,' which are acts done by religious people. That was what I said: religion is not an agent or a thing. It's something that people do, and they do it very differently. Jains, for example, never to my knowledge mentioned by, say, Christopher Hitchens, is quite different from, oh, the Amish, yet equally as pacific, as opposed to some sects of Islam. I think that one needs to be a little more specific when talking about any religion that any person may espouse unless one can find demographic information about the people or religion in an area.

I fully accept that. I was wrong to generalise. Incidentally, Sam Harris does mention the Jains. He says that, unlike some other faiths, the more extreme a Jain becomes, the less we need to worry.

2. _"Perhaps you should read Thomas Aquinas".

I have. Whilst I would never claim to be as learned, I also do not ascribe to the the idea that everything said by figures from history must automatically be correct.

It may, however, be significant that you presume my ignorance of him_

Here you have three statements:

I have

Interesting. Most people have not, and you did not indicate that you have or what you've learned from him.

Whilst I would never claim to be as learned, I also do not ascribe to the the idea that everything said by figures from history must automatically be correct

Irrelevant. I did not, either, and so this appears to be either a Hasty Conclusion or a Red Herring.

It may, however, be significant that you presume my ignorance of him

Or it 'may' not.

I feel that in breaking my sentence into 3 parts, you are trying too hard to make a point. I maintain that you were wrong to initially presume me ignorant of Aquinas. I would also say that whilst Aquinas was incredibly accomplished at reasoning and making his arguments, that does not make him right. Ultimately, whether we refer to Aquinas, you or me, we are simply quoting beliefs and opinions. We may be convinced by them, we may not.

3. Whether I like what people do with a concept has nothing to do with whether that concept is true or false

Yet, that's what you said:

The overplayed idea that there can be no morals or ethics without God is just nonsense. Believers state it as a fact in order to preach to a choir who are used to acceptance without questioning.

If you didn't mean this, then perhaps you should rephrase it?

I wont rephrase here it but I do admit that I allowed my personal opinion to interfere.

4. Your assertion is followed by falsely-informed distaste: 'used to acceptance without questioning'? Not in my experience, ever.

Again, I admit to my distaste, but I reject the accusation that I am falsely informed. Without any knowledge of you I must accept that you have never experienced religious believers accepting the teaching of their faith without question. I can only say that I have encountered it many times. Indeed, one of my issues with a great many Christians, is that they are what I call ‘Sunday School Christians’, in that their understanding of their religion is no more informed than what they received as children. Whilst you are clearly well read and intelligent, I seem to spend most of my time speaking with people who admit, when pressed, that they have never even read the bible fully. They are happy to simply muddle along with what little they were taught as a child and what their priest, pastor, or vicar tells them. Rarely, if ever questioning it. I would also make the point that the bible itself abjures people to “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding” Proverbs 3:5

5. Not the same issue. individual morality is quite clear. Since you've read Thomas Aquinas, you know that the Bible itself says that. Objective morality is at question here.

Fair enough. But why does objective morality need a divine source? There are arguments that all morality is subjective, but even if we accept that objective morality exists, it can do so without needing to cite God as its creator.

If God is the source of morality, then God himself must be moral. And yet we see God ordering the genocide of those already living in the promised land. We see him testing the faith of Abraham by ordering the sacrifice of his son. A faith that an all-knowing god must surely already have known. We see him torturing poor Job to make a point. We even see him sacrificing his own son to forgive the sins of men, when he could have simply appeared to the world and said, “I forgive you but don’t mess up again or else!” These actions cannot be seen as moral by any definition. And if we state that God is not bound by our morality we must accept that morality is not objective.

6. Morals and ethics are perfectly natural and explainable phenomena and do not require divine intervention. It would be a sad world if the only reason we did not commit crime was because we thought God might not approve

Non sequitur statements. First, that which is 'natural and explainable' is not necessarily without divine creation.

Granted. But nor is divine creation the only reasonable option.

7. 'Creation' is fairly encompassing, and the chemical aspect of what we call love is the 'what' and to an extent the 'how' of those affects, but one can't then scientifically proceed beyond the empirical to say that nothing else exists. One must, by the limits of the scientific method itself, content oneself only with the mechanics of physical processes, but as Wittgenstein said, The world is the totality of facts, not the totality of things. Scientifically, this is enough. Ontologically, however, one must be a bit more open. Anthony Flew would agree with that, for example.

I must admit to being confused by this. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. I have never heard anyone say that nothing else exists. Science certainly does not make the claim that God does not exist and any non-believer that does so needs to examine their reasoning. The most I can honestly say is that I refuse to believe without evidence.

Perhaps I may clarify by stating my view of science.

Science is not a collection of facts, it is a process. It is the proposing of ideas that are then tested to see if observations match predictions based on the idea. A reputable scientist will try to prove himself wrong and only when he is satisfied that he is right will he publish his idea, to then be savagely tested by his peers. Only when an idea has passed all this will it be widely accepted. It is then considered to be a theory (different to the common usage of the word).

What this process provides us is an understanding of the universe. We often mistake that understanding as fact but in reality, our knowledge is subject to continual review and improvement.

Conversely, all religious claims about the universe and our place within it are ultimately based upon revelation. It is necessary to believe in a given deity or a principle of supernatural rules (such as reincarnation) before accepting the religious answers about the universe, or the answers would make no sense.

Now, those religious claims to certainty may be right, or they may be wrong. We have no way of knowing or testing them. But scientific claims can and are tested. For this reason I am drawn to prefer one view over another.

8. It would be a sad world if the only reason we did not commit crime was because we thought God might not approve

I know of no one who does this, at least not for long. Everybody does this at some time in his young life, if not God, then 'Mom' or 'Dad,' but this does not last. Your statement looks to be founded on the Personal Preference fallacy ('it would be sad if...'), very narrow ('only'), and wrong in almost every conceivable case.

You are right. I was overly simplistic.

To re-word it then, I choose not to believe that most people are good because they have been gifted morality by God. I am a humanist (I dislike atheist as it defines me by something I am not. There are many things I am not and so atheist is a weak label). In not accepting that there is a God, I must accept that it falls to us to determine what is right and wrong, good and bad. It is up to us to do good for reasons that have nothing to do with a divine overseer, whether or not that overseer is benign. It is our responsibility to do what we can to protect each other and all life and the planet.

9. God approves of so much horror, he is clearly immoral and no fit judge or example

Please, read the Bible. This statement shows that you have not. Jesus certainly disagrees with you. the reasons are manifold and we can talk of them if you wish, but here I can only say that this is not worthy of a serious discussion.

I must dispute both your assessment of the bible and your dismissal of the subject.

Just as you did with Aquinas, you are presuming a lack of knowledge on my part. And again, you are incorrect. Not only have I read the bible, I do so all the time.

In support of my assertion that God approves of horror, I refer you back to my mention of biblical events in the paragraph regarding morals. I will add;

· God killed Job’s children to win a bet with Satan

· “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16.

· "See, the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated." Isaiah 13:9–16

· “When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped ……… The Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal. Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him”. Numbers 25:7-10

· "O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" Psalm 137:8–9

Do I need to go on?

Oh, one last item. I would also refer to God wiping out all life on earth with a flood because he was angry with men.

As for the New Testament. I find the whole idea of God sacrificing his son in order to forgive mankind despicable. God is supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing. This being so, there were other ways in which he could have forgiven us, even if we accept the need for forgiveness, which is itself deeply questionable.

· Omniscient God had to know Adam and Eve would sin and he allowed it happen

· He therefore facilitated their crime

· He then punished them for a crime he could have prevented

· Because he is both all-knowing and all-powerful, he must have had a reason for this

· How can it then be just to punish them?

· How can it be just to blame all mankind for the sins of one couple, a sin he was complicit in?

· How can it be just to require a sacrifice to forgive a crime for which he had already issued punishment?

· How can the death, and let us not forget, the resurrection, of Jesus, arranged by God, be in any way a reconciliation between God and man, let alone necessary?

And finally, for the New Testament, the idea of eternal torment is abhorrent. As humans we have many ways of punishing people and they usually, or at least should be, appropriate to the crime. How can eternal torment ever be appropriate?

“from heaven with his powerful angels, in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction”.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

Note here, ‘those who do not know God’. Not only is it everlasting fire for people who do not believe, but also for those who don’t even know about God. When this was written that included most of the world!

10. Love is merely a chemical reaction in the brain which promotes the finding of mates to propagate the species

This deliberately rejects any possibility of anything outside your statement ('Love is merely...'). I have read Jaak Panksepp (both Affective neuroscience and Archaeology of Mind), so I am familiar with the concept. Scientifically, it is fascinating, but only scientifically.

If you wish to take issue with my phraseology, that’s fine but without any evidence to the contrary, I stick by what I said. As with all things religious, if you can provide me with proof, I will immediately and very publicly change my views.

11. The very fact that love can be mistaken and applied incorrectly should cause us to doubt any divine origin

Free will has some effect on its manifestations. Genesis 3ff is a description of the situation.

This seems to be your personal view.

I am confused by your reference to Genesis 3 here. I would however point out that the serpent told the truth and God lied. (I couldn’t resist, sorry)

Free will is often used in arguments by Christians but it is a very thorny issue.

· If God is all-knowing he can see the future

· If he cannot see the future, then he has limitations and cannot be God

· If he can see the future it must be fixed. Even if he can see all possible futures, those futures must already exist in order to be seen.

· If the future is fixed, or if possible futures already exist, there can be no free will because we are only fulfilling what God has already seen

I have only recently thought this through and I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts.

12. Teaching young children that they may face eternal damnation for their mistakes, or that we are born in sin is, to me, deeply immoral, but it is clearly not illegal

That depends on how it is done. I don't know of any 'young children' who are told so. Bible storybooks normally don't say it. Nonetheless, if it is said, Jesus is always taught at the same time, which changes the teaching.

Very well, allow me to re-phrase slightly. Teaching anyone these things is immoral but not illegal. Firstly, because anyone who claims to ‘know’ what happens after death is lying. It may be taught as something some people believe, but it should not be taught as fact. Secondly, as mentioned above, the very concepts of eternal damnation and original sin are themselves immoral.

13. Why must we have a first principal?

I suggest that you study this issue. We always start with a first principle. Always.

Quite right. A ridiculous thing for me to say. I have no idea what I was thinking. I was possibly confused by your reference to first principals in regard to over fishing not being immoral because it is not illegal. I was thrown by this. Nonetheless, I do not dispute the philosophical case for first principals

14. As a non-believer, I do not accept that I need an overarching, overbearing dictator

Happily, there isn't one.

Well, I suppose it depends upon one’s point of view. For me, a god who created us with flaws and then punishes us for those flaws, fits my description. Christians believe God loves us but also that if we do not love him back, we will burn. We are granted free will but if we choose to exercise that freedom in a way God doesn’t like, we are condemned. Sounds like an overarching, overbearing dictator to me.

15. Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too

Then read JRR Tolkien, On Fairy Stories:

https://coolcalvary.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/on-fairy-stories1.pdf

I was already aware that Tolkien believed in faeries but I must admit, I had not read this. I have now. Thank you. But I fail to see how it is relevant. My quote of Douglas Adams was not about faeries per se, but about the need to seek supernatural explanations.

To misquote someone far cleverer than myself, I can only say that I am a-fairyist and a-unicornist for precisely the same reason that I am a-theist. I do not say that they definitely do not exist, I only say that there is no evidence to convince me that they do.