Objective Moral Good/Evil?

So I keep hearing statements like the following:

If the Nazi Regime had won, would it not follow that we now looked back and called them morally good..

Firstly, NO!

This notion however gets trumpeted a lot in the ‘God must exists for moral objectivity’ arguments..

It seems to me, that the aboriginal peoples of various subjugated nations and our historical view on the situation answers this in full. That is to say, as an Australian of English decent I do not look back on the way the English colonised Australia with any thought other than contempt. 

I therefore would assert that moral objectivity does not hang on the idea that we need some cosmological dictator to cause our reflection on the matter to be repulsion by fear, rather I would like to say that we are rational creatures capable of viewing past acts successful or no in the correct moral light, a light built entirely on evolutionary psychology.

I’ve not heard this idea put forward anywhere else before and would be keen to know if anyone knows of a version of it that has been significantly fleshed out.

Does this not just seem clearly and distinctly true?

iDikko

The Hippogriff among us… You can’t prove a negative? Yes I bloody well can!

Hippogriff

I am truly sick of the theists trumpeting this logical fallacy as some immunising tactic of the idea of their imaginary friend.. The whole idea is folk-logic to begin with.. Lets not forget the statement ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is indeed a negative proof in and of itself…

What are they actually claiming? If it is that I can’t prove a negative beyond ‘all’ doubt, well nobody can prove anything let alone a positive beyond ‘all’ doubt can they.. Add to that one can always introduce a ‘maybe’ baby, perhaps Aliens constructed the Pyramids for example…

As an example lets trumpet the cogito, Descartes said in a nutshell ‘I think therefore I am’, so I can therefore prove ‘that I don’t not exist’…

If perhaps they expect that we fill-in the blanks in the claim they are making with the claim we know they are trying to make but are alas ill-equipped to render, that one can’t prove something does not exist, as opposed to that ‘I do’ – exist…

Supposing that is indeed what they mean, that I can’t prove non-existence, I would argue that I can take a pretty good stab at it.. Lets take the example of the Hippogriff from Harry Potter, as shown up top.. Now obviously I can’t prove beyond ‘all’ doubt that such a creature never existed, but beyond all ‘reasonable’ doubt yes I damn well can.. If they really want to claim it has to be about ‘all’ doubt then I’d refer you to my earlier comment that nothing can be proven beyond ‘all’ doubt…

Anyway, back to the Hippogriff example.. There is some pretty sensational evidence that Buck-Wheat is empirically falsifiable and that such a creature never existed, one might say never will, I could rattle off Biological and Physical reasons but I have too high an opinion of my readers.. These types of example are brilliant as they require access to tracts of reality in time and space which are not accessible to humans, much the same as belief in God does 😉

One could argue they are inaccessible as they themselves do not exist, lets not go there however…

iDikko

How should I know when I meet a Christian?

These days it seems that the vast majority of people I run into that claim to be Christians simply are not..

What are they anyway?

Simply a person who attempts to live a good life?  Really, this is a pathetic definition of the most apologetic variety, in such a case every religion and even the irreligious (of which I count myself as one) contain Christians.  I think for now this type definition can be dismissed as so watery it has lost all import.  There is also the logical back-step (modus tollens) that those who are not Christians are not trying to live a good life.  This section make up most of the people that want to argue with an Anti-Theist, for the life of me I can not understand this as they ought know they are simply to pathetic to argue with.  I liken this to the spiritual person who wishes to argue for the existence some sort of intangible ethereal energy of some kind, it is impossible to argue against something so lacking, so why bother.

Maybe someone whom dogmatically believes in God, the Christ and the life ever-after? This is I think the weakest definition one ought to accept as being worthy of discussion.

Or is it the person that believes that the bible is the unalterable and unfalsifiable word of God, that gives total acceptance of a vast conglomerate of creeds set out with the greatest exactitude imaginable, and as such lives their life in every tiny detail according to it? What we are talking about here are Crusaders, or let us face it the Christian equivalent to the Muslim Jihadists we see on the news these days.

iDikko

The Evil God Hypothesis?

Imagine the universe and all within it was created, by a creator. Pretend he/she is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient…

Let us consider for one moment the idea that ‘your’ God is not Good, but is instead Evil…

His cruelty is without limit, his depravity is without bounds, he is simply a supremely wicked being..

Let us call this the evil-god hypothesis…

How reasonable is the evil-god hypothesis?

Clearly it is not at all reasonable, there is far too much good in the universe. If a being such as described were to exist he would have created us just to play with us in his evil little game, to torture us, there would be no love nor laughter etc…

Far too much good exists for all this to plausibly be the creation of such a limitlessly powerful and malignant being.

Let us call this the evidential problem of good…

You will note that the “evil-God hypothesis” and the “evidential problem of good” can easily be flipped into the “God hypothesis” and the “evidential problem of evil”.

The vast majority of arguments raised in support of the existence of God fail to provide any real clue as to this supposed creators moral compass, I would then argue that any of the arguments put forward such that they support a ‘good-God hypothesis’ can be reversed in support of an Evil God.

If you want to posit the existence of an all-good creator you must first explain all the Evil in this universe…

NB: use of the words Evil and Good is unfortunate but in keeping with definitions readily grasped.

I first heard this type of argument from Stephen Law @ Heythrop College University of London.

iDikko

Religion and the problem of the Criterion…

One person says the criterion of truth is religious tradition as taught by the church, another person says the criterion of truth is the word of God acting upon you as you read the bible…

So which is right?  We have the Roman Catholic criterion and the Protestant criterion…

What is really needed is some criterion to judge between the two, is that not to be looking for exactly what I need?

Viscously circular…

The very thing that I need in order to be able to distinguish between the two is the exact thing I am trying to find.  Haha…

This is the sort of funk that makes me glad I’m an Atheist 😉

iDikko