The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Mise]

Atheists still have the Bible, Torah, Quran etc as a resource though. "An eye for an eye", the ten commandments, "turn the other cheek", "do unto others" and so on are all moral imperatives, and I can surely use those things as resources, even if I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus or Moses or the Bible etc. I can live a perfectly biblical life, whilst not believing in the divinity of the bible. I can follow everything the bible tells me to do, without also believing that such things are the word of God. I might read the bible and conclude that "do unto others" is a sound moral heuristic (in fact, I do believe this), without also concluding that Jesus is the son of God.

Obviously, I might decide against all of these things too: I might decide, after consulting the bible, that its moral imperatives are completely wrong, and ignore everything the bible says about morality. But I still have just as much access to the bible as a moral resource as religious people. Indeed, whilst an atheist can take the best moral advice from all resources (Plato, the Vedas, Taoism, Humanism, etc) a religious person may have less access to resources that contradict the text that they consider divine. This is especially true of religious people who believe that their Holy Book is the one and only source of moral truths in the universe. If we are talking about "quantity of resources" alone, then religious people may have fewer potential sources than non-religious people.

But I suspect this is all skirting around the issue that Plotinus is talking about.

 

[Crackerbox]

For crying out loud, Christianity does NOT make you good, more moral, better, or anything like that. All that Christianity does is make you aware that you're a miserable sinner who utterly is dependent upon GOD.

The atheist is not less than the Christian. I was saying there is a demonstrable lack of donations to nonprofits from them as a corpus of adherents and they actually study this so they can get more donations of time, talent, and treasure from that demographic.

Any Christian nonprofit that refuses donations from atheists is frustrating the work of alleviating human suffering. We need more people working in soup kitchens, not less by exclusion. Can you imagine explaining to Ultimate Reality, "Well, they weren't Christians so I wouldn't allow them to work here, take their money, accept food donations, not accept the kind offer to help us with accounting. They were atheists! I could take anything from them."

What would Ultimate Reality respond to that? I would fear to be that person who refused those things. Fear.

 

[Borachio]

What would Ultimate Reality respond to that? I would fear to be that person who refused those things. Fear.

I see. And that's not being mercenary in what way? You would do good simply because you fear the result of not doing so?

 

[Crackerbox]

I see. And that's not being mercenary in what way? You would do good simply because you fear the result of not doing so?

I would fear to so displease Yahweh by clearly being out of synch with the New Testament and not accepting donations from atheists.

I don't fear hellfire. I fear displeasing God. If we consider what GOD must be as the author of Creation, then only a fool would be fearless in the face of that.

But fear my eternal life and judgement? Not really. Christians don't fear God in order to get Heaven. That's a complete misnomer.

Gosh Man, after all of those pages upon pages of explanations about Christian belief, are you going to come up with that weak retort that's unfounded by Scripture?

 

[Borachio]

Look. You're doing a really poor job of explaining what Christian belief is, imo.

I understand that you think you know what it is. And maybe you do (who knows?). But you're not coming across as anything but a rather sneery, self-satisfied, arrogant buffoon.

Now. I don't say this to insult you. It's just a statement of how you appear to me.

Perhaps you're deliberately playing a character. Everything's possible in this medium.

 

[Plotinus]

Well I agree with you but I like to challenge you into telling us what are these (re)sources?

I was thinking the same... The obvious "resources" religious people have are the Bible Quran, etc.

I don't know of an atheist equivalent, because atheists by definition, would not, cannot have a "holy book". So I guess you would have to fall back on personal experience, societal convention, instinct or some similar combination. But don't religious people have that as well? So in addition to that they also have "the Book", while atheists don't. So in that sense, religious people do have "more" resources.

Of course we can argue until the sun burns out about whether "more" is "better".

I didn't mean "resources" in the sense of moral authorities or sources to get ideas about what's right or wrong. I meant in the sense of being able to explain why some things are right and some are wrong. A common criticism levelled by theists against atheists is not that atheists behave immorally but that they can't give any explanation for why one should behave morally, or indeed why there's a difference between moral and immoral behaviour in the first place. The point I was making is that this is a weak criticism, given that if this is a problem for atheists, it's just as big a problem for theists, because theism isn't able to explain these things any better. Theists often assume that God is a sufficient explanation for both moral behaviour and the difference between right and wrong in the first place, but he isn't.

But fear my eternal life and judgement? Not really. Christians don't fear God in order to get Heaven. That's a complete misnomer.

I think some certainly do. Augustine had some pretty strong views about people like that, which I take it he wouldn't have felt the need to express if they hadn't existed:

In vain, however, does any one think himself to have gained the victory over sin, if, through nothing but fear of punishment, he refrains from sin; because, although the outward action to which an evil desire prompts him is not performed, the evil desire itself within the man is an enemy unsubdued. And who is found innocent in God’s sight who is willing to do the sin which is forbidden if you only remove the punishment which is feared? And consequently, even in the volition itself, he is guilty of sin who wishes to do what is unlawful, but refrains from doing it because it cannot be done with impunity; for, so far as he is concerned, he would prefer that there were no righteousness forbidding and punishing sins. And assuredly, if he would prefer that there should be no righteousness, who can doubt that he would if he could abolish it altogether? How, then, can that man be called righteous who is such an enemy to righteousness that, if he had the power, he would abolish its authority, that he might not be subject to its threatenings or its penalties? He, then, is an enemy to righteousness who refrains from sin only through fear of punishment; but he will become the friend of righteousness if through love of it he sin not, for then he will be really afraid to sin. For the man who only fears the flames of hell is afraid not of sinning, but of being burned; but the man who hates sin as much as he hates hell is afraid to sin. This is the “fear of the Lord,” which “is pure, enduring for ever.” For the fear of punishment has torment, and is not in love; and love, when it is perfect, casts it out.

 

[Arakhor]

Christians don't fear God in order to get Heaven. That's a complete misnomer.

Well, maybe if people stopped going on about lakes of fire, eternal torment and original sin, then perhaps people wouldn't be scared of going hell and could approach God on their own terms.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well, maybe if people stopped going on about lakes of fire, eternal torment and original sin, then perhaps people wouldn't be scared of going hell and could approach God on their own terms.

With the threat of hell hanging over some Christians heads (not all Christians believe in Hell) and the reward of heaven beckoning to some Christians (not all Christians believe they can go to heaven), it seems very difficult, or impossible to say who really wants to simply follow God's will, and who is conducting a simple cost-benefit analysis.

In that sense, I don't see how a Christian who rejects "atheist-morality" can make a distinction between Christian morality and atheist morality. To explain... If you acknowledge that at least some Christians are only "Christian" based on a cost- benefit analysis that finds 1.Hell exists 2. Bad means hell 3. I will be good to avoid hell. Then how can you distinguish them from someone who finds 1. Hell does not exist 2. Therefore bad does not mean hell 3. However I will be good anyway.

How can you possibly not say that the second person is the morally superior actor, or at least equal to the first?

 

[Borachio]

I don't know. I've a job to know what I think myself without trying to decide what other people are thinking.

For example, how can you distinguish between someone who says they believe Hell exists and really does believe it, and someone who says they believe Hell exists but really doesn't? Or vice versa. Or ipso facto quod erat demonstrandum.

("The very fact that it was demonstrated". In fact, I'm just adding on Latin garbage for the sake of it now.)

 

[madviking]

I don't know of an atheist equivalent, because atheists by definition, would not, cannot have a "holy book".

probably sam harris or something

 

[El_Machinae]

Instinct coupled with logic and ponderings

 

[Arakhor]

I don't know of an atheist equivalent, because atheists by definition, would not, cannot have a "holy book".

Depending on who is claiming things about atheists at the time, I suppose, that could be Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species or anything by Christopher Hitchens.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, no. We have no 'holy text'. Texts about why other faiths are wrong aren't scripture

 

[Arakhor]

I didn't mean it was right, just that it is what people might claim.