ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Religion

If there is no god, why do people behave in a moral and ethical manner? One answer might be long-term self-interest: if you never tell a lie, for example, you will develop a favorable reputation among other people which will allow you to participate in all sorts of activities of which you would never be a part otherwise. Another answer might be "big picture" self-interest: people usually achieve more and have higher standards of living when they collaborate compared to when they compete: "competition" only works as a motivator when embedded in a broader collaborative structure first (i.e., if everyone plays by the rules, we aren't deliberately trying to injure a competitor because we don't want them trying to injure us and so we all place voluntary limits on our behaviors to promote a better outcome for all). While these answers are all well and good, there seems to be something missing: to be motivated SOLELY by self-interest, no matter how you dress it up, seems like a somewhat barren life. ...

There are philosophers who question even the possibility of altruism --- and a lot of my students as well - but it is an empirical fact that there are countless examples of atheists who have sacrficed their lives for a cause -- for others. I suppose they did it either because of their sense of inter-connectedness. But as non-believing enviornmentalists attest, being willing to sacrifice for a world and people with whom you will have no contact - does not seem to require belief in God. Unless, perhaps we wanted to argue that such people are irrationally going against their own self-interests - and if they really thought matters through they wouldn't spend their time trying to make sure that the beaches were clean for people when they themselves were dead. A strange kind of argument it would be - stop doing these noble things because all rational activity needs to be based in self-interest. Can there be a rational motivation for self-sacrifcing behavior that is not anchored (have to love the metaphors)...
Knowledge
Religion

Okay, so I'm currently taking a philosophy of religions course at a community college. Anyway my teacher had asked where morals come from and I responded with a social-evolutionary type of theory and his response was: Teacher: "Your faith in reason is matched only by the most devote religious believers." Me: Let's examine that word 'faith'. Faith by definition can mean two different things, one definition of faith is confidence. For example, I have faith in my abilities to win at a sport competition or something like that. The second is belief in something without any proof at all, like for example God. It is important that we note where this difference in usage, because depending on context - they mean two different things and using them interchangeably in the same way is equivocation. If one were to say - well you have faith in science, just like I have faith in god - this is an example of equivocation. Teacher: For the record, dictionary definitions are great for learning general senses of a...

A fascinating reflection. You should write it up in the form of a Socratic dialogue. Perhaps your prof meant that your belief in science amounts to a faith in reason which is basically unsupported by reason or I suppose empirical data. Therefore, it is in the same league as faith in God. I have heard people hold that it takes faith to believe that the sun is going to come up tomorrow -- therefore religious faith is nothing that peculiar. I myself tend to agree with Kierkegaard that faith as in faith that, say, Jesus is God - that He is coming back - that He has forgiven our sins and gives us life eternal - that all this involves a radical collision with the understanding, that it is more than improbable but instead an offesne to reason, and that it is categorically different from an opinion. As for the etymolgy issue, I am a dunce, but it is true that the dictionary only provides a glimpse into the way a word tends to be used at a given time. The word in Danish that Kierkegaard uses is "tro"...
Rationality
Religion

Is it right to call a believer rational even if she cannot prove articulately or give good arguments for her belief in God? Let's just say I ask a believer "Why do you believe in God?" and she simply answered, "Because I've experienced God's grace in my life," and she needs no arguments or other evidences for her belief, is her position justifiable? I personally thinks it is but if that is the case, then what would make belief in God irrational, if simply certain personal experiences can justify such belief?

If she had reasons to believe, it would not be faith that she had but knowledge. It might be hard to set up experiments and prove that love exists, and yet I would not call a person who believed in love on the basis of personal experience - irrational. Perhaps it would be irrational - to think- to imagine - that reason could take in the full sweep of reality. It might be reasonable to believe that there are limits to reason and yet as human beings we still have to decide whether or not believe in what falls outside the bounds of reason. Thanks for your provocative question.
Religion

I recently was in an " Ask an Atheist" panel at a predominantly Lutheran college, and after asserting that the burden of proof lies on the theist, someone claimed that a deeply spiritual person has knowledge that is only available to them. In other words, regarding what is morally correct or anything else god could want us to do, a theist is justified doing things akin to Abraham attempting to sacrifice Isaac because they have a certain kind of knowledge that justifies doing so despite all evidence that suggests it is wrong. Is this logically or epistemologically sensical, especially regarding morality? What about people like Hildegard of Bingen who claimed to receive visions from God and know this is the case beyond all doubt?

It does not make any epistemological sense to me. Knowledge at least implies a justification that presumably could be made public, so even if such persons are right in their views I don't think that they can claim to have knowledge.
Justice
Religion

I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion for the following problem: suppose I live in country where my constitution upholds my right to practice my religion (I mean a secular country), how justified is another person when he tells me that my children are not welcome in a school that is run under some other religious guidelines ? I mean the religious foundation on which the school was found is different from the religion I (and my children) practice at home. Does this person have a right to say that I cannot practice my religion in his premises ? Even though we both live in the same (secular) country. Isn't my constitutional right being violated ? I also want to bring to light the recent proposal by France to ban burqua, which has gathered a lot of unwanted attention. Also, does being secular mean freedom from religion or freedom of religion ?

I'm in aggreement with half of Charles' last point. I don't think that your constitutional right is being violated if the government has good reason to believe that the practice of your religion might lead to violence and so the suppression of the rights of others. Also, though the meaning of words is always in flux, I take secular to mean non- religious.