Christians acknowledge that atheists can be moral. In fact, many are fine, upstanding, “good” people. What atheists can’t do is validly ground their morality. Without a source of truth from a divine source – a transcendent source – at best they can make “moral” noises, but what they are expressing is not a genuine assertion of good and evil, but simply a preference.
In my last post, I argued that a creator God can do what he wishes with his creation – a computer simulation has no right to argue with the programmer, nor does the pot have the right to challenge the potter. A skeptic – Pvblivs - challenged my claim, saying:
"If a computer animation or a pot were to be sentient, it would, indeed, have the right to complain about any mistreatment at the hands of its creator. But, consider this,” he went on. “If your god decides the bible was a big joke (ha-ha) and throws christians into torment, what is your recourse? What consolation do you have. You may not think it much, but if your god does that sort of thing to me, I will at least have the consolation that I did not pronounce it just, that I was simply overpowered by a wicked tyrant. But you, you say he has every right to do whatever he wants with you. It is possible for human judges to overstep and abuse their authority. And they do sometimes use "officers of the court" to facilitate this. That your god might have the power to enforce his whims (of which I, currently, see no evidence)does not negate the fact that, as described, he is unjust. He demands a respect of which he is not truly worthy. I would like to refer to your doctor analogy. The doctor is concerned about what harm the quack may cause his patients. He does not, however, threaten to impose harm himself on those foolish enough to listen to the imposter. With your god, it is quite different. The idols themselves do nothing, good or bad, for their worshippers. They are, after all, mindless stone or wood or what have you. No, the only danger that will come to people will come from what your god does to those who don't worship him the way he wants them to. All this, of course, is according to the claims of the bible. I do not vouch for the accuracy of the text.
Perhaps he does not realize it, but this response sneaks in moral language which he makes no attempt to ground. Why does a “sentient”being, as opposed to other types of life, have this right? How can he claim that God is a “tyrant” and a “wicked” one at that? I responded by seeking to know the source of the “right” that Pvblivs claimed:
“And where would that "right" be grounded? If there is no god, then your conclusion that something is unjust is merely a feeling, like being hungry. How could you possibly know what a "wicked tyrant" is if you don't have a standard of "good" against which to measure it? Human judges are bound to a higher authority. That's how you know they have overstepped their bounds. Where is that authority to be found? In your worldview, where can you find limits? Those are simply your feelings, once again. God's ways are difficultto understand, and each of us risks being mistaken. But your moral indignation is ultimately baseless in a God-less universe. In fact, you are sneaking in a standard, which you wish to attribute to some generalized sense of human decency. But in the end, without transcendent grounding, it remains just an opinion."
Pvblivs responded:
But Al, I do have a standard of good against which to measure. It's based on the fact that causing pleasure is good and causing pain is bad. However, I would like you to consider the fact that for the common christian claim that "god is good" to have any meaning, there must be a standard of good that isn't based on that god's whims."
But of course this doesn’t help. Far from being an objective standard, it is a form of saying: I want what I want and I like what I like. Good is what I say good is. Here was my response:
I think you need to keep working on that standard. Otherwise, the murderer who causes "pleasure" by killing his grandparents to obtain their wealth would end up being "good," while the doctor who causes "pain" while administering a cure is "bad." Your position ends up being circular - good is what I think is good while bad is what I think is bad.
God doesn't have "whims." He has a nature that we seek to understand, however imperfectly. You just happen to disagree with what you believe to be his nature, as it does not conform to what you think is right or wrong. That, by the way, is how you know there is a standard there. It is pressing against all of us, and we all to varying degrees are rebelling against him. As C.S. Lewis explained, we all know there is a "law" there (morality) and we all violate it."
Pvblivs response was:
That murderer may give himself pleasure; but he is causing his grandparents much more pain. This is, of course, unless we are talking about pulling the plug on life support when they are withered away and sufferring a fate worse than death. "God doesn't have 'whims.' He has a nature that we seek to understand, however imperfectly." If it looks... like a duck, and it quacks... like a duck, and it waddles... like a duck, it's probably not a cow. This looks like christians making excuses for the whims of their god.
No, what it looks like is someone who doesn’t see the ramifications of his worldview. The murderer, in my example, could be giving pleasure – in the form of wealth – to a dozen people who might stand to inherit. So, does the pleasure of the many outweigh the pain of the one? What if you drug the person first, so he feels no pain? Does that make it “good.” Contrast that with Christianity. Take the protection of life, a timely topic. Christianity teaches that all people are made in the image of God. Consequently, no one has the right to take the life of another, innocent human being. Whether the innocent life is a fetus, and elderly person who “refuses” to die willingly, or a member of a race that another race wants to enslave or destroy, there is no need to analyze who gains pleasure and who is caused pain. This provides a workable, transcendent standard - it was the code upon which much of our law was once based.
No, Pvblivs, chasing pleasure won’t make for a just society, or for a happy one. Haven’t we learned that by now?
Posts
72 comments:
You're missing the point that basic morality has a fairly clear evolutionary origin.
The blog's logic has become so circular and panicked that I can imagine it will soon swallow itself whole.
To drop ninety percent of a story, I will tell you that I had the experience of using an atheist's morality against him. He said that I had no right in making a certain statement. My reply was that I was using his own Godless morality; since there are no absolute standards in his worldview, why can't I do what I wish? Further, his complaint that "What you say is wrong" was appealing to higher moral standards. In essence, he was appealing to God.
Hope I didn't make this incomprehensible by chopping the bulk out of the story.
Atheists are not consistent in their orthodoxy. When I stated in a comment on another Weblog that an atheist made a comment that morality has an "evolutionary mandate" on my own Weblog, the atheists ridiculed me and said that I made it up; no atheist would make such an assertion. They clammed up after they saw the comment.
But if evolution causes morality, then it has to be situational and expedient, shifting with times, cultures and moods. Here's one example: If evolution was true, then a male should give in to his urges to fertilize every possible female and eliminate the competition.
Stormbringer, it's entirely possible that your described 'impregnate the women, kill the rivals' version exists somewhere in our evolutionary past, but once we became social animals that kind of behaviour ceased to aid our survival. The basic morality higher primates display is a well understood beneficial behaviour, and the adoption of that behaviour would easily be selected for via natural selection.
Any group that doesn't kill, rape or steal from it's own is far more likely to survive and pass on the meme.
I don't understand why creationists have such a problem with the simple beneficial forces driving the evolution of basic right and wrong...maybe they don't like the idea that religion is part of the evolution of morality, and not the source of it.
"But if evolution causes morality, then it has to be situational and expedient, shifting with times, cultures and moods."
It does, something that anthropologists around the world know very well.
A couple of thoughts.
If you really don't understand why theists have a problem, then perhaps you aren't as well versed in the subject as you claim. I would think it was rather obvious why they take the position that they do.
You may think they are wrong, but to genuinely not know why seems a bit odd considering your previous claims of knowledge on the subject.
Besides, the claim that morality is completely culturally dependant and shifts with times and moods removes any claim that of the instructions to the hebrews (ie regarding war) in the old testament contains anything immoral, as by definition modern middle class western morality isn't applicable. That is a fairly good refutation of the Problem of Evil as far as the ancient past goes, as when morality changes so does the definition of Evil. It's not like there is an overarching defiition of evil that transends time and culture is there?
Evolutionarily, if my offspring can survive among rape and murder ( because they are strong and can afford to protect themselves from having it happen to them) where is the evolutionary advantage to them not to do that if it reduces the passing of other's genes? Why should they care if Bob the pacifist doesn't pass his genes on? Because he is part of their group? Would it not be to their evolutionary advantage if the future group shares more of their genes than Bob's?
Perhaps I didn't word that properly, let me try again -
I fully understand how threatened creationists feel by knowledge.
There, that's better!
The facts of the matter are that the Theory of Evolution more than adequately explains practically everything related to life that we see around us. Where creationism eventually has to respond with pleading to a higher authority, claiming the validity of a position that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up, and eventually chasing their own tails into increasingly locked circles of logic.
That answered absolutely nothing.
Trent, morality evolved as we became more social, the group being stronger than the individual whilst making sure that natural selection favoured those individuals. Be grateful, if we hadnt developed groups where the less physically strong hadnt been protected we might never have developed the big brains that you and I are putting to use right now discussing this.
That is an assertion, and not evidence.
If I recall for most of recorded history the weak only existed to serve the strong, and it has already been asserted that morality is culturally derived and changes over time. That should mean that evolution of morality should have favoured those traits which would allow servile behaviour to be better expressed to serve the needs of a smaller aristocratic subgroup.
Your assertion assumes that a primordial hominid developed a moral sense which evolved, and all branches of descendants developed similarly, even when not having contact. The burden of proof for this is on you as I do not accept your assertion is entirely accurate.
One writer said that if humans do indeed evolve, then it is completely possible that they could devolve.
Perhaps that is what has happened to those who don't believe The Word of God.
Jer 2:21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?
Rhomphaia, you need to educate yourself on how evolution works, as it's impossible for a being to 'devolve'.
Evolution will always move forward, you may get a creature evolving into a form that is similar to one of its ancestors (eg the whale, which came out of the water then went back in), but you will never get a being changing back into it's ancestor.
Tim - the constant shifting of morality over time and circumstance does give you a 'get out of jail' card for the notion of evil in the OT, unfortunately you can't use it, as you don't believe in evolution and feel that morality is static and all handed down from god....which means that the OT god WAS a monster, and there's no escaping that fact.
It's actually irrelevant, as archaeology in the holy land shows a very different story than that told by the OT....for example, David and Solomon never ruled over a glorious united Israel, Judah at the time was a very insignificant backwater, vastly overshadowed by the (later demonised by the OT writers) northern kingdom of Israel.
The 'history' of Israel and Judah was written during the time of Josiah, around the 7th century BCE, evidence of this is found in the scripture itself, when Josiah is the only future monarch mentioned by name in prophecy - ask yourself this, if you were a king and were aware that a future ruler would bring prosperity and that he'd be called Josiah, is there any reason why you WOULDN'T name your heir Josiah?
The writers retro fitted prophecy to fit the desires of the contemporary king, just as the apparently detailed prophecies of Daniel turn out, when examined properly, to have been written between 180 and 100 BCE, hundreds of years after the events they supposedly foretold! No wonder they were (almost) historically accurate!!
You've asked me elsewhere what evidence I would require to have your god shown as real - well, I'd want a scripture that wasn't contradictory, presented accurate history, and matched the observed world in every detail. That your god hasn't even managed to do that I find it highly unlikely that he has the power to create anything at all.
>>>Evolution will always move forward<<<
I'm sure that is not what was intended. Moving forward implies goal oriented behaviour. Evolution is random mutation sifted through natural selection. It does not have a goal. Genetic traits do not succeed in a goal of producing more offspring, they simply either provide some sort of advantage which has more offspring as a byproduct or doesn't hinder the leaving of offspring more than being without the trait.
I'm sure that you did not mean to make a metaphysical claim that evolution had some sort of intentionality or end goal.
Evolution happens. It does not move forward.
You're being pedantic Trent. Evolution has no goals, it is entirely blind but it is a fact that it will never go back in time. No creature will EVER 'devolve' to an earlier version of itself... I would have thought the meaning of my comment was clear
"It's impossible for a being to 'devolve'".
The natural progression of everything is downwards, not upwards. Nature abhors changes and freaks as much as it abhors a vacuum, as nature exterminates the unfit and the different.
"Evolution has no goals..."
Tell that to the author of The Wisdom of Evolution. Not only is it an intelligent, godlike force, but evolution causes morals as well.
I do not have that much faith in chance, survival of the fittest and random mutations.
Facts require proof.
All you can say is it would be extremely unlikely and has never been observed to happen, which is different than saying it can never happen.
If you say it is a fact, you take on the burden of proof.
Trent, the only way it could happen would be if time reversed.
As that has never happened, and can not happen, I think we can safely say that nothing will ever devolve.
And you're now claiming that I have the burden of proof? Funny, you weren't saying that when I stated that your god wasn't perfect.
Stormbringer, please, for your own sake, go and read a book that actually has facts about evolution in it.
I didn't claim he was perfect, so there was no burden of proof on my part.
You on the other hand are claiming specific knowledge of the outcome of a random process. You are making an absolute claim to knowledge you cannot prove. The probability of such an occurrence may be almost vanishingly small, but that is not the same as impossible. The burden of proof is on you to prove that that vanishingly small probability is actually zero, as you claim.
If you cannot prove this one little thing, this one little probability problem, how do you expect the author to prove to you the existence of God? All you have to do is show that the probability is zero, as you have claimed. Show us all what an absolute proof of something looks like. Show us that you do not make claims you cannot back up.
I think that you rely on your belief because it makes sense to you, and the opposite doesn't make any sense. This is this similar to the Christian (at least those who have taken the time to think about it).
So is it provable, or should I assume that absolute claims being made are hyperbole to deflect questions while attacking others for not proving their point? BTW, so small it is practically zero doesn't count. That wasn't your claim.
This may seem petty to you, but the fact is a big part of the argument is the authors not being able to prove to your satisfaction their position, using your rules. Show us all that you hold your own proclamations to the same standards as you hold the authors.
"Hope I didn't make this incomprehensible by chopping the bulk out of the story."
I rather doubt it. I've seen your other stories.
Al:
Killing and stripping the grandparents of their funds is still causing a greater amount of pain. Although you say that non-christians have no basis for morality, it is actually the christian's claim to morality that is groundless. Most people would regard a decree of "I am giving you this land, now go slaughter the people who already live there and spare no one" to be evil. But such a decree is attributed to the christian god. Now, what were you saying about the protection of life? It is meaningless unless the prohibition against killing also applies to your god.
Oh, by the way, the sentient being has the right because the sentient being can meaningfully form the objection. Non-sentient life is (by definition) not aware and so is not aware of any maltreatment. Any being that is aware is sentient.
Pvblivs:
Who gets to decide whose pain is greater? What if the grandparent is sick anyway so killing her with drugs ends her pain and allows the grandchildren to use the money for a relaxing vacation? Still think you have a workable standard?
The Christian rule is that no human being can deliberately take the life of another innocent human being. God isn’t a human being. Consequently, he’s not bound by the rule. This seems to be the basis of your objection: You think that God must be bound by the same rules he imposes on us. But the robot doesn’t get to complain that he spends all day on the assembly line, while his creator enjoys his leisure. The computer animation doesn’t get to resist going into “battle” if the programmer designs him for that. God must be true to his nature, but doing what he pleases with his creation does not violate his nature.
Try to contemplate for a moment what creation from nothing entails. Or the fact that our entire existence depends wholly on God allowing it. Where did you get this idea that a created thing can make demands of his creator?
"The facts of the matter are that the Theory of Evolution more than adequately explains practically everything related to life that we see around us."
Except of course how life arose in the first place - how the first life began from lifeless inert matter - for evolution to begin acting on it. Your theory fails a pretty basic test.
Al, abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution, your lot need to stop getting the two mixed up.
Trent, show me that time can move backwards, and then we'll talk. I notice that you've avoided answering the basic questions by homing in on something you think you can pick apart...as an avoidance tactic it is very obvious.
Thank you.
You've proved that you hold yourself to a lower standard than you are holding the authors, or any Christian. You've demonstrated that even after repeatedly declaring others wrong by stating absolutes, you have no intention of backing up your own claims.
You can safely be dismissed as merely an annoying troll.
ah, so because you're unwilling to answer basic questions *i'm* a troll!
Trent, tell me, how can god be all powerful and all knowing. I'm guessing you'll pull out another diversion to avoid answering....
"Al, abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution, your lot need to stop getting the two mixed up."
Evolution cannot begin to operate until a highly complex genetic code is already up and running. Evolution - in the sense of minor changes occurring in an already existing species - is simply a function of that genetic code's programming. But the genetic code did not assemble itself; information, which is what DNA encapsulates - comes from minds, not from randomness.
Naturalism, of which evolutionary theory is a key part, has no adequate explanation for how this process begins - for the creation of life from non life, for the initial assembly of DNA.
Consequently, your apparent confidence in "evolution" to explain everything is a bit misplaced.
Read this - http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/abiogenesis-verified-in-lab
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-abiogenesis-research.html
We've made a lot more headway with understanding this than theists seem to think.
I'll say it again though, abiogenesis has nothing at all to do with the Theory of Evolution, and theists need to stop getting the two mixed up.
Theories cobbled together to give a plausible maybe, followed by a round of back patting.
Sort of like I'd expect from 9/11 conspiracists or those who think the government is secretly run by Nazis or Freemasons.
I think I can find a Youtube video that "proves" all written history is a fake or that we are all descendants of Aliens.
I particularly liked the part where the relationship between abiogenisis and evolution is compared to the relationship between gravitation and germ theory.
Proof that all biblical history was faked by Jesuits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ-vqiBvMo8
Trent, enough with the smoke screen, answer the question!
How can god be all powerful and all knowing? Please explain this to me!
Proof of ancient Hindu super technology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PfhV_Hns4&feature=related
They made a video with tons of references. It must be true.
Trent, it's becoming increasingly apparent that you are either unable or unwilling to answer a fairly simple question about the nature of the god you believe in, instead posting links to completely unlinked Youtube videos.
Why won't you explain how god is all powerful (Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6) and all knowing (Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14) when to be both of these things is logically impossible?
Why ask me? I didn't write the article.
I'm just a guy wondering why you can't meet the standards with your claims that you expect the actual author to.
Look! Aliens on the moon!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIW2cLOgMl8&feature=related
Trent, I'm asking you as I'm assuming from your posts that you're a believer.
So, are you unable to answer? Weird, considering you're actually told to...
1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
"to give the reason for the hope that you have"
You did not ask this. Instead, you demand answers to all sorts of contrived, illogical and silly questions, and then misquote Scripture to bully people. Not good.
The quotes verses don't necessarily cancel each other out.
In the first batch, you have a rhetorical question and two statements (one in poetry and one in apocalyptic symbolics) that God is very powerful.
In the second group, it says he is smart and no one had to teach him stuff (one in poetry and one in grandiose terms used as in praising a monarch).
Please explain how they are mutually exclusive and prove anything.
In my opinion, with the opposite position anyone who isn't a nihilist simply stopped thinking about it when it became uncomfortable.
Stormbringer, I've misquoted nothing
Trent, you can't answer, fine, just man up and admit it rather than playing this tiresome game of yours.
That might have more sting if it didn't reek of hypocrisy.
Trent, very very boring now.
But very showing of your character that you cannot provide that which you demand of others.
You never answered my question. Yet you ignore responses to your questions as insufficient, and then blog about how stupid everyone here is.
You ask me to refute an argument that hasn't been shown to even be a valid objection. The texts presented to show that there is a paradox, show nothing of the kind. They don't even elude to one. Tempest in a teapot.
After claiming that you have a background that is more knowledgeable about theology than anyone with credentials, you appear (or pretend) to have a lack understanding of concepts and distinctions that almost any apologist or theologian would take for granted. You pretend that disproving theism is easy, but you seem to lack the ability to do it, yet claim victory when you go back to preaching to your own choir.
I am quite unimpressed.
Give a reason for my hope? Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
My faith got a new kickstart when I read The God Delusion and listened to Hitchens in a debate. It occurred to me that if these are the cream of the crop, and they were playing their A game, then they held nothing useful. Just rehashing old arguments for money and fame. Antifaith televangelists. Moving from talk show to news show shilling poor logic and lack of depth of displayed knowledge, since giving the audience too much information might let them think too much, didn't impress me.
The very fact that they bent the truth to avoid letting the audience think that the other side of the argument was any more in depth that the shallow mistreatment they were giving, made me realize that not only were they disapproving of Christianity, but that they were actually scared that if it was properly presented the audience may take it seriously. I started reading and listening to apologetics to get a better idea of what they wanted to avoid telling me.
Between Jim, Stands to Reason, Apologetics.com, CARM and a few podcasts of courses from Reformed Theological Seminary, I found their arguments more convincing than Dawkins or Hitchens.
So, the best supposed minds of atheism drove me back smack into theism by beating me over the head with bad rhetoric. Does that answer your question about the reason for the hope in me?
Al:
I think that my standard is more workable than yours. You think you have found a flaw in my standard. I disagree; but it is always possible that you are correct. But you have a phoney standard. If your god cannot or will not follow his own moral standards then he stands condemned by his own judgement. No excuses for why he doesn't have to follow his own rules. Those rules are supposedly "absolute." This is an important consideration. You are otherwise likely to point out that parents make rules for their children's safety and often don't follow those rules themselves. But, even on the child those rules are temporary. As the child matures, the purpose for the rules will fade and they will cease to be applicable. But a parent should be held to any moral standard he dictates for his children. Indeed, the bar should be set higher for the parent. Why is the bar set so low for your god?
"But you have a phoney standard. If your god cannot or will not follow his own moral standards then he stands condemned by his own judgement. No excuses for why he doesn't have to follow his own rules."
Do you tell your employer that he must follow all of the same rules that he lays down for his employees? "No excuses, you gotta..." And he can say, "There's the door".
"But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"
Your employer, and God, have superior knowledge. They make the rules. Fuss if you like, but they know what is best, one for the company, one for humanity. You have no business saying, "That's not fair!"
Stormbringer, I'd quit a job if my boss was like that.
Let's all be grateful that your god doesn't exist, eh?
"I'd quit a job if my boss was like that."
You would be quitting more than you were keeping.
The fact remains, superior position and knowledge makes the rules. People at the bottom of the feeding chain do not. God is the Creator, he makes the rules and it's best for us to find out what he has to say — without making demands and expectations on what we want him to say, think, do, or to be.
Pvblivs
I don't agree that God violates his own moral standards. Give me an example or two of the standard and how it is violated.
Al:
The very fact that you needed to invoke "what right does a pot have to object to the potter?" tells me that you are quite aware of such violations but that you excuse them by claiming that your god has "special priviledge."
Mex,
Do you think the pot has a "right" to challenge the potter? Should a robot have a moral basis to complain about its working conditions? Or why its creator does not work in the same way?
I'd be interested in hearing where such a right might be grounded? And if there is such a right, to what authority must the pot, or the robot, turn for enforcement of the right?
"Do you think the pot has a "right" to challenge the potter? Should a robot have a moral basis to complain about its working conditions? Or why its creator does not work in the same way?"
When we finally create genuine artificial intelligence then these rights will need considering, in fact they've already been discussed in some circles -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6200005.stm
So, in answer to your question, yes, the sentient robot has absolutely every right to expect to be treated like any other sentient being, even by its creator.
The fact that humans realise this shows just how far we've come from our Bronze and Iron Age infatuations with gods.
"Yes, the sentient robot has absolutely every right to expect to be treated like any other sentient being, even by its creator."
By what standard? Who will give it such rights? Since neither the rights nor significant artificial intelligence exists, and since you are insisting on rights that do not exist yet, you are appealing to something higher. That would be God.
Really, Stormbringer??
You can't see that a created sentience has a right to freedoms and rights?
So, you're saying that the created thing has rights? Who grants the created thing the rights? Seems to me that either the creator, or some higher level of rights-granting. You're appealing to God.
Why?
"So, you're saying that the created thing has rights? Who grants the created thing the rights? Seems to me that either the creator, or some higher level of rights-granting. You're appealing to God."
No, I'm not. Any sentient being deserves the rights we enjoy, rights that DIDN'T come from your god but have been developed over long ages by mankind.
Are you really incapable of seeing that?
Maybe he can see it if you answer the question. Why?
Why should I accept your position?
You would never accept an answer of it's obvious from anyone here. Why should we accept it from you?
You seem to be saying.
1- Anything self aware has rights
2- This thing I created seems self aware.
3- Therefore it should have rights.
Setting aside the question of proof of self awareness (you need that for statement 1 ), rights for higher mammals is still not universally accepted and they have shown signs of self awareness since we had the concept of rights (You need that for statement 2). Therefore statement is not obvious, but simply a statement that makes sense to you that you emotionally. Probably from watching too much Star Trek. (Data had rights, but what about M5, Vaal, and Landru? Were they all murdered?)
My proposal
1 - If I make something, I own it and can do anything I want with it, including destroy it at my will.
2- I made this
3- Therefore I can do anything I want with it including destroy it.
You can call me an a-artificial-sentientist. I lack belief in it's ability to exist, and think that the default position should be it can't exist unless you can prove it to me in a way I can't imagine it being faked.
Please convince me. And please do it on this blog, rather than simply state that I'm being silly and brag about kicking my arse or your blog.
My apologies.
I transposed which argument you needed for which statement. The overall point remains.
"Are you really incapable of seeing that?"
Are you incapable of seeing that the rights of AI have to be granted by a creator, just like the source of rights to which you appeal come from the Creator?
If rights evolved over time, then they are situational at best (Germany 1930s, atheist countries persecuting Jews and Christians, Muslim countries persecuting others &c).
>>>If this happened, the report says, the robots would have certain responsibilities such as voting, the obligation to pay taxes, and perhaps serving compulsory military service.<<<
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6200005.stm
What if they don't? Are you for robot capital punishment? ie shutting them off? If a state doesn't have capital punishment, is it discriminatory to shut down machines?
If a true AI ever emerged it would have every right to vote, and it would be deserving to being treated exactly as any other citizen.
Trent, how do you know that YOU'RE sentient? How do you know that what you think of as sentience isn't just the side effect of lots of very complex instincts reacting on one another?
irrelevant.
Since I am an a-artificial-sentientist, I have no need to defend my position, as I lack belief the situation will ever happen, making the entire argument a waste of time.
If I am wrong, I still haven't got an answer on why my position, which I explained, is wrong. Other than the fact you think it is wrong, which is not an actual reason.
If you disagree, then make your case.
I'm not disrespecting your position. I simply do not share it. Tell me how you came to hold it.
So, Trent, you think that, unless something is created by your god, it isn't truly alive?
If an AI were proved to be genuinely sentient, would you accord it the rights that you feel you should enjoy? Or would you insist that it wasn't alive?
You see, this is the point we're making - if a being creates life that is self aware then the creator shouldn't be surprised if the creation complains when poorly treated.
I'm fairly sure that you'll never accept that a man made AI should be treated as an equal, as to do so would undermine your impression of what man's relationship with your god should be. If you ever acknowledged that a genuine artificial intelligence was properly sentient then you'd have to accept that mankind has a right to call god on his cruelty.
Looking at the point in your answer earlier -
"1 - If I make something, I own it and can do anything I want with it, including destroy it at my will.
2- I made this
3- Therefore I can do anything I want with it including destroy it."
OK, let's answer
Trent has made a child with his partner. According to his own argument he owns it and can do anything he wants with it, including destroying it.
Your god repeatedly claims to be a father figure, treating humans as his children. I put it to you that your argument presents a god that treats his children as belongings that he can treat how he pleases, even destroying them if he wants to. I also put it to you that, if that is the case, your god is a monster.
So you equate not believing that some future version of Windows or Linux should be able to vote is equal to condoning killing one's own children, and you think that should make me reevaluate my whole world view?
Dogs don't get to vote. Dolphins don't get to vote. Gorillas don't get to vote. Octupi don't vote? Why not? They are examples of animals that already exist and have a form of sentience.
They don't pay taxes either.
Why can't my dog vote? Why am I allowed to take him to the Humane Society and get rid of him, and if they are full they can kill him? He shows sentience. Where are his rights?
If you are going to extend these rights to non-humans, do you get to pick and choose what gets rights and what doesn't?
You still haven't explained your position.
All you did was state that AIs are equivalent to humans accuse me of being a possible baby murderer.
And I asked you to answer me here, and not on your own blog.
I have to assume that you are simply trying to increase your own traffic, or your scared to post here what you post there.
If you are scared, I'll assume that I am right and will maintain my a-artificial-sentientist position which I still hold needs no justification. I lack belief that this will ever be an issue, and have heard nothing to change my mind.
"Dogs don't get to vote. Dolphins don't get to vote. Gorillas don't get to vote. Octupi don't vote? Why not? They are examples of animals that already exist and have a form of sentience."
When other animals are shown to be sentient, then I'll be all for them having equal rights.
"I have to assume that you are simply trying to increase your own traffic, or your scared to post here what you post there."
How am I doing that? I'm not mentioning my blog, or providing links to it. As for being 'scared to post here' what I put up there, a lot of what I put up there is based on my replies here. In fact the material usually appears here first.
So, I'll ask you, how in any way am I promoting my blog? If anything I'm promoting THIS blog on mine....something I'm starting to regret.
OK.
A lack of belief, I'm told doesn't need to be defended. I lack belief. I've said that multiple times.
I am going to try Jim's advice.
I presented my position. I've asked you to present yours. You don't seem willing to present one other than to simply say you are right. In fact, you haven't answered any of my questions on almost anything, so I'm chalking this up to an unwillingness to meet your own proof criteria.
Your arguments aren't even interesting.
"No, I'm not. Any sentient being deserves the rights we enjoy, rights that DIDN'T come from your god but have been developed over long ages by mankind.
Are you really incapable of seeing that?"
History doesn't support your position. Rights may develop, but not in the direction you wish. The Nazi's expanded "rights" for Aryans by eliminating the "rights" of the Jews. Communism and socialism expand the rights of the state and diminish the rights of the individual. Slavery and abortion are still practiced all over the world. But the Founders understood where rights come from and why its moral to fight for them. They are God-given and cannot rightly be taken by men. Christianity was the driving force behind this. Without an anchor in the transcendent, and without a knowledge that there will be consequences, there would be no way to compel the strong to give rights to the weak. The American experiment is a testament to the effect that Christian beliefs can exert on fallen man.
By the way, people don't "make" children, they "beget" them. There is a difference. Consequently, because those children - even in utero - are fully human, they have all the rights that God gives to all of his "image bearers."
I was going to reply in detail, but then you used the word 'beget' and I realised that there's absolutely no point in discussing anything at all with you guys.
Again, I've been accused of not answering questions asked of me - so here are the ones I could see....
"My reply was that I was using his own Godless morality; since there are no absolute standards in his worldview, why can't I do what I wish?"
You can, but you have to abide by the laws the culture you live in enforces.
"It's not like there is an overarching defiition of evil that transends time and culture is there?"
No, there isn't.
"Evolutionarily, if my offspring can survive among rape and murder ( because they are strong and can afford to protect themselves from having it happen to them) where is the evolutionary advantage to them not to do that if it reduces the passing of other's genes? Why should they care if Bob the pacifist doesn't pass his genes on? Because he is part of their group? Would it not be to their evolutionary advantage if the future group shares more of their genes than Bob's?"
If you can't see that a group that helps one another is more likely to survive than one that doesn't then I'm wasting my time speaking to you.
"If you cannot prove this one little thing, this one little probability problem, how do you expect the author to prove to you the existence of God?"
Is this me proving that nothing can devolve? As I've said, for something to devolve it would have to travel back in time. A form may change to something similar to an earlier version of itself, but it will never devolve, as to devolve is impossible.
"Why?"
Because.
I think that covers all of them.
I have no expectation that you wish a dialog, but rather are looking for an answer to mock.
I could suggest other sources of information, if you truly wanted to learn why people believe.
apologetics315.com, apologetics.com, StandtoReason.org, the Unbelievable! podcast out of the UK. The last is fairly good, and has a lot of dialogs between christians and non-christians.
I have presented my position and have pointed you to resources who know more than I do, as you seem to believe you have exhausted what you think you can learn here.
(Disclaimer: As I am not affiliated with this site, I am making no claims that they don't know much more than I do, or am using my knowledge as any indication of of the skill of the authors.)
I wish you good luck.
Post a Comment