Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I'll brush up on my Blind Watchmaker and my Ken Miller Biology 101, but in the meantime, does anyone care to address the discussion of justice?

What exactly is the topic? The last few posts seemed to argue that God has to exist because if not, then the universe is not just. But clearly our need for justice does not make justice exist. Ergo, our need for justice does not prove the existence of God.

OP here. If you go back a few posts, I offered a version of your argument as unbelievers' "God is wishful thinking" position. I wanted to grant that, and put it aside for a moment.

Rather, I asked if I had my understanding of nonbelievers' position as materialists correct, and it seemed everyone agreed that I did. Which makes sense, because this is the dictionary definition:

"Materialism is a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter."

That being defined, I offered this problem:

"Humans seek justice (through the legal system, through their own work making the world a better place).

But there is great injustice in this life. (Despite our best efforts, evil does well and good suffers.)

So justice cannot be found in this life.

Either justice is found in something beyond this life, or justice is simply not met by reality.

One or the other, not both.

So perhaps our demand for justice is just a subjective quirk of the human psyche. There is no foundation in reality for our instinct to seek justice. No justification for that drive. Seeking justice is a subjective wish we may have, a personal preference, but not an objective reality."

Materialism says the universe is material objects with natural properties. Justice is none of these things. Therefore, it does not exist as objective reality.

And yet, good and evil, fair and unfair, right and wrong, are inescapably part of our human experience. Even the most cold-hearted materialist will yell "Hey! You cut me off! That's not right!" on the Beltway. So it is impossible to say that we have no sense of justice.

The last refuge is to say justice is something we create, something subjective, a personal preference, a feeling. But then it is still actually not real. It is a delusion. There is no supreme, objective standard. There just is what is. So any human act cannot really be evil. We may not like it, but there is no authoritative standard hovering out there.

Either this materialism is true, or it is false. If it is false, then it is a profound falsehood, a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be human. If there is more to a human being than his material, physical form, something immaterial, something which cannot be quantified by the material universe, then that is significant. Viktor Frankl, a famous Jewish psychologist, put it this way:

"If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere project of heredity and environment, we see the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone...the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or..."of blood and soil."

Wait, justice is not just a feeling. It is an outcome that societies strive to provide. And many non-theistic philosophies explore justice. Justice is very intertwined with liberty, which is part and parcel of our philosophical underpinnings as a country. Sure, justice cannot be guaranteed without an omnipotent being, but that does not mean that it does not exist at all.

Read for example Rawls, a Theory of Justice. That might help you get a handle on thinking about Justice outside of God.

[Anonymous]

Read for example Rawls, a Theory of Justice. That might help you get a handle on thinking about Justice outside of God.


I did, and studied it extensively. My college major was political theory, and my mentor, John Tomasi, was big into Rawls.

But note the title: A Theory of Justice. Not that justice is real, actual reality. A theory. Rawls' personal take on it. That's still the problem.

[Anonymous]

Absolute justice is not real. That does not make any justice impossible or not real.

[Anonymous]

OP here, good morning! I hear crickets chirping...what is going on? Perhaps I am only listening to myself talk at this point, but I will make a couple more observations anyway:

The problem with materialism is materialism. If it is true, then human beings are nothing special in actuality. The same process that spit us out will swallow us back up, and we, as individuals, will not know the difference.

I could invite one of the PPs out to lunch, and while chatting, PP could say something that annoyed me, and I could pull out my gun and shoot them in the face. They would not know any better. They would have ceased to exist, utterly and absolutely. Our life would be like a video game (that no one created). The characters might walk and talk and act like they matter, but they are actually nothing, come from nothing.

In a materialist universe, with no reality beyond matter and its properties, there is no non-material stuff. There is no "ought," no "should." When "ought" and "should" happen, they have no force and no weight, because they are unreal. They are ultimately arbitrary.

If anything, all the evidence around us, about the "way things work," would point to the opposite of justice. The apparent laws of the material world are cold, callous, brutal--pitiless matter. How could justice arise naturally from a heaving sea of ever-changing material substances that simply are what they are?

Any code of justice we could come up with would be cosmically unenforceable and random, and therefore meaningless, illusory. The "original position," the "veil of ignorance," the most happiness for the most people, do no harm, majority opinion, expert opinion--ALL are just personal preferences, not some ultimate reality. They would be like traffic laws. We might have excellent reasons for driving on the right, to prevent chaos on the streets, but the choice to organize like that is just a preference. It could very well be the opposite somewhere else.

to be continued...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Read for example Rawls, a Theory of Justice. That might help you get a handle on thinking about Justice outside of God.

I did, and studied it extensively. My college major was political theory, and my mentor, John Tomasi, was big into Rawls.

But note the title: A Theory of Justice. Not that justice is real, actual reality. A theory. Rawls' personal take on it. That's still the problem.

What an insightful critique. This is a great alternative to reading the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read for example Rawls, a Theory of Justice. That might help you get a handle on thinking about Justice outside of God.

I did, and studied it extensively. My college major was political theory, and my mentor, John Tomasi, was big into Rawls.

But note the title: A Theory of Justice. Not that justice is real, actual reality. A theory. Rawls' personal take on it. That's still the problem.

WTF your major was political "theory". What did you expect? And surely you picked up on the fact that moral philosophy can be useful even if not absolute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, good morning! I hear crickets chirping...what is going on? Perhaps I am only listening to myself talk at this point, but I will make a couple more observations anyway:

The problem with materialism is materialism. If it is true, then human beings are nothing special in actuality. The same process that spit us out will swallow us back up, and we, as individuals, will not know the difference.

I could invite one of the PPs out to lunch, and while chatting, PP could say something that annoyed me, and I could pull out my gun and shoot them in the face. They would not know any better. They would have ceased to exist, utterly and absolutely. Our life would be like a video game (that no one created). The characters might walk and talk and act like they matter, but they are actually nothing, come from nothing.

In a materialist universe, with no reality beyond matter and its properties, there is no non-material stuff. There is no "ought," no "should." When "ought" and "should" happen, they have no force and no weight, because they are unreal. They are ultimately arbitrary.

If anything, all the evidence around us, about the "way things work," would point to the opposite of justice. The apparent laws of the material world are cold, callous, brutal--pitiless matter. How could justice arise naturally from a heaving sea of ever-changing material substances that simply are what they are?

Any code of justice we could come up with would be cosmically unenforceable and random, and therefore meaningless, illusory. The "original position," the "veil of ignorance," the most happiness for the most people, do no harm, majority opinion, expert opinion--ALL are just personal preferences, not some ultimate reality. They would be like traffic laws. We might have excellent reasons for driving on the right, to prevent chaos on the streets, but the choice to organize like that is just a preference. It could very well be the opposite somewhere else.

to be continued...

The fact that justice is not cosmically enforceable does not make it meaningless. We can still have a society that administers justice, imperfectly but still better than chaos. And justice is not random merely because it is not absolute. Some rules have social benefit. In an opposite world where murder is considered a right, society is probably not going to work out very well. That is why social order exists here and in the animal kingdom. It is beneficial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, good morning! I hear crickets chirping...what is going on? Perhaps I am only listening to myself talk at this point, but I will make a couple more observations anyway:

The problem with materialism is materialism. If it is true, then human beings are nothing special in actuality. The same process that spit us out will swallow us back up, and we, as individuals, will not know the difference.

I could invite one of the PPs out to lunch, and while chatting, PP could say something that annoyed me, and I could pull out my gun and shoot them in the face. They would not know any better. They would have ceased to exist, utterly and absolutely. Our life would be like a video game (that no one created). The characters might walk and talk and act like they matter, but they are actually nothing, come from nothing.

In a materialist universe, with no reality beyond matter and its properties, there is no non-material stuff. There is no "ought," no "should." When "ought" and "should" happen, they have no force and no weight, because they are unreal. They are ultimately arbitrary.

If anything, all the evidence around us, about the "way things work," would point to the opposite of justice. The apparent laws of the material world are cold, callous, brutal--pitiless matter. How could justice arise naturally from a heaving sea of ever-changing material substances that simply are what they are?

Any code of justice we could come up with would be cosmically unenforceable and random, and therefore meaningless, illusory. The "original position," the "veil of ignorance," the most happiness for the most people, do no harm, majority opinion, expert opinion--ALL are just personal preferences, not some ultimate reality. They would be like traffic laws. We might have excellent reasons for driving on the right, to prevent chaos on the streets, but the choice to organize like that is just a preference. It could very well be the opposite somewhere else.

to be continued...

here's the thing OP - life is not a video game without a god. In fact, it's very possible there is no god and if there is no god nothing has changed. Shooting someone in the face may mean the person who is shot dies - but their loved ones and those who witnessed the shooting did not. It's not some random snapshot incident - there would be far reaching consequences even if the shooter was to run and not get caught by police.

I personally think it is very sad when theists claim that without their god they would be homicidal suicidal maniacs with no meaning and purpose in life. I actually see MORE meaning and purpose in my life when I realize that this life is all there is. I also think that if there's an afterlife it would lose it's meaning after a while because after the first 1,000 years of doing and experiencing everything it would get old. I would rather live this life with meaning and purpose then waste this life pining for an afterlife that may not even exist.

When we lose a loved one they don't just cease to exist. Yes they are dead, yes that may be all there is. But we don't forget about them. Our memories of them and their accomplishments continue to live as long as there are those keeping those memories alive.

And before someone jumps there, as they always do, yes I have lost loved ones. And I'm still an atheist.

[Anonymous]

OP: your argument that god exists because without him, there's no objective justice, which would suck:

"I'm thirsty, therefore, there must be a glass of water."

[Anonymous]

Let's delve a little further into the meaning and expectation of justice. Say you did shoot someone in the face because they disagreed with you. The consequences would be real and impact more than the shooter. The people who care about the victim and the victim pay the cost. Let's say justice is getting back what you've done to others. So, someone shoots you in the face? And, your children, loved ones and friends pay the real price of violence, right along with your victim's family? Is that just or is it causing more real world pain and violence? Where is the line between justice and revenge? We think of revenge as bad, but justice as good without ever really stopping to take into account the human toll of either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read for example Rawls, a Theory of Justice. That might help you get a handle on thinking about Justice outside of God.

I did, and studied it extensively. My college major was political theory, and my mentor, John Tomasi, was big into Rawls.

But note the title: A Theory of Justice. Not that justice is real, actual reality. A theory. Rawls' personal take on it. That's still the problem.

What an insightful critique. This is a great alternative to reading the book.


and


WTF your major was political "theory". What did you expect? And surely you picked up on the fact that moral philosophy can be useful even if not absolute.



We could talk about the "veil of ignorance" and the "original position" and liberty versus equality, but my point is that those are all still just opinions. And then moral philosophy is a lot of nothing, because justice does not really exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read for example Rawls, a Theory of Justice. That might help you get a handle on thinking about Justice outside of God.

I did, and studied it extensively. My college major was political theory, and my mentor, John Tomasi, was big into Rawls.

But note the title: A Theory of Justice. Not that justice is real, actual reality. A theory. Rawls' personal take on it. That's still the problem.

What an insightful critique. This is a great alternative to reading the book.


and


WTF your major was political "theory". What did you expect? And surely you picked up on the fact that moral philosophy can be useful even if not absolute.

We could talk about the "veil of ignorance" and the "original position" and liberty versus equality, but my point is that those are all still just opinions. And then moral philosophy is a lot of nothing, because justice does not really exist.

But only if you accept your assertion that justice is contingent on gods. Which we haven't seen any evidence for. IOW, you're just question begging again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

here's the thing OP - life is not a video game without a god. In fact, it's very possible there is no god and if there is no god nothing has changed. Shooting someone in the face may mean the person who is shot dies - but their loved ones and those who witnessed the shooting did not. It's not some random snapshot incident - there would be far reaching consequences even if the shooter was to run and not get caught by police.

Let's say there is a completely isolated village. A powerful general and his men come across it, and decide they would like to set up camp there. So they lob a bomb into the village in the middle of the night, killing everyone instantaneously. The villagers never knew what hit them.

Is that justice, or injustice? Or is there no such thing as justice, because we are material beings who did not exist before conception and do not exist after death?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I personally think it is very sad when theists claim that without their god they would be homicidal suicidal maniacs with no meaning and purpose in life. I actually see MORE meaning and purpose in my life when I realize that this life is all there is. I also think that if there's an afterlife it would lose it's meaning after a while because after the first 1,000 years of doing and experiencing everything it would get old. I would rather live this life with meaning and purpose then waste this life pining for an afterlife that may not even exist.

There are several things going on in this paragraph, but I want to focus on the highlighted statement. I did not make that claim. In fact, I will get back to the fact that most human beings have a profound moral sense in a moment.

But I did point out, and nonbelievers affirmed this to be true, that in a materialist universe, we may assign meaning to things, but they are still actually just things. The meanings we assign are personal and ultimately arbitrary. Some people use reason to guide their actions--until they don't. Some people use power to guide their actions. Those are meanings they choose, but there is no ultimate arbiter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: your argument that god exists because without him, there's no objective justice, which would suck:

"I'm thirsty, therefore, there must be a glass of water."

I like that!

But I already put aside that argument as the nonbelievers' derisive "argument from wishful thinking."

What I am focusing on now is that nonbelievers have a problem. There is a high price to pay for materialism, which excludes absolute and objective justice.

We have used several examples based on murder, but justice has to do with far more mundane and quiet things in life. Let's use a different example:

A college professor of ethics gave his students a term paper. The assignment was to write about any ethical topic of her choice, backed up by reasons and proper documentation.

One student wrote eloquently on the topic of moral relativism. She argued there is no such thing as objective truth in morality, no absolute and perfect justice. Her paper was well-written, neat, documented, the proper length, and submitted on time.

When the paper was returned, a huge F was at the top, with one comment: I DON'T LIKE TIMES NEW ROMAN!

Furious, she went to office hours to complain. "This is so unfair! So what about the font! I did the assignment exactly as you asked!"

The professor asked, "Do you really believe there is no such thing as objective truth in morality, no absolute and perfect justice?"

She said, "Yes, that is what I believe."

So the professor said, "I can respect that. I don't like Times New Roman. You get an F!"

We can see our belief in true justice by the way we react to others. Justice does not describe how we actually behave, but it prescribes how we ought to behave.