Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

... if the student is not responsible, culpable, or at fault, then it would surely be unjust for the teacher to mark them down...

No, marking the sum wrong is simply telling the truth, in an attempt to fulfil the teacher's duty. It is morally right to do so, regardless of the student's level of responsibility.

What we're talking about here is learning, and you said a couple of insightful things:

More concretely, there is something that the human being must contribute, and because that contribution must come precisely from the human being themselves, it is not something that God is able to bring about on his own.

Those who provide management training to companies talk about the teaching that they do in terms of 3 dimensions - Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge. (ASK - they're into acronyms as easy ways to remember).

So yes there is an element that the learner must provide. If they come to the classroom with the wrong Attitude, they won't learn. And that is something they're responsible for.

The learner may be kept from reaching the right answer by lack of Knowledge. But that would generally be the teacher's responsibility. A teacher who fails to provide knowledge or evidence that is needed for successful learning is failing in their duty.

And then there's the third element. Some people are incapable of grasping higher maths or higher theology - they may be completely willing and informed, but lack necessary skill. And that may be just down to who and what they are, or due to failure at a previous stage if learning.

If you believe in a creator God, then He bears some responsibility for people's innate abilities or lack thereof.

if a math student can be culpably wrong for their answer, then an atheist can be culpably wrong for their belief; and if an atheist can be culpably wrong for their belief, then it need not be God’s fault that the atheist does not believe. It is perfectly possible for the atheist to disbelieve even when we suppose that God provides sufficient evidence for his existence.

With the above understanding of ASK, we can say that the student or learner is culpable for shortcomings in their Attitude, but not for lack of Knowledge or Skill.

In fact it would seem that if one is culpably wrong then they must have at hand evidence which is sufficient for coming to the correct conclusion, for one is not culpable for failing to arrive at a conclusion for which they had insufficient evidence.

To bear entire responsibility, the atheist would need both the capability to be a religious believer and sufficient evidence for the conclusion that God exists.

If both Attitude and one of Skill or Knowledge is missing, responsibility is shared.

The teacher who punishes their pupil is making a judgement that they are not trying or are otherwise choosing to adopt an Attitude which is stopping them from reaching the right answer.

To punish someone who reaches the wrong answer despite having the right attitude is unjust.

when I said above, “...then he must reveal his existence to all,” what I meant is that God provides everyone with sufficient means to know that he exists (and I am of course presupposing that not everyone avails themselves of such means).

In believing that all atheists are fully culpable for their atheism you are presupposing that they have sufficient evidence and skill to believe if they really wanted to. In other words that nobody is honestly atheist.

I'm saying that that is not necessarily true.

Maybe if you had enough experience/evidence of honest atheists you'd agree ?

[Leontiskos]

... if the student is not responsible, culpable, or at fault, then it would surely be unjust for the teacher to mark them down...

No, marking the sum wrong is simply telling the truth, in an attempt to fulfil the teacher's duty. It is morally right to do so, regardless of the student's level of responsibility.

Eh, you're still side-stepping the crux of the issue. I repeat:

"...the larger problem is that you are missing the point. You claimed that it is impossible or unjust to hold people responsible for their beliefs. I am asking you if it is possible or just for a teacher to hold a student responsible for the belief which is expressed when they write down an answer to a math problem. Whether or not we want to call that holding-responsible "punishment" is rather beside the point.

So are you committed to your position that no math student can ever be held responsible for their answer to a math question? That fault is impossible for such math students? That there can be no culpability in such a case? (Because if the student is not responsible, culpable, or at fault, then it would surely be unjust for the teacher to mark them down or to give them a failing grade.)"


Saying "the teacher is telling the truth" is an avoidance of the central question here. The whole question you've raised about "atheist beliefs" has to do with responsibility for beliefs. Is the student responsible for their beliefs or not?

More concretely, there is something that the human being must contribute, and because that contribution must come precisely from the human being themselves, it is not something that God is able to bring about on his own.

Those who provide management training to companies talk about the teaching that they do in terms of 3 dimensions - Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge. (ASK - they're into acronyms as easy ways to remember).

This PR stuff is interesting and all, but I am actually not going to analyze philosophical issues with such blunt tools as PR employee development. Sorry, that methodology would be too flawed, and would be inappropriate for a philosophy forum. What I will do is try to address your points via the standard philosophical lexicon.

If you believe in a creator God, then He bears some responsibility for people's innate abilities or lack thereof.

Yes, but no one is judged on their innate abilities.

if a math student can be culpably wrong for their answer, then an atheist can be culpably wrong for their belief; and if an atheist can be culpably wrong for their belief, then it need not be God’s fault that the atheist does not believe. It is perfectly possible for the atheist to disbelieve even when we suppose that God provides sufficient evidence for his existence.

With the above understanding of ASK, we can say that the student or learner is culpable for shortcomings in their Attitude, but not for lack of Knowledge or Skill.

Well then the question you need to answer is whether "Attitude" is sufficient to account for false beliefs.

In fact it would seem that if one is culpably wrong then they must have at hand evidence which is sufficient for coming to the correct conclusion, for one is not culpable for failing to arrive at a conclusion for which they had insufficient evidence.

To bear entire responsibility, the atheist would need both the capability to be a religious believer and sufficient evidence for the conclusion that God exists.

These are the same thing, because if one has sufficient evidence for some conclusion then they are capable of believing it.

The teacher who punishes their pupil is making a judgement that they are not trying or are otherwise choosing to adopt an Attitude which is stopping them from reaching the right answer.

To punish someone who reaches the wrong answer despite having the right attitude is unjust.

Agreed.

when I said above, “...then he must reveal his existence to all,” what I meant is that God provides everyone with sufficient means to know that he exists (and I am of course presupposing that not everyone avails themselves of such means).

In believing that all atheists are fully culpable for their atheism you are presupposing that they have sufficient evidence and skill to believe if they really wanted to. In other words that nobody is honestly atheist.

First, you are committing a non sequitur. Given your antecedent, your conclusion has nothing to do with "honesty," but rather with invincible ignorance. It's not at all clear why someone couldn't be culpably ignorant and honest.

Second, if you read me carefully what I've said is that God provides sufficient means before death. So again, the 7 year-old atheist may not have sufficient means, but given the argument I've provided, they will have sufficient means before they die.

Maybe if you had enough experience/evidence of honest atheists you'd agree ?

Again, "You think all atheists are dishonest" is a strawman. Even on your own account of culpability, "Attitude" is not tied to honesty.

[Good_Egg]

Well then the question you need to answer is whether "Attitude" is sufficient to account for false beliefs.

And equally whether a shortcoming in Attitude is necessary for false beliefs ?

Clearly I'm suggesting that a lack of any of the three elements is sufficient. But that it is only lack of Attitude for which the student is culpable.

To bear entire responsibility, the atheist would need both the capability to be a religious believer and sufficient evidence for the conclusion that God exists.

These are the same thing, because if one has sufficient evidence for some conclusion then they are capable of believing it.

Skill and knowledge are not the same thing. Different levels of evidence may suffice for students with different levels of skill. So we should just be careful when using the term "sufficient evidence" as to which sense is intended - whether sufficiency is judged relative to the capability of the individual in question or relative to the expected capability of a mature adult.

In believing that all atheists are fully culpable for their atheism you are presupposing that they have sufficient evidence and skill to believe if they really wanted to. In other words that nobody is honestly atheist.

First, you are committing a non sequitur. Given your antecedent, your conclusion has nothing to do with "honesty," but rather with invincible ignorance. It's not at all clear why someone couldn't be culpably ignorant and honest.

Honesty isn't quite the right term. A student could be totally honest that they can't be bothered with all that long division stuff and still be guilty of a failure of Attitude. Maybe "good faith" is a better term ? Can we say that they are not culpable (and thus not punish-worthy) if they are attempting the sum in good faith ?

Second, if you read me carefully what I've said is that God provides sufficient means before death. So again, the 7 year-old atheist may not have sufficient means, but given the argument I've provided, they will have sufficient means before they die.

Nobody dies when they're 7 years old ?
Seems to me obvious that for any given level of skill, some people die before achieving it...

[Leontiskos]

Well then the question you need to answer is whether "Attitude" is sufficient to account for false beliefs.

And equally whether a shortcoming in Attitude is necessary for false beliefs ?

Clearly I'm suggesting that a lack of any of the three elements is sufficient. But that it is only lack of Attitude for which the student is culpable.

Then it is possible that the atheist is culpable, and the objection which says that one cannot be held responsible for their beliefs is false.

To bear entire responsibility, the atheist would need both the capability to be a religious believer and sufficient evidence for the conclusion that God exists.

These are the same thing, because if one has sufficient evidence for some conclusion then they are capable of believing it.

Skill and knowledge are not the same thing. Different levels of evidence may suffice for students with different levels of skill. So we should just be careful when using the term "sufficient evidence" as to which sense is intended - whether sufficiency is judged relative to the capability of the individual in question or relative to the expected capability of a mature adult.

And this is the reason I am avoiding using those terms. They are insufficiently precise to be useful in this discussion. "Skill," "Knowledge," and, "The expected capability of a mature adult" are all vague terms. If someone has sufficient evidence for a conclusion then they are capable of drawing said conclusion. This may even be an analytic truth. So yes, I am, and have always been, talking about the evidence as it pertains to the individual in question.

In believing that all atheists are fully culpable for their atheism you are presupposing that they have sufficient evidence and skill to believe if they really wanted to. In other words that nobody is honestly atheist.

First, you are committing a non sequitur. Given your antecedent, your conclusion has nothing to do with "honesty," but rather with invincible ignorance. It's not at all clear why someone couldn't be culpably ignorant and honest.

Honesty isn't quite the right term. A student could be totally honest that they can't be bothered with all that long division stuff and still be guilty of a failure of Attitude. Maybe "good faith" is a better term ? Can we say that they are not culpable (and thus not punish-worthy) if they are attempting the sum in good faith ?

I think the bottom line here is that the atheist is culpable. They are at fault. They are guilty. They are negligent. They have failed to do what they ought to have done. I am not denying this. Indeed, it is the whole point of the OP. When the OP asks about fault this is what he is asking about.

"Good faith" is another rather vague term... What you are doing is trying to present empirical evidence in order to contradict the conclusion of the argument I have given. "Gee, that atheist seems like a nice guy who is trying hard. Can you really say that he is culpable?" I would respond that 1) This does not address the argument in question at all (but instead just aims at the conclusion), 2) My argument transcends the epistemology of human psychology (God knows the heart and interacts with the heart in a way that we are not privy to), and 3) The argument is that at some point in his life the atheist is given sufficient means to believe (and thus the psychological argument is insufficient even in its own domain).

Second, if you read me carefully what I've said is that God provides sufficient means before death. So again, the 7 year-old atheist may not have sufficient means, but given the argument I've provided, they will have sufficient means before they die.

Nobody dies when they're 7 years old ?
Seems to me obvious that for any given level of skill, some people die before achieving it...

We could talk about infants, "limbo," and related matters, but that would be moving far from the OP. A child who does not have the use of reason is not responsible for any of their beliefs.

Secondly, your claim that "some people die before achieving [a given level of skill]" does not at all work:

• Leontiskos: God, an omnipotent being, provides them with sufficient means before death.
• Good_Egg: Some people die before they have sufficient means.

This objection has no force. It assumes that God is not an omnipotent being.

[Good_Egg]

We can distinguish private religious experience (which may be different for each person) from evidence (such as the various proofs of God's existence that Anselm and Aquinas and others have put forward) which are public.

If you're saying:

Premise 1 - God is just and omnipotent

Premise 2 - denial of God's existence is a culpable offence

Premise 3 - nobody should be punished for failure to do what they are not equipped to do

Conclusion - God gives each person sufficient private religious experience before they die to convince them of His existence if they approach the question with due diligence and good faith

Then it seems to me that your logic is sound but your premises are dubious.

But maybe that wasn't what you meant ?

[Baby Augustine]

It can be your fault
BY TRIVIALITY
IF you hold your view on insufficient grounds
BY LYING TO YOURSELF
So if you admit that the question of God is very important and you don't prosecute the search til death or an answer, that is wrong.
BY CONSCIENCE
If you have hurt others, done perverted things and now make morality a matter of whether you first find God then you are self-condemned

See, the thing is, Just as in the law when you fire a gun into a house and say 'Well I didn't know there were people in there' that increases your punishment not decreases. Your faith or lack does not do God a favor.

[Leontiskos]

We can distinguish private religious experience (which may be different for each person) from evidence (such as the various proofs of God's existence that Anselm and Aquinas and others have put forward) which are public.

Nope. The term, "Sufficient evidence," or, "Sufficient means," comes from my argument. You don't get to redefine my terms nilly-willy. When I say that God provides sufficient means for each person, I am not saying that he gives Western Europe Anselm's argument for the existence of God, and that this should convince the average person. That would be an incredibly crude way to read the argument. <Again>, "I am, and have always been, talking about the evidence as it pertains to the individual in question."

(In any case, evidence is not primarily a "public" reality. Evidence is primarily the grounds for drawing conclusions, and since all reasoning is done by individuals, all evidence also presents itself to individuals. No evidence presents itself to the "public" body, because groups do not have a shared intellect with which to draw conclusions. Ratiocination is always carried out by individuals.)

If you're saying:

Premise 1 - God is just and omnipotent

Premise 2 - denial of God's existence is a culpable offence

Premise 3 - nobody should be punished for failure to do what they are not equipped to do

Conclusion - God gives each person sufficient private religious experience before they die to convince them of His existence if they approach the question with due diligence and good faith

Then it seems to me that your logic is sound but your premises are dubious.

But maybe that wasn't what you meant ?

Here is the argument I've given throughout the thread:

1. God desires to have a relationship with all persons.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. Therefore, God makes it possible for all persons to have a relationship with him. (Sufficient means for relationship)
4. But one must know that another exists before they can have a relationship with them.
5. Therefore, God provides all persons with sufficient means to know that he exists. (Sufficient means for knowledge of God's existence)

Your presentation is a strawman because what you present as "premise 2" is in no way a premise. It is a conclusion. It follows upon (2) and (5).

And to repeat your rejoinder:

What you are doing is trying to present empirical evidence in order to contradict the conclusion of the argument I have given. "Gee, that atheist seems like a nice guy who is trying hard. Can you really say that he is culpable?" I would respond that 1) This does not address the argument in question at all (but instead just aims at the conclusion), 2) My argument transcends the epistemology of human psychology (God knows the heart and interacts with the heart in a way that we are not privy to), and 3) The argument is that at some point in his life the atheist is given sufficient means to believe (and thus the psychological argument is insufficient even in its own domain).

Secondly, your claim that "some people die before achieving [a given level of skill]" does not at all work:

• Leontiskos: God, an omnipotent being, provides them with sufficient means before death.
• Good_Egg: Some people die before they have sufficient means.

This objection has no force. It assumes that God is not an omnipotent being.

[Good_Egg]

Here is the argument I've given throughout the thread:

OK, let's focus on that.

* God desires to have a relationship with all persons.
* God is omnipotent

Which presupposes that God exists and is capable of desiring as we understand it, but it's conceivable as a premise, and consistent with the traditional notion of God.

* Therefore, God makes it possible for all persons to have a relationship with him.

Seems a logically valid conclusion from premises.

* But one must know that another exists before they can have a relationship with them.

Given that we're talking about a two-way relationship, yes.

* Therefore, God provides all persons with sufficient means to know that he exists.

Conclusion which follows from premises by valid logic.

So when you see someone who is to all appearances an atheist in good faith, who dies shortly thereafter without apparently changing their mind, do you say to yourself that

- appearances can be deceptive (which is true)

- we don't ever really know what is going on inside another person's head (which is true)
?

Or do you entertain the possibility that this person was telling the truth when they said that they never for a moment had the slightest inclination to believe and that God always seemed to them a fairy tale character like Santa Claus. Accepting the possibility that your conclusion is untrue and that therefore one of your premises is false ?

If you insist that your premises are true, your impeccable logic leads you to conclude that they were lying to you and have not approached the question of God in good faith.

(Or else you fudge it somehow - perhaps by appealing to some sort of deathbed conversion opportunity, for which there is not the slightest evidence but which by its nature is impossible to disprove.)

Consider a similar argument (which is one formulation or variant of the well-known problem of evil).

* Premise - God is utterly benevolent
* Premise - it is not good for the innocent to suffer
* Interim conclusion - therefore God desires that the innocent do not suffer
* Premise - God is omnipotent
* Conclusion - therefore nobody suffers unless they deserve to

So that when you see someone who is to all appearances a suffering innocent, you choose to take the view that appearances must be deceiving and they fully deserve their suffering.

Because to do otherwise would be to doubt your premises, your beliefs about God, and nobody should be asked to do that, should they ?

[Baby Augustine]

If you start --- as you must -- with a Creator then His omnipotence in regard to that Creation and similarly His Omniscience follow of necessity.
And that means YOU are making a case based on power and/or reason from a totally inadequate standpoint: Your weakness and your relative ignorance. THEREFORE the benevolence of God should be for most people the only issue.

[LuckyR]

If you start --- as you must -- with a Creator then His omnipotence in regard to that Creation and similarly His Omniscience follow of necessity.
And that means YOU are making a case based on power and/or reason from a totally inadequate standpoint: Your weakness and your relative ignorance. THEREFORE the benevolence of God should be for most people the only issue.

A very popular, yet logically flawed opinion.

[Belindi]

If you start --- as you must -- with a Creator then His omnipotence in regard to that Creation and similarly His Omniscience follow of necessity.
And that means YOU are making a case based on power and/or reason from a totally inadequate standpoint: Your weakness and your relative ignorance. THEREFORE the benevolence of God should be for most people the only issue.

Benevolence and omniscience are worthy qualities of God. Omnipotence is unworthy of God.

The world we want to see is peopled by individuals and societies that are as benevolent and omniscient as possible. Nobody except bullies and political dictators worship power.

[Mounce574]

Is atheism closest to a choice, a rebellion or something more like color-blindness.

I've always been an atheist so sometimes it's hard for me to understand to understand the impact my atheism has on others.

I feel like I take religion and religious people seriously, but sometimes that seems like it might be worse - might appear cynical or insulting in some way.

Thanks.

You have the freedom of choice. I am a Christian and I don't feel it is my right to judge you a lesser than or should I push my values upon you. That being said, your choice to be atheist only impacts others if you force your views upon them and insult them by stating things like they are stupid for their beliefs. And vice-versa if I acted the same way.

[Mounce574]

Here is the argument I've given throughout the thread:

OK, let's focus on that.

* God desires to have a relationship with all persons.
* God is omnipotent

Which presupposes that God exists and is capable of desiring as we understand it, but it's conceivable as a premise, and consistent with the traditional notion of God.

* Therefore, God makes it possible for all persons to have a relationship with him.

Seems a logically valid conclusion from premises.

* But one must know that another exists before they can have a relationship with them.

Given that we're talking about a two-way relationship, yes.

* Therefore, God provides all persons with sufficient means to know that he exists.

Conclusion which follows from premises by valid logic.

So when you see someone who is to all appearances an atheist in good faith, who dies shortly thereafter without apparently changing their mind, do you say to yourself that

- appearances can be deceptive (which is true)

- we don't ever really know what is going on inside another person's head (which is true)
?

Or do you entertain the possibility that this person was telling the truth when they said that they never for a moment had the slightest inclination to believe and that God always seemed to them a fairy tale character like Santa Claus. Accepting the possibility that your conclusion is untrue and that therefore one of your premises is false ?

If you insist that your premises are true, your impeccable logic leads you to conclude that they were lying to you and have not approached the question of God in good faith.

(Or else you fudge it somehow - perhaps by appealing to some sort of deathbed conversion opportunity, for which there is not the slightest evidence but which by its nature is impossible to disprove.)

Consider a similar argument (which is one formulation or variant of the well-known problem of evil).

* Premise - God is utterly benevolent
* Premise - it is not good for the innocent to suffer
* Interim conclusion - therefore God desires that the innocent do not suffer
* Premise - God is omnipotent
* Conclusion - therefore nobody suffers unless they deserve to (the book of Job discusses this and it explains that suffering is caused by Satan).

So that when you see someone who is to all appearances a suffering innocent, you choose to take the view that appearances must be deceiving and they fully deserve their suffering.

Because to do otherwise would be to doubt your premises, your beliefs about God, and nobody should be asked to do that, should they ?

[Good_Egg]

Nobody except bullies and political dictators worship power.

Not convinced that's true. I suspect that quite a lot of people worship power to some degree.

E.g. All those who cannot conceive of a God who is not omnipotent, who automatically equate omnipotence with divinity.

E.g. All those who argue for "tyranny of the majority" politics.

We all start out as babies who are totally in the power of our parents. At some level programmed to bond with them (and it's not a bond of equals; more like a supplicant and their gods). That takes some growing out of. If you don't make a conscious decision not to worship the authority of power, it can be hard to shake the habit.

[Belindi]

Nobody except bullies and political dictators worship power.

Not convinced that's true. I suspect that quite a lot of people worship power to some degree.

E.g. All those who cannot conceive of a God who is not omnipotent, who automatically equate omnipotence with divinity.

E.g. All those who argue for "tyranny of the majority" politics.

We all start out as babies who are totally in the power of our parents. At some level programmed to bond with them (and it's not a bond of equals; more like a supplicant and their gods). That takes some growing out of. If you don't make a conscious decision not to worship the authority of power, it can be hard to shake the habit.

You are right of course. I was stereotyping an individual who is all the one thing and nothing else. Everyone sometimes seeks power, or power is part of an individual's mixed motives at all times or on some if not most occasions.

"

E.g. All those who cannot conceive of a God who is not omnipotent, who automatically equate omnipotence with divinity.

E.g. All those who argue for "tyranny of the majority" politics."

is better than what I claimed and I accept.

Tyranny of the majority politics must be moderated by democratic frequent elections with universal suffrage.

Concepts of God should not be child/human obeying God/superhuman; but must instead be adult/human nurturing God/superhuman.