it is a question of consciousness and whether theists are conscious in a different way. — EnPassant

See .

Yes, bats do live in the same world as us.

Rewards and punishments in this world are instruments of governance intended to incentivise moral behaviour... — unenlightened

Religion can be part of that system of the coercion that brings about our acquiesces to the powers that be. And, as Tutu showed, it can be part of the revolt.

The question has to do with what the world is. Theists maintain there is a spiritual reality to the world. If the materialist denies the existence of that world it hardly exists for them in the same way as it does for the theist. So if you say theists and atheists live in the same world you deny the existence of the spiritual reality of the world.

o be sure, following ↪Ciceronianus's point, we might excuse those who fein admiration in order to avoid becoming victims themselves, although presumably god will be aware of their attempted subterfuge and treat them accordingly. — Banno

Well, is this just about admiration? Worship may be based on fear, which isn't admiration. I think worship has been based on fear in many cases. That would be the duress I refer to. If an all-powerful being commands worship and eternal punishment if it's not given, worship would be rendered out of fear, not admiration. One doesn't have to admire such a being, but will do what's necessary to appease it. Such a being wouldn't necessarily require admiration--that's the "Let them hate me so long as they fear me" stance of such as Gaius Caesar Germanicus, better known now as Caligula.

So if you say theists and atheists live in the same world you deny the existence of the spiritual reality of the world. — EnPassant

Rubbish. What you have here is two descriptions of the very same world.

Claiming that there are two worlds will result in incommensurable descriptions. Yet you do read what I write, and make sense of it. Hence, we share a world but differ as to the details.

Religion can be part of that system of the coercion that brings about our acquiesces to the powers that be. And, as Tutu showed, it can be part of the revolt. — Banno

I agree completely. So I don't think one can generalise about the moral character of Christians in the way that Lewis appears to be doing.

Sure, all that - see Confirmable and influential Metaphysics

Belief in hell does have implications for behaviour. Those implications are complex and varied. And again - by now this should not need saying - those supposed characteristics of belief that are ineffable are also irrelevant, except in so far as we can talk about their consequences.

So, to you and to , here is an aspect of christian belief for our consideration. Sure, it doesn't apply to all christians. One need not conclude that we should avoid conversing on the topic.

To put it another way, moral language games involving Hell or God don't resemble moral language games without either in them. — fdrake

Well, yes, they do - because they result in actions, and these actions can be evaluated.

Adopting a certain religious belief does not somehow place one outside of the moral considerations of others.

Well, yes, they do - because they result in actions, and these actions can be evaluated. — Banno

And if moral evaluation as a practice differed depending upon whether someone had faith or not?

I've no idea what you are asking.

The way you phrased it makes it sound like how people evaluate actions is something they share, even if they disagree on which things get evalauted as good or bad. Whereas precisely what's at stake is whether how people evaluate actions morally depends upon whether they do or do not have faith. Method of evaluation, rather than result.

Still not seeing an argument here - is there one, or just an observation? Sure, different folk evaluate on different bases. And yes, those evaluations are shared...

So, how will you evaluate the actions?

Also no argument from you on the matter. Can you demonstrate that how the faithful evaluate moral actions is the same as how the faithless do?

Why would it matter - for the same reason you referenced commensurability earlier.

Can you demonstrate that how the faithful evaluate moral actions is the same as how the faithless do? — fdrake

Why would I want to do that?

Still not seeing your point.

I find it odd that so many who profess not to be christian are so quick to jump to the barricades when they perceive an attack. Did you notice that? — Banno

I want to make sure I understand your comment. Are you implying that you think those of us who disagree with you are lying about being Christians in the first place? Because that’s how that reads to me, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions.

No. I'm puzzling as to why some nonchristians feel a strong need to be so defensive of christianity.

I'll drop it then. Thought it would be evident seeing as you already saw the relevance of commensurability.

No. I'm puzzling as to why some nonchristians feel a strong need to be so defensive of christianity. — Banno

I've no idea if I'm included in this grouping or not (and I hardly think I have defended Christianity), but some of us happen to know Christian theologians and clergy that have done lots of good things and otherwise advocated for the down-trodden that you would exclude from the table of ethical discussion merely because you willfully misunderstand their faith and can't be bothered to consider them on their own merits/beliefs. That you can't see how your OP and follow up comments made it clear that your thread is an attempt to render Christians reprehensible, unworthy of admiration without sullying ourselves, and not worthy of our acquaintance is what I puzzle over. Your unwillingness to actually engage with the article you posted makes the entire thread smack of being disingenuous and simply a hit piece on a group of people that you have made incapable of defending themselves.

I'm puzzling as to why some nonchristians feel a strong need to be so defensive. — Banno

It's a morality thing dude. We defend our brothers and sisters of every creed or colour or none. Solidarity, it's called.

Are you doubting that it is a propositional attitude - that it is faith in something...?

'cause that's not right. — Banno

Of course any feeling of faith can be more or less framed in propositional terms. What I am saying is not about that, but about what I consider to be the fact that people of faith (who are not fundamentalists) are not much concerned about propositions, but about feelings. Have you considered the possibility that you may have a "tin ear" when it comes to religion?.

Have you considered the possibility that you may have "tin ear" when it comes to religion? — Janus

That's an interesting analogy.

What we can put into words trumps what we can't. — Banno

Just how general is this maxim? Does what we can put into words about, say, playing music "trump" playing music? In what possible sense? And how does the case of faith differ from playing music?

Ouch.

...you willfully misunderstand their faith and can't be bothered to consider them on their own merits/beliefs. — Ennui Elucidator

That's just not right. The doctrine being critiqued is their own, in their own words. Tutu's god crying while he commits folk to the hell he created is not sufficient explanation. The doctrine has uncomfortable consequences, to which the Lewis article draws attention.

Further, I gave reply to your points and addressed the article. Your accusations are ill founded.

It's a morality thing dude. We defend our brothers and sisters of every creed or colour or none. Solidarity, it's called. — unenlightened

Ah, I'm oppressing christians again. My bad.

Of course any feeling of faith can be more or less framed in propositional terms. What I am saying is not about that, but about what I consider to be the fact that people of faith (who are not fundamentalists) are not much concerned about propositions, but about feelings. Have you considered the possibility that you may have "tin ear" when it comes to religion?. — Janus

As if the object of faith were irrelevant so long as the "feeling" was right. What twaddle.

Do I have a tin ear? No, I'm pointing to an interesting discord in the melody.

Just how general is this maxim? — Srap Tasmaner

It applies very specifically to discourse. Feel whatever you like, but express yourself with care.

Many Christians need to be challenged on some of these beliefs. I remember arguing with one Christian many years ago who believed that if you didn't "accept Christ" as savior, then you're doomed to hell. So, I asked him, "What about babies who die in infancy? They never accept Christ." His response, is that they too go to hell. Now obviously not everyone who calls themselves a Christian would believe such a thing, but there are many who do.

I also find it reprehensible that there are many people who think communism is a good thing. Especially if you consider how many people have been murdered under this ideology in the 20th century, too many to count. People fall victim to all kinds of crazy beliefs. This is why I continuously point out that most beliefs have nothing to do with logical arguments, it's more about how people were raised, what their friends believe, what their family believes, group think, etc., etc.

The doctrine being critiqued is their own, in their own words. — Banno

What doctrine? What is being critiqued is those who admirer a tyrant. What is not explained is whether someone that worships the tyrant admires it and/or approves of the tyrant’s conduct. The article is not about what the tyrant does - it is taken for granted that it is a tyrant. The article is also not about convincing people not to admire the tyrant. The article is about judging a person on their relation to the tyrant and whether we can admire that person. Your question was about whether such a person should be denied a seat at the table discussing ethics. Show me where I misunderstand, please.

What doctrine? — Ennui Elucidator

Eternal damnation.

What is being critiqued is those who admirer a tyrant. — Ennui Elucidator

Well, what is being critiqued is the notion that a god whois so unjust ought be worshiped.

What is not explained is whether someone that worships the tyrant admires it and/or approves of the tyrant’s conduct. — Ennui Elucidator

There was an exchange on this earlier. Someone who admires the tyrant shares in the injustice. Someone who feigns admiration is not admirable.

The article is about judging a person on their relation to the tyrant and whether we can admire that person — Ennui Elucidator

Yep.

Your point?

It seems the discussion is somehow taboo. The arguments against the OP amount to no more than "Banno, you can't say that!"

I can't speak for others, but I catch the whiff of a kind of pre-bigotry on it. I feel the same way when people start insinuating, on 'rational' grounds, that the beliefs that Muslims, or Mormons, or etc. hold are immoral, and so ... etc., etc.

As I said, there is something funny about the inheritors of actual world-historical evil clutching pearls about non-existent evil. And the new atheists in particular often then hop over to 'well, it's just rational to profile Muslims at airports,' and so on.

What is the real motivation behind this sort of moral suspicion? Is it idle moral speculation? Is it a worry that Christians, or some other religious group that believes in hell, is a moral danger to everyone else? But this is a fantasy – the powers in the West are firmly secular.