I definitely agree with Scott’s argument. Using extreme scenarios can help get to the heart of the matter/morality. It’s especially interesting because Scott’s previous post was… Is Everything A Religion? If everything is truly a religion then Phil Robertson’s scenario loses steam. The atheist would simply reply to the intruders that he does believe in God… just not the Christian God. If the intruders pressed the atheist for details… and the atheist was a liberal… then he could tell him that the state is his God. This would be consistent with a paper written by a Nobel prize winning economist…
It’s too bad that Scott didn’t share that paper as an additional example of how different beliefs can be considered religions.
But the atheist wouldn’t necessarily have to be a liberal to have some degree of faith that the state would track down, apprehend and judge the law-breakers.
Personally, even though I’m an atheist, it’s entirely possible that I would totally claim Christianity and quote the heck out of the Bible if I found myself in Robertson’s scenario. I would have absolutely no affinity with Kant in this regard. I would lie like a rug if I thought it would save my family. That being said, if we assumed that the intruders were highly intelligent, and/or had a lie detector test on them… then I would tell them that my “God” is progress. Difference is the engine of progress so difference is the engine of “God”. If the intruders killed my family and I… then this would decrease difference… and as such, be against my religion. And because everybody benefits from progress… even the intruders.. then it would behoove them not to kill us. In essence I would be making a consequentialist argument against being murdered.
The same thing is true if the leader of China called me on the phone and threatened to invade the US and kill/enslave all Americans. Again, assuming adequate intelligence… I’d make a consequential rather than a deontological argument against the invasion. Sure, China would gain X from having a bunch of additional resources at their disposal… but they would be foregoing Y. What’s Y? Y is what they would have gained from American innovations. Progress (innovations, discoveries, cures) depends on difference… and China would eliminate a lot of difference by invading us. Therefore… Y > X.
Perhaps it would be more effective to simply reply that we’d bomb the heck out of China if they invaded us? History clearly indicates that this argument doesn’t work in the long run. We’re all safer and better off when more, rather than less, people appreciate the value of difference.
I definitely agree with Scott’s argument. Using extreme scenarios can help get to the heart of the matter/morality. It’s especially interesting because Scott’s previous post was… Is Everything A Religion? If everything is truly a religion then Phil Robertson’s scenario loses steam. The atheist would simply reply to the intruders that he does believe in God… just not the Christian God. If the intruders pressed the atheist for details… and the atheist was a liberal… then he could tell him that the state is his God. This would be consistent with a paper written by a Nobel prize winning economist…
It’s too bad that Scott didn’t share that paper as an additional example of how different beliefs can be considered religions.
But the atheist wouldn’t necessarily have to be a liberal to have some degree of faith that the state would track down, apprehend and judge the law-breakers.
Personally, even though I’m an atheist, it’s entirely possible that I would totally claim Christianity and quote the heck out of the Bible if I found myself in Robertson’s scenario. I would have absolutely no affinity with Kant in this regard. I would lie like a rug if I thought it would save my family. That being said, if we assumed that the intruders were highly intelligent, and/or had a lie detector test on them… then I would tell them that my “God” is progress. Difference is the engine of progress so difference is the engine of “God”. If the intruders killed my family and I… then this would decrease difference… and as such, be against my religion. And because everybody benefits from progress… even the intruders.. then it would behoove them not to kill us. In essence I would be making a consequentialist argument against being murdered.
The same thing is true if the leader of China called me on the phone and threatened to invade the US and kill/enslave all Americans. Again, assuming adequate intelligence… I’d make a consequential rather than a deontological argument against the invasion. Sure, China would gain X from having a bunch of additional resources at their disposal… but they would be foregoing Y. What’s Y? Y is what they would have gained from American innovations. Progress (innovations, discoveries, cures) depends on difference… and China would eliminate a lot of difference by invading us. Therefore… Y > X.
Perhaps it would be more effective to simply reply that we’d bomb the heck out of China if they invaded us? History clearly indicates that this argument doesn’t work in the long run. We’re all safer and better off when more, rather than less, people appreciate the value of difference.