Hallo everyone,

It's good to be here. I was in my first year at the University of Oxford studying Philosophy and Theology until recently and I'm probably going back next year to start again (though ideally I'd like to study Philosophy, Politics and Economics instead). I'm a moral realist and a hedonistic utilitarian. A few of my favourite things are philosophy, boots, Mika, walking my dog and cheese on toast.

Hi LadyMorgana, welcome.
Do tell us about the background to your studies. If Oxford works at all similarly to courses in Melbourne, you've chosen philosophical and theological subjects within an Arts degree? How have you developed an interest in theology and does it guide your ethics?

Mika huh? yeah he's not bad. Shamelessly catchy pop music is good to listen to sometimes

The background to my studies? How do you mean? Oxford must work differently to Melbourne, as the name of my degree is just "Philosophy and Theology" and I can't select options from other art subjects.
I first started thinking properly about religion 4 or 5 years ago when my closest friends became christians. They were of the evangelical type so I spent a few years going to church with them, socialising mainly with Christians, having countless debates and chewing it all over. Studying theology was supposed to be a continuation of my thinking about the existence of God, but I've got to the point where I'm satisfied enough with atheism that I don't want to waste any more time and energy on theology (and it did take a lot out of me). So, no, it doesn't guide my ethics. In fact ethics is the main reason the traditional christian conception of God is so implausible, so in a way, ethics guides my theology
I wonder, have you ever met a religious utilitarian?

I also love the killers so it's not all shamelessly catchy pop music And I can only think of two male persons that I know who don't deeply dislike Mika so I don't expect any of you to share my taste there...

It sounds like you were studying theology when you became atheist. That would have been pretty annoying and inconvenient, right? Although I just heard a speech from someone who went through an even longer process. He was evangelising and delivering sermons all across America before finally making the switch... By the way, what caused you to finally turn atheist?

To answer your question about religious utilitarians, I don't know many. However, a visitor here adheres to Christianity on the basis of Pascal's Wager. If i recall correctly, it's Alan Darwst.

I can only think of two male persons that I know who don't deeply dislike Mika

They deeply dislike him? As in disproportionately to other similar pop musicians? Perhaps then they are insecure about their sexuality?

To clarify a possible misunderstanding, I think the UK and Oz academic systems are actually quite different. In Oz, IIRC, you apply to study a (faculty name) degree, or sometimes a double degree in (faculty name)+(other faculty name). Within each degree, you can pick any modules from the faculty you like and aren't necessarily obliged to do any particular ones, but are required to do over a certain %age in either one or two subjects - those then become your majors/major and minor.

The UK is more constrained - you apply to do a specific subject or pair of half-subjects at uni (we don't have any double-degree equivalent), and while you might be allowed some 'wild' modules, that subject is set (unless you switch degrees, as Lady Morgana is doing, and which is quite a hassle, and probably involves restarting) from before you ever show up on campus.

If i recall correctly, it's Alan Darwst.

Yup. (Alan observes the practices he sees as central to Christianity though, without thinking it at all likely that said god exists)

There's also this guy, who I think considers himself utilitarian, but when he writes drivel like 'On Homosexuality', it seems clear he's modifying his ethics to fit his preconceptions rather than the other way around.





I have no idea what a Mika is

Hello hello,

Regarding utilitarianism and religion, although I happen to have one friend who is utilitarian and christian it seems quite rare nowadays. However, several precursors to the classic utilitarians, in particular bishop Butler, were religious and more or less utilitarian. In fact, for Butler God was sort of like a benevolent simulator, someone who had planned the world to maximise happiness and minimize suffering.

Hello people, sorry it's been a while.

What caused me to finally turn atheist? Well, like Dan Barker, it was more of a gradual process than a sudden "lightning strike of reason". I went to Oxford agnostic and left as an atheist and I think two main things contributed to that. One was being able to discuss religion with people who weren't religious. Back home the only people I knew who wanted to talk about religion were religious, so I felt as though the burden of proof was on me and any atheist arguments had to be thoroughly justified, but just talking to atheists helped me to accept what I already thought was right (I was still discussing religion with Christians though, so it was balanced for the first time). The other thing was just spending a bit of time properly studying the Bible. So many people had given the evidence of the Bible as proof of the truth of Christianity, and I wanted to know what the experts' general view of the Bible was as opposed to the opinions of a group of recently-born-again-evangelicals-from-Worthing. I didn't come across a single theologian, including Christian theologians, who seemed anything close to accepting the Bible as the 'Word of God' ("yes, ok, it was written by man, but every man that wrote it was inspired by the Holy Spirit as he did so, so that he was really writing the word of God" is something I hear so often...when I ask how they know this they change the subject). Theologians treat the Bible the same as any other ancient document, for example, they never assume that political agendas of authors/scribes influencing the text is less likely just cos it's The Bible. Studying the Bible felt more like a combination of History and English than Theology.

I really like this( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#God_rewards_belief ) response to Pascal's Wager. There's a more entertaining version of it somewhere but I can't find it at the moment.

And, yes, men who dislike Mika disproportionately to other similar pop musicians are insecure about their sexuality. There is usually some sneering comment about why he can sing so high and I suspect it is precisely for this reason. Arepo, this ( http://www.mikasounds.com/ ) is what a Mika is...it is wonderful.

That 'On Homosexuality' article was shocking. "I contend moreover that there can be no genuine friendship and love between two homosexuals as between spouses"??? F*** off. That is my immediate and not-very-eloquently-put response to that!

And, Jesper, I like the sound of Butler. It’s rare enough to find a religious person who puts their own moral reasoning before God, but Richard Swinburne seems to fit this description. I was very pleasantly surprised by a talk he gave in Oxford recently – he was the first Christian I’d heard say that morality exists, regardless of whether or not God exists, and that Gods existence doesn’t change what is ultimately morally good.

Oddly enough I've recently given up on my plan to read the Bible - and started listening to the King James audio book I picked the KJV mainly on the grounds that it was translated by poets, but it frequently makes so little sense that I can't tell whether something in the translation is screwed up, whether the English language has changed more than I realised since it was translated, or if the passages in question really are just gibberish.

One recurring oddity is non-sequitur's relating to proper nouns, usually following 'therefore' - 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed', 'Therefore she called his name Judah' and the like. Maybe you can clarify this, LM? Would the proper nouns have simply been words in common use at the time somehow relating to the events, but not translated with the rest of the text since they had the proper noun status?

LadyMorgana wrote:Arepo, this ( http://www.mikasounds.com/ ) is what a Mika is...it is wonderful.

I see. Well I'll be sure to ignore that link in exactly equal proportion to all the other horrible chart noise out there (/grumpyoldman)

"I contend moreover that there can be no genuine friendship and love between two homosexuals as between spouses"??? F*** off.

Yeah. I'm tempted to invite him hear to try and defend it on consequentialist grounds, but it feels kind of like inverse trolling..

It sounds like you were studying theology when you became atheist..

One recurring oddity is non-sequitur's relating to proper nouns, usually following 'therefore' - 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed', 'Therefore she called his name Judah' and the like. Maybe you can clarify this, LM? Would the proper nouns have simply been words in common use at the time somehow relating to the events, but not translated with the rest of the text since they had the proper noun status?

My apologies, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

Audio books are great! I've done so much revision on the way to the train station/walking the dog/at the gym etc that way.

It sounds like you were studying theology when you became atheist..

That is correct. But I only studied it formally for a term (and informally philosophising about religion for about four years). As you can see from above, I'm no expert

LadyMorgana wrote:My apologies, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

Ok, so for example, Genesis 32:28: 'And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.'

The word 'for' sounds as though it's implying some sort of explanation - ie that it could have been 'because'. But there's no obvious explanation around this passage, and this seems to be the first use of the word of 'Israel' in the bible. So I don't understand in what sense the explanation is supposed to explain anything.

What seems most likely to me (just going by the quote above) is that the word 'Israel' was a Hebrew word meaning something like 'prince' or 'powerful', but that because God was actually giving it as a name to Jacob (and presumably because people would have been familiar with the names in the Bible), the translators left the word alone, rather than translating it. But that's pure guesswork.

That is correct. But I only studied it formally for a term (and informally philosophising about religion for about four years). As you can see from above, I'm no expert

That thar's a spambot ye're chattin' with I've zapped it now...

Ah okay, yes, I see what you're saying now, and I agree with your guesswork. I'm pretty sure that all biblical names were Hebrew words with relevant meanings but it seems that in most circumstances (ancient and modern, biblical and non-biblical), proper nouns aren't translated, regardless of their meaning.

That thar's a spambot ye're chattin' with

Oh. Haha!