This experiment or it’s variants, as I suppose, are available for almost all: men and women, adults and children, teenagers and youth. I will tell more, I carried it out on many people, especially interesting for me were convicted materialists and atheists. And the results were incredible!
So, let’s try the experiment! What is very important! Don’t think that I wish you or your neighbors something bad. It’s only a mental experiment for demonstration of the moral sense. You can try it on yourselves or on your friends.
The moral experiment (variant for men, boys):
Imagine that your wife (girlfriend) is seriously ill, she can’t go on her feet. The doctor’s prediction is: she will live long but she won’t stand up, she will stay a handicapped person. It means all following consequences: constant expenses for her keeping, medicine, carrying-out her bedpan, lots of hardships and limitations that are always in such situations. And also of no small importance fact for spouses: absence of intimate relations. And it can be for the whole life!!!
Variants that you can choose:
a) leave her and find a new one
b) be faithful to the end
For women(girls) it’s enough to change in the experiment the roles. For singles on the place of wife or husband you can imagine a person whom you love most of all: mother, brother, sister, brother, grandmother or grandfather, etc.There can be lots of variants how to carry out this experiment, the main thing is to imagine the loved person in hardship and ask yourself what to choose: to be faithful or to betray (we mean betrayal in general, not only sexual).
The peculiarity of this experiment is that it shows the fundamental difference between profitable and right choice.
It’s obviously that variant A is fully advantageous, and variant B is fully harmful. But at the same time variant A is fully wrong, immoral and amoral and variant B is absolutely right and is suitable to moral law. And all people know this because of conscience. Everybody feels that it is right to choose variant B even the most convicted atheists and materialists! Moreover they understand that variant A is advantageous and B is harmful! We can see in this case the demonstration of moral sense very clear. Despite the evidence of the advantage of variant A and harmfulness of variant B everybody feels that variant B is right and that we must be faithful and that the betryal is very bad. Try to think about choosing variant A and you will feel pangs of conscience only for one this thought!
Once it happened that one man chose variant A, but after that he confessed that he felt that variant B was right. What does it mean? That everybody has the freedom of will and that everybody can act as he\she wants even against conscience. This experiment doesn’t mean that all who were asked will choose variant B for sure, but all of them will feel for sure that variant B is right. And those who in real life choose variant A completely and objectively deserve condemnation and conviction and I think that everybody agrees with this.
There is one more possible variant when somebody can say that he doesn’t feel that variant B is right, but I didn’t meet such people. We should take into consideration the fact that I was searching them in the group of people where there were a lot of such people (atheists and materialists). But still there is a freedom of will. Theoretically everybody can tell lies about his feelings. As a whole this experiment works perfectly well, especially if a person who carries out this experiment considers himself to be a respectable one.
Please read article the moral argument to know how to be able to prove the existence of God.
P.S. In my next article I explain the results of this experiment.
I don’t see how this test is meant to prove anything. Why can’t someone just say his feelings of consciousness are fundamentally irrational and offer no real information into the reality (or lack thereof) of moral truth?
Simply only because a person has reason and must think and act rationally. A person who acts irrationally can not at least be a person to imitate, can not have authority for other people, and even, perhaps, should be placed in a madhouse.
If an atheist chooses option “B”, and says at the same time that he just acts irrationally and that’s it. Then I have a question for atheists: “how can they require others to think and act rationally?”. But these are their main arguments, that everything should be rational, and believers are irrational.
The fact of the matter is that we people are rationally thinking beings and there is nothing stronger than reason, stronger than one mind, maybe only another Reason, a stronger Reason. And if we know that in this life it is advantageous for us to choose option “A” and there is nothing in this world that could make our mind know that we need to choose option “B”. We would all calmly choose option “A”. But our minds feel that it’s right to choose option “B”, it feels so much that it can not do anything about it. And even the majority of atheists, whom I tested with these experiments, had to agree that it was necessary, after all, to choose “B”. And this means only one thing that our mind is pressured by another Reason, a stronger Reason that makes our mind know that “B” is right.
I don’t follow your logic on any of this. Why can’t the atheist simply say, “I do not require anyone to act in any particular way, rational or irrational. I do not require anything of anyone at all”? That would be consistent. They can simply argue that neither our reason nor our feelings from conscience are able to tell us about moral reality, for there is no such thing as moral reality. They can simply call our the preference of our conscience toward option “B” an illusion brought about by the psychological products of evolution.
Because atheism, as a worldview, presents itself exclusively as a scientific, rational and progressive world view, as opposed to an allegedly irrational religious worldview. This is a fundamental feature of atheism, which opposes itself to any theism. And the main argument of atheism against religions. Atheist, who says that he acts irrationally – simply destroys this main argument.
Any reasonable person should act rationally. But the essence of the world view of atheism, that it puts supposedly rationality in the first place. Without rationality, atheism loses its main argument.
An atheist must act rationally!
Moreover, atheists demand rationality and ridicule irrationality. This is an obvious fact. Have you never communicated with atheists? Therefore, an atheist can not say so, as you say.
I think you confuse two different issues. An atheist could say you “must” act rationally to, say, discover the supposed truth of atheism, but that is not the same as saying simply, “You must act rationally.” It’s the difference between a conditional imperative, what you must do to achieve in a goal (e.g. knowledge in this case), and a categorical imperative, what you must do, period. An atheist can clearly agree that you must think rationally to know truth while at the same time denying that anyone must act rationally for its own sake. For an atheist can deny that there is anything which one must do for its own sake.