I personally get along well with people of different religious beliefs. Most people have a “live and let live” attitude and recognise that New Zealand is a democratic pluralist society. We just get on and do our jobs – religion never seems to interfere.
However, Christian apologists seem to live in a different, intolerant, world. They seem to feel the need to continually “prove” their god exists – and to pass judgement on people who think differently to them. Any whiff of atheism is an excuse to come down hard with their judgements, criticisms and lectures. Particularly weird is their claim that they know what atheists “really believe and think” – and their insistence in telling them so.
This gets particularly silly when they tell others they have no basis for their morality. A recent local example from the “Thinking Matters” apologist group is their article Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler. In this they claim atheists have no basis for their morality and therefore cannot criticise Hitler!
The silliness of this, of course, is that most people, whatever their religious views, do conclude that Hitler was morally wrong. Atheists are not an exception. In fact, most of the very small groups who still support Hitler’s ideas (e.g. white supremacy) are probably professing Christians (eg., Christian Identity and Kingdom Identity).
Apologetic escape from reality
OK, so the ‘Thinking Matters’ hypothesis is wrong – it just doesn’t correspond with reality. The sensible theing to do is learn from the mistake, change the hypothesis and check the new ideas against the facts. But, no, these apologists just refuse to recognise their mistake. They ignore reality and and persist with their false theory. They persist in telling atheists how they should think. They are just attempting the impossible – trying to change reality to fit their false ideas.
So we have the ridiculous situation of ‘Thinking Matters’ ruling that someone like the Dalai Lama (probably the world’s best known atheist) cannot possibly criticise Chinese repression in Tibet or applaud Ghandian non-violence just because he doesn’t believe in the god of this particular Christian apologetics group!
Silly isn’t it? And pathetic. Apparently they cannot define their own moral positions in their own right and have to do so by criticising the morality of others (who, incidentally, don’t have this problem).
“There is a prayer that I used to know as a christian. Tons of people know it but few actually comprehend it I think. “Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the thing I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the WISDOM to know the difference.” News flash! REALITY is one of the things YOU CANNOT CHANGE!”
Afterthought:
Perhaps instead of obsessing over atheists who criticise Hitler “Thinking Matters” should take issue with those theists who support Hitler.
This gets particularly silly when they tell others they have no basis for their morality. A recent local example from the “Thinking Matters” apologist group is their article Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler. In this they claim atheists have no basis for their morality and therefore cannot criticise Hitler!
Well Ken, I think you should, and hope you do, criticise Hitler. Having no objective basis for human worth or human morality should not prevent you from offering an ethical opinion. But if there is no objective standard for moral law then it is just opinion – preference. And if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite. And that is “reality.”
I guess the Christian Identity and Kingdom Identity people claim an objective basis for their moral opinions in their god. And they use this to justify a white supremacist position – like Hitler’s. I don’t think there position is valid – and I make that judgement without presupposing a god. I think you do the same.
I guess the Christian Identity and Kingdom Identity people claim an objective basis for their moral opinions in their god. And they use this to justify a white supremacist position – like Hitler’s. I don’t think there position is valid – and I make that judgement without presupposing a god. I think you do the same.
Again Ken, that does not deal with my point:if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite. And that is “reality.”
And if you know any Christian Identity people invite them here, I will be happy to destroy their position biblically. I have done it before…
A simple declaration “if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite” proves nothing. It can be used to justify white supremacy or the ‘thinking matters’ diktat that the Dalia Lama shouldn’t declare a moral position. It can be used to justify terrorist acts, wars, interference in basic human rights, etc., etc.
James, if you want to advance a model to explain human ethics you will have to do better than a dogmatic declaration. And from previous comments I know you cannot do better.
In the meantime you and your ‘thinking matters’ mates have no moral authority to deny ethical decision-making to others. And that goes for me and my mates as well as the Dalai Lama.
A telling response from Stuart at Thinking Matters. (it’s a bit weird for a discussion to be carried out on separate blog sites. However, ‘Thinking Matters’ does have a policy of selectively preventing comments so it is simpler, and less wasteful, to give my own response to Stuart here).
Stuart confirms an apologist position of denying a moral position to non-theists. However, he criticises me for not presenting an explanation for atheists having moral positions. Perhaps Stuart should check out some of the discussions presented here previously (eg. Where do our morals come from? and others).
However, the point about Stuart’s position is that his apologist model just doesn’t correspond with reality (i.e. non-theists do take up moral stands and on matters like Hitler they are generally consistent). So, however we try to explain that, the one thing we do know is that the apologist position is clearly wrong.
It seems to me pretty obvious that one should not retain a false model – even if one does not currently have an alternative explanation. In fact, clinging on to a falsehood (as Stuart does) only prevents the search for a correct explanation.
No one says that atheists can’t be moral or make moral judgments. That’s been said numerous times. The question is, upon what foundation is that judgment built? What is the standard for good and evil? Can you demonstrate one?
There’s a reason many atheists I meet are consistent moral relativists.
It seems to me that all this is building towards is the far off conclusion that atheists have a complex, socially-constructed, agile, communitarian basis for morality, and theists have a rigid, archaic, inadaptive one with no factual basis whatsoever.
James said…”But if there is no objective standard for moral law then it is just opinion – preference. And if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite. And that is “reality.”.
No 62: ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that’s because they don’t want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
“No one says that atheists can’t be moral or make moral judgments.” – well actually ‘Thinking matters’ did say Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler. They clearly claim atheists like the Dalai Lama are incapable of making moral judgements.
And, yes, it is possible to understand how we make moral judgements and society does develop standards of ethics and morality. We don’t have to believe in a god to do this. In fact, research shows that people’s morality is generally independent of their religious beliefs.
Instead of attacking others these apologists should spend some time and effort in presenting a reasonable model for how they develop their own moral positions – because this is certainly not obvious from their writings.
Of course their morality is independent of religious beliefs. It’s called Natural Law which is spoken of even in Scripture and teaches that God has placed the concepts of right and wrong inside the hearts of people.
And we don’t, as it were, develop our moral positions, but develop the morality of mankind. It is the common morality we are all to share. It is based on God though and his goodness being his being and thus having goodness be that which is in accord with the design of God.
You might want to read some thinkers on Natural Law.
Now if someone says atheists are incapable of making moral judgments, they are wrong. But the question is what is the basis and if we just have the society determining morality, which society? Is one society better than another? How can we know without something outside the two to compare them that is absolute and objective?
A simple declaration “if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite” proves nothing. It can be used to justify white supremacy or the ‘thinking matters’ diktat that the Dalia Lama shouldn’t declare a moral position. It can be used to justify terrorist acts, wars, interference in basic human rights, etc., etc.
Of course it proves something Ken, it proves that no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite. That my friend is “reality based.” And if can prove otherwise please state you case – you have not done so, so far…
Apologianick said…”It is the common morality we are all to share. It is based on God though and his goodness being his being and thus having goodness be that which is in accord with the design of God.”
It is the common morality we are all to share. It is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster though and his goodness being his being and thus having goodness be that which is in accord with the design of His Noodliness.
Apologianick said…”How can we know without something outside the two to compare them that is absolute and objective?”
No 62: ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that’s because they don’t want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
James waves his hands in confusion thusly…”Of course it proves something Ken, it proves that no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite.”
Huh?
You can’t read english? In a godless universe no moral opinion is more vaild or correct than its opposite… If you think that conclusion is incorrect please make an argument…
No, I can read English.
Thanks for asking.
Can you read in English?
(giggle)
James hits the reset button with…”In a godless universe no moral opinion is more vaild or correct than its opposite… If you think that conclusion is incorrect please make an argument…”
Oh you’re just repeating yourself?
Ok.
For a moment there I thought you were trying something different.
Perhaps it would be easier for all of us if you just referred to the index number of your cookie-cutter argument.
In this case it’s No. 62.
For a moment there I thought you were trying something different.
The truth of the argument doesn’t change Cedric, and remains valid, just because you are tired of hearing it makes no difference… And the fact that you have no counter, isn’t my fault…
James said…”The truth of the argument doesn’t change Cedric, and remains valid…”
James, why do you suppose that people think that No.62 is..well…silly?
James said…”And the fact that you have no counter, isn’t my fault…”
No need to apologise for that.
It’s not that No. 62 really needs a counter.
It’s just that people who invoke No.62 are making a logically flawed argument.
No.62 isn’t just wrong.
Its FAMOUS for being wrong.
Look it up. People have actually heard of this argument before.
It failed to impress then.
It fails to impress now.
Repeat it all you like.
Bore us to death with you plodding slow-witted nature.
(Now that’s something you should be apologising for!)
😉
Repeat yourself and repeat yourself and repeat yourself.
If that’s how you want to spend your life, go for it.
Advertise to the world that you have nothing new to add.
You think that No.62 is a humdinger of an argument.
Well, there you go. Good for you.
We get it already.
Ok?
You: It is the common morality we are all to share. It is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster though and his goodness being his being and thus having goodness be that which is in accord with the design of His Noodliness.
Me: Actually, this doesn’t really deal with what I say but tries to pin it on another deity. I haven’t even said the Christian deity, although that’s the one I believe in. You’ve still put the solution in something outside of humanity. Now if you want to know why I believe in the concept of an infinite being whose existence is his essence and whose goodness is his essence, that’s another discussion. This one is simply on whether atheism has a basis for morality and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.
You: No 62: ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
Me: Not saying that either. It’s not conclusive, but it does lend itself to that belief and we will have to examine other factors.
You: (2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
Me: Not at all! There are some who believe in absolute morality. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins both argue such, but Dawkins especially in the God Delusion makes the same mistake our blogger is making here. No one is asserting that atheists have no absolute moral standards. It is asserted they have no ontological basis. As for the rest of this, it’s just childish. There are some atheists that are better people I think than Christians. The question is though still, upon what basis does the atheist determine what is good?
“No one is asserting that atheists have no absolute moral standards.” – you are ignoring the fact that the Thinking Matter blog is actually saying Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler.
However, I guess from your comment that you actually agree that ‘thinking Matters’ is wrong. That’s progress.
“Upon what basis does the atheist determine what is good?” – I have argued here for a moral logic based on the objective fact that we are separate sentient beings, and also based on our evolution as a social species. This appears, in my view, to be the basis for all humans – despite their different religious beliefs. The fact that we arrive at our morality in basically the same way helps explain why we can reach agreement on things like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
If you don’t agree with this and think that you arrive at your morality in a different way – then surely you should answer the question: “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
I have yet to seen any convincing answer to this which doesn’t (on closer examination and removal of metaphor and hyperbole) resolve into the answer I give for atheist and theist alike.
No. 62 is a complete straw man. That’s not the argument I put forward. I, like you Cedrick, think it is a ridiculous argument. That brings me to another straw man of Ken’s. I have never argued that Atheists cannot criticise Hitler. I have argued that they should not, if they cannot ground that beliefs beyond personal feelings. I have repeated over and over in the articles I have written that when an atheist makes a moral judgement they are being inconsistent with their worldview. Obviously they are free to be inconsistent and often are. The very word should implies that atheists do already make moral judgements.
However, Christian apologists seem to live in a different, intolerant, world. They seem to feel the need to continually “prove” their god exists – and to pass judgement on people who think differently to them. Any whiff of atheism is an excuse to come down hard with their judgements, criticisms and lectures.
The very notion of tolerance implies that one disagrees with the other. If one agreed with the other, then one wouldn’t need to tolerate them, would they? In any case, we are not passing judgement on you, or being intolerant of you – only your ideas. Ideas that we argue, do not comport with reality.
I have argued that they should not, if they cannot ground that beliefs beyond personal feelings.
How is my personal opinion necessarily any more subjective that Paul’s or Matthew’s? Matthew I don’t mind – quite progressive for his time. Paul I consider an ogre. I do no see any evidence that these men’s opinion are an ‘objective’ basis for morality. Not anymore so than any other men’s opinions.
Cedrick’s posting ‘No. 62’ was addressed to Apologianick, so why write as if it were addressed to you? (“That’s not the argument I put forward.”) Unless you claim to also be Apologianick 🙂 Read more carefully, maybe?
Regards what you did write: I would like to think that you’d agree that repeating something doesn’t make it any more correct and that writing high-hand phrases that can be read as put-downs, like “The very word”, will suggest to some readers that you hold contempt others. Contempt, of course, implies intolerance and judgement. (Or perhaps more accurately, arises from intolerance and judgement. But, whatever, you get the gist of what I mean.)
More practically, the objection to Hitler is grounded in reasoning beyond personal feelings (please note I’m not using the word ‘belief’, but ‘reasoning’). I believe some of this has already been explained on this blog before, so I’ll stop at this point.
“when an atheist makes a moral judgement they are being inconsistent with their world view. ” – Well, as an atheist, I disagree. And I think it is the height of arrogance for someone to tell me what I should think – based on their inadequate understanding of my “world view.” (“World view” is a quaint little term I first came across in Soviet Communist philosophical writings in the 60s).
However, what I do notice is the complete avoidance of Christian apologeticians making a detailed presentation of their own theory of morality – free of hand waving, metaphor and rhetoric. I, for one, would be very interested in a brief summary here.
This seems to be a strong parallel to creationist/ID arguments which don’t (on the positive side) go any further than the claim “god did it.” Instead they concentrate on the negatives – searching for real and imagine “gaps” in scientific knowledge to discredit it. Here apologetics concentrates on their imagined dilemma for atheists instead of presenting a positive case of their own morality.
Personally I have no problem in finding a consistency between my “world view” and my moral judgements. However, Stuart, I would be interested in you connecting your own world view and moral judgements – in their own right without justification by disparagement of others.
Currently I cannot see, for example, how a theist “world view” morality can be used to arrive at a decision such as whether or not to stone a 13 year old girl for the crime of having been the victim of rape. Justifying it either way, perhaps (as was done recently) – but not an objective source to base a moral decision on.
You: However, I guess from your comment that you actually agree that ‘thinking Matters’ is wrong. That’s progress.
Me: Hard to call it progress since you don’t know any of my past positions. I’m all for criticism of a position. It’s a free market of ideas. I just want to make sure the ideas have a foundation behind them.
You: I have argued here for a moral logic based on the objective fact that we are separate sentient beings, and also based on our evolution as a social species. This appears, in my view, to be the basis for all humans – despite their different religious beliefs. The fact that we arrive at our morality in basically the same way helps explain why we can reach agreement on things like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Me: That doesn’t answer the question. Before you arrive at some idea of goodness, you have to know what goodness is. How is this known in an atheistic world? How do you determine it. You can say “We have a map to get to Baltimore,” but if you don’t know what that is, how would you know if you had ever arrived? Maybe you arrived in Philadelphia and thought it was Baltimore.
You: If you don’t agree with this and think that you arrive at your morality in a different way – then surely you should answer the question: “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
Me: Already answered it and it would go back to first realizing that good is a transcendental like Plato did. We do not determine what is good. We discover what is good. I’d also go to Aristotle who told us good is that which is desirable for its own sake. Then I’d go to Augustine and Aquinas and show how being is goodness and God fits the criteria as a being of pure actuality whose existence is his essence. Goodness is that which fits the nature of the design that God made it and goodness is being.
You: I have yet to seen any convincing answer to this which doesn’t (on closer examination and removal of metaphor and hyperbole) resolve into the answer I give for atheist and theist alike.
Me: I’m curious if you’ve ever read any ancient work or have just stuck to moderns.
Firstly, I find it hard to read your posts as you don’t refer to other post numbers, or say show “You” is. After some searching on the page for the words you have written next to “You”, I deduced that it’s Ken; there are several others posters in this thread, y’know 😉 You also don’t quote what subsequently appear to be quotes, so readers have to keep checking if they are literal quotes, or your putting his meaning in your own words.
Secondly, from your post 23: “We discover what is good.” I think if you read a little, you’d find that evolution also discovers what is good (for the species), too, through trial and error.
Regards your final sentence in post 23 and in the spirit of tit-for-tat: I for one wonder if you read anything outside of apologetics 😉 I know others seem to do this: it has the effect of re-enforcing what they want to be true, since they only read words that agree with the position they already hold. Its also has the effect of not exploring an issue, as the reading is limited to particular positions (essentially the positions the reader started with).
“Actually, this doesn’t really deal with what I say but tries to pin it on another deity.”
Ah, you spotted that. did you?
I’ll give you credit for being quicker on the uptake than James. He still hasn’t figured that one out.
Doesn’t even have to be another deity. Pixies, the spirit of Elvis, teapots in orbit around Jupiter etc., it’s all good.
“I haven’t even said the Christian deity, although that’s the one I believe in.”
Did you really have to? The capital “G” in God and the fact that you did not use an article before God made it a pretty good guess that you were talking about the deity commonly associated with the Mormons, Pentacostals, Catholics etc.
If you want to get all obscure about what you were referring to then…fine.
“You’ve still put the solution in something outside of humanity.”
No. I’m just taking your solution and inserting the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make a point.
I don’t regard your position as a solution at all.
Far from it.
“Now if you want to know why I believe in the concept of an infinite being whose existence is his essence and whose goodness is his essence, that’s another discussion.”
So you’re not going to talk endlessly about your god?
Thank you.
If only other people could display good manners like yours.
(Hint: James, I’m looking at you!)
“This one is simply on whether atheism has a basis for morality…”
I have’t breathed a word about atheism.
I am not claiming to have an answer on the basis of human morality. I don’t know.
I leave that sort of thing to the philosophers and the psychologists and the anthropologists of the world.
“…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
….and visa-versa, yes? Excellent.
😉
In any case,I never claimed this. Nobody here is claiming this.
The only person that indulges in such fuzzy-headed thinking is James.
He believes in No.62.
(shrug)
“Not saying that either. It’s not conclusive, but it does lend itself to that belief…”
It lends itself to that belief?
(…pause…)
Really?
How convenient.
So a god that you just so happen to already worship, happens to fit the bill?
Not some other god?
Not the FSM? Or pink unicorns?
The first cab off the rank of possibilities happens to be…you very own “brand-name” god?
Lucky you. You got in on the ground floor.
“No one is asserting that atheists have no absolute moral standards.”
No one? NO ONE?
Are you sure you want to say this?
(Hint: Read some of the postings by a certain troll on this board. Ask yourself, where did he get his ideas from.)
“There are some atheists that are better people I think than Christians. The question is though still, upon what basis does the atheist determine what is good?”
Shall we just cut to the chase?
You have the pre-packaged answer, right?
This is the beginning of a long and dreary discussion that starts of sounding sciency, yet somehow ends up in theology. Not just any theology either (oh no!), it’s going to end up in Christian theology.
During the discussion, you will be dissatisfied with any of the mundane possibilities that science suggests….and so you will invoke your god to fill in the gap.
Ok.
So we have…
“”There are some atheists that are better people I think than Christians. The question is though still, upon what basis does the atheist determine what is good?”
Which will lead us to what number?
Perhaps No.474?
No.474: ARGUMENT FROM SKEWED ASSUMPTIONS
(1) You’re an atheist? But you’re so nice!
(2) I just assumed you were a Christian.
(3) The niceness must be the light of God shining in you, whether you know it or not.
(4) Therefore, God exists. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
I think the idea of atheists showing moral outrage is rather irrational. They are in essence complaining about purely natural acts. And said outrage does not extend to other equally disturbing acts of nature like a pack of wolves ripping a elk apart. So why this selective outrage, especially considering the fact that we are determined beings? And I will again quote from Dawkins. And if you think I’m quote mining, then show me where the obvious meaning is incorrect – read the link !
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics.
Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame…
But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment.
Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.
There you have it. We determined beings,our brains are governed by the laws of physics. A “truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility.” And the ideas of blame and responsibility are useful fictions.
James said…”So why this selective outrage, especially considering the fact that we are determined beings?”
Yes, James.
You’ve asked this question before.
Multiple times on multiple threads.
You seem to be really concerned by it.
The answer eludes you still? That’s very sad.
Think harder, James. Think real hard.
Why do you suppose that people who don’t happen to go to your church have moral outrage?
Why, James, why?
You have clearly convinced yourself that it’s irrational for them to do so.
Congratulations. Nurture that certainty. It’s all yours.
Yet,and yet, despite your convictions, they do.
Strange, huh?
Think hard, James. Think really hard.
Maybe the answer will come to you.
Don’t give up.
(giggle)
James you keep repeating this “In a godless universe no moral opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite” when this is obviously ridiculous. As I and many others have told you again and again in this blog, there are many scientific studies that demonstrate that our moral mechanisms are built into us and largely inaccessible: they have been hard-wired by evolutionary processes. God is not necessary for us to understand what is morally right or wrong. Neuroscience has even identified certain areas in the brain that are part of our moral machinery. Further, patients with damage in those parts of the brain demonstrate immoral behaviour and lack of understanding of moral conflicts.
Also, how does God provide objective moral guidelines? Through the Bible? And I will repeat to you once again that the Bible is open to many different interpretations.
Further, this other stupid statement of yours, that there has not been moral advancement but only a change in opinions: only mentally retarded (or religious) people do not consider our moral jumps throughout the last two centuries as advancement. EVERYONE understands that the steps to abolish slavery, provide equal rights to everyone etc etc are advances in our moral books and not just different opinions. If they were just opinions how do you explain the fact that we ALWAYS move towards better moral guidelines instead of the backwards direction?
Finally, of course you are quote mining again. Dawkins in between what you mention also says this:
“Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution.”
So there it is: good and evil are indeed parts of us. And we do not simply dismiss immoral behaviours: we have developed more sophisticated mechanisms. But you just bypassed that inconvenient part, right James?
>b>James you keep repeating this “In a godless universe no moral opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite” when this is obviously ridiculous. As I and many others have told you again and again in this blog, there are many scientific studies that demonstrate that our moral mechanisms are built into us and largely inaccessible: they have been hard-wired by evolutionary processes.
How is my claim that no moral opinion is more valid than its opposite “obviously ridiculous?” Are you not making my point when you say we are “hard wired?” Why is one person’s hard wiring more morally correct than another person’s hard wiring? Answer this and we can move on to your other points…
James if you had any idea about biology (or any field of science for what matters) you would know that the wiring is the same in all people. What differs is the cultural upbringing that fine-tunes (an expression you really like) some of the available machinery based on the environment and the social norms the person is raised in. In a single sentence: the moral machinery is the same in all of us, some parameters only change depending on the environment. But the machinery defines the limits of how much the environment can shape our moral book.
Your statement “in a godless universe…” is ridiculous because it has been pointed out to you many times (and now again) that we DO have some sort of universally accepted moral guidelines hard-wired to our brains.
#31 James did you not see my reply (#28) regarding Dawkins’ quotes?!?
So there it is: good and evil are indeed parts of us. And we do not simply dismiss immoral behaviours: we have developed more sophisticated mechanisms. But you just bypassed that inconvenient part, right James?
Yes I did miss it, I was focusing on your first claim. Do you agree that assigning blame and responsibility are useful “fictions?” Is our sense of responsibility is a “fiction?”
Your statement “in a godless universe…” is ridiculous because it has been pointed out to you many times (and now again) that we DO have some sort of universally accepted moral guidelines hard-wired to our brains.
Tell that to the Satlinists who ran the gulags or the radical Muslims this week in Bombay. Why is your hard wiring more morally correct than theirs?
“Why is your hard wiring more morally correct than theirs?”
It’s not MY wiring: EVERYONE condemns these kind of actions! Even the criminals themselves can understand the consequences and probably know the immorality of their actions (unless they’re psychopaths or mentally challenged -which might be true for the muslims as is for many dogmatists like Stalin as well). This is not a matter of moral understanding: those people have an agenda they are trying to promote by all means.
To Heraclides:
Two very quick points as I have to go:
Firstly, I find it hard to read your posts as you don’t refer to other post numbers, or say show “You” is. After some searching on the page for the words you have written next to “You”, I deduced that it’s Ken; there are several others posters in this thread, y’know You also don’t quote what subsequently appear to be quotes, so readers have to keep checking if they are literal quotes, or your putting his meaning in your own words.
My reply: Very well.
Heraclides: Secondly, from your post 23: “We discover what is good.” I think if you read a little, you’d find that evolution also discovers what is good (for the species), too, through trial and error.
Me: Which doesn’t address the problem as it still has good as a transcendental and can there really be a transcendental in a naturalistic worldview?
Heraclides: Regards your final sentence in post 23 and in the spirit of tit-for-tat: I for one wonder if you read anything outside of apologetics I know others seem to do this: it has the effect of re-enforcing what they want to be true, since they only read words that agree with the position they already hold. Its also has the effect of not exploring an issue, as the reading is limited to particular positions (essentially the positions the reader started with).
Me: Yep. I’ve read a number of atheistic writings as well as writings of the ancients including Plato and Aristotle and in history Plutarch and Tacitus. I believe in being well-read in many areas.
To Heraclides:
Two very quick points as I have to go:
Firstly, I find it hard to read your posts as you don’t refer to other post numbers, or say show “You” is. After some searching on the page for the words you have written next to “You”, I deduced that it’s Ken; there are several others posters in this thread, y’know You also don’t quote what subsequently appear to be quotes, so readers have to keep checking if they are literal quotes, or your putting his meaning in your own words.
My reply: Very well.
Heraclides: Secondly, from your post 23: “We discover what is good.” I think if you read a little, you’d find that evolution also discovers what is good (for the species), too, through trial and error.
Me: Which doesn’t address the problem as it still has good as a transcendental and can there really be a transcendental in a naturalistic worldview?
Heraclides: Regards your final sentence in post 23 and in the spirit of tit-for-tat: I for one wonder if you read anything outside of apologetics I know others seem to do this: it has the effect of re-enforcing what they want to be true, since they only read words that agree with the position they already hold. Its also has the effect of not exploring an issue, as the reading is limited to particular positions (essentially the positions the reader started with).
Me: Yep. I’ve read a number of atheistic writings as well as writings of the ancients including Plato and Aristotle and in history Plutarch and Tacitus. I believe in being well-read in many areas.
“Do you agree that assigning blame and responsibility are useful “fictions?” Is our sense of responsibility is a “fiction?””
James do not try to distort what Dawkins is saying, you are putting too much emphasis on the word “fiction” as used in everyday contexts. Do not try to make something out of nothing (after all you don’t like that right?). Dawkins specifically says that it is a useful mechanism we have developed (kind of as rules of thumb) in order to be able to quickly make moral judgements and decisions on conflicting issues.
It’s not MY wiring: EVERYONE condemns these kind of actions! Even the criminals themselves can understand the consequences and probably know the immorality of their actions (unless they’re psychopaths or mentally challenged -which might be true for the muslims as is for many dogmatists like Stalin as well). This is not a matter of moral understanding: those people have an agenda they are trying to promote by all means.
Stavros, now you are reading minds?. The Stalinist may, like the Muslim, believe that what they are doing is for the greater good (of state or god). You have no idea what they think. And the fact is the Stalinist and the radical Muslim actually do these things. So what if they think this is “wrong?” Didn’t Dawkins say that our sense of responsibility is a re “fiction?” What obligation to we have to listen to our conscience in a godless universe. How is our conscience morally binding?
James I am not reading minds, others have done it for me: which part of “lots of scientific studies” did you not understand? The fact that some people overcome their moral guidelines in order to selfishly defect and make some sort of gains on other expenses doesn’t mean that we have no moral guidelines at all! And keep in mind that many Christians who supposedly get their morals from God, very often do immoral actions.
It is in human nature to try to defect sometimes for personal gains (or because they’re mentally problematic). That’s why society has developed means for punishing those that defect. There will always be humans that play by their moral books and humans that overcome those (for whatever reason) and act immorally. This is only natural to expect. It certainly doesn’t change the fact that we DO have some sort of objective morals hard-wired.
Our conscience is not morally binding, and morality is not simply a matter of what our consciousness says -to reduce it to that is naive. Our conscience might provide emotional “hunches” as to whether something is morally good or bad (in a way that perhaps David Hume would love) -hunches that are once again traits of our evolutionary background.
Wow.
Who’da thunk?
James hits the re-set button again…
“What obligation to we have to listen to our conscience in a godless universe. How is our conscience morally binding?”
No.352: ARGUMENT FROM RIGHT AND WRONG (I)
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate right and wrong.
(2) I want there to be ultimate right and wrong, so I don’t have to decide.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
James I am not reading minds, others have done it for me: which part of “lots of scientific studies” did you not understand? The fact that some people overcome their moral guidelines in order to selfishly defect and make some sort of gains on other expenses doesn’t mean that we have no moral guidelines at all! And keep in mind that many Christians who supposedly get their morals from God, very often do immoral actions.
Again Stavros, they do not “overcome” anything. They murder because nature programmed them to murder. Plain and simple. And yes, it does mean that you have no objective basis for believing your moral sense is any more correct than theirs. Nature programmed you do do one thing, and nature programmed them do do another. Remember our sense of responsibility is a mere “fiction.”
It is in human nature to try to defect sometimes for personal gains (or because they’re mentally problematic). That’s why society has developed means for punishing those that defect. There will always be humans that play by their moral books and humans that overcome those (for whatever reason) and act immorally. This is only natural to expect. It certainly doesn’t change the fact that we DO have some sort of objective morals hard-wired.
But there still is no “objective” source for morality (if it was objective it would have to exist independently of mankind, if not it all remains subjective). At best you could say what the majority considers moral. But is the majority always correct? What if the majority thought it was perfectly moral to enslave the minority? Then slavery would be “good?”
Ah, you spotted that. did you?
I’ll give you credit for being quicker on the uptake than James. He still hasn’t figured that one out.
Doesn’t even have to be another deity. Pixies, the spirit of Elvis, teapots in orbit around Jupiter etc., it’s all good.
My reply: Actually it has to be all good. If our transcendental is not goodness itself, then it is good by something beyond itself and we don’t have a solution to the problem. Nevertheless, you still have to have a transcendental.
Cedric:Did you really have to? The capital “G” in God and the fact that you did not use an article before God made it a pretty good guess that you were talking about the deity commonly associated with the Mormons, Pentacostals, Catholics etc.
If you want to get all obscure about what you were referring to then…fine.
Me: Why yes. A Muslim could have said the same thing and actually, Mormonism isn’t a monotheistic religion but a polytheistic religion and their God is not transcendental ultimately so they have the same problem.
Cedric: No. I’m just taking your solution and inserting the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make a point.
I don’t regard your position as a solution at all.
Far from it.
Me: Ah. So saying you don’t regard it as a solution counts as a point somehow? This must be some new technique. I often prefer people to give a reason why it’s not a solution instead of a mere assertion.
Cedric: So you’re not going to talk endlessly about your god?
Thank you.
If only other people could display good manners like yours.
(Hint: James, I’m looking at you!)
Me: No. That would be a red herring. Now if you come to the conclusion that a transcendental basis is necessary and God fits that and ask “What makes your God different from X?” then that will be the time to answer that question.
Cedric: I have’t breathed a word about atheism.
I am not claiming to have an answer on the basis of human morality. I don’t know.
I leave that sort of thing to the philosophers and the psychologists and the anthropologists of the world.
Me: Socrates would say you have completed step one in saying you don’t know. Now if you wish to point to the philosophers, then I suggest you consider what they said. Plato believed in the form of the good as the greatest form. Aristotle said it is that which is desirable for its own sake. Augustine and Aquinas would both say that God being a simple being and being good would be goodness. Locke, the most quoted philosopher of the founding fathers of America, was a strong believer in Natural Law. (Which is what got Clarence Thomas in so much trouble.) Kant said that one thing that would always hold him in awe was the Moral Law within. He even spoke of God as necessary for ethical theory. God, freedom, and immortality. All three.
Cedric: ….and visa-versa, yes? Excellent.
Me: And when we come to the point of which worldview ultimately is valid, I am ready for it.
Cedric: In any case,I never claimed this. Nobody here is claiming this.
The only person that indulges in such fuzzy-headed thinking is James.
He believes in No.62.
(shrug)
Me: 62 really doesn’t take Natural Law thinking seriously.
Cedric: It lends itself to that belief?
(…pause…)
Really?
How convenient.
So a god that you just so happen to already worship, happens to fit the bill?
Not some other god?
Not the FSM? Or pink unicorns?
The first cab off the rank of possibilities happens to be…you very own “brand-name” god?
Lucky you. You got in on the ground floor.
Me: Actually, there are a number of gods that I think could establish it on some level, but I have argued before that the Trinitarian concept makes the most sense of relational morality. However, a Muslim or a Jew could make the same arguments I am making.
Also, that it happens to be the God I worship says nothing about the truthfulness or the falseness of the position that I hold.
Cedric: No one? NO ONE?
Are you sure you want to say this?
(Hint: Read some of the postings by a certain troll on this board. Ask yourself, where did he get his ideas from.)
Me: Touche. If anyone thinks atheists can’t be moral, they don’t know what they’re talking about. If they say though that there is no basis for them to be moral, that is a valid point.
Cedric: Shall we just cut to the chase?
You have the pre-packaged answer, right?
Me: I think it’s best that when someone asks the question, the other person answers. Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that God makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Cedric: This is the beginning of a long and dreary discussion that starts of sounding sciency, yet somehow ends up in theology. Not just any theology either (oh no!), it’s going to end up in Christian theology.
During the discussion, you will be dissatisfied with any of the mundane possibilities that science suggests….and so you will invoke your god to fill in the gap.
Ok.
So we have…
Me: Science cannot answer a philosophical question. It is a category mistake. If the idea of good and evil is just what our genes tell us, then we are simply the determiners of good and evil. In the end, moral relativism will be the result.
Cedric: Which will lead us to what number?
Perhaps No.474?
No.474: ARGUMENT FROM SKEWED ASSUMPTIONS
(1) You’re an atheist? But you’re so nice!
(2) I just assumed you were a Christian.
(3) The niceness must be the light of God shining in you, whether you know it or not.
(4) Therefore, God exists. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Me: Um. No. Mockery of Natural Law theory doesn’t count as a real argument. I would say the atheist is good because they do know what good is. It’s something built into humanity that we know some things are good and some things are evil. Good and evil have an ontological reality outside ourselves and this can be presented as a knowledge claim.
Yes. Not only did I post on TheologyWeb, but I do post on TheologyWeb. I invite anyone to come and join us. It’s the best place to debate on the internet.
“What obligation to we have to listen to our conscience in a godless universe. How is our conscience morally binding?”
No.352: ARGUMENT FROM RIGHT AND WRONG (I)
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate right and wrong.
(2) I want there to be ultimate right and wrong, so I don’t have to decide.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
No no Cedric,
1. All our moral acts are determined, and completly natural.
2. We are a part of this determined nature.
3. We have no objective standard with which to judge natural acts.
3. Therefore moral outrage is irrational.
Yes. Not only did I post on TheologyWeb, but I do post on TheologyWeb. I invite anyone to come and join us. It’s the best place to debate on the internet.
Good to see (read) you again. I used to post there as “seer.”
Yes, it is a great site. But it gets to the point that you pretty much know how everyone is going to respond to any given subject. Besides I thought I would share my winning personality with other kids… ; )
James you say: “Again Stavros, they do not “overcome” anything. They murder because nature programmed them to murder. Plain and simple. And yes, it does mean that you have no objective basis for believing your moral sense is any more correct than theirs. Nature programmed you do do one thing, and nature programmed them do do another. Remember our sense of responsibility is a mere “fiction.””
obviously you didn’t even read or understand my comments -both on how nature hard wired our moral sense and on how you distort the term “fiction”. Immune to logic…
“What if the majority thought it was perfectly moral to enslave the minority?” they did at some point at the vastly Christian America -remember? But then there was that thing I have mentioned, moral advancement, which didn’t originate from religion, remember that as well? OK, now try to “hard-wire” these things in your brain so that you won’t reset again after only two comments…
obviously you didn’t even read or understand my comments -both on how nature hard wired our moral sense and on how you distort the term “fiction”. Immune to logic…
I understood you perfectly Stavros, that’s the problem. And remember “fiction” is Dawkins term:
Fiction: 1 a: something invented by the imagination or feigned ; specifically : an invented story.
So it is with our sense of responsibility, according to Dawkins. I think it is you Stavros who is “immune to logic.”
they did at some point at the vastly Christian America -remember? But then there was that thing I have mentioned, moral advancement, which didn’t originate from religion, remember that as well? OK, now try to “hard-wire” these things in your brain so that you won’t reset again after only two comments…
So nature hardwired us to be religious and to enslave others. And that is wrong – why? And what is moral advancement? Who decides what is advanced?
Apologianick said…”Actually it has to be all good.(later)…Nevertheless, you still have to have a transcendental.”
Ergo, No.62.
(shrug)
……………………………………………………..
Apologianick said…””A Muslim could have said the same thing…”
Indeed they could have.
Could have.
However, when you said “God”, I was correct in making the assumption that you were referring to the Christian special-brand, right?
As near as I can tell, Mormons use the “God” word with a capital “G” too.
(shrug)
………………………………………………………..
Apologianick said…”This must be some new technique. I often prefer people to give a reason why it’s not a solution instead of a mere assertion.”
Yes, it’s a new technique. It’s called humour.
You invoke your special brand-name god.
I take your assertion and insert some other brand-name god.
Job done.
For example:
God blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…
Flying Spaghetti Monster blah, blah, blah, blah…
Insert your own favourite god. Rinse and repeat.
Easy really.
……………………………………………………
Apologianick said…”Now if you wish to point to the philosophers…”
Nah. I’d rather just leave such questions to them.
I notice that you haven’t recommended any anthropologists or human behaviouralists or biologists. Why is that?
Apologianick said…”62 really doesn’t take Natural Law thinking seriously.”
James, however, takes No.62 VERY SERIOUSLY INDEED!
(groan)
Please, go ahead and talk to him about it.
Have fun.
Apologianick said…”If anyone thinks atheists can’t be moral, they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
(…waiting for the “but”…)
Apologianick continues…”If they say though that there is no basis for them to be moral, that is a valid point.”
Ah, there it is.
🙂
Ok, give it your best shot. What’s your argument?
Please don’t use No.62.
Please.
Apologianick said…”I think it’s best that when someone asks the question, the other person answers.”
Yours is a rhetorical question.
The preacher clearing his throat just before he starts his sermon.
So skip the foreplay and give us your answer.
“Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that God makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.”
Well, um…how shall I put this gently?
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Vishnu makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Asathoth makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Baal makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
(shrug)
Apologianick continues…”It’s something built into humanity that we know some things are good and some things are evil.”
Wait. Hold on there a second.
Built into humantity?
By what?
Or should I say, perhaps,…(hushed silence)…by whom?
Please. Continue.
🙂
P.S.
Please don’t use No.62.
It’s not just dumb. It’s getting a little boring by now.
So you show once again that you missed my point about you distorting Dawkins’ use of the term “fiction”. Good. It makes it easier for everyone else to see that there is no point in trying to talk reasonably with you.
“So nature hardwired us to be religious and to enslave others.”
Straw man, no one said about enslaving others. I said caring for our own groups but then due to larger societies we had to learn to become even more cooperative. But you didn’t read that either…
“And what is moral advancement? Who decides what is advanced?”
You reset again… read my previous comments on moral advancement. No wait. You are not going to do this obviously so I will just copy paste (hey, your favorite tactic!) here for you:
only mentally retarded (or religious) people do not consider our moral jumps throughout the last two centuries as advancement. EVERYONE understands that the steps to abolish slavery, provide equal rights to everyone etc etc are advances in our moral books and not just different opinions. If they were just opinions how do you explain the fact that we ALWAYS move towards better moral guidelines instead of the backwards direction?
Everyone understands them as advancements because everyone has the same hard-wired moral guidelines. Culture then parameterizes our morality but always based on this underlying moral “book”.
You make me (and everyone else here) repeat myself James and I hate this. I have been teaching university students for 4 years and they can grasp much more difficult stuff much easier than you! What’s wrong with you? If you reset again do not expect any response from me, sorry…
James, it doesn’t work.
You are impressing nobody here.
You are useful only as comedy value.
You plodding, dull-witted nature can only cause normal Christians to blush with embarrassment.
If anybody wishes to truely understand James’ nature and what he believes in then I invite all and sundry to check out some of his memorable moments on some of the other threads here.
Do check out the threads “A naturalistic approach to human morality.” and “Belief – a curse?”, “Being good for goodness sake” and perhaps the funniest one “Let’s celebrate!”.
“Please don’t use No.62.
It’s not just dumb. It’s getting a little boring by now.”
Oops.
I don’t wish to imply that Apologianick is getting boring.
I mean than No.62 has been invoked endlessly by “You know who” for weeks now around here.
Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and agian and again and again and again and again and again and again etc.
Straw man, no one said about enslaving others. I said caring for our own groups but then due to larger societies we had to learn to become even more cooperative. But you didn’t read that either…
How is it a strawman? Did not the natural process make us religious and cause us to enslave others? How is that “wrong.”
So you show once again that you missed my point about you distorting Dawkins’ use of the term “fiction”. Good. It makes it easier for everyone else to see that there is no point in trying to talk reasonably with you.
Let’s try again: fiction:a false report or statement which you pretend is true:
We merely pretend that moral responsibility is true. So how have I distored Dawkins’ words. Be specific please…
If they were just opinions how do you explain the fact that we ALWAYS move towards better moral guidelines instead of the backwards direction?
You just don’t get it. How do you know these are “better moral guidelines?” Better according to whom? The majority?
Everyone understands them as advancements because everyone has the same hard-wired moral guidelines. Culture then parameterizes our morality but always based on this underlying moral “book”.
But you just admitted that some don’t see these as advancements. Most of Islam would not. Why Tis your opinion more correct or valid? that is what you refuse to answer. Because you hold it? Because the majority holds it? What if in the next 100 years Muslims become the majority in the world? Will their moral opinion be an advancement?
Apologianick said…”Actually it has to be all good.(later)…Nevertheless, you still have to have a transcendental.”
Ergo, No.62.
(shrug)
Me: 62 is actually a way to mock a real argument. It’s a straw man. Let’s see what good will be rooted in? Will it be the individual? Then you have individual moral relativism where something is right simply because I say it is right. X says rape is right. Y says rape is not right. Who’s right? Both of them!
Will it be the society? Then whatever the society does is right by definition. One society thinks it’s moral to take innocent people and throw them into the Gulag. One society thinks it isn’t? Who’s right? Both of them. What happens to the student who is raised Christian and joins a fraternity at college? The Fraternity society says getting drunk and having sexual intercourse outside of marriage is fine. The Christian society says “No it isn’t.” Which one should the student choose? He can’t tell unless there’s something outside of both of them.
Now what if it is rooted in a transcendental? It will mean that goodness is an ontological reality outside of us. It would also have to be unchanging or else we simply have relativism again. It would have to be eternal for otherwise we could just ask “Where did it come from?” It would also need to be a source of authority or else we can ask “Why should we care?”
……………………………………………………..
Cedric: Indeed they could have.
Could have.
However, when you said “God”, I was correct in making the assumption that you were referring to the Christian special-brand, right?
Me: Correct. My contention though is that this is not an argument for Christianity proper but for theism.
As near as I can tell, Mormons use the “God” word with a capital “G” too.
(shrug)
Me: Take it from someone who has read up on Mormonism. The King Follett Discourse which Joseph Smith said has the basic principles of the gospel teaches polytheism.
Check Page 317 of the 26th printing of Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie under “God.” In starting the topic with the Trinity says “There are three gods.”
Look up quotes by the early presidents like Brigham Young. Polytheism was taught.
………………………………………………………..
Cedric: Yes, it’s a new technique. It’s called humour.
You invoke your special brand-name god.
I take your assertion and insert some other brand-name god.
Job done.
My reply: Except that I seriously doubt the concepts are the similar even though you categorize them all by the term “god.” There is a vast difference between Allah in Islam and YHWH in Christianity. The truth of my claim is rooted not in the category but in the nature of the God I trust.
Cedric: For example:
God blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…
Flying Spaghetti Monster blah, blah, blah, blah…
Insert your own f
Me: And is simply a childish way to argue a position. It’s the same mistake pluralists making thinking all concepts of God are the same. Not even close. If you want to counter a real idea, give a real argument.
……………………………………………………
Cedric: Nah. I’d rather just leave such questions to them.
I notice that you haven’t recommended any anthropologists or human behaviouralists or biologists. Why is that?
Me: Because I don’t think they can answer the question. If we’re going to find what is binding on humanity, we’re going to have to look outside of humanity. I don’t go to anthropologists to study what goodness is but rather how societies see it. I don’t go to biologists because goodness is not a scientific category. I don’t go to behaviourists because I am not interested in what the behavior is but if it is good and behaviourists can’t tell me that. Philosophy deals with ontological realities and thus, it can tell me what goodness is.
Cedric: James, however, takes No.62 VERY SERIOUSLY INDEED!
(groan)
Please, go ahead and talk to him about it.
Have fun.
Me: I also take it seriously. My dialogue is with you now. Let’s keep it that way. If you have a problem with natural law, please show it.
Apologianick continues…”If they say though that there is no basis for them to be moral, that is a valid point.”
You: Ah, there it is.
Ok, give it your best shot. What’s your argument?
Please don’t use No.62.
Please.
Me: The argument is natural law is the basis. It’s the law that all humanity understands. You simply set up a straw man and knock it down without realizing the deep philosophical argument behind it.
It’s really a terrible way to limit your thinking.
Cedric: Yours is a rhetorical question.
The preacher clearing his throat just before he starts his sermon.
So skip the foreplay and give us your answer.
Me: I believe I already have. Thanks for showing again the atheistic side has no answer. It’s okay. Harris and Dawkins can’t come up with one either.
Cedric: Well, um…how shall I put this gently?
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Vishnu makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Asathoth makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Baal makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
(shrug)
Me: Again, a non-answer. Your position assumes all concepts of God are the same and then argues from their. The presupposition is false. If I have to go into the nature of God and how God in Christianity is distinct from God in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
Wait. Hold on there a second.
Cedric: Built into humantity?
By what?
Or should I say, perhaps,…(hushed silence)…by whom?
Please. Continue.
P.S.
Please don’t use No.62.
It’s not just dumb. It’s getting a little boring by now.
Me: By God, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch. But hey, if you want to stick to shallow thinking, that’s your choice.
Haha it is like talking to 5 year olds! “Let’s try again: fiction:a false report or statement which you pretend is true” Yay! You defined the term! Now try to see how it is being used by Dawkins and read my previous comments…
“Did not the natural process make us religious and cause us to enslave others?”
There is the straw man exactly there and I have discussed this in my previous comment you incapable of reading James.
“You just don’t get it. How do you know these are “better moral guidelines?” Better according to whom? The majority?”
No you ignorant James it is YOU that doesn’t get when I say that science shows how these guidelines are built into us and that only mentally retarded (like you apparently) do not consider these as advancements! So: better according to our nature.
“But you just admitted that some don’t see these as advancements. Most of Islam would not”
Once again, no, you incapable of reasoning James, I only said that culture parameterizes our moral book. If you remember I explicitly stated that this moral book places limits on this parameterization, but since you are incapable of comprehending even the simplest scientific ideas you missed that too. And guess why Muslims might have difficulties accepting these advancements? Because they are f***ing religious and their stupid God keeps telling them all sorts of crap. But, once again, and try to follow me for once James: science has shown that even those Muslims DO have the same moral principles as everyone else. It is just that their ridiculous God commands them right now (as does your God you).
Got that? Are you going to make me say all these things yet again?
Apologianick sorts out the real Christians from the fake ones with…”Take it from someone who has read up on Mormonism.”
But surely the Mormons themselves have read up on Mormonism too?
Who to believe? Who to believe?
In any case, the video clip clearly has Mitt saying God with a capital “G”.
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”It’s the same mistake pluralists making thinking all concepts of God are the same.”
Let me guess. You know better, right?
Your concept of gods is somehow better than, say, the pizza guy because…?
Apologianick said…”If we’re going to find what is binding on humanity, we’re going to have to look outside of humanity.’
Why?
Apologianick said…”If you have a problem with natural law, please show it.”
Natural Law? Never mentioned it.
(shrug)
If you want to invoke Natural Law to answer the question you raised, go ahead.
Make it interesting.
Keep it short.
Apologianick said…”You simply set up a straw man and knock it down without realizing the deep philosophical argument behind it.”
No doubt. I look forward to your explanation of how No.62 is really just a strawman.
So far, all we have is your assertion that it is a strawman.
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”Thanks for showing again the atheistic side has no answer.”
You must remember this. A kiss is just a kiss. A sigh is just a sigh.
“…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
(shrug)
………………………………………………………
Apologianick said…”Your position assumes all concepts of God are the same and then argues from their. The presupposition is false.”
Says you.
Why is your opinion more important or correct than the guy who delivers the pizza in my neighbourhood?
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”If I have to go into the nature of God and how God in Christianity is distinct from God in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.”
You’re not getting this, are you?
(sigh)
If I have to go into the nature of the Flying Spahgetti Monster and how His Noodly One in Pastafariantism is distinct from Pixies in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
If I have to go into the nature of the Great Thragwart and how Thragwartism is distinct from Islam in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
If I have to go into the nature of Allah and how Islam is distinct from Shintism in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
………………………………………………………
“By God, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.”
By the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Zeus, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Bast, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Li Nezha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By No-Cha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Dylan, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Macha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
Etc,etc, etc. http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=b6nHDHMjVGg
No you ignorant James it is YOU that doesn’t get when I say that science shows how these guidelines are built into us and that only mentally retarded (like you apparently) do not consider these as advancements! So: better according to our nature.
There you go accusing radical Muslims, Stalinists, and slave owners of being mentally retarded. You are jut poisoning the well. Accusing anyone who disagrees with you or the majority with being mentally ill… First that is not an argument, nor is it a “fact.” Many of the men who populated the hierarchy of the Nazi party came out of the best universties of Europe.
Again, according to our “nature” is not an argument since our nature is also to rape, murder and war.
And guess why Muslims might have difficulties accepting these advancements? Because they are f***ing religious and their stupid God keeps telling them all sorts of crap. But, once again, and try to follow me for once James: science has shown that even those Muslims DO have the same moral principles as everyone else. It is just that their ridiculous God commands them right now (as does your God you).
Are you really this completely ignorant Stavros? If you are correct then there is “NO GOD” telling them anything. They believe and do what they do because AND ONLY BECAUSE nature created them to think and act that way. IT IS AS NATURAL AS ANY OTHER HUMAN BEHAVIOR, AND NO BETTER OR WORSE…. You really are unthinking…
Yay! You defined the term! Now try to see how it is being used by Dawkins and read my previous comments…
Lets: But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
So does a scientific view of the nervous system make the very idea of responsibility nonsense Stavros? YES OR NO.
You write this, but basically ignore my suggestions?? (No quotes, not post number(s), and you’ve continued doing it.) How am I supposed read your reply. Arrogance, or that you’d don’t understand what I mean my using quotes (basic English, surely?) and post numbers (self-evident, surely?) Others might suggest you’re doing it intentionally to be difficult 😉
“Which doesn’t address the problem as it still has good as a transcendental and can there really be a transcendental in a naturalistic worldview?”
You obviously have no idea at all what you are writing, as you’ve written a complete contradiction in terms. (Perhaps because you’re blindly parroting what you think you are “supposed” to say?) Obviously the “good” from evolution is not transcendental: this is so self-evident that I can’t see how anyone would think it is. And obviously its not a “worldview” in the case of evolution, a worldview is a personal perspective or philosophy: evolution doesn’t have that.
(Somehow I find myself not believing your final claim, as your posts contradict it: I can’t see knowledge from other domains on display.)
James, if I was as ignorant in science as you are, and as incapable of very very simple understanding as you are, I would say that you are a living refutation of the Theory of Evolution and I would put you as an exhibit in the Creation Museum.
Your total misunderstanding, distortion, and misrepresenting of ALL valid arguments that go against your blind beliefs show your incapacity to follow a structured dialogue. But we already knew that, right?
For tonight, I have no intention of saying EXACTLY the same things over and over again. You are like a goldfish that can only keep in mind the last two comments and nothing else. Immune to education -but we already knew that too, right?
Well, I don’t see the answer. Can you or Stuart give a brief exposition replying to that question?
As I said, I have no problem finding a basis for my moral decisions – which obviously makes your claims about my position wrong. However, I really want to have clear understanding of the model you propose regarding the basis theists use for moral decisions. I am open minded but until I have one there is no choice for me but to go with my current thinking which appears to be supported by the empirical evidence.
James, if I was as ignorant in science as you are, and as incapable of very very simple understanding as you are, I would say that you are a living refutation of the Theory of Evolution and I would put you as an exhibit in the Creation Museum.
You are avoiding the points:
1.Dawkins clearly says that a scientific view of the nervous system makes the idea of responsibility “nonsense.” Do you agree – yes or no?
2.If materialistic evolution is true then the radical Muslim was determined by nature to think and do what he does, just as you were determined by nature to think and do what you do. Except for calling those who disagree with your moral retarted, you have offered no rational argument for why your opinion is more correct or vaild than theirs.
3.There is no objective rule to judge between these behaviors. As one well known atheist said: “What ever is, is right.”
4. You can only appeal to the majority. What the majority believes to be right, is right. But that brings up a host of questions – like what if the majority believes that enslaving a minority is right – does it become right? What if the Musilms become the majority on earth (and looking at their birth rates that just might happen) will that majority be morally correct?
5. There is no moral advancement. Because what one considers as an advance is subjective. And there is no objective moral rule to mitigate between different opinions of constitutes advancement. We are left, not with moral advancement, but mere moral difference.
6. The reason why I have to keep repeating myself is because you are irrational. And you are dense.
re 1: Perhaps you’d like to show the full context in which he supposedly made this claim first?
(Its not given in this thread.)
I can’t reply to your other points, as aren’t pointing to the source. What post do 1, 2., etc. refer to? Its clearly not the same post as the not-a-quote quote at the top refers to, so I have no means to know what statements your points refer to (expect the last, which is pure ad hominem and as such does really refer to anything).
“Except for calling those who disagree with your moral retarted, you have offered no rational argument for why your opinion is more correct or vaild than theirs.”
It was linked in post 26. “Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car.” I have linked it in the past
Lets: But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
He also said:
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics.
So we are determined
And:
Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.
Our sense of blame and responsibility is merely a “useful fiction.” But of course that would be correct if there was no freedom of the will and we were determinied beings… Mere biological machinces created by mother nature… Which obviously Dawkins thinks we are…
James said…”Our sense of blame and responsibility is merely a “useful fiction.” But of course that would be correct if there was no freedom of the will and we were determinied beings… Mere biological machinces created by mother nature… Which obviously Dawkins thinks we are…”
Did it ever occur to you to actually read any of Dawkins’ books?
You seem to be really fascinated by what he thinks.
“Mere biological machinces created by mother nature… Which obviously Dawkins thinks we are…”
So what do YOU think we are, James?
Share.
(giggle)
When you actually try and articulate your own thoughts in your own words, you are comedy gold.
We know you normally hide behind “stumper” questions and then sit around mindlessly waiting to be spoon-fed an answer, yet perhaps today will be different.
Cedric, if you have something from Dawkins that contradicts his points in “Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car” then present them. If not, then of course we are biological machines – slaves to the undelying laws of pyhsics. Ideas like blame and responsibility are truely “fictions.” You think and do what these mindless forces cause you to think and do. You are a mere cog in the machinery of nature. But I’m willing to bet Cedric, that even you think that you are more than that – don’t you?
And I have man clear time and time again what I think man is.
Yup, a quote-mine. You’ve misrepresented him in the past, as you do here, so what’s new? (This one has been explained to you in the past, too. Read from the start, these paragraphs have a quite different meaning to placing them on their own: their full meaning is set up by the preceding text that’s not given in your quotes.)
That our bodies are ultimately governed by the laws of physics does NOT say “we are determined”. You really need to go back to school for that one. Simple cases needed for simple minds I guess 😉 So, a simple case: consider identical twins. Go on, tell how us all how identical twins are genetical identical, “determined” (your thesis), yet quite different in what they choose to do, etc.
Hint: I can answer with one word (two if you include ‘the’ or ‘their’), but it’d squash your “determined” thesis 😉
Its very boring having address the same old lines from you, Mr Reset Button.
That our bodies are ultimately governed by the laws of physics does NOT say “we are determined”. You really need to go back to school for that one. Simple cases needed for simple minds I guess So, a simple case: consider identical twins. Go on, tell how us all how identical twins are genetical identical, “determined” (your thesis), yet quite different in what they choose to do, etc.
Are you being honest with what Dawkins said Heraclides? No you are not, again:
Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
And:
But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
Isn’t a murderer or rapist just a machine with a defective component? Is not the very idea of responsibility “nonsense?” Heraclides responsibility can only be “nonsense” if we are determined beings. If we have any degree of moral freedom then responsibility is no longer “nonsense.”
And:
As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics.
If the human brain is governed by the laws of physics – where is free will? How can there be choice?
The facts are Heraclides,I have quoted Dawkins correctly. And if he is right then we are just “machines” (his words) – the laws of physics dictate our thoughts, and the very idea of responsibility is “nonsense.” And here is another fact Heraclides – you know that you are more than a biological “machine.” That you are a rational and moral agent – that you actually do make moral choices and that responsibility isn’t “nonsense.” But you can’t get that from materialism…
Admit that you are just a determined cog in the machinery of nature, that moral responsibility and human rationality are nonsense. Or, admit that in your heart of hearts you know that you are more than that. And that “more” can not be found in the deterministic materialism of atheism…
James said…”Admit that you are just a determined cog in the machinery of nature, that moral responsibility and human rationality are nonsense.”
James, nobody here goes around saying this.
Nobody.
Why are you so determined to make up strawmen?
Do you want to have a monologue all by yourself on the Internet and rant away or do you want to engage with people?
Has anybody here said that “human rationality is nonsense”.
Well, no.
So why bother to pretend otherwise?
Has anybody here said that “moral responsibility is nonsense”?
Once again. No.
James said…”And that “more” can not be found in the deterministic materialism of atheism…”
The wha..?
Once again, you seem to be involved with your own private conversation with yourself.
Deterministic materialism of atheism?
I have no idea what on Ear…
(…pause…)
(…pauses again…)
Ahem…
Oh. OH!
Deterministic Materialism of Atheism? The old D.M.A?
Oh, that! Well, why didn’t you say so before?
Yes, yes, of course.
No introduction necessary. The D.M.A. That thing.
Hmm, yes.
Well, it goes without saying really, doesn’t it?
Why, just last week I overheard somebody on the bus mentioning that…
Yes, yes.
The D.M.A.
So, er, what was the question?
“And that “more” can not be found in the deterministic materialism of atheism…”
So..”more” cannot be found in the D.M.A?
You want me to admit that?
(shrug)
Ok.
I admit it.
“More” cannot be found in the D.M.A.
James, what do you want?
How many people have pointed out to you that you’re quote-mining?
As Heraclides has already said…
“Yup, a quote-mine. You’ve misrepresented him in the past, as you do here, so what’s new? (This one has been explained to you in the past, too. Read from the start, these paragraphs have a quite different meaning to placing them on their own: their full meaning is set up by the preceding text that’s not given in your quotes.)”
You shouldn’t be doing this.
It’s dishonest.
People have repeatedly tried to explain this to you.
Why are you just ignoring them?
It’s easy for a lurker to read the entire thing for themselves and see that you’re quote-mining.
You gain nothing this way.
It’s very wrong of you.
………………………………………………….
Quote mining.
Quote mining is the practice of purposely compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech.
The term is pejorative. “Quote miners” are often accused of contextomy and misquotation, in an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately. For example, if a person being quoted disagrees with some position, a quote miner will present quotes that suggest that instead, this person is supportive of this position. Material that ostensibly bolsters this position is often taken out of context. Exposition that is at odds with the argument being made in the same text is excluded or otherwise obscured.
The expression is also sometimes used in a slightly weaker sense, merely meaning that a quote is being used to support an idea that the original author rejects. In this second case, even a quote which is accurate can be considered a “mined quote”.
The phrase originated in the mid-1990s. It is commonly used by members of the scientific community to describe a method frequently employed by creationists to support their arguments, though it can be and often is used outside of the “science vs. faith” discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
Cedric, the link is there for everyone to read. Now instead of throwing out unfounded accusations show me from the link how “exactly” I have taken Dawkins out of context. How his meaning changes in context.
Hint, quoting Heraclides, who is completely bias, won’t help….
James, as I’ve pointed out to you before, on another thread, there is more to what Dawkins wrote. In which he explains why we don’t actually act in this way.
Your ‘arguments’ are becoming very tedious, you know.
James, as I’ve pointed out to you before, on another thread, there is more to what Dawkins wrote. In which he explains why we don’t actually act in this way.
Well of course Alison. I know that,it is clear in the article.
Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution.
So evolution programmed us to think this way, but as Dawkins goes on: Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.
So it is a useful “fiction.” This does change, at all, what I have been saying. What Dawkins said: But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not?
That a “scientific, mechanistic” view of the nervous system makes the very idea of responsibility “nonsense.” This is deterministic, we are mere machines, as Dawkings goes on: Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
I have taken nothing out of context. The very reason that moral responsibility is “nonsense” is just because we are “mechanistic” “machines” – no freedom of the will, therefore no responsibility.
I’m glad you guys are arguing against this view of humanity (keep raging against the machine), but let’s not predend that Dawkins did not say exactly what he did say.
In your first not-a-quote quoting my words I did not refer to Dawkins’ words, but your own! Duh. Which I notice you haven’t answered… (And please, you can use quotes: they take just as much effort type: exactly the same number of characters… you illustrated that you know how to do this in the same post, so you have no excuse.)
Quote-mining isn’t about “getting the words wrong”, its about putting them out of their context, thus altering their original meaning. I did point that out to you explicitly: told you exactly how they are out of context.
You’re being Mr. Reset Button again: this has been done before, several times I believe. I’m not doing this again, its boring. Take it back to the thread you started this on, if really excites you so much.
You: You write this, but basically ignore my suggestions?? (No quotes, not post number(s), and you’ve continued doing it.) How am I supposed read your reply. Arrogance, or that you’d don’t understand what I mean my using quotes (basic English, surely?) and post numbers (self-evident, surely?) Others might suggest you’re doing it intentionally to be difficult
Me: Whine whine whine….
You: You obviously have no idea at all what you are writing, as you’ve written a complete contradiction in terms. (Perhaps because you’re blindly parroting what you think you are “supposed” to say?) Obviously the “good” from evolution is not transcendental: this is so self-evident that I can’t see how anyone would think it is. And obviously its not a “worldview” in the case of evolution, a worldview is a personal perspective or philosophy: evolution doesn’t have that.
Me: Of course it’s not transcendental! That’s the whole point. If one accepts naturalism, how can there be anything that is transcendental? What is this basis for goodness out there? You cannot even say there is progress being made unless there is some goal and in naturalistic evolution, it is not going towards something, it is just going.
You: (Somehow I find myself not believing your final claim, as your posts contradict it: I can’t see knowledge from other domains on display.)
You’re talking poppycock I’m afraid.
Me: Hey. If you want to assume I’m a liar, it’s going to be your problem.
You: So later Apologianick goes through the options…
Will it be the individual?
(Cedric thinks.” He’ll say no and then invoke his brand-name deity)
No, not the individual.
Will it be the society?
(Cedric thinks.” He’ll say no and then invoke his brand-name deity)
No, not society.
Now what if it is rooted in a transcendental?
(Cedric thinks “Bingo”)
Cedric: Transcendental? You mean like, oh, I don’t know really, maybe…a god?
Apologianick: Yes, a god would do it.
Cedric: Hmm, a god, eh? Well, what god?
Apologianick: I’m glad you asked me that, Cedric. It just so happens that I happen to have a very special brand-name god.
Cedric: Ah. No.62. Okayyyy.
My reply:
So do you normally do straw men like that? It’s just assuming my idea of God is wrong because it’s the one I believe in. Notice something about your so-called #62. It doesn’t refute the argument at all! It doesn’t say “Well here’s why God can’t be a foundation of morality” nor does it say “Here is a naturalistic foundation of morality.” It assumes the argument isn’t valid but gives no reason why. When you really want to engage an argument, let me know.
……………………………………………………….
You: Apologianick said…”My contention though is that this is not an argument for Christianity proper but for theism.”
Oh, theism. That’s nice.
(yawn)
Me: Hmmm. Somehow, I gather this is supposed to be considered a response in some circles.
………………………………………………………
You: But surely the Mormons themselves have read up on Mormonism too?
Who to believe? Who to believe?
In any case, the video clip clearly has Mitt saying God with a capital “G”.
……………………………………………………….
Me: Actually, they haven’t. Many Mormons don’t know their history. We spent a few months with them here in dialogue and they didn’t know about facts like the King Follett Discourse. I showed quotes from a source of theirs and I urge you to look for quotes from the presidents of the church. You could even come to theologyweb now and find that Mormons at the most would simply claim monolatry, which is not monotheism.
You: Let me guess. You know better, right?
Your concept of gods is somehow better than, say, the pizza guy because…?
Me: Why yes. I do. I know better because I’ve actually done my homework and read up on world religions and notably by going to their sources that they consider Scripture.
You: Why?
Me: What is binding on us will be unchanging. If we can change it, it’s not binding. If it’s something outside of us, it cannot be changed by us. We do not change the moral law. We discover it.
You: Natural Law? Never mentioned it.
(shrug)
If you want to invoke Natural Law to answer the question you raised, go ahead.
Make it interesting.
Keep it short.
Me: Actually, it’s the position I’ve been arguing for. Natural Law is that moral truths are known by human beings by nature of their being human beings. When a human comes to understand what murder is, he knows that murder is wrong. There are some acts that are absolutely good and some that are absolutely evil. This is a view treating good and evil as realities that exist outside of us.
Cedric: No doubt. I look forward to your explanation of how No.62 is really just a strawman.
So far, all we have is your assertion that it is a strawman.
Me: Given above. You might want to consider actually reading something by a Natural Law thinker and especially consider the statements of the philosophers made earlier including Kant.
……………………………………………………….
You: You must remember this. A kiss is just a kiss. A sigh is just a sigh.
Me: And a non-answer is a non-answer.
You: (shrug)
Me: And history repeats.
………………………………………………………
You: Says you.
Why is your opinion more important or correct than the guy who delivers the pizza in my neighbourhood?
Me: Because I’ve actually read on the topic. Let’s consider some things.
In Christianity, God is triune.
In Islam, this is the sin of shirk.
In Hindu, there is a monistic concept with Brahman being ultimate.
In some sects of Buddhism, the question of God is irrelevant.
And that’s just on the surface. We could look deeper such as the Muslim concept of Taqdir and Voluntarism vs. the Christian concept of simplicity in the nature of God.
……………………………………………………….
Cedric: You’re not getting this, are you?
(sigh)
If I have to go into the nature of the Flying Spahgetti Monster and how His Noodly One in Pastafariantism is distinct from Pixies in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
If I have to go into the nature of the Great Thragwart and how Thragwartism is distinct from Islam in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
If I have to go into the nature of Allah and how Islam is distinct from Shintism in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
Me; Which again assumes all of them are the same. Is it just this enjoyable to make such a statement about all world religions?
………………………………………………………
You: “By God, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.”
By the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Zeus, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Bast, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Li Nezha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By No-Cha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Dylan, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Macha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
Etc,etc, etc. http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=b6nHDHMjVGg
Me: Somehow, I suppose this is thought to deal with what I said.
Well, I don’t see the answer. Can you or Stuart give a brief exposition replying to that question?
As I said, I have no problem finding a basis for my moral decisions – which obviously makes your claims about my position wrong. However, I really want to have clear understanding of the model you propose regarding the basis theists use for moral decisions. I am open minded but until I have one there is no choice for me but to go with my current thinking which appears to be supported by the empirical evidence.
My reply: The problem is though, what is this basis in naturalism? There’s a reason many atheists I meet are moral relativists. They say they can find no such basis and that nothing is absolutely good or evil.
In Christianity, the idea is that goodness is being and I would urge you to read Augustine and Aquinas on this. Augustine would be the best place to really start as he is foundational in dealing with the so-called Problem of Evil. God is pure goodness for he is pure being and creating all things, all is good insofar as it fulfills the purpose for which he created it. We do not murder because life is good fulfilling the purpose for which it was made. We are not to practice sexual immorality because of what sex is and what human persons are.
Overall though, if anybody wishes to continue a discussion, I urge them to come to TheologyWeb and find me on there.
I am still waiting for brief response to my question: “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
This would be more fruitful than the stramannery involved in attacked an imagined atheist argument.
James:
re you continual copy and pasting of a quote from Dawkins
I find the obsession you and other apologists have for Dawkins fascinating. However, the copy and paste technique is just a manifestation of selecting and distorting evidence. It’s dishonest and you attempt to give an incorrect picture of Dawkins’ actual beliefs. He has clearly stated that as a scientist he is a committed Darwinian in his investigation and understanding of natural development and evolution. But regarding society and politics Dawkins is a passionate anti-Darwinian. I surely don’t have to descend to the copy and paste to show this – it is absolutely clear from even a minimal reading of his books and opinion articles (from following the evidence – all the evidence, rather than selecting to “prove” one’s own bias).
Now, if I wanted to give a biased, dishonest, representation of Christian beliefs I could selectively copy and paste from their holy book – the bible. There is some pretty horrible stuff there. But that would be dishonest wouldn’t it? – because a proper understanding of today’s Christian viewpoints would require consideration of much more than that.
Still I can’t see any clarity in your answer. Can you briefly describe, without metaphor or rhetoric (as I have tried to do for my own morality in Where do our morals come from? and other articles) how you determine what is right and wrong – the objective morality theists talk about.
I did not whine, unless you are meaning that you are whining in which case, fine 🙂
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and considered that you might not realise what is usual or how difficult your posts are to read, and offered some suggestions. In reply I got a bizarre “Very well” that I couldn’t make a head or tail of, hence my reply. If you impose some other tone (whining) on my posts, that’s your doing, not mine. I didn’t have to extend you the courtesy of giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your reply at post 83 suggests I would have better pouring scorn on you.
I suggest you use quotation marks where they apply: we are using English, after all… 😉
Regards your transcendental bit: you’re babbling. I’m not going to repeat this again, so read carefully. You wrote:
““Which doesn’t address the problem as it still has good as a transcendental…”
Your words “it still has good as a transcendental” have you saying that it is transcendental. Now you are contradicting these words by writing “Of course it’s not transcendental!”. So which is it? You seem to want to have it both ways.
The reason its not transcendental has nothing to do with your pseudo-philosophy, by the way. You do not need to apply any “philosophy”, its not by definition. And as such your original comment that I objected to as nonsense, is nonsense: you applied the word out of its defined meaning. Don’t look at me for that, they’re your words.
“What is this basis for goodness out there? You cannot even say there is progress being made unless there is some goal and in naturalistic evolution, it is not going towards something, it is just going.”
Now you’re babbling so much nonsense, that there is nothing to reply to.
I didn’t assume you are a liar: I wrote that the impression I get from your posts are that you don’t know much about other things, despite you claim to. Only you can correct that impression. ‘Poppycock’ does not mean “lie” either, it means “nonsense”.
In your first not-a-quote quoting my words I did not refer to Dawkins’ words, but your own! Duh. Which I notice you haven’t answered… (And please, you can use quotes: they take just as much effort type: exactly the same number of characters… you illustrated that you know how to do this in the same post, so you have no excuse.)
The fact is Dawkins points logically lead to determinism. When he calls human beings “machines” and says that a “scientific, mechanistic” view of the nervous system makes the very idea of responsibility “nonsense” or that the idea of responsibility is a useful “fiction” – this is deterministic language. And why you would want to deny this is beyond me – Dawkins is perfectly clear.
Dawkins has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out before, It your weird mind, maybe, but I replied to YOUR (get it, YOUR) erroneous “So we are determined”. I even quoted it to make that clear. And why you would want to keep making out that I was replying to the Dawkins’ quotes when I have already clarified this is beyond me – I even quoted you to make it perfectly clear what I was replying to.
The correct answer, James, is that YOU (incorrectly) inferred, goodness knows how, that Dawkin’s points “lead to determinism”: I replied to YOUR incorrect statement, ON THIER OWN. More to the point, why don’t you move this back to the thread you first brought this idiotic stuff up from, Mr Reset Button?
Apologianick said…”It’s just assuming my idea of God is wrong because it’s the one I believe in.”
No. It really doesn’t matter what god you personally choose to believe in.
Insert any god/gods/supernatural being/mega-aliens you like.
It’s all good.
Way back at the beginning of this dialogue it was easy to predict that you had a pre-packaged “ready to go” answer.
That answer was, naturally, your god.
Not some other god, mind you.
Oh no.
Your god.
That’s how it’s always done. I was hoping to save some time.
…………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…“Well here’s why God can’t be a foundation of morality”
It doesn’t have to.
Think about it.
Think really hard.
Focus.
“Well here’s why Thor can’t be a foundation of morality”
“Well here’s why Frosty the Snowman can’t be a foundation of morality”
“Well here’s why the Great Pumpkin can’t be a foundation of morality”
See? Why do you suppose that most normal people don’t go around worrying about why Sky Woman/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/Orisis can’t be a foundation of morality?
“Here is a naturalistic foundation of morality.”
(awkward silence)
Um, I’m not the one putting forward an argument.
I’m not defending “the naturalistic foundation of morality”.
Never mentioned it.
You want to put forward an argument that your god is the foundation of morality?
Go ahead.
Nobody’s stopping you.
“When you really want to engage an argument, let me know.”
More empty words.
You’re here to preach. Nothing and nobody will stop you.
Pity that.
(sigh)
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”Somehow, I gather this is supposed to be considered a response in some circles.”
Yes, it’s the response that is given when when some nobody from the local church starts to clear their throat in preparation for an impromptu and uninvited sermon.
The weary rolling of the eyes and the shuffing of the feet of a trapped audience who will now have to suffer listening to somebody droning on and on about their brand-name god.
It’s the tight, polite smile that the ambushed householder paints on their face when nice young uninvited men in polyester suits knock on the door to talk to them about gods.
………………………………………………………..
“And a non-answer is a non-answer.”
They’re your words. If you define it as a non-answer, then fine.
(shrug)
………………………………………………………..
Previously Cedric said…”Why is your opinion more important or correct than the guy who delivers the pizza in my neighbourhood?”
Apologianick: Because I’ve actually read on the topic.
So has my pizza guy.
And?
“In Christianity, God is triune.
In Islam, this is the sin of shirk.
In Hindu, there is a monistic concept with Brahman being ultimate.
In some sects of Buddhism, the question of God is irrelevant.
And that’s just on the surface. We could look deeper such as the Muslim concept of Taqdir and Voluntarism vs. the Christian concept of simplicity in the nature of God.”
Let’s try again, shall we?
In Pastafarianim, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is of Oneness with Pasta.
In Dyakism, this is the village avatar.
In the Unification Church, there is the understanding that Father (Mr Moon to outsiders) is the physical second coming of Jesus Christ.
In some sects of Sumerian religious life, the question of gods are very relevent.
And that’s just on the surface. We could look deeper such as the the role that Utu plays in upholding the principles of justice and the Khalsa concept of military training.
(shrug)
………………………………………………………..
Apologianick said…”Which again assumes all of them are the same.”
Ah, you’ve noticed, have you? Well done.
🙂
Apologianick said…”Is it just this enjoyable to make such a statement about all world religions?”
I find it saves a lot of time. Plus it is rather funny.
Try it with the Mormons, for example.
Every time they go on and on about their god, just insert some other god (or perhaps your favourite cartoon character) and…let the hilarity ensue.
………………………………………………………
Apologianick said…”Somehow, I suppose this is thought to deal with what I said.”
Oh yes. Very effectively too!
You make an assumption.
I call you on it and have some fun in the bargain.
Choooocolate 🙂 When the daughter & I were in Europe in February (someone else was paying,well, for me anyway) we went on Deutschbahn & they give you chocolates if you are first-class travellers. Ok, the ticket price might be a little less if they didn’t (but not much), but it was a nice touch. Daughter saved hers & brought them home for our Significant Other; I was most impressed. And, and, we stayed with a friend in Madrid & he took us into town to a chocolate ‘bar’ – all these plump Spanish persons sitting round sipping liquid chocolate (I think melted with a little milk to keep it fluid) out of large cups. Which probably contributed to the plumpness. Made worse by the decadent habit of accompanying one’s chocolate with churros: strips of deep-fried extruded dough. We rather liked Madrid 🙂
Fooooood.
If you ever go back to Europe, I recommend three places.
Saltzberg.
The best marzipan in the world.
(Though I went there to check out the castle)
Munich.
City of pastry shops and bakers.
The people there take their desserts and sweets very seriously. Glorious stuff.
San Sebastian.
Finest chefs and cuisine EVAR. Even the French admit it.
Their meats and seafood are addictive.
Segovia. Cochinillo. = Suckling pig, cooked in a bread oven or something similar. Fat all runs out, meat beautifully tender, crackles to die for. (I ignored the teeny tiny trotter & crispy little ear.)
Most of the posts from the atheist side of this thread are, to my mind, proving they are experts at avoiding answering the question, missing the point, and talking too much when they have nothing to say. One wonders if you all are equating mockery with an argument. Cedric especially reminds me of a proverb I read in a good book – look it up – Prov 17:28.
As Ken asked a semi-intelligent question I’ll attempt give an answer. Here is what he asked.
To my question – “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?” … Can you or Stuart give a brief exposition replying to that question?
As I said, I have no problem finding a basis for my moral decisions – which obviously makes your claims about my position wrong. However, I really want to have clear understanding of the model you propose regarding the basis theists use for moral decisions. I am open minded but until I have one there is no choice for me but to go with my current thinking which appears to be supported by the empirical evidence.
My Answer:
Metaethically when I say “x is right/wrong” I mean to ascribe to x the property of rightness or wrongness. This objectivalist position makes two ontological commitments – that there is an x and that there exists a property of rightness/wrongness. In short I am a ethical nonnaturalist.
I do not think you can put morals in a test tube. Or that rightness or wrongness could be tested scientifically. Worth and value are qualitative terms prescribed by prescribers, and not descriptive terms that can be quantified by science.
(On an ethical naturalist’s perspective you can test morality scientifically, but there one has to reduce moral properties to non-moral properties by giving the word “right” in the statement “x is right” an operational definition such as “x is what is approved by most people,” “x is what creates a tranquil society,” “x is what maximises happiness,” or “x is what produces survivability,” etc. But this moral reductionism confuses an “is with an “ought.” Moral properties are normative properties unlike natural properties. Also there are cases when it is clear that some things are wrong and some things are right, even when the statement is reduced to non-moral natural definition. For example, when “x is right” comes to mean “x is what is approved of by most people,” if Hitler won the war and succeeded in brainwashing or killing everyone who disagreed with him, would his ‘final solution’ be wrong?)
The source, basis and foundation of these properties must find a transcendent ground, and that resting place must be the greatest conceivable being. Whoever this being (as I’ve mentioned before, the axiological argument I put forward is consistent with Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) can rightly be called God, who would not only be the perfect arbiter of all that is good, but whose very nature is good. (I contend in my argument that as no ground can be found in the natural world it must transcend the natural world.) This speaks to the moral ontology, of which I have chiefly been concerned.
But what you ask is concerning moral epistemology. That is how we know what is right and wrong. This is a finer point on the argument which a great number of comments in this tread seem to have not discerned. I am quite open to different theories there. Some of our understanding of what is right and wrong may come from our social and cultural surroundings, some from psychology or biology. I think it likely (especially as I do believe in the God of the Bible), that God has placed the moral law in all our hearts so even our thoughts at one moment condemn us, at another moment praise our actions. You also have authority figures as arbiters of how we come to know morality, that includes parents, civil law, religious law (for myself I would say the principles extracted from the Bible because it is an authority on what God’s perfect will is). There could be many ways one determines what is right and wrong. In forming the moral views of course we all have our intuitions, and consider them prima facie – that is not to say they don’t have supporting reasons as well. We use reason and logic, empathy and compassion.
But of course, one can know what is right and wrong, good and evil, their moral duties and responsibilities, and not have a reason why they are really good or right, etc. Also, as an absolutist (as opposed to relativist), I think one’s moral view can be mistaken (ie. one thinks they know what is right, but what they know is right, is objectively wrong, ie. Hitler). So its on the ontological question one needs a foundation – a foundation I contend that naturalism cannot supply. So in sum, moral epistemology is not the issue that I’m dealing with, but moral ontology.
For clarity, first let me draw the discussion back to the syllogism.
(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.?
(2) Objective morals do exist,?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Now Ken agrees with (2) that objective morals do exist. He therefore denies (1) by asserting a ‘moral logic’ exists wholly apart from God.
In essence Ken’s response here “Where do our morals come from?” is an attempt to draw a line between the belief that God does not exist and the existence of objective moral values. How is this line a more rational, more scientific understanding?
I don’t know
Determined to live in an atheistic universe, yet having to deal with the furniture that belongs in a theistic universe, Ken requires a faith commitment to prop-up his system of thought. He freely admits he cannot explain the existence of objective moral values (apart from God), but somehow, science will win the day and eventually offer an explanation.
What does Ken mean by objective morality? There we are left to speculate. He has left us one clue however. He likens moral propositions to arithmetic, so to say “murder is wrong” is similar to say that 1+1 = 2.
The implications of Ken’s ‘moral logic’ are significant. (i) The proposition 1+1 = 2 is true by definition. (ii) Arithmetic represents propositional truths that necessarily exist. (iii) Simple math is completely abstract such that if it exists it exist in a mind-independant universe.
In Ken’s thought it seems, morals are propositions that are true by definition, and exist necessarily. This ‘moral logic’ represents a ontological commitment, and its clear (at least to me) from the lack of an explanation for this property that it is contrived. It is also difficult to square with on a naturalistic worldview. If the above implications to Ken’s ‘moral logic’ follow and are what he intended, the foundation for morality will have to be found outside the scope of the scientific method and the realm of testability.
Let’s assume now that this was not what he intended, and he is not stepping outside the naturalistic worldview. How can you measure worth in a test tube?
C.S. Lewis’ insight was that morals are not descriptive, but prescriptive. Rather than describing what the world is like, they prescribe what the world should be like. His objection to Hume’s problem of miracles was that the laws of nature are descriptive of what usually happens, not prescriptive of what must happen. There’s nothing I can see about the moral law that is purely descriptive. The statement “x is wrong” is I contend not like 1+1=2. Arithmetic speaks of an “is,” while morality speaks of an “ought.” Wrong is a qualitative term – prescriptive and not descriptive – and so the answer to what the basis of morality is must be metaphysical.
Prescribed rules must have a prescribers. Moreover, a universal moral law needs a moral lawgiver that is above all people at all times and all places. The theist naturally has an answer ready.
We all believe in objective moral values (theists and atheists alike), and live like they do everyday (that is Premise 2). So the atheist must deal with these objective morals. The questions that arise are (i) how these objective moral values exist, (ii) how they hold humanity accountable, (iii) what is their source, and (iv) why they establish a basis for what we both call right and wrong. Until the answers can be provided, the far better explanation is the one provided by theism.
As these explanations cannot be given by atheism, naturalism or Ken, understandably the argument then moves on to how the Bible cannot be the standard of morality. But the Bible is not the question before us at the moment. The argument entails that a god exists, not that the doctrine of inerrancy or infallibility is true. The moral argument doesn’t give us the Christian God. It does however give a transcendent, morally perfect and personal being, – and that is consistent with the Christian concept of God.
I have to admit I prefer to talk about food, especially when Stuart’s overly long post could have simply been a link to the identical post on his blog! (The only addition is the first paragraph as far as I can see).
So, back to food 🙂 I wish I had more money when I was travelling in Europe. But pastries & good coffee in the morning were good…! I’d love to get a job over there, not that I can imagine having much luck. Food is very expensive there, though. Or at least that’s what I thought at the time.
Italian ice-cream was good 🙂 Not as creamy, but great flavours.
I took up this habit of looking out for crowds of younger people heading out for the night and just wandering after them, good way to find the local haunts, although it meant I often had to work hard at keeping track of where I was so I could walk back later.
The correct answer, James, is that YOU (incorrectly) inferred, goodness knows how, that Dawkin’s points “lead to determinism”:
Are you daft? Of course his points lead to determinism. Why is responsibility “nonsense?” If we have moral freedom? He calls men machines?” Do machines decide what they are going to be? If our minds are governed by the “laws of physics” where is free will?
Because you are not being honest. Why is responsibility “nonsense?” If we have moral freedom? He calls men “machines?” Do machines decide what they are going to be, do? If our minds are governed by the “laws of physics” where is free will?
You don’t like the thought of being a slave to the mindless forces of nature. Good for you, but that is what you are left with is materialism it true.
@104 For a credible account of the existence of free will and personal responsibility in a physical world, I would recommend you read Dan Dennetts Freedom evolves. I am just about finished this, and think that he does a good job here. Highlighting in particular the lack of solutions to the important issues that attempts to introduce indeterminism into the free will issue provide.
As per @103, I have no wish to again engage in pointless circular discussions with you, so this is all I will say on the subject. If you actually honestly want to see how free will can be possible in a deterministic world, read the book.
104: “Because you are not being honest.” Don’t speak for me, please, that’s being dishonest. If I had wanted to give a reason, I’d would have. So you know, part of the reason I didn’t is I have no wish to be involved with you at this point.
I have no wish to again engage in pointless circular discussions with you, so this is all I will say on the subject. If you actually honestly want to see how free will can be possible in a deterministic world, read the book.
Free will in a “deterministic world?” That is a contradiction in terms.
@107 He does slightly redefine free will to be meaningful free will, but with that small caveat, makes a bloody good case for it. I personally don’t find the issue that important to my worldview, but it is an interesting question, and for somebody whose whole personal ideology seems to hang on the question of free will in a deterministic world, you might find it illuminating.
You might find this review by Roger William Gilman interesting. It seems that it is still determinism from beginnig to end. It is not a “slight” redefinition of free will, it is a denial of free will in any classical sense.
@109. Hey, I’ve ready the book buddy, why would I need to read reviews of it? To check that I have the correct opinion of it, or what. This highlights the same problem that others have pointed out with your postings James, quote mining, lack of engagement with the subject. I mean have you ever actually had a thought or opinion of your own. Your postings resemble badly assembled pre school collages without the charm.
Nick…”Hey, I’ve ready the book buddy, why would I need to read reviews of it?”
See James?
People actually read books for themselves.
They don’t need pre-digested opinions.
You should try it.
You have issues with Dawkins?
Well, maybe you should inform yourself about him.
Properly.
Actually bother to read some of his books.
Don’t have to buy them.
Just grab some of his latest work from the library.
It’s what educated people do.
Stuart said…”One wonders if you all are equating mockery with an argument.”
People often laugh at clowns.
(shrug)
………………………………………………………
Stuart said…”Until the answers can be provided, the far better explanation is the one provided by theism.”
Apologianick disagrees with you…
““…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
…………………………………………………….
Theism doesn’t actually “explain” anything.
A: Where do our morals come from?
B: No idea.
A: Ahah. Therefore goddidit!
A: Where does a child’s smile come from?
B: No idea.
A: Ahah. Therefore goddidit!
A: Where does lighting come from?
B: No idea.
A: Ahah. Therefore Thordiddit!
No.98: ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn’t X amazing!
(2) I don’t understand how X could be, without something else (that I don’t really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can’t come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
@111 Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten about that. I know just who to ask about this one, a friend is coming around in a week to help me bore some holes in the wall (Stahlbetton is a complete pain without the correct equipment), and he has a good knowledge of political history.
A pity this is buried in a huge number of comments. However, Thanks for responding. Unfortunately you reply is still not clear to me. It suffers from an attempt to argue against or discredit my comments on morality. These aren’t convincing – and they are not what I wanted.
I repeat my question “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
I just want a brief clear answer to that question.It doesn’t help to bury it in an attack on your interpretation of an atheist position, as you did in your comment.
For example – It’s no good saying that atheists have no way of judging Hitler. Tell us how you , as a theist, determine that Hitler’s actions were wrong. Then we can judge if you do it in a different way to me.
Dredging through you comments for substance (ie. ignoring the attacks on non-theists) I think you actually agree with my hypothesis about moral intuitions having arisen through our evolution as a social species. (“God has placed the moral law in all our hearts” is to me just a metaphorical way of saying this – akin to Einstein’s “God does not play dice”).
You also seem to agree that morality is usually encoded in society via social organisation, laws, religious and other teachings, etc.
You have clearly not understood my point about an objective basis for some of our moral logic and behaviour arising from our existence as individuals, sentient beings.
However, it does seem to me that the extent of agreement shown does support my point that we all derive out morality in the same secular way – although we might justify it using ideology and religion.
In the absence of a clear exposition of how you determine what is objectively right and wrong can I interpret you comment on the Bible (“the principles extracted from the Bible because it is an authority on what God’s perfect will is”) as presenting your answer? That you justify your criticism of Hitler (assuming that you do criticise him) by reference to some clause or other recorded in the Bible? (Of course this raises subsidiary questions but let’s leave those for the moment)
This seems to be the only way I can interpret your comments to give substance to you claim of an objective moral basis for theist morality. Is this what you mean by a “moral ontology,” by an “ought”, by “prescription of morals”?
Ken, I have not really been concerned about the epistemological question “how do we know what moral code to follow?” or “how do we determine what is good?” I have been concerned with the ontology of morality, ie. “is there such a thing as good,” or “Is what is right and wrong just a ‘useful fiction?'”
I repeat my question “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
I answered in a general way how people know (I gave almost a whole paragraph). For the theist in particular – I can agree it is much the same as any other person.
I think you actually agree with my hypothesis about moral intuitions having arisen through our evolution as a social species.
As you may know, I have serious doubts about the full scope of evolutionary theory being correct, but I am completely open for some sort of evolutionary developmental thesis of how society and culture shapes our understanding of what is right and wrong. My hypothesis is in the end it will not be a comprehensive understanding. (Also that it will not be philosophically superior to theistic views of ethics, as I don’t think naturalism can give us any confidence that naturalism itself is true).
“God has placed the moral law in all our hearts” is to me just a metaphorical way of saying this[the above quote]
Not really. Its almost a direct quote from Romans 2. Its more like saying God has given everyone a faculty of conscience and intuition so we can determine and decide for ourselves what the correct understanding of morality is and how we live accordingly. In essence, on the condition that the cognitive faculties are operating correctly as God intended, everyone has within themselves the ability to discern what is good from natural revelation.
Where the Christian theist (notice the distinction between just the theist and the Christian) has an advantage over the non-theist is s/he also has special revelation. That does not mean the special revelation is applied at all, or if applied, applied consistently. It also does not mean the non-theist cannot take the special revelation (the Bible) as a guide to live by themselves. In fact I think many unconsciously do.
[
When Nietzsche’s declared “God is dead” (he didn’t prove it by-the-way, he assumed it) his conclusion was that traditional Christian-based values die with Him. It was Neitzsche’s philosophy that was in part the justification used for Hitler and the Nazi’s atrocious acts. He of course predicted the 20th century would be the bloodiest of all time, and he was right. The point I’m making here in parenthesis is Nietzsche was frustrated because he saw that no one – yet – including himself, could shake of the remnants of Christian morality and live consistently with atheism. Jean Paul Sartre had similar problems.
“In his essay “Existentialism Is a Humanism,” written after the Holocaust, Sartre condemns anti-Semitism, declaring that a doctrine that leads to extermination is not merely an opinion or matter of personal taste, and struggles vainly to elude the contradiction between his denial of divinely pre-established values and his urgent desire to affirm the value of human persons. This debacle only goes to show the unliveability of atheism.”
What I mean by objective moral values is that there is a moral standard above all people, at all times and all places. How one determines objective moral values exist?
– Firstly, by appealing to our common, basic, fundamental moral intuitions. Torturing a baby isn’t just wrong, its wrong for all people at all times and all places. If objective morals do not exist what Hitler did to the Jews wasn’t plain and simply wrong, it was only wrong is a lesser, more relativistic sense. If there was ever a time when unacceptable practices were acceptable, two options become available for the meta-ethicist (1) moral relativism (which premise 1 implies is the result of metaphysical-naturalism / atheism) (2) they were objectively wrong to participate in the practice.
– Secondly, by carefully assessing worldviews. Moral absolutes are expected in a theistic worldview, but unexpected and surprising in a physicalistic or naturalistic worldview.
This [the Bible] seems to be the only way I can interpret your comments to give substance to you claim of an objective moral basis for theist morality. Is this what you mean by a “moral ontology,” by an “ought”, by “prescription of morals”
Your fixed to the epistemological question. The bible represents just one way in which one can know the difference between right and wrong, for example it encourages and prescribes certain modes of behaviour. But the Bible is irrelevant to the original axiological argument I posed. That argument is concerned with the existence or state of being of moral values (moral ontology) and whether they are objective (absolute and universal).
Objective moral values, duties, and properties such as worth, value and rightness all are prescriptive and evaluative – they carry with them an “ought” and not merely a descriptive, factual “is.” And so they must find a qualitative, transcendent ground in the very nature of the greatest conceivable being. (As goodness is a perfection, the greatest conceivable being will be perfectly good, just and moral.) Also as morals are prescribed by persons, the greatest conceivable being will be personal. (That this being is consistent with the being revealed in scripture is another, separate argument.)
Can you please give a clear answer on what you mean by moral logic? And what reason you have for asserting it?
In summary: It is in the ontological sense that I have argued that naturalism cannot give us objective moral values, but that theism can. And as objective moral values exist, it follows that God exists. Thus we have an argument, and as I pointed out before, to deny its conclusion, one has to give plausible reasons for denying one of the premises.
However, thanks for moving on from your Dawkins quote mining.
It didn’t work very well for you.
Worked very well for the rest of us in exposing you (for the umpteeth time) what a dishonest and desperate person you are.
I don’t know if you guys are just dense or that you so hate the idea that you are merely slaves to the deterministic forces of nature that you are dishonest. Any rational person will see that Dawkins was teaching determinism. Otherwise responsibility would not be “nonsense.”
For all the lurkers, I suggest you read “Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car” for yourself.
Basil Fawlty, British television’s hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn’t start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. “Right! I warned you. You’ve had this coming to you!” He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a MACHINE with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
For the umpteenth time, James – what does Dawkins then go on to say?
I aready posted that Alison, here it is again:
Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.
The idea of blame and responsibility is a “useful fiction.” What is the “truer analysis of what is going on?” That we are like Basil’s car – machines with defective parts. Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
Again:
But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
This is determinism, from beginning to end Alsion. And they fact that you guys are arguing against this obvious conclusion is eye opening. You don’t like being the slave of the blind forces of nature – do you? You really do believe that you have moral and intellectual freedom – don’t you…
James said…”I don’t know if you guys are just dense or that you so hate the idea….”
Exactly James.
You don’t know.
You’re clueless.
Everybody here thinks you’re a dishonest dolt because of this quote mining fiasco.
It’s cringe-worthy.
Try reading what Dawkins is actually saying, rather than what you want him to say.
Human rationality is nonsense?
Moral responsibility is nonsense?
If Dawkins actually said this, not as a rhetorical device or as a provocative statement designed to launch a discussion, then people would be all over it by now.
If Dawkins actually said this and meant it…then you’d expect it to be spelled out by him in detail, repeatedly.
Look at his work. He doesn’t claim this anywhere.
There are plenty of Dawkins’ collegues that are prepared to take him to task over any number of things that he writes.
Yet nobody (apart from the usual suspects of creationist web-stes) is getting very worked up over Dawkins proclaiming…”Human rationality is nonsense” and “moral responsibility is nonsense” because that’s NOT WHAT HE SAID.
Read some of Dawkins’ work.
Read it properly.
Like an adult.
Don’t just cut and paste reviews from the Internet.
Don’t just go on and on and on about him.
Sit down.
Grab the book in question.
Read the damn thing.
Sheesh.
e.g. “Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father…” and later “Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?” Note how ‘responsibility’ has the specific meaning intended when its kept in its context 😉
You also leave out that his article is also pointing (negatively) at the notion of retribution, as in the (Christian) “atonement for ‘sin'” concept.
He’s pointing out that the concept of punishing people in the way that we do, arises from taking an approach consistent with the religious “atonement for ‘sin'” concept, which he compares with Basil bashing his car. Instead we could look at what’s actually at fault (and presumably, fix it if possible).
His words “Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty?” are pointing out that looked at the way I’ve mentioned above, the judge’s punishment (atonement for ‘sin’) is the same as Basil bashing his car.
The first sentence in “Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?” is using analogy, for goodness sake. Note that the defect could be education, which could include religious education too. (Or religious “education” depending on your point of view.)
No-one is “arguing against determinism”, James. They are just pointing out that you are misrepresenting Dawkins. You’re also taking determinism far too far, to extremes no-one would support. Dawkin’s article isn’t “all determinism” at all. Look at the example of education I mentioned. There are other non-deterministic things in the article. (I’ll you show us you can actually read by quoting them yourself.) All you are doing is persisting in quote-mining: selectively quoting bits and placing them out of context.
Dawkin’s article isn’t “all determinism” at all. Look at the example of education I mentioned. There are other non-deterministic things in the article. (I’ll you show us you can actually read by quoting them yourself.) All you are doing is persisting in quote-mining: selectively quoting bits and placing them out of context.
Heraclides, that is the part you don’t get. It’s all determined, even the education. How could it be otherwise? But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of… If the nervous system is “mechanistic,” then there is no room for freedom. Nothing escapes the physical laws of nature, not biology, not culture, not education – nothing escapes the Matrix.
His words “Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty?” are pointing out that looked at the way I’ve mentioned above, the judge’s punishment (atonement for ’sin’) is the same as Basil bashing his car.
Nonsense, he is taking about punishement in general:
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics.
Retribution “as a moral principle.” Why? Because our brains are goverened by the laws of pyhsics. Do you believe that punsihing criminals is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour?
Wow 🙂 I always find it incredible just how far some religious people will take making excuses, to the point of contradicting even their own words and definitions with the dumbest statements in order “to be right” about some silly religious-based idea that they just have to have right.
Anyway, I take it he’s conceded the earlier points 🙂
Looking at what you have posted, you might just as well have written “I would like all morals to only arise from theism”. It seems to me to be a lot more accurate representation of your position. It’d be a lot shorter and is of course just an assertion, but that’s part of my point.
In particular, I don’t see you demonstrating anything and in the absence of demonstration, I can’t see how you have an argument for anything either.
I could for example demonstrate that “care of young” (hence the “morality” of not harming the young of your own species) is an evolutionary trait in mammals.
I could go on but to be honest I can’t be bothered giving you much of my time. A point to note is your post strongly indicates that you have not considered at alternative explanations, never mind demonstrated that they aren’t useful, let alone demonstrating that your alternatives are. Without that as far as I can see your extended “explanation” is just an extended assertion.
James, all I can is that you are a religion-blinded idiot who tries to read silly things into others’ words. Nothing more from me again until you grow up, which you seem perpetually keen to show everyone you will never do.
James, oblivious to all reasoned discussion around him, sitting by himself with his fingers in his ears, babbled thusly…”Nothing escapes the physical laws of nature, not biology, not culture, not education – nothing escapes the Matrix.”
No. 82: ARGUMENT FROM “THE MATRIX”
(1) We cannot prove that we don’t live in a Matrix-like world.
(2) Therefore we cannot know reality.
(3) If reality is contingent, then everything is possible.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Wow I always find it incredible just how far some religious people will take making excuses, to the point of contradicting even their own words and definitions with the dumbest statements in order “to be right” about some silly religious-based idea that they just have to have right.
Anyway, I take it he’s conceded the earlier points
Are you slow or just dense? Our brains are goverened by the laws of physics, they are mechanistic. It then follows that every thing we create (education, culture, court systems, etc…) are themselves deterministic, and how we respond to these systems is also mechanistic. There is no moral or intellectual freedom in any of this. If you can find a source for said freedoms in this model, please present it. So I have not conceded anything nor contradicted myself.
James said…”There is no moral or intellectual freedom in any of this.”
Apart from you, who says so?
Nobody.
You are chanting to yourself in the corner.
Your position is futile.
Your only hope is to create an endless series of strawmen to knock down.
Maybe you should focus on the real discussion around you?
@ Stuart – December 2, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Stuart – I aren’t interested in reading a lengthy and rambling comment such as this. But you did give an answer, of sorts, to my question “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?” – “For the theist in particular – I can agree it is much the same as any other person.”
So then – how can you then say “Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler” with the at least the implied attitude that theists can? A pretty fundamental contradiction, I would think, for any human wishing to live in a pluralist society.
Are you prepared to revise this comment or acknowledge that it is wrong?
To Ken; a one sentence reply would go like this:
“You are confusing should not with a cannot.”
That I hope that is pretty obvious to everyone.
So then – how can you then say “Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler” with the at least the implied attitude that theists can?
“Should” gives an added moral component, that “can” is lacking. If ones philosophy cannot affirm the existence of objective moral values and give reasons why such-and-such is simply and utterly wrong or really right then one lacks the ability to make objective moral judgements (such as condemning Hitler) while remaining consistent with their worldview. Since one should be consistent with their worldview (someone pointed out here something to the effect that Dawkin’s makes it clear he has no wish to thoroughly integrate his beliefs on evolution with his moral life – this represents to my mind a miserable intellectual failure and the inadequacy of atheistic thought) it follows that “the atheist should not criticise Hitler.”
Is anyone prepared to lay forth a clear and concise argument (without the accompanying strawmen, *giggles*, invective, etc.)?
“Can” is self-defined in that it deals with the realm of the possible. “Should” requires that the statement be given context. The statement “X should do X” requires that you append a “…if X is to be achieved”. The theist takes this to automatically mean “…if you are to obey God’s divine law as revealed in scripture” or some such and rarely feels the need to give “should” statements a context.
But when the atheist completes the phrase “atheists should criticise Hitler” with “…if one disagrees with Hitler’s methods of governing” (or “…if one abhors violence”, etc, etc) then it is a completely reasonable and logical sentiment.
When a theist expresses doubt that an atheist can logically hold a moral belief it is really only highlighting the theist’s inability to think outside of the framework they’ve surrounded themselves with and a forgetfulness that they have to, themselves, contextualise any “should” sentence with a reference to a God.
There is a saying in science that goes in a variety of forms, but the gist of it is “If you can’t explain your work to the cleaning lady, then you don’t understand your own work.” Your long-winded rambles to me say “I don’t really understand this.”
(They do suggest what it is that you would like to be true.)
@135 The problem with your approach is that you think that you have an objective basis for morality, but your bible is as open to interpretation as any other source of information, so is far from objective.
What is worse than that, is that unfortunately your source of morality lacks the ability to be confirmed/reinforced by experiment or empirical observation. This is the benefit that a rational (or scientific) approach brings to a topic. Underlying this approach is the understanding that everything is contingent and any theory (scientific, or of any other type) requires coherent confirmation to increase the confidence level in that theory to a usable or reliable level.
What you are missing when you bandy around terms such as objective morality is a defined context. If you define a context, then of course it is possible to derive an objective morality rationally based on consequences (consequentialism). What is the relative part here is the context. What weighting do you give to individual flourishing vs societal cohesion etc.. These issues are not easy, but ignoring the issues, waving your hands around and trying to find truth in unconfirmable cryptic babblings strikes me as not the best approach to improve the world.
@137 Also a good post, my thoughts exactly. When somebody is unable to communicate their idea to others, this sets warning bells ringing for me. That reminds me of a quote from Noam Chomsky on the subject of post modernism (you can read that in the wikipedia article on post modernism if interested).
Let me first say I am pleased with the reasoned and level headed responses. It is a welcome change from the invective. Thank you very much. 🙂
@ 136
A fairly good post. I take your point that “can” deals with the realm of the possible. The appended statement to the statement “X should do X” I have been inferring throughout is “…if one is to remain consistent with their worldview.” No reference to God or the Bible hidden in there.
Contextualising the moral statement “Hitler was wrong” to “if one disagrees with Hitler’s methods” is subjectivism – it says nothing beyond personal feelings. As an ethical theory it is woefully inadequate as all people make moral judgements that refer above and beyond themselves to an objective standard of what is right and wrong (regardless of personal feelings). Remember Hitler believed what he was doing was right? Was he then moral?
@138
The Bible has nothing to do with the axiological argument I have annunciated. As it is “open to interpretation” you are dealing with how one knows which particular actions is right and wrong. But the argument is not concerned with that at all. It is just concerned with if there is such a thing as right and wrong.
And its that concern (‘moral ontology’) that cannot be answered by science or physical experimental testing. As the name suggest it is a metaphysical matter.
As I have mentioned before briefly, the objectivalist (for the cleaning lady – one who believes in objective standards of right and wrong) who redefines right in the statement “X is right” as “what is beneficial to individual flourishing,” or “…societal cohesion,” or such like reduced moral properties to non-moral properties. If you do this you are an ethical naturalist.
Two things I’ll say the ethical naturalist (which amounts to what you call a “consequentialist”) in refutation. First, it confuses an “is” with an “ought.” Natural properties do not carry normativeness – that is, they just are, there is no property of rightness that instructs how one ought to act. Second, moral reductionism fails for there are always cases where an act is right even if it does not have the natural property. For instance, if one reduces the moral property to a natural property, where “right” becomes “what produces societal cohesion,” then Gahndi’s non-violent civil disobedience campaign was wrong, for it produced massive civil dissent and discordant factions. But its clear to most people that shaking off the bonds of their colonial oppressors with non-violence, and the struggle for national independence was right.
I have defined the context of what I mean by “objective morality” several times before. That is, that such a thing is right or wrong even if the whole world disagrees, and such that is the case for all people at all times and all places.
“The appended statement to the statement “X should do X” I have been inferring throughout is “…if one is to remain consistent with their worldview.” No reference to God or the Bible hidden in there.”
Erm? Let’s try as you suggest:
Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] to remain consistent with their worldview.
Theists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] is to remain consistent with their worldview.
It seems to me that all this does is force you (Stuart) to define just what you mean by “worldview” for each set of people.
(I’d note that this word game doesn’t actually avoid referring to a G-d concept in the case of theists, since everyone knows Christian theist’s worldview includes a G-d concept in one of various forms: it only avoids the word.)
I wrote earlier (post 128), that I don’t believe you have presented an argument at all. I was going to point out why and suggest you try again, bearing in mind a number of things, but thought it’d be simpler to ask you to try write something simple, hence my post 137. You might want to read the Chomsky quote Nick referred to, too.
To repeat the argument:
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, God exists.
Du’h. The first point is founded on an assumption, so the lot is moot.
Second, if its the first, how does one on naturalism (without reference to God) affirm the existence (not knowledge of) objective moral values?
You need to rewrite this, it’s nonsensical. What do you mean by “if it[‘]s the first”?
Here’s one of my points about you lack of argument that you need to address:
You might want to first show if Gareth is right or not (see first post in your thread). If no-one can “affirm the existence of objective moral values and give reasons why such-and-such is simply and utterly wrong or really right” the whole “debate” is pointless. It would seem sensible to show this is possible at all first, surely? If you don’t IMO you’re starting with an assumption, one that would make the entire exercise moot.
This may come as a shock to you but people make fun of this kind of thinking.
Read what you wrote again.
Can you think of any possible objections?
Let me help you with that.
1) If the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, The Flying Spaghetti monster exists.
1) If Luke Skywalker does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, Luke Skywalker exists.
1) If Krishna does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, Krishna exists
It seems to me that all this does is force you (Stuart) to define just what you mean by “worldview” for each set of people.
Simple. The atheistic worldview and the theistic worldview. I’ll use the dictionary definitions as opposed to the modern bastardized definitions such as “no belief in God.” A “worldview” is a philosophy of life, where your beliefs seek integration with your everyday thoughts and actions.
The first point is founded on an assumption, so the lot is moot.
Its a valid argument in that it follows the laws of logic. It is a sound argument as it is valid and the premises are more plausible than their negations, if not true. The onus is on you then to show how it is not more plausibly true than its negation, rather than just asserting its falsehood (or whatever you are trying to say.) By the way, “moot” means its subject to debate, so I take your point and await your answer. 🙂
You need to rewrite this…
Second question: if one disagrees with the first premise, how does one one without reference to God affirm the existence of (not knowledge of) objective moral values?
If no-one can “affirm the existence of objective moral values and give reasons why such-and-such is simply and utterly wrong or really right” the whole “debate” is pointless.
It is on naturalism that one cannot affirm the existence of objective moral values (and remain consistant with their view). Or so I contend, do you disagree? Why?
One can certainly know metaphysical properties. Think about truth, love, propositions, numbers, etc. One can certainly have experiences with objective moral values, if they exist that is. The way we know they do exist is to reflect on our own moral experience.
It seems to me that all this does is force you (Stuart) to define just what you mean by “worldview” for each set of people.
Simple. The atheistic worldview and the theistic worldview. I’ll use the dictionary definitions as opposed to the modern bastardized definitions such as “no belief in God.” A “worldview” is a philosophy of life, where your beliefs seek integration with your everyday thoughts and actions.
The first point is founded on an assumption, so the lot is moot.
Its a valid argument in that it follows the laws of logic. It is a sound argument as it is valid and the premises are more plausible than their negations, if not true. The onus is on you then to show how it is not more plausibly true than its negation, rather than just asserting its falsehood (or whatever you are trying to say.) By the way, “moot” means its subject to debate, so I take your point and await your answer. 🙂
You need to rewrite this…
Second question: if one disagrees with the first premise, how does one one without reference to God affirm the existence of (not knowledge of) objective moral values?
If no-one can “affirm the existence of objective moral values and give reasons why such-and-such is simply and utterly wrong or really right” the whole “debate” is pointless.
It is on naturalism that one cannot affirm the existence of objective moral values (and remain consistant with their view). Or so I contend. Do you disagree? Pray tell?
One can certainly know metaphysical properties. Think about truth, love, propositions, numbers, etc. One can certainly have experiences with objective moral values, if they exist that is. The way we know they do exist is to reflect on our own moral experience.
“Simple. The atheistic worldview and the theistic worldview. I’ll use the dictionary definitions as opposed to the modern bastardized definitions such as “no belief in God.” A “worldview” is a philosophy of life, where your beliefs seek integration with your everyday thoughts and actions.”
You haven’t actually defined the worldviews! All this does is force you (Stuart) to define just what you mean by “ atheistic worldview” and “theistic worldview”… Given previously it was “their worldview”, for each of theists and atheists, its self-evident back then that it was ‘atheistic worldview’ and ‘theistic worldview’: you’ve added nothing because you haven’t actually defined them…
“Its a valid argument in that it follows the laws of logic.”
Its still founded on an assumption, making it pointless unless you first prove the assumption.
“By the way, “moot” means its subject to debate”
Actually, not really, unless you are the kind of American that wants to impose a slightly dated U.S.A. meaning of the word on everyone else 😉 It more commonly means, loosely speaking, “irrelevant”. This is/was a U.S.A./British English difference, but apparently the meaning you give is on the wane in the U.S.A., so you might want to get with the program 😉
But even by your definition, it’s moot, because you haven’t proven the assumption. That’s up to you to do.
“Second question: if one disagrees…”
You need to establish the assumption holds first, or it’s moot, either way you define moot! 🙂
“Or so I contend. Do you disagree? Pray tell?”
This is a cop-out, asking others to do your work for you (and in the negative, too). (I should add, this is the very thing that people here get annoyed with James over.) “Or so I contend” is not an argument, its doesn’t demonstrate anything. As it is presented, its just a possibility, nothing more.
A theistic worldview included the notion of God, who gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability. – ie. the premise: if objective moral values exists, God exists.
I don’t think you’ll ever actually engage with the argument, so I don’t konw why I’m explaining this again. I don’t know any other way other than repetition to get it across.
On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of God) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist. It is an unexpected feature of the universe in which we live. So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if God noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist (if you want to affirm the existence of objective moral values)?
Stuart struggles with…”On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of God) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist.”
On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist.”
Doesn’t matter whether it’s difficult or not.
It does not help your argument.
As Apologianick clearly said…”…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
Stuart said…”It is an unexpected feature of the universe in which we live.”
Unexpected? Huh? Who says so?
Stuart digs himself deeper into hole number 62 with…”So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if God noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist…”
Let’s try that again…
So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist…
(awkward silence)
Can you see the glaring flaw in your argument now?
Do you see why it fails to impress most people as being sound?
If an athesist has no idea where moral values come from, it does not follow that therefore your brand-name god poofs into existence.
Or Zeus.
Or Nodens.
Or Nyarlathotep.
If an athesist has no idea where lighting comes from come from, it does not follow that therefore your brand-name god poofs into existence.
Or Ishtar.
Or Crom.
Or Ulthar.
Keep going though. Continue this line of reasoning.
Should be good for a laugh.
Stuart struggles with…”On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of God) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist.”
Let’s try that again…
On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist.”
Doesn’t matter whether it’s difficult or not.
It does not help your argument.
As Apologianick clearly said…”…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
Stuart said…”It is an unexpected feature of the universe in which we live.”
Unexpected? Huh? Who says so?
Stuart digs himself deeper into hole number 62 with…”So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if God noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist…”
Let’s try that again…
So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist…
(awkward silence)
Can you see the glaring flaw in your argument now?
Do you see why it fails to impress most people as being sound?
If an atheist has no idea where moral values come from, it does not follow that therefore your brand-name god poofs into existence.
Or Zeus.
Or Nodens.
Or Nyarlathotep.
If an atheist has no idea where lighting comes from come from, it does not follow that therefore your brand-name god poofs into existence.
Or Ishtar.
Or Crom.
Or Ulthar.
Keep going though. Continue this line of reasoning.
Should be good for a laugh.
Stuart,
I personally don’t believe in objective morality in the way in which I suspect you mean it. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if you even believe it. Let’s break it down:
You say that objective morality is “such a thing is right or wrong even if the whole world disagrees”. And you say that this comes from “God, who gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability”. Not only is this a circular argument but if you believe God to be anything more than a fundamental force of nature then surely this is merely moving morality to being subjective to God? We see it in your own scripture where God commands people to slaughter children (an act that everyone would call objectively wrong had God not commanded it in the first place). This means that God subjectively makes up his own right and wrong. This means that what you think is objective is really just deferred subjectivity.
We could do much the same thing if we decided to define Ken’s moral instincts as “right or wrong even if the whole world disagrees”. This would now be the same kind of ‘objective morality’ as you define it as with the exception that we have more evidence that Ken really exists.
Most (all?) people who claim a kind of objective morality actually have a deferred subjective morality. Usually deferred to their parents, the pope, God, or someone/something else they believe to be more capable than them.
“I don’t think you’ll ever actually engage with the argument, so I don’t konw why I’m explaining this again. I don’t know any other way other than repetition to get it across.”
If you can’t see it: I’m trying to get you to make an argument in the first place, one that can be addressed. So far you haven’t: these revisions bringing it closer, but you are still not there yet. You still haven’t defined the terms clearly, unambiguously.
I note that you had to introduce the G-d concept, at last. I was waiting for that. It was part of the reason I was pushing you to define your starting point properly. Given ‘(a)theist’ and ‘worldview’ are linked in the statement, this implies the G-d concept as part of the ‘worldview’. You earlier claimed “No reference to G[-]d or the [b]ible hidden in there.”. Can you now see, by you own example, that your earlier claim was wrong? (And by implication, that Nick was right?) The G-d reference was “hidden” there all along. If you keep going and define these starting points properly, the bible reference will be too. Keep going 😉
I also wrote earlier “since everyone knows Christian theist’s worldview includes a G-d concept in one of various forms: it only avoids the word.” Part of what I am doing in getting you to create your argument is getting you to see what Nick, I and others can: that your “argument” is founded on this G-d concept and biblical teachings, not logic or some universal truth.
Let me continue, bearing in mind that your “argument” still isn’t quite really for “prime time”, as these founding statements are far still too loosely defined.
“who gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability. – ie. the premise”
If you are now conceding that your “argument” rests on the premise that “G-d gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability” (fine, and good), then you need to demonstrate that this is premise true, or your argument will be moot. You will probably also find that explaining “gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability ” will require that you bring in references to the bible (hence my statement that the bible reference will be there too, above). You will also find, that you need to demonstrate that this G-d itself exists, too: if this is your premise and G-d doesn’t exist, then your argument also falls down.
But keep going, you’re on the right track 😉
Note now that you are getting closer to an argument, I can now start to address it. You still need to define the starting point unambiguously, and to demonstrate that your premise holds. This, in turn, will require you to expand your premise so that that things the premise itself are founded on are exposed and resolved. Then you’ll have a proper starting point.
Taking up Stuart on his little story:
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, God exists.
What does he mean by objective moral values? To me, objective means existing independently of the observer. It implies an “outside existence”. Something existing “out there” that we can observe, look at, interact with, learn about – describe the location of.
So, Stuart, where are these objective values, how can I locate them, how can I learn about them, describe them. (Apparently I need them to be able to judge someone like Hitler!).
A simple clear answer is all I want (or should I assume that these “objective morals” are “located” in the bible?)
Stuart – you are asking for a non-theist description or definition of “objective vlaues.” My perspective on this was presented in Where do our morals come from? – where I talked about “some of our morality, and moral logic, being objectively based“. (That is – based on objective reality – not objective in themselves).
I don’t think there is such a thing as “objective moral value” (if I did I would have to define their location etc.) – but I think that we can talk about moral values with an objective basis in our existence as independent, sentient, conscious intelligent beings. This objective basis serves me well in determining how I should judge thinks like fascism, racism, slavery, etc. – in a way that the Christian/Jewish Bible cannot do. That’s why I can, and should, criticise Hitler.
Can you, Stuart, give (describe) the objective moral values (and their location) which enables you to criticise Hitler?
“A “worldview” is a philosophy of life, where your beliefs seek integration with your everyday thoughts and actions. ” – The problem then is that you go on to talk about an “atheist worldview” as if it is one definable thing – rather than seeing world views as attached to individuals.
My atheism is simply a belief that there is no god – its says extremely little about my “world view”. The word “atheist” can lump me together with the Dalia Lama, Llyod Geering (and other Christian atheists), Dawkins, and more than 50% of New Zealanders (according to census and poll data). I am sure my “world view” would be different to most of those people. We cannot say that all these people have the same “world view” in terms of their beliefs, thoughts and every-day actions.
“Dawkin’s makes it clear he has no wish to thoroughly integrate his beliefs on evolution with his moral life – this represents to my mind a miserable intellectual failure and the inadequacy of atheistic thought”
Do you realise how pathetic this argument is? You are saying that because I observe violent behavior by a predator like a lion then I must include such violent behaviour in my social activity. That I should base my moral code on what I observe happening between a bacteria and a virus. That I should not criticise Hitler because I observe predation and violence amongst non-human animals.
That is an extremely silly argument – a “miserable intellectual” and moral “failure” – completely inadequate of any thought.
I see that Bnonn and/or Stuart at Thinking Matters (http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/atheists-should-not-criticise-hitler/) have deleted my most recent post. This was preceded by trying to plant “not contributing” on me as an excuse. I made a single side-post to another poster in the thread; Bnonn and Stuart responded several times foisting on me things I did not say, which I felt obligated to correct. They continued, so it took several attempts to correct. Bnonn’s initial reply in particular struck me as a rush of blood to the head (so I choose not to response to the name-calling portions of it). I am left with the impression that having rushed in and accused me of things I didn’t write, and failed to get their “charges” laid on me to stick, they have resorted to setting up an excuse to remove me from the thread instead! 🙂
I closed my first post on the thread on their blog with “Self-justification is about as pointless as it gets.” Making a straw-man argument to dismiss me is self-justification. Perhaps I should infer from their example that their blog is “about as pointless as it gets”? 😉
JK.
Anyway… I guess this shows, yet again, the loowwww moral standards of apologists! Or that they have paper-thin skins for people that present articles slating others.
So that others who are following this “argument” “across two blogs” can see it, I have included after this paragraph my deleted post (unaltered), written in response to Bnonn and Stuart complaining about my continuing to post. I’d add that that I did in fact question Stuart’s logic. (I questioned Stuart’s entire approach, as did the poster I wrote to.) I’d also add that the things I refer to in my penultimate paragraph I did out of not wishing to take things too far, a courtesy perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered to extend to them and maybe in future I won’t.
To Bnonn and James:
The only reason I continued to post is that you (unintentionally or
not) repeatedly altered my meanings and foisted things on me. That is your
doing, not mine. My continuing posting is the consequence of your own
actions. So why blame me? If you don’t like me having to correct you, don’t
misconstrue me, eh? 😉
“to my mind, not interacting with the argument, or even attempting to find
a fault in the logic or one of the premises, …”
Stuart’s first reply on this thread did not attempt to address any of the
issues, either. Gareth wrote “Your argument is irrelevent”. People make
side comments to another posters on a thread. And on so. Its pretty normal in
a blog. Get over it, eh? 😉
Please note that I did not call theistic belief ’silly’ or ‘unreasonable’, I
wrote that Stuart’s style of argument was silly and unreasonable. And
strictly speaking, nor did I label “the arguments here as rubbish”.
If someone puts an argument forward, anyone is perfectly open to objecting to
how its presented. Its like being a public speaker: sometimes people will
object to your logic or lack of it. Comes with the territory. If you don’t
like that, don’t present arguments! 😉 Trying to brush it off is to not look
to see if the objections, however forcibly put, have substance. You could even
call that intellectually lazy 😉 JK.
Ken, the formatting in my post under moderation is a little messy: if you let it go, I’ll re-post it in tidier form. (I need to delete the line breaks within the blockquoted paragraphs.)
Yes, I’m afraid that the angry young men at “Thinking Matters” are a bit too judgemental and insecure in their ideology to allow full, vibrant and respectful discussion. There seems little point in contributing anything there if they just resort to deletion.
Objective moral values are values that exist independent of a person or their judgement, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
An example: An objective value would be that Hitler was wrong, even if he had won the war, and succeeded in either killing or mind-washing everyone who opposed him.
An example: An objective value would be that it would be wrong to boil a baby even if it was a global cultural norm.
Something existing “out there” that we can observe, look at, interact with, learn about – describe the location of.
Your naturalism severely limits the scope of human knowledge. If things needed a locale to exist, then things like the laws of logic, numbers, abstract objects, propositions, would not exist. As its undeniable that things like the laws of logic do exist as you have to assume them to even think, I don’t have any problem with moral values (as I have described them above) objectively existing.
Think about a police officer who sees a bank robber fleeing. He blows his whistle and shouts, “Stop in the name of the law.” Now the police officer has just invoked a law, established by a higher authority (the nation) to compel the thief to cease running. Now this law is written on a piece of paper with ink and is locked in a vault in Capital City. But the paper is not the law? The law is the principle described by the words on the paper. The idea that transcends all the citizenry, no matter their ethnicity, religion, opinions and feelings.
Objective moral values make sense as a feature of the universe if God exists. They are grounded in his divine commands which flow necessarily from his nature. Lets not get distracted on what these objective morals are, or how we come to know them. It is enough for the argument I propose to show that they exist, or at least that their existence is more likely than their non-existence.
To discern the truth value of the existence of objective moral values, I propose you reflect on your own moral experience. Ask yourself, could it ever be permissible to boil a live baby? Could it ever be right to deliberately swerve the mac truck your driving into a group of children waiting to cross the road?
If God does not exist and if objective moral values do exist, where do they come from? As the naturalist has to answer to this question, it is more reasonable, as Emmanuel Kant said, to believe and live like God does exists in order to make sense of morality. If you are going to believe that there is no god and still live like there are objective moral values, and if you are to have a fully integrated worldview, then you’ll need an explanation as to how you get them.
“Dawkin’s makes it clear he has no wish to thoroughly integrate his beliefs on evolution with his moral life – this represents to my mind a miserable intellectual failure and the inadequacy of atheistic thought”
Do you realise how pathetic this argument is?
It’s not an argument, but a statement of belief. It thought you would recognise that. Here is the argument. Atheistic-evolution implies there are no objective moral values or standards. Yet Dawkin’s moralises all throughout his writings as if objective morals do exist. Therefore he lacks a thoroughly integrated worldview. That’s all I’m saying, nothing about lions social behaviour, etc..
Cedric. Whatever name you put in place of “God” in the argument, if the premises are more plausible than their contradictories, the conclusion follows inescapably. So, since you wish to replace the God with the undeveloped concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lets do it…
1) If the Flying Spagetti Moster does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist.
3) The Flying Spagetti Monster exists.
So from this argument what can we say about the properties of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (if this being exists)? The Flying Spagetti Monster is perfectly moral being that transcends authoritatively all morally capable life. This itself implies this being is also perfectly just and righteous. Also the Flying Spagetti Monster is a personal being as moral values can only be prescribed by personal agents. It is not a far leap from there to conclude also this being is transcendent and has endowed humans with inherent worth, prescribes moral duties, and supplies ultimate moral accountability.
Gee, the Flying Spagetti Monster seems quite similar to the what traditionally has been called God. Isn’t that peculiar?
The argument doesn’t profess to prove anything beyond those two main contentions. That this being is personal. That this being has a perfectly moral nature. But that in itself is enough to destroy naturalism, as naturalism cannot explain the existence of objective moral values.
@150
Stuart said…”It is an unexpected feature of the universe in which we live.” Unexpected? Huh? Who says so?
Unexpected on atheism that is. Who says it? Great atheistic thinkers; Satre, Nietzsche, Neilson, Kant, etc…
I have already responded partially in my response recently to Ken’s questions by defining “objective moral values” once more. The key point in the definition is it is irrespective of people’s feelings or opinions.
Now of course everyone has their own feelings on moral issues, so we could say that we have our own subjective moral values. But the point in the argument is to point out that there are objective moral values. Even if there’s only one, the argument carries through.
Re: deferring to God’s subjective morality.
This objection is dealt with briefly in my response to the Euthyphro Dilemma on the original post and Thinking Matters. (see here: http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/atheists-should-not-criticise-hitler/ ). The response is to say that God is good because his nature is good. Not because he follows an arbitrary set of rules he determined or felt like these particular standards were the ones people should follow. His divine commands flow necessarily from his own nature. Therefore, the objective moral values that God establishes are not merely his preference, opinion or feelings, but represent for us objective values, duties and responsibilities, and makes sense of the moral accountability.
This need only be possible to blunt the horns of the Dilemma. The axiological argument doesn’t profess to prove that the God presented is the God of the Bible. As I’ve mentioned before, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and biblical infallability are not a even bought into the discussion.
I don’t see the circularity you mention, can you point it out syllogistically for me?
Stuart, your examples fail your own definition of “objective values” as they include the word ‘wrong’, which makes them circular, in the sense of ‘circular logic’: they use the concept you seek to define (rightness/wrongness aka moral judgements). The ‘wrong’ would be decided by the individual making the judgement, using their opinions, etc. based on their “moral code”, so your examples would not be independent of the person making the judgement: they would be dependent on the “moral code” of the person making the judgement. Which leads back to Gareth’s point about if objective values are even possible at all, as I mentioned at the end of post 143, which you haven’t addressed yet. Until you address this, using the term ‘objective value’ itself is open to question.
“Your naturalism severely limits the scope of human knowledge.”
No. Superstitious beliefs limit the scope of knowledge because they replace “we don’t have an answer yet” with a potted answer that blocks people seeking the real truth, never mind seeing how things actually are. Knowing that you don’t know something is honest and directs future investigation.
“As its undeniable that things like the laws of logic do exist as you have to assume them to even think“
The latter (emboldened) portion is not true. You want to read a history of science that starts with primitive man. Numbers were invented, not just “there always” as your statement implies. Ditto for (human representation of) the laws of logic, physics, etc. Ancient man did not have these things and could certainly think. Hell, even many so-called “primitive” tribes of recent times don’t have formal logic (as in “laws of logic”) and very rudimentary mathematics (basic arithmetic at most), but can certainly think.
“Objective moral values make sense as a feature of the universe if God exists.”
There you go again, making a flat assertion that inserts G-d in somehow, as a flat assertion I’m going to ignore the paragraphs based on it. It does reveal your real objectives to my mind, however (i.e. the “argument” itself is really irrelevant to you.)
Regards the beliefs you attribute to Dawkins, I am under the distinct impression that you have imposed your own beliefs in there on him (i.e., in your words, “evolution implies there are no objective moral values or standards”). I think that this is called put words in others’ mouths 😉
Getting back to the main line of things, I’m waiting for you to restate your argument more completely, so there is actually an argument to be considered.
162: I’ve already pointed out that since the first point is founded on a premise, until the premise is established, there is no argument to be had. Its the same reason you need to finish stating your arguments, its still got unsatisfied premises in it.
Your last bit uses the fallacious “appeal to authority” argument 😉
“But the point in the argument is to point out that there are objective moral values.”
But you don’t establish that there are objective moral values first…
“The response is to say that God is good because his nature is good.”
You have just asserted “because his nature is good”. (Q: is it a sin to you to refer to H-m as ‘him’?) Basically, because you want to view it that way: nothing objective about that.
You might want to get back to defining your argument. I think you’ll find in defining properly you’ll reveal your real “argument” to yourself 😉
Stuart said…”So from this argument what can we say about the properties of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (if this being exists)?”
The key word here is “if”.
Surely you should deal with that little word first before you start eagerly assigning properties?
“The Flying Spagetti Monster is perfectly moral being that transcends authoritatively all morally capable life.”
It/She/He is?
How do you actually know this?
Did you ask The Noodly One personally?
Hmm?
Or is this just pure guesswork on your part?
“This itself implies blah, blah, blah…”
Stuart? Stuart?
Before we go running off with the “implications”, perhaps we should get part one organized first?
“Also the Flying Spagetti Monster…”
Once again. Where are you getting your information on the FSM? Are you even sure the FSM (praise be forever the pasta sauce) actually exists?
Stuart said…”It is not a far leap from there to conclude blah, blah, blah…”
Stuart? Hello?
Stuart?
Let’s leave the “far leaping” alone for a minute, shall we?
You have some more basic problems at that part one bit before you go launching off into Pastafarian apologetics.
Stuart said…”Gee, the Flying Spagetti Monster seems quite similar to the what traditionally has been called God. Isn’t that peculiar?”
Not really. Predictable really.
You have your pre-packaged brand-name god, ready to go.
It never occurs to you that others have different brand-name gods that they would argue would fit the description just as well.
Of course, you’re going to shoe-horn in your god.
That’s where your interests lie.
Now what would have been REALLY impressive is if you had said…”Gee, the Flying Spagetti Monster seems quite similar to the what traditionally has been called Mithra. Isn’t that peculiar?”
Or perhaps…”Gee, the Flying Spagetti Monster seems quite similar to the what traditionally has been called Osiris. Isn’t that peculiar?”
………………………………………………..
Stuart said…”The argument doesn’t profess to prove anything beyond those two main contentions. That this being is personal. That this being has a perfectly moral nature.”
It doesn’t prove anything at all.
“That this being is personal.”
What being?
(Personal? Never mind. Whatever)
WHAT BEING?
How do you know there is a being, personal or otherwise in the first place?
Moral nature?
What moral nature?
This doesn’t make any sense.
All you’re doing is waving your hands in the air.
You have demonstrated nothing.
Argument No. 62 DOES NOT WORK.
People make fun of it for a reason.
ou earlier claimed “No reference to G[-]d or the [b]ible hidden in there.”. Can you now see, by you own example, that your earlier claim was wrong?
I can see I was wrong to say there is no reference to God. I should have clarified I was thinking of the particular Christian concept of God. As I replied to Cedric, the moral argument only gives us ground to say there exists a perfect being whose nature is morally perfect, that this being is personal, and that this being transcends authoritatively all moral agents.
The argument admittedly has limited scope, which is why it gains its full force in a cumulative case for God’s existence.
Argument for Premise One in the axiological argument.
1) x’s contradictory (y) is equivalent to not x
2) x’s existence explains the existence of objective moral values
3) y’s existence does not explain the existence of objective moral values.
4) Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe that objective moral values do not exist given y, but given x one is entirely rational for believing that objective moral values do exist.
5) Traditionally it is asserted that God explains the existence of objective moral values.
6) Therefore, x is the assertion that God exists (theism)
7) Therefore, y is the assertion that God does not exist (atheism)
8) Therefore, if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 8 doesn’t have to be true. It only needs to be more likely than its contradictory, called atheism.
“I should have clarified I was thinking of the particular Christian concept of G-d.” Same difference, just replace ‘theist’ with ‘Christian’. This isn’t right either. The more correct thing to say is that by definition it must have a reference to whatever deity the theist believes in. If the theist is Christian, then it’ll be the Christian G-d.
“As I replied to Cedric, the moral argument only gives us ground to say there exists a perfect being whose nature is morally perfect”
If you would complete stating your argument, you might learn if it does or not.
“The argument admittedly has limited scope, which is why it gains its full force in a cumulative case for God’s existence.”
Now you’re really getting silly. Its limited, but its not limited. Yeah, right. In reality it has no scope at all because it isn’t an argument to start with. You really need to go back and define your argument properly and start from there.
Your “logical argument” is very idiotic. 2 & 3 do not arise from 1.In fact they arise from nowhere, i.e. they are flat assertions introduced into the “logic”. (It also follows that ‘therefore’ in 4. is nonsense.) You keep posing as a “philosopher” by flashing words around, but you can’t seem to think to save the life of you. I can therefore infer that you have simply copied this from some website or book without any idea at all how ridiculous it is 😉 JK.
“Premise [X] doesn’t have to be true. It only needs to be more likely than its contradictory”
Ignoring the grammar issues, this would only true if you abandoned using logic and start playing with statistics instead. But in that case, it wouldn’t be a logical argument. Formal logic (e.g. logical algebra) doesn’t contain “more likely” because “more likely” doesn’t give rise to either “true” or “false”. In fact, as logic contains no scalar (numerical) elements, I doubt very much it can ever generate “more likely” statements either. You’re talking poppycock again, I’m afraid 😉
You still haven’t defined your original argument… really until you do, all of this will be a waste of time.
Heraclides said…”I have to laugh at the huge list only to skip to the very last “proof”, interestingly numbered 666″
Yes, I thought that one was rather droll.
🙂
The vast majority of the arguments are so ridiculous that the first reaction is to write them off as being just for laughs.
The real horror only begins once you see people on the Internet ACTUALLY USING these arguments!!
Not as a joke but being deadly serious.
When James started using them, I thought “Well, maybe he doesn’t realise” so I gave him the link.
Yet, he not only kept on using those same agruments…he started to use others on the list!
😮
I think the record on one thread that he hijacked here was about nine? (ten?) different arguments from that site.
One after the other.
It was wierd.
Funny? Sure. Yet, more that a little disturbing.
Poe’s Law? You be the judge. http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
I’ve heard of Poe’s Law before, but that page is new to me. I love the inclusion of “test yourself” examples, with ROT13-encoded answers… 🙂 Only a computer geek would think of that.
An hour and more has passed and no progress from Stuart on presenting is his argument properly. It’d be a pity if he doesn’t complete what he started as he was (finally!) starting to head in a useable direction.
One of the problems here is perhaps a fuzzy definition of what morals are in the first place. This is perhaps fundamental to the differences in approach.
If we drill down behind the concept, in my view morals must be statements about actions and consequences. Nothing else makes sense. If there is no action taken then there is no consequence (of course inaction in a particular situation can also be considered an action). If there is no consequence, then how can something be immoral. Nothing has happened, good or bad.
Given the above, good or bad must be related to the consequences. And when you are talking about actions (choices) that people make and the morality of those actions, surely this must be related to the good or bad of the consequences. To recap, if the action has no consequence, then how can you say that it was good or bad.
Now you can look at the consequences of actions from a completely subjective point of view from the context of an individual. In other words were the consequences of the actions (moral decisions) taken good or bad for a particular individual. Then we can add some objectivity to the morality by looking at the context of a larger group such as a family, community, society or the whole human race. The level of objectivity achieved depends on what grouping you are looking at. If this is the level of the human race, then you could state objectively and in principle calculably whether or not the consequences of particular actions are good or bad (objectively so) and thus derive whether they are moral.
However, If you want to define your morality as objective to the entire universe, which it seems like Stuart etal want to do, then the difficult task of calculating the consequences becomes a lot harder.
Striking the above problem (that of defining a universe level of objective morality), it appears to me that Stuart etc… fall back into defining that as what feels right to them. Instinctive, or instinctual morality. The problem is, that science is starting to tell very plausible stories about where our feelings come from, and uncover a large amount of bias and so on about these instincts. I think that this is why people like Stuart seem to have such a hard time with evolutionary theory, as this obviously underpins an understanding of our feelings and instincts.
This finally leads to Stuarts philosophical arguments for a god. It seems obvious to me (and others here) that he has reached a conclusion first (based on his instinctive feelings) and then is trying to finding plausible sounding justifications for the predetermined conclusion. Talking kindly to Stuart, this is a bias that everybody can or does fall into easily.
There is however, light at the end of the tunnel. Ken has spoken very eloquently before on his blog about looking clearly at the evidence and the benefit of being proven utterly wrong about something. In my opinion, humans can tune their intuitions by education, experience and thinking. This is how I think the rational mind works. I think that most decisions are made based on intuitions (i.e not consciously chosen). I think that those intuitions are delivered by internal pattern matching processes in our brains that draw upon structures and patterns stored in our memories (probably more complex than that, but you get what I mean). Furthermore, the experiences we have in our lives, build upon the pattern matching that occurs, so that our experience to a large extent can drive our intuition. Our conscious mind also feeds into this process by cogitating over issues and forming beliefs that also feed into our intuitions.
Given the above, we can I think, change our intuitions about subjects such as evolution, so that our feelings are more rational.
This might be the way in which someone can become wise, and perhaps highlights the age old question of the difference between wisdom and intelligence. In other words, perhaps intelligence can be defined as the ability to think consciously through a complex issue, whereas wisdom perhaps is the ability to feel rational intuition about complex issues.
“Objective moral values are values that exist independent of a person or their judgement, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
An example: An objective value would be that Hitler was wrong, even if he had won the war, and succeeded in either killing or mind-washing everyone who opposed him.
An example: An objective value would be that it would be wrong to boil a baby even if it was a global cultural norm.”
My dictionary defines objective as “based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions” or “existing independently of the individual mind or perception”. So I think it’s worth asking where your “objective morality” exists – or what facts it is based on. I think I have done that with my morality – ascribing some of it (especially basic morality) to our existence as independent, conscious, intelligent, sentient beings. Now, I think I can easily derive from that a morality which includes finding Hitler’s actions wrong, baby boiling wrong, slavery wrong, sexism wrong, etc., irrespective of what the social acceptance of such things is. I think most people can do that.
However, you claim something “extra” which you just do not explain. On what basis do you make such moral conclusions? It’s no good talking about objective morality, or a god – that just doesn’t answer the specific question.
Things like “laws of logic, numbers, abstract objects, propositions” etc are “based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions” – although they exist in the minds of men. This doesn’t require a god – just the existence of the facts from which they are derived.
So, I repeat my question. On what basis do you deny me the right to make moral judgements (that I “shouldn’t” make such judgements) – to declare Hitler was wrong but claim that right for yourself? You have not demonstrated any special source for your moral conclusions.
To repeat dogma like “If God does not exist and if objective moral values do exist, where do they come from?” shows an unwillingness to interact with this discussion. I have presented an objective basis for our (yours and mine) morality. You haven’t dealt with this or presented an alternative.
How do you know Hitler and baby boiling is wrong?
How do you advise other who want answers to specific moral questions (where is you list of “objective morals” or do you derive them on the run)? How do you confront the obvious empirical fact that the vast majority of people (theist and non-theist alike) have absolutely no problem deciding that Hitler and baby boiling is wrong? This is clearly not a matter of opinion (which would be indicated by a broader statistical distribution) on their part nor, I suggest, would one find a significant difference between theists and non-theists in making these specific decisions.
“Atheistic-evolution implies there are no objective moral values or standards. Yet Dawkin’s moralises all throughout his writings as if objective morals do exist.”
Evolution is no more (or no less) atheistic than any other science. The fact that you feel the need to append that word indicates some sort of obsession on your part. In science we never do that.
You observe, correctly, that Dawkins does make moral observations in his writing (and his speeches). I have never heard him talk about “objective morals” (or as I would say an “objective basis for morality”) – usually stressing the role of evolution in producing social moral attitudes. However, I think we can conclude that he believes our species does have fundamental moral attitudes in the way that I have described. That is one reason why both you and I can agree with his moral conclusions.
I don’t know where you studied logic but you need to review your notes. How can you make a blind man see!
In reality it has no scope at all because it isn’t an argument to start with.
The argument is right before you. How do you construe a simple syllogism into “not an argument?”
Your “logical argument” is very idiotic. 2 & 3 do not arise from 1
3 arises from 1 and 2 when they combine. It uses the formal logical law modus tollens.
“Premise 8 doesn’t have to be true. It only needs to be more likely than its contradictory”
Ignoring the grammar issues, this would only true if you abandoned using logic and start playing with statistics instead. But in that case, it wouldn’t be a logical argument. Formal logic (e.g. logical algebra) doesn’t contain “more likely” because “more likely” doesn’t give rise to either “true” or “false”. In fact, as logic contains no scalar (numerical) elements, I doubt very much it can ever generate “more likely” statements either. You’re talking poppycock again, I’m afraid
I should have said “more plausible,” but what is the difference really? A sound argument doesn’t need logical necessity or mathematical certainty. And in this argument, the conclusion is only as strong as the premises that proceed it.
You still haven’t defined your original argument… really until you do, all of this will be a waste of time.
I have repeatedly defined the terms and the syllogism. What are you talking about?
Impugning the argument and calling it “silly” and “poppycock” is tantamount to defeat. Unless you can show a premise is false (or less plausible that its contradictory), or find an informal fallacy, the conclusion is awarded.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want to give your thoughts some careful consideration so I’ll take my time responding. I do notice two immediate problem that present themselves.
First;
Your utilitarianism seeks to provide a basis on what we call good or bad. But the question I am posing is if there is such a thing as good and bad. Its ontology which is the concern, not epistemology.
Second;
in my view morals must be statements about actions and consequences. . . . good or bad must be related to the consequences. And when you are talking about actions (choices) that people make and the morality of those actions, surely this must be related to the good or bad of the consequences. To recap, if the action has no consequence, then how can you say that it was good or bad.
So you seek to determine what is good and bad. You propose people do this by looking at the consequences to any action, which are either good or bad. You’ve reasoned in a circle and haven’t told us anything about what is good or bad.
In any case, as an ethical theory I don’t think utilitarianism is completely devoid of merit. Consequence of actions can be very helpful in determining how we know what is good and bad, but I don’t think it will be a sufficient understanding.
What you have done is taken the position of an ethical naturalist. I’ve spoken about this before on this thread. With moral reductionism you’ve taken moral values and given them a operational definition. But in doing so you have reduced a moral property to a non-moral property and my criticisms I gave above apply equally here.
I will grant you that good or bad can be difficult to describe on an objective basis. There needs to be some level of agreement about underlying assumptions before you get anywhere.
This is pretty much the case with anything though. When talking about temperature for example, there needs to be agreement about whether the measure is Celsius, Farenheit, Kelvin or Boltzman distribution before the numbers start making sense.
I would posit that good and bad are measures also, the terms need to be defined and shared before they start to have objective meaning. In this fashion we could define good in the context of human beings in a vast number of ways, we would probably start uncontroversialy with fundmental concepts such as good physical and mental health, then perhaps move into slightly murkier territory with things like the ability to find fulfillment by being able to be useful to society through the application of your capabilities. Now, I am not going to try and do this all in one post here, but hopefully you get my point, these ideas of good and bad can be determined across a population. Without this important business of defining and agreeing contexts and terms, then you have nothing, but I see nothing here that is outside the capability of human beings and their societies.
The above process of negotiating the definitions of good and bad and navigating/regulating consequence causing actions is called politics and lawmaking. I find it interesting that what seems to work best in these areas is secular government and lawmaking. This whole process is upset by claims from certain sectors to ultimate truths or understandings. If these are not demonstrable, then they are worthless.
Now , as far as I can understand it, you posit some sort of unobservable (to all intents hidden) being with vast powers that somehow knows or makes what is good or bad, and is somehow the underpinning of all meaning in the world.
I have a number of problems with that concept, here are a few:
– Your god hypothesis does not help in defining good and bad, there is still an issue of interpretation. Even if there was some celestial arbiter that defines good and bad, how do we find out about it from an unobservable hidden god. Here the bugger is in the detail, you might say that we need to look in that well known communication from god called the bible, but have you actually read the thing. You can interpret that sort of stuff in so many different ways that it is in all intents and purposes meaningless. All you end up with for good and bad are interpretations from your preferred theogens. This is before you even consider then dubious authenticity of the tome in question,
– Science has shown us how to derive meaning in the world, by reproducibly explaining how things happen, and where things come from. Will it provide a purpose (whatever that is), I don’t know. But, what it is bloody good at (better than anything else we have come up with) is determining the nature of objective reality and how that works. I think that science/rationality can and should be applied to issues of morality also. This is vastly superior in my opinion to creating a bucket called god that we load with anything non obvious or hard to understand , and then leave those topics forever off limits to true understanding.
– What you posit has no use. Perhaps it is possible, but how can we begin to know how likely. Also, what use is your theory of a god. To my mind, by setting up lots of barriers to true knowledge, it would be akin to chopping our mental legs off to adopt your theories.
– To be frank, basically, you guys are making it all up. Its fiction and fantasy. If it wasn’t, then you would be able to demonstrate and confirm your ideas through empirical observations and experiments. We ask that of everybody that purports to know the truth of anything. If you have anything in the bag of this nature, let me know, I could well change my mind.
Finally, I am happy if you want to posit a god of the gaps that reduces in size as our knowledge increases, but I prefer to label this bucket unknown rather than god. I think thats a bit more descriptive.
Yes, you (Stuart) are quite blind it seems 😉 (Let me give your words back to you…) You are making up excuses! In any event, I meant a proper argument: I did say this earlier, I didn’t prefix it again thinking that by now you knew that.
But back to the thread of the conversation, which I am now getting the impression you are avoiding. So far you have advanced you argument from:
(A)theists Should Not Criticise Hitler
to
Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] to remain consistent with their worldview.
Theists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] is to remain consistent with their worldview.
adding the “why” clause to the should, that is the context of the ‘should’, from Damian’s input. This then moved to:
Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] to remain consistent with their atheist worldview.
Theists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] is to remain consistent with their theist worldview.
after I pointed out you haven’t defined ‘worldview’. At that point you try to excuse yourself as “… thinking of the particular Christian concept of G-d.”, but I think you now realise doesn’t hold either for the same reason as you moved the argument forward earlier. As I pointed out 171: “…by definition it must have a reference to whatever deity the theist believes in. If the theist is Christian, then it’ll be the Christian G-d.”, e.g.
Christian theists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] to remain consistent with their Christian theist worldview.
You also conceded that your argument included a premise: “…if objective moral values exists, G-d exists.” I pointed out that this itself rests on premises (e.g. “if G-d exists”; does the existence of a god, or anything, create objective moral values), which need to first be resolved. You might also want to explicitly show how this is a premise of:
Christian theists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] to remain consistent with their Christian theist worldview.
On this note, you may want to bear in mind some things I wrote earlier:
If you are now conceding that your “argument” rests on the premise that “G-d gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability” (fine, and good), then you need to demonstrate that this is premise true, or your argument will be moot. You will probably also find that explaining “gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability ” will require that you bring in references to the bible (hence my statement that the bible reference will be there too, above). You will also find, that you need to demonstrate that this G-d itself exists, too: if this is your premise and G-d doesn’t exist, then your argument also falls down.
As I wrote earlier, you still need to:
“You still need to define the starting point unambiguously, and to demonstrate that your premise holds. This, in turn, will require you to expand your premise so that that things the premise itself are founded on are exposed and resolved. Then you’ll have a proper starting point.”
Perhaps you would like to complete presenting a proper argument, one without unsatisfied premises (or logical leaps) and there might be a starting point?
You are going to have to define each and every possible worldview (!) and resolve the premises they involve. But to make things more compact, we can restrict ourselves to the Christian theist, perhaps. (The problem with the atheist “worldview”, is that you are defining a worldview in terms of negatives, the non-acceptance of theism, so it includes all other possibilities, as Ken pointed out. This will leave you with an essentially infinite number of worldviews to define…) Once we have done this you can come back to the atheist. After all, if you can’t establish it for Christian theists (which I take to be a point of difference for you), you won’t have an argument that is useful to you. And also a-theist is the “anti” of theist, so resolving one might lead somewhere useful. So where to next? Define ‘Christian theist worldview’ explicitly and resolve any premises in it. I’ll (rightfully) leave that to you, its your worldview so you should define it, not me (i.e. I don’t want to “tell you want you think”).
Until you resolve these things you still won’t have presented a proper argument. You do need to work your way through the premises first, before trying to move forward. Much of the rest of this thread has you trying to leap forward assuming that you have already established this, but it should really be done first, I think, or there is no proper argument to found it all on.
Keep going, you will get there 🙂
Regarding your eight-point “argument” introduced in post 169, you are reducing yourself to the same cut’n’paste “arguments” that characterises some creationists, who are-rightfully-ridiculed for it. It makes you, like other creationists appear to have no idea at all that these “arguments” are not as they are completely fallacious. (Cedric has pointed out many times that these are extremely well-known and well-known to be illogical.) You own variation on the theme is to try throw around “big words” to try make it sound as if you must be right. These “big words” don’t alter the “arguments” being presented. This one of the main reasons I find your “philosophising” fake and just a smoke screen.
Theists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] is to remain consistent with their worldview.
This is your premise, not mine. If a Christian critises Hitler he is being consistent with his worldview because he can provide a basis for the existence of good and evil, namely God. The atheist (which I said before I will be using the definition ‘he who believes that God does not exist,’ not the barstarised definition of ‘he who does not believe in God.’) cannot do the same.
“You also conceded that your argument included a premise: “…if objective moral values exists, G-d exists.” I pointed out that this itself rests on premises (e.g. “if G-d exists”; does the existence of a god, or anything, create objective moral values), which need to first be resolved.
Before the argument begins we need not be in a position of knowledge about God’s existence. The premise “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist” is based upon the concept of God as the foundation of objective moral values, and the plausibility that in his absence, there is no basis for the existence of objective moral value.
As the sole explanation of objective moral values, with the added bonus of explaining moral duties and accountability, the idea that there is a God triumphs over the idea that there is not. As Kant says, to make sense out of our moral life we have to live like God exists.
Regarding your eight-point “argument” introduced in post 169, you are reducing yourself to the same cut’n’paste “arguments” that characterises some creationists, who are-rightfully-ridiculed for it. It makes you, like other creationists appear to have no idea at all that these “arguments” are not as they are completely fallacious.
The eight point argument there is my own invention, not a cut-and-paste job. Ridicule does not take the place of refutation.
You own variation on the theme is to try throw around “big words” to try make it sound as if you must be right. These “big words” don’t alter the “arguments” being presented. This one of the main reasons I find your “philosophising” fake and just a smoke screen.
Erm, you wrote that, not me. That’s why I quoted it 😉 You’re calling it a premise now? Before you were calling it your argument.
“Before the argument begins we need not be in a position of knowledge about God’s existence.”
Yes, you do, because as far as I can see your “argument” rests on that. If you want to prove me otherwise, by all means do: but to do that you need to finish stating your argument fully, defining things completely, etc. (which I note you haven’t attempted to do). By they way, you have already acknowledged that your argument contains the premise (your word, not mine) “…if objective moral values exists, G-d exists.” This premise, in turn, very obviously rests on “that G-d exists”, as I have already pointed out to you. Thus it would seem clear that, by your own words your argument needs to be in “a position of knowledge about G[-]d’s existence.”
“The premise “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist” is based upon the concept of God as the foundation of objective moral values”
If you claim that, then the the argument falls if you can’t prove this premise. I also did write about this in the same post you refer to: “I pointed out that this itself rests on premises … does the existence of a god, or anything, create objective moral values” Read what I wrote, eh? Why tell me something I already pointed out to you as an issue, as defence? This isn’t establishing your point, it forces you to prove this, in turn.
You should also show that this is actually a premise of the “argument” first, too.
“The eight point argument there is my own invention”
I’ll take that “on faith”, for the courtesy’s sake. But if so, it is your logic that is shoddy, rather than your following someone else’s 😉
“What big words are you having trouble with?”
Oh, poor little Stuart just has to end with a feeble poke at me 🙂 I never wrote that I was having trouble with any words: I wrote that your use of them is to prop yourself up, in particular I pointed out that use of them doesn’t make your “arguments” any more convincing or “right”. In fact, they suggest that you hope to “win” by bluster, rather than logic. That might work on some of your more naïve creationist colleagues, but not me 😉
You might want to complete defining your “argument” proper rather than throwing objections at me. Until you complete your “argument”, we still don’t really have an argument to consider, really.
When I say “you wrote”, I should have written, that your “expansion” of “worldview” led directly to this. I was not presenting a premise, but the outcome of your “expansion” of “worldview”.
I really do wonder at the value of participating in this discussion with the apparent refusal to interact with specific arguments (by misrepresenting them). And, let’s face – it no one is changing their viewpoint – and I certainly don’t feel there is any substance in the theist attack on my morality.
However, I think I may have got from you a list of these ‘god-given’ ‘objective values’: “goodness or rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice and equality” and evil or wrong “such as hatred, abuse, selfishness, discrimination and oppression.”
Well, what do you know – I can accept all these (and more) – and I didn’t have to postulate a god to do that!
1: Many of these are “hard-wired” – in the sense they have arisen naturally via our evolution as social animals. Without these adaptions we could not have successfully carried out our social interactions.
2: Some of these – basic human rights – equality, oppression, discrimination are easily derived via a moral logic based on the objective fact of our existence as separate, conscious, sentient, intelligent beings. One advantage of such moral logic is that we can derive the correctness of important human rights (such as equality) despite our social conditioning often opposing these (as, for example, sexism, racism, gay-bashing, etc.)
Humans do have a conscious – a moral awareness. And it is not god-given – it has arisen naturally.
So – all this without any mention of a god – and that is in fact how we all do it. God may come later as a justification – but that’s all she is.
Law givers and Moral Duties:
Here is where the danger and evil of religion comes in. If we have to argue that our rights and moral values are granted to us by a god, that we require that god’s permission, that we can’t derive our our own moral rights and values relying on our naturally derived conscious and intellectual abilities – then we become the victims of scoundrels. Our duty to god becomes a duty to these scoundrels. We know where this has lead.
Moral values, human rights, permitted social mores become god-given. And how do we know what is permitted? – why from the ‘word of god’. And how do we get that? – from the Imams, Popes, priests, ministers, tele-evangelists of course who either interpret the “holy scriptures” or make it up on the run. And then everything does become permitted.
Stoning 13 year old rape victims is carrying out god’s will. Similarly, killing those not of god’s favoured race. Child abuse, sexual predation by priests and ministers, child marriage, etc. Slavery, segregation, apartheid, war, colonialism, imperialism, racism, denial of human rights to women, homosexuals and apostates is ‘god’s will’. We have seen it all before – done in the name of god (often with king and country as accomplices) all in my lifetime and some still current.
And this is the problem with a ‘god-given’ “objective morality” – which is, in fact, a subjective authority-based morality. And playing with words like ‘duty’, ‘naturalism’, ‘atheist’, ‘theist’, ‘accountability’, ‘world view’, ‘ontology’, ‘epistemology’, etc., and peppering comments with out-of-context quotations, is just a way of attempting to cloud this fact.
For the secularist (and most of us are at heart): Morality is about doing what is right – no matter what you are told.
For the religious apologist: Religion is about doing what you are told – irrespective of it being right.
Harsh words – but the fact is that religion (and the ‘objective morality’ story) is used, and was used in the past, to justify anti-gay, anti-women, anti-science and anti-secular prejudice and actions. I am not characterising all religious people that way but I think most people recognise that this sort of attitude from a minority is what gives religion a bad name.
Ken @187. Well said on objective morality. I was trying to say something similar in a not so clear way.
Stuart. I think that people here have successfully posited some objective morality concepts that don’t require a god or gods. This kinda undermines your whole argument really. And on your point that atheists (or anybody else for that matter) should not criticise Hitler, what’s invalid about doing this from the basis of subjective morals anyway. I suspect that the reason you have bought this up has not so much to do with a point as it has with an attempt to draw connectors between atheism and national socialism. I think that you have strayed well into Godwin’ law territory with that wee clanger.
1: Many of these are “hard-wired” – in the sense they have arisen naturally via our evolution as social animals. Without these adaptions we could not have successfully carried out our social interactions.
This is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. How we came to know certain facts that pertain to morality is totally irrelevant to the question of are there objective moral values?
At most the rest of the post proves (1) that you do believe in objective moral values (that is, if you mean the lists of values you give pertain to the whole of the human race), and (2) that our apprehension of objective morality is subjective.
“This is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy.”
No, its not. The origins of these behaviours matter, as it’s their origins that make these behaviours not based on religious contexts and objective in the manner you asked for.
“How we came to know certain facts that pertain to morality”
What Ken listed were not “facts that pertain” to morality, but social behaviours that carry with them moral values. I’m quite sure you can see that they are behaviours, not “facts” per se. They seem perfectly fine examples of moral behaviours that are not based on a religious context, but pre-date religions. They are also objective in the manner you asked for, as the development and “use” of these behaviours is not dependent on any one individual (mythical or real).
“pertain to the whole of the human race” I would think that’s a given, unless you are suggesting that some human are aliens 🙂 (More seriously, I think you need to add social “evolution” to pure genetic evolution, as this will have an element to play in some of them; passed down via teaching the young, etc. Note this is still not based on religious concepts and is still objective in the manner Stuart wanted.)
“our apprehension of objective morality is subjective”
“apprehension” ??? Think you mean some other word, surely? So far, you have written about people having objective morals or not, not being anxious about them or not! Perhaps you might try re-write this?
Nice summary by the way Ken.
I hope to read Pratchett’s Small gods over the break. It’ll be interesting how much of this he weaves into it.
That’s not being anxious about them, unless you are trying to foist that on others 😉 (Which, I have to say, wouldn’t surprise me the least seeing your past behaviour.) You know there is such as thing as people happy to work things out or people just working things out without any particular stress either way… 😉
“I have been talking about how ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have their foundation in reality.”
No, you made it quite clear that you were talking about how atheist don’t have objective morality (and therefore, in your “argument” shouldn’t criticise Hitler). Are you trying to shift the goal posts? 😉
I see Bnonn/Stuart are is/are still deleting my posts on Thinking Matters… its a more that little pathetic, really. Can’t be much of a “thinking” blog if they remove posts that they don’t want to think about… makes it a bit more like a “let’s not think” blog 🙂
As a practical matter, since the “debate” has basically ground to a halt on their blog owing to a lack of constructive posts (something that they should think about), so pointing their readers to this thread (as I have been trying to do) seems to be the right think to do.
But to paraphrase something I have been writing on their blog, that Bnonn (?) keeps removing:
It is a shame that “whoever it is” (Bnonn?) is deleting my posts, as it means that his blog is presenting a one-sided view of the “debate”. It makes his blog a little like a totalitarian state, where objectors are “removed” so that there are no objections to the ruler’s power! (Ruler [rhetorical question]: “Do I see any objections…? No, therefore I must be right”.)
And on your point that atheists (or anybody else for that matter) should not criticise Hitler, what’s invalid about doing this from the basis of subjective morals anyway?
To answer the first half of the quote;
“Atheists should not criticise Hitler” is the title of the post on Thinking Matters. Its not the argument. The argument is clarified later on when I stated (near the beginning) that “I think you’re confused on one of the finer points of the argument. The point is not that atheists cannot discern or know what is right and wrong. The point is that an atheist cannot be consistent with their view if they want to affirm the existence of objective morals. ”
To answer the second half of the quote;
If the subjectivist wants to cry foul over something, they are free to. It just carries no meaning. On subjectivism moral statements are equivalent to personal preferences like taste. So I think that as an ethical theory it is worthless. If “What Hitler did was wrong,” is equivalent in value to “Wearing clashing colour is wrong,” then it really does fail. Objective morals are what is needed.
Where the argument I have been putting forward takes hold is that in a world without God, there just is not any valid explanation to how morals gain their objectivity. Ken says they arise naturally, but I think that’s a category mistake and confuses objectivity with subjectivity. Objectivity means without involving feelings or personal opinions, which if the qualitative right and wrong somehow derive from the nature of sentience or because we’re intelligent they are not objective after all but subjective opinions. Adding people quantitatively is still subjectivism and therefore insufficient, after all all Nazi Germany was objectively wrong and if he’d won over the whole world, he’d still be wrong. What is needed to explain our common moral intuitions is a qualitative standard, and that can only be found in the metaphysical realm as worth, value, rightness and wrongness are not physical (chemical, electrical, neurological, biological, sociological, cultural, or localised in any way) properties.
Saying our moral values derived from evolutionary social pressures is the genetic fallacy as their origin and our gradual subjective apprehension of them no more undermines their objectivity than our fallible apprehension of the physical realm undermines the objectivity of that realm.
Moreover objective moral values are properties that belong to persons. Ken’s ‘moral logic’ is an underdeveloped theorem, which I requested more information on but he hasn’t supplied. Thus far, I don’t see any way the principle, say ‘rightness’ exists as the equation 1+1=2 exists, in the mind-independent universe. By definition arithmetic “is.” But ‘rightness’ not only “is” but carries with it an “ought.” Thus without a mind existing qualitatively above all people, objectivity in values cannot exist.
Stuart fumbles around with…”The premise “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist” is based upon the concept of God as the foundation of objective moral values, and the plausibility that in his absence, there is no basis for the existence of objective moral value.”
Oh dear, oh dear.
Let’s try again shall we?
The premise “If Mithra does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist” is based upon the concept of Mithra as the foundation of objective moral values, and the plausibility that in his absence, there is no basis for the existence of objective moral value.
The premise “If Thor does not exist, then lightning do not exist” is based upon the concept of Thor as the foundation of electricity, and the plausibility that in his absence, there is no basis for the existence of lightning.
(Damn but that’s funny)
🙂
…………………………………………………..
Heraclides said…”It is a shame that “whoever it is” (Bnonn?) is deleting my posts, as it means that his blog is presenting a one-sided view of the “debate”.”
Stuart, who is deleting Heraclides’ posts on your site?
How many have you deleted?
Why (if it’s actually you) have you deleted them?
…………………………………………………..
Stuart frets…”Where the argument I have been putting forward takes hold is that in a world without God, there just is not any valid explanation to how morals gain their objectivity.”
It doesn’t matter if the person you are arguing with can’t come up with a valid explanation for subjective morals.
IT DOESN’T HELP YOUR ARGUMENT.
It doesn’t matter if the person you are arguing with can’t come up with a valid explanation for why there is lightning.
IT DOESN’T HELP YOUR ARGUMENT.
Your argument MUST STAND ALONE.
As Apologianick clearly said…”…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
No.98: ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn’t X amazing!
(2) I don’t understand how X could be, without something else (that I don’t really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can’t come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Erm, Stuart, you are writing a mix of travelling around in circles, like James does when is trying to avoid answering people, and wriggling around trying redefine things, dismissing opposition out of hand, and the like, with big chunks of it making no sense. And you end by trying to “ask of others”. All of these are a sure sign of a loser looking for a way out to me. Sorry, but just that’s what experience shows me 😉
Its pointless posting your reply (194) on your blog if Nick isn’t posting there. Seems you are anxious about my comment that the “debate” is dead in your thread. I suspect that’s the outcome of Bnonn (or you) deleting posts that don’t suit you… 😉
I think your latest posts show nicely that your “argument” is just you wanting to assert things as true (i.e. by fiat) to suit your religious needs, as they are just a string of assertions with padding “fluff”, most of which makes no sense. I tried to help you see the real argument you are presenting, for yourself, by getting you to expand out the definitions and premises. You were getting somewhere (albeit very, very slowly!), but you seem to have given up on that.
195: It’ll probably be Bnonn and its pointless counting them, really. I took to simply reposting the same post each time it was deleted (slightly updated if needed). It just pointed out to readers that the “real” “debate” is over here and pointed out the bit I paraphrased above (193) about how I felt about their blog given they were deleting my posts. It doesn’t really matter much, its just I find it amazing how hypocritical apologists and a surprising number of religious people are. I know the the more right-wing ones are “just like that”, but after all these years of seeing it, it still amazes (and appals) me.
Where your objection that I am arguing from ignorance fails is you can’t see the category correctly. Its like you expect to eventually find the sound of the colour red. Objective morals can’t arise out of nature. Neither can rightness or wrongness.
@194 One of the problems with this sort of debate is that people use terms such as objectivity in different ways and with different meanings. Objective as a term is notoriously difficult to pin down anyway (hence the siren flames of post modernistic claptrap), but if we take your definition of not involving feelings or opinions, then I could offer a couple of further points.
As I see it, we have at least two cognitive processes ongoing relevant to morality. 1-Intuition/instinct (or feelings) 2-Conscious thought or rationality. As I have stated in an earlier post, I think that intuitions/instincts are informed by many different things, some examples are; structural physiological factors as the result of evolutionary adaptions or byproducts, individual experience and conscious rationalising. You might notice a bit of a feedback loop here with number 2 feeding into number 1.
Also as I stated earlier, I tend to think that people operate most commonly under an intuitive basis, with the influence of conscious rationalisations being more post facto.
Given the above, I do not think that feelings and opinions can be removed from any discussion on morality. This however is not a problem if we tweak your definition of objective a tiny wee bit. Lets make objective mean; outside of individual feelings or opinions. I think that we now have a definition of objectivity that is useful in a discussion on morality. Perhaps this helps you understand where myself and also I think Ken are coming from in the previous posts. To meaningfully define an objective (human) morality does not give this existence apart from human feelings and opinions, just independent of an individual persons feelings and opinions. If we can define and agree across a group of people as to what is good and bad from a consequences basis, then this by our definition and our context, that being the previously stated group of people, is objective morality
If on the other hand, you would like to view morality as good and bad from the context of the universe, and thus truly objective of human thoughts or feelings (in other words removed from humanity), then I think you have a problem there.
As Ken has stated, presupposing a god defined morality does not necessarily make this objective, as you now have a subjective morality based on the thoughts and feelings of one god, and if you look at those god defined morals from the context of human morals, then there could well be a disagreement. For example, old testament style vengeful and punishing god vs enlightenment style human rights. Which takes precedence in this situation? And doesn’t the shear fact that this is a posable question again undermine your arguments.
How could you possibly know what matters at the level of the universe. I mean, its is a pretty big place. I suspect that humanity itself probably does not mean much when looked from the context of the universe, and I for one would not like to presuppose what the universal significance of the human race is. This “human centric” path has been well traveled by various religions in the past, and perhaps underpins your problem here. To restate this; It is pretty obvious to me that you have started at your conclusion first (i.e god) and then tried to build a philosophical argument for your conclusion. The gaping gaps and jumps in your reasoning come because you have started with the premise of human god given centrality, so you have problems setting the context in which your “objectivity” is operating as you have assumed that everything relates to humans.
@197 Ever hear of synesthesia? Its a reasonably common occurrence (could be as high as 1 in 20) in humans where different sensory inputs get mixed and people quite literally hear colours, see sounds or most commonly perceive that numbers are innately coloured. As in 5’s are always green, etc…
As people have been saying, you will have to define to a much greater level, what you mean with objective, right and wrong, because they are pretty obviously not the same meanings that other people here have for those concepts. I actually think that if you were to analyse what you really mean with these words, you would find that you have built your god concept into these words at a basic level, which is why your argumentation makes sense to you, but not to anybody else who does have the same assumptions.
Sorry for the flood of posts, but I thought I would strike while the iron is hot.
Another point on the whole objective morality issue. To further stress the importance of the context in which you are considering objectivity
I don’t particularly like Stuarts Hitler example, so lets consider a hypothetical case. Lets start with an individual human, perhaps named Bob. Lets suppose that Bob becomes a strong believer in animal rights (perhaps he is radicalised down at his local juice bar ;-)), and dispairs the enslavement of and extinction of species that are the direct consequence of human actions. Lets also suppose that Bob, just happened to have access to a means to destroy humanity. Perhaps he works in a germ warfare lab or something like that. Now, what is the moral action for Bob to take? Should he destroy humanity? I would say that you would need to determine the context in which to consider the morality. Examples follow:
– From the context Bob, its hard to say what would be moral. We would probably have to ask Bob. I.e this will be pretty subjective to Bob’s thoughts and feelings.
– From the context of the human race, I think we could quite safely say that this action would be immoral, most people would agree that this is a bad outcome for humans.
– From the context of the universe. Who knows? Would the universe even notice? Perhaps the death of the human race would avoid some future potential catastrophe with universe shaking consequences, in which case it could be a good thing.
– From the context of a species of animal about to be made extinct through human actions, the death of the humans would probably be hugely beneficial. I.e. good.
And I could go on and on,,,, it gets a bit tricky for some of these contexts. How about from the context of sheep, or other domesticated food animals. From one angle could say that they are more successful being human food animals, more numerous etc… but from another point of view, they live a fraction of their normal life spans under humans. I think in the case of sheep, they are normally slaughtered at 6 months.
Given the complexity of the undertaking, perhaps its understandable that people would like for there to be easy answers and thus seek out dogmas that provide those easy answers. That does not make them right however.
Stuart said…”…you can’t see the category correctly.”
Oh I see.
You’re not really making an argument from ignorance.
Heck no!
It’s just that I (and everybody else) can’t “see the catagory correctly.
How convenient.
Aren’t you just special.
🙂
Stuart said…”Objective morals can’t arise out of nature.”
Really? How do you actually know this?
Even if this is true, how does this help you?
Think about it.
You are just waving you hands helplessly.
Read your postings here.
They are embarrassingly silly.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly having fun but…
🙂
Aren’t you just a wee bit uncomfortable making such a dopey argument….in PUBLIC?!?
“One of the problems with this sort of debate is that people use terms such as objectivity in different ways and with different meanings. Objective as a term is notoriously difficult to pin down anyway (hence the siren flames of post modernistic claptrap), …”
That’s why I took to referring to “objective in the manner you [Stuart] asked for”. Only, of course, he’s now re-defined it… typical strategy from creationists, I have to admit: if something doesn’t fit or you’re getting boxed in, re-define the terms…! (That he needs to, suggests rather strongly that he’s trying to find a way to avoid what people have shown him.)
“Lets make objective mean; outside of individual feelings or opinions. I think that we now have a definition of objectivity that is useful in a discussion on morality. Perhaps this helps you understand where myself and also I think Ken are coming from in the previous posts.”
This is the same as my own working definition, for what its worth. If I recall properly, it is also how Stuart originally defined it (I can’t be bothered searching back to find it). I agree with the approach you’re taking, if that’s worth anything.
Stuart:
“Objective morals can’t arise out of nature. Neither can rightness or wrongness.”
Bearing in mind Nick’s point about how you define “objective”: they can. Animals have evolved behaviour patterns that aid their survival. For animals that live in groups, these behaviours (have to) include how any one individual interacts with others. The origins of these behaviours aren’t dependent on feelings, but on that they are successful strategies that promote survival.
They may later have had what, in one context, we might consider “feelings” associated with them, being how brains have evolved to sense the hormones that drive behaviours and use this to derive an “emotional state” that can cause co-related activities useful for survival. This is not quite the meaning of “feelings” that you [Stuart] refer to as far as I can see. More practically, this is true for all people, so it cannot be a point of difference for atheists and theists. The only point of difference I can see is one that arises from the terms ‘atheist’ and ‘theist’ themselves: the latter believe in mythical beings that “instruct” them how to behave; the former don’t and can draw on conclusions based on material outside of a context of belief in a authoritarian mythical being. In the end, though I agree with Nick, most behaviour is actually “instinctive”: hormones pretty definitively and very powerfully define people’s emotional states and behaviour after all. Much of the religious “moral codes” are justifications as Ken said. Some simply codify accepted behaviour that we’d all agree on. Others justify some pretty immoral behaviour from the point of view of a secular population (but actions that probably serve(d) the “survival” of that particular religious meme).
Anyway, your latest post re-enforces that you are just making assertions that suit your religious needs. It means, for me, that there is no “debate”. That is, while your assertions show what you would like to be true, it also shows that you have no interest in working out if they are true or not. But, then, that’s the religious meme talking: “don’t question the morals of the gods”, which results in “their” words stated by fiat rather than reasoning.
Of course if you tweak the definition of objective to include feelings (on any level – even the whole human race) then its not objective any more – its subjective. But our intuitions tell us that the whole human race could be wrong. The whole human race was wrong once when you consider scientific facts especially like the flatness of the earth. But as we have good reasons to accept the earth is round, we also have good reasons for saying rape is never acceptable. There is no more reason to deny the objectivity of moral values than there is to deny the objectivity of the physical world.
You’re so close to perceiving the consequences of atheism. At the universal level our actions bear no significance, ergo there is no right and wrong on the universal level (according to your utilitarian ethic). What the whole human race does with itself is insignificant, so our petty projects matter not a whiff. In the grand scheme of things, the best we can do is get along and leap into the non-rational realm to actualise ourselves, pretending that what we do with our lives really matters. In a universe without God, nihilism is the rational end product, and the morals we form are no more significant that the dust on our feet.
Which only reinforces the first premise, If God does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
Cedric,
I know its a category mistake because the correct definition makes it so. (Nick, that God is not implied in that definition is obvious.) Many top class philosophers and ethicists have offered similar arguments for God’s existence, including Robert Adams, William Lane Craig, William Alston, Mark Linville, James Porter Morland, Paul Copan, John Hare and Stephen Evans – in public.
Heraclides,
I’ve already criticised the ethical naturalist’s position. You are just restating it.
And if those were objective (in the sense that I have been using it) moral values, then (1) its the genetic fallacy – for how we came to know something is irrelevant to the truth of the object of that belief, and (2) its enormously improbable that in the course of human evolution we would have struck upon the particular principles of right and wrong that were objective.
If social and biological evolution determines what is objective then given a different set of conditions and pressures it is entirely rational to think that actions such as rape, could have been right instead of wrong. As Michael Ruse asks, is rape right on Andromeda? But to say rape could ever be right is counter-intuitive. We believe its wrong – always has been, always will be, anywhere and everywhere we go.
The consistent thing to do on atheism is deny objective moral values. But as we can’t live without them and everything within us shouts there are things that are really right and really wrong (in my and the dictionaries ‘objective’ sense), you have to inconsistent with your view to decry injustice, or praise mercy, or else believe in objective moral values and believe in God.
Message to all,
It take your point that you’ll never be convinced (on this argument at least). Because I’ve wasted so much time chasing you guys who are running around in circles, unless you have a specific question or a new criticism that I haven’t yet addressed, I’ll take a break. Though don’t think this is waving the white flag. I still think the premises are well established, defined and plausibly true, and the logic sound. Heraclides, I don’t know who was deleting your posts. I myself would have left them on, as you admitted you didn’t want to interact with the argument. Ken, I would still like to hear your development of ‘moral logic’ if you have formulated it further. Nick, I think I do have the goods to establish God’s existence ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ with this and other arguments, so keep an eye out on http://www.thinkingmatters.org.nz 8)
“I have been talking about how ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have their foundation in reality.” That’s what I have been saying in my reference to ‘objectively-based morality.’ Actually Pinker says much the same things along the lines that human sentience is the reason we know torture and murder are wrong.
This is very different to ascribing them to a god. When right and wrong are ‘god-given – they are then determined subjectively by man (and it usually is a man – a pope, Imam, etc., etc.) and justified by authority – by claiming the particular moral claim is given by god – is the ‘word of god.’ God is the ‘ultimate authority’ and she authorises whatever her spokespeople want.
So the ‘objective morality’ becomes very much a subjective morality – and very much immoral. The subjective morality of the god-given ‘objective morality’ means that everything is permitted – as long as it is permitted by the leaders, Imam, Pope, etc.
Just take the mess religion makes of same sex relationships today – this sort of issue is much clearer to the secular ethicist.
“I’ve already criticised the ethical naturalist’s position. You are just restating it.”
No, you have misstated others’ position, then criticised that, rather than the position these people hold. Basically you rest it all on foisting something on others that is not true of them, from something you have derived from your religion’s (unjust) criticism of others. I would gather from your recent posts that you have no real interest in understanding what your line of argument actually breaks down to (Ken has some good words on that, and I agree). Instead you charge off with supposed inferences that don’t even follow logically from your initial (erroneous) starting point. That is partly why I was trying to get you to expand your argument to expose its premises, etc., in the first place.
And, no, I did not “restate it”, I elaborated on it, extending on some points that Nick and Ken introduced and gave some more concrete details. You are trying to dismiss my words (and the others’ words that I referred to) out of hand.
“You’re so close to perceiving the consequences of atheism. At the universal level our actions bear no significance, ergo there is no right and wrong on the universal level (according to your utilitarian ethic). … In a universe without God, nihilism is the rational end product, and the morals we form are no more significant that the dust on our feet.”
I am not heading the that direction at all: you are doing exactly what I just wrote about in my first paragraph again. Your paragraph includes several HUGE logical leaps… as well as your usual foisting things on others. Pretty typical of apologists in my experience: big logical leaps and flat assertions buried in a sea of words. In the end, all that seems to matter to you to issue your assertions that self-justify your religion.
Your “Message to all” is a bit of stunt, eh? Trying to foist all wrongs on others, not a and not whit of wrong to yourself, without bothering to consider that these criticism you throw at others apply to yourself more than anyone else in this thread…
“as you admitted you didn’t want to interact with the argument.”
No, I didn’t. I wrote saying that my initial post didn’t in response to you and Bnonn delivering a few terrible blood-rush-to-the-head responses to that post. In your keenness to attack me, you made out that post was directed “to the argument”: I explained it was directed to a particular poster as a follow-on to some remarks that they made, which I agreed with and not “to the argument”. I never said anything about not wanting to as you claim here. After all I have gone to considerable trouble here, haven’t I? Don’t you ever think and read others words for what they have written and not some meaning you want to inflict on them???
(I suspect Bnonn deleted my posts in fit a pique. His initial response to me was clearly a “rush of blood to the head” thing. I imagine that left him preferring to (hypocritically IMO) continue to attack me rather than back up and apologise.)
More seriously, I take this line as you writing this as trying to dismiss my posts: you seem careful not to give me any positive credit for anything 🙂 In my experience, that is a sign of trying to avoid facing someone’s valid observations 😉
“Though don’t think this is waving the white flag.”
Let’s see: You foist all wrong on others, do the routine “demand that others do the work” line, then excuse yourself. Someone shout me a Tui?
Stuart said…”In a universe without God, nihilism is the rational end product, and the morals we form are no more significant that the dust on our feet.”
Ah yes, dust.
No.354: ARGUMENT FROM DESTINY
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate destiny and my destiny is dust.
(2) I can’t accept that because I want more.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Stuart hits the re-set button with…”Which only reinforces the first premise, If God does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.”
Yep, good ol’ number 62.
No.62: ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that’s because they don’t want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
Stuart continues with…”I know its a category mistake because the correct definition makes it so.”
Oh yeah, that sounds convincing. NOT.
🙂
No.131: ARGUMENT FROM INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY
(1) [Christian posts argument.]
(2) [Atheist refutes argument.]
(3) Atheist, you obviously didn’t understand my argument.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Stuart said…”Many top class philosophers and ethicists have offered similar arguments for God’s existence…”
Actually, those people are not known as “top class philosophers” or “ethicists” they’re much better known as Christian apologists.
Why don’t you feel comfortable using that term?
Surely these people are honoured to be known as Christian apologists, right?
Does it surprise me that Christian apologists embarrass themselves in public by using No 62?
Not in the slightest.
Plenty of other apologists for other religions have invoked No.62.
Why should the Christian community be any different?
Tradition, tradition, tradition.
“If God does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.”
Let’s try that again, shall we?
If Agrona does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
If Chalchiuhticue does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
If Frigg does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
If Ereshkigal does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
Insert you own particular brand-name god. One size fits all.
No waiting.
Rince and repeat.
Stuart declares victory and pulls out with…”Because I’ve wasted so much time chasing you guys who are running around in circles, unless you have a specific question or a new criticism that I haven’t yet addressed, I’ll take a break.”
No.32: ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don’t give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Stuart gives once last squeek of defiance…”Though don’t think this is waving the white flag.”
Heavens no. You have self-evidently trounced us, Sir.
This is a glorious victory for you.
A tour-de-force of your intellectual prowess.
You’ve shown us the error of our ways with sweet reason and logic.
No doubt you will proudly link this thread to your own blog so that lurkers can read for themselves how you fared. Right?
(insert sound of crickets chirping here)
Stuart said…”I still think the premises are well established, defined and plausibly true, and the logic sound.”
Yes. How sad.
(shrug)
………………………………………………
Stuart said…”Heraclides, I don’t know who was deleting your posts.”
Maybe you should find out and take them to task?
This site, for example doesn’t censor anybody.
Yours does.
Hmmm.
Quick question for you.
How old do you think the Earth is?
Your buddy Bnonn thinks it’s 6000 years old.
So, naturally, I was curious as to how old you think the Earth is.
So, um, how old do you think it is?
(Just asking)
One quote from the blurb (and the reason for posting this here): “Read the latest research about how new species evolve, uncover the flaws in ‘intelligent design’, find out what evolution has to say about psychology, the development of the human mind and morality, and how we are still evolving, in this new book.”
CHICOPEE, Mass. (WWLP) – For more young people, always doing their own work in school and always telling the truth might be a thing of the past.
The Josephson Institute released its annual report card on the ethics of American youth.
In a survey of nearly 30,000 teens, over 30 percent admitted to stealing from a store within the past year. Fourty-two percent said they lied to save money and 64 percent admitted to cheating on a test.
Some Chicopee High School students told 22News it happens more than you think.
“There are definitely kids that are slacking, don’t do their work. They’re like, ‘can I copy?’ And other kids feel bad,” said Jeffrey Pula, a junior at Chicopee High School.
As for the reasons behind the dishonest behavior in some of their peers, these teens point to added pressures, laziness, and the need for some to show off.
Despite the high levels of dishonesty, respondents in this survey felt that they often do what’s right. A whopping 93 percent said they were satisfied with their personal ethics and character.
And you can find the report here, and all the numbers are up from the 2006 report:
So they are cheating, lying and stealing more. Yes, morality may be evolving – but is it getting “better?” And if cheating, lying and stealing helps one survive better then what’s the problem anyway?
I have just done a bit of a crawl through Wikipedia through various pages from Christian Apologetics, through to divine command theory etc… Apologies to Iapetus, who I think probably understands this stuff, but to me, a lot of this stuff sounds like the output from people with far too much time on their hands and some shonky first premises. Perhaps its a matter of sorting wheat from the chaff, but a lot of this stuff reads like arguments about fantasy. Make something up and then develop complex arguments for and against.
It seems as though all this dodgy thinking is just lying around waiting for people to stub their minds on. I am perhaps gaining a bit of insight into why I don’t understand half the things that our Christian Apologetic friends argue. Give a man a connection to Wikipedia and some conclusions that he wants to rationalise and Bobs your unkle.
This might sound a bit naive, but is there a concept of accepted philosophy? I.e. some sort of guide through the crap, or is all this stuff considered valid? Essentially, I am asking how credible this profession is.
It in nutshell: very little credibility 😉 I’ve seen several “professional” philosophers openly say that they think very little of these people and consider that they are defacing their field with their nonsense! 🙂
From the wikipedia entry to ‘Christian apologetics’: “Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.” (Of course, I am using wikipedia intentionally as a bit of a joke…!)
Point is, its a self-justification exercise. “Truth”, “accuracy”, even “honesty” don’t really have a lot to do with it in my experience. Anything that sounds plausible to them seems to be good enough. And it seems that the more they can make is sound “profound” and “complex” the better: easier to confuse the naïve into thinking it means something, I guess. (This is my main objection to James & Stuart, etc., using “philosophy”: they’re using to to obfuscate, not illuminate, they should be able to explain most of it without reference to philosophical terms, really.)
I’m sure that the more qualified people think that they are doing something worthwhile, but these people seem to have taken on board quite substantial assumptions before they start, in much the way that ID “scientists” sound when they try attack evolution.
“Perhaps its a matter of sorting wheat from the chaff, but a lot of this stuff reads like arguments about fantasy.”
I wouldn’t bother. You only have to pick up the odd logical leap and you’d quickly realise its a waste of time. Personally, I’d ask them to make a simple statement of their argument (as Ken does), then expose the premises, then ask them to justify the premises. The premises will invariably include “G-d exists” in one form or other by the very nature of what they are trying to promote or justify.
Their approach is a variation of the shotgun approach in some ways: present something complex enough with enough threads within it, and any opposition will never be able to address them all in a reasonable amount of time and beside the proponent can always start wriggling around using the slack in the “arguments” to drag it out.
FWIW, your reaction reminds me of writing to a Catholic priest about his blog post. Even after years of seeing the apologetic nonsense, I had this romantic notion that a priest would be someone more thoughtful, considerate, etc. In practice the guy proved even more conceited that many “ordinary” Catholics I’ve met, and did some amazingly hypocritical things (which, even more amazingly he “justified”!) In the end all I could say was “Pfffth”! 🙂
Why is it trolling Heraclides to present facts? The facts are that morals have evolved here in the states among the young (and I suspect it is the same in most western conutries) – they are getting more lazy and selfish. They lie, cheat and steal more. So if morality is evolving what is it evolving to? And if cheating and lying and being more selfish promotes better survival then why it is “wrong.”
Look at what just happened on Wall St. Hundreds of top level speculators, traders, CEOs, CFOs, etc.. gamed the system and walked away will billions – while gutting the 401ks of hard working folks. I personally know people who lost over half of their retirement funds. Did any one go to jail, no, what they did was deeply unethical, but not illegal. So they sit in their gated communities, with their private security and private jets and laugh at the “suckers.”
And you Heraclides have nothing to say to such men…
What if, hypothetically speaking, it’s true.
So what?
Even if you don’t like it, invoking No.62 doesn’t get you anywhere.
Then, the fact remains, no behavior is objectively better than it’s opposite. So in the future spare us your irrational moral outrage when Muslims stone a young woman for adultery – it’s merely a part of nature…
Stuart has run off with his tail between his legs.Apologiannick fared no better.
You are joking right?
If, for the sake of argument, it is true….then what?
And that wasn’t my point, this was my point: So in the future spare us your irrational moral outrage when Muslims stone a young woman for adultery – it’s merely a part of nature…
So can we expect you to spare us your inane and irrational moral outrage over simple acts of nature in the future?
Hmm.
Somebody got a little steamed and forgot to log on with his handle.
Oh dear.
🙂
“You are joking right?”
About what? Do you see either of them still here?
Was there something powerful about their arguments that you found particularly inspiring?
No? Well, neither did the rest of us.
You can only go so far with hapless hand waving.
You certainly had nothing to contribute while Stuart and Apologiannick were around.
In fact, you were conspicuous by you absence.
Oh well, better luck next time.
“So can we expect you to spare us your inane and irrational moral outrage over simple acts of nature in the future?”
James? James?
You’ve tried this before. It didn’t work.
Repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it all you like.
It.
Doesn’t.
Work.
If your going to ever make a successful argument, then you have to actually pay attention to what people are saying. Not what you want them to say.
Otherwise, you’re just babbling to yourself.
The lonely, embittered man all by himself in the corner that the others show tolerance and pity for.
I took a break, that’s all. I do have other things to do that this. I’m only back to share my observations of the conversation since I left. The invective from the arguments detractors is at an all time high. But the refutation is at an all time low. It seems to me the repetition from the theistic side is far surpassed by the repetition from the atheistic side, and is only due to the lack of interaction with the actual argument.
Cedric, you number 62’s etc., are comical misrepresentations of the actual argument. Straw men all of them. And the list of apologists I gave, who have all defended and presented moral arguments for God’s existence, are ethicists and philosophers in their own right. There’s no dishonesty there. Some of these are apologists are eminent philosophers so mocking them is ad hominem and simply ridicule of the arguments because they came from apologists is the genetic fallacy. Please take my advice and read Proverbs 17:28.
Funny, I swear Stuart is now resorting to trolling!
“I’m only back to share my observations of the conversation since I left.”
Let’s see now. I was “banned” from your thread for (supposedly) not contributing, for sharing my observation about your arguments to another poster following that poster making similar observations that I agreed with. And here I find you stating that you are posting to not contribute, but observe… the very thing that you and Bnonn howled at me for and had me “banned” for… You wouldn’t want to be called a hypocrite, would you?
PS: If you read my post correctly, you might have inferred that your apologists are only “eminent” in the eyes of other apologists’ and their followers’, not in other philosophers’ eyes 😉 I have read comments about apologists by philosophers and to be polite, they don’t consider apologists to be philosophers, they see them as people who abuse “philosophy” to market their cause. That’s the opinion of those philosophers, not me: you’re attacking the wrong person. But then, you often seem to.
PPS: I think that proverb suits is appropriate for you to consider. Let me give you some more advice: don’t criticise others of things you do yourself. Your post is a very fine example of this. Literally every thing you have criticised others of in it, you have done, or are doing, yourself.
If you read my post correctly, you might have inferred that your apologists are only “eminent” in the eyes of other apologists’ and their followers’, not in other philosophers’ eyes
That is nonsense Heraclides. Men like Plantinga, Alston, Wolterstorff, Berkely, Locke, Descartes, Thomas Reid, Kierkegaard, Anselm, William of Ockham, Aquinas, etc, etc, etc… Have been, or are, well respected christian philosophers and apologists. Respected in the field of philosophy.
Stuart said…”I’m only back to share my observations of the conversation since I left.”
Nothing new to add then? Hmm, pity.
“But the refutation is at an all time low.”
Refutation?
Try reading the comments here.
No.62 does not work.
It’s not just wrong. It’s famous for being wrong.
Stuart said…”Cedric, you number 62’s etc., are comical misrepresentations of the actual argument.”
(Not according to James, our local troll. He LOVES No.62.)
Besides, imagine how much more powerful your assertion that No.62 is just a strawman would be if you, y’know, actually DEMONSTRATED how No.62 is a strawman.
I know it’s a radical thought!
Yet I’m sure we would all be interested to read your simple, honest step-by-step explanation.
How is your argument radically different from No.62?
As Heraclidies said…”Pretty typical of apologists in my experience: big logical leaps and flat assertions buried in a sea of words. In the end, all that seems to matter to you to issue your assertions that self-justify your religion.”
Deal with your logical leaps and assertions.
Otherwise, you are offering nothing but No.62.
………………………………………………….
“And the list of apologists I gave…”
Apologists? So NOW they’re suddenly apologists?
After I looked them up and found out that they were apologists?
NOW they have the title “apologist”?
Ok then. Thank you for being honest.
Stuart…”Some of these are apologists are eminent philosophers so mocking them is ad hominem…”
Some? Some?? SOME???
That’s NOT what you said before.
What did I call them Stuart? Apologists.
Is calling them apologists some kind of slur?
Am I MOCKING them by calling them apologists?
Surely not.
I’m sure they are all proud to be called apologists, right?
You have no problem calling them apologists, yeah?
That’s not an “ad hominem”, right?
Here’s what you originally said…”Many top class philosophers and ethicists have offered similar arguments for God’s existence.”
Top class philosophers and ethicists have offered arguments for God’s existence?
WOW. Stop the presses. Film at eleven!
Now we have…..
Apologists (some of whom are considered eminent philosophers by other like-minded Christians) have all defended and presented moral arguments for God’s existence.
Stuart said…”I took a break, that’s all. I do have other things to do that this.”
Fair enough.
James, however, does not have other things to do than this.
Aren’t we all lucky?
🙂
James is our own local version of Brother Micah. http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=EdPaouPz2yY
So Stuart, who is the Big Brother that is censoring comments at your site?
What did you find out?
Do you appreciate the fact that your comments don’t quietly disappear around here?
Not even James’?
…………………………………………..
Quick question for you.
How old do you think the Earth is?
Your buddy Bnonn thinks it’s 6000 years old.
So, naturally, I was curious as to how old you think the Earth is.
So, um, how old do you think it is?
(Just asking)
James, firstly, as I wrote, I am not the person who wrote this: you are criticising the wrong person. Secondly, you can nay-say all you like, but I have read non-apologetic philosophers rather “robustly” dismiss the apologetic arguments of these people. While their names may be well-known, this does not mean that their arguments are well regarded today. Thirdly some people go right off the rails, some through age, others through religious “conversion”: the results can be stunning declines of otherwise good (wo)men.
However, Christian apologists seem to live in a different, intolerant, world. They seem to feel the need to continually “prove” their god exists – and to pass judgement on people who think differently to them. Any whiff of atheism is an excuse to come down hard with their judgements, criticisms and lectures. Particularly weird is their claim that they know what atheists “really believe and think” – and their insistence in telling them so.
Afterthought:
Open Parachute 
This gets particularly silly when they tell others they have no basis for their morality. A recent local example from the “Thinking Matters” apologist group is their article Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler. In this they claim atheists have no basis for their morality and therefore cannot criticise Hitler!
Well Ken, I think you should, and hope you do, criticise Hitler. Having no objective basis for human worth or human morality should not prevent you from offering an ethical opinion. But if there is no objective standard for moral law then it is just opinion – preference. And if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite. And that is “reality.”
LikeLike
I guess the Christian Identity and Kingdom Identity people claim an objective basis for their moral opinions in their god. And they use this to justify a white supremacist position – like Hitler’s. I don’t think there position is valid – and I make that judgement without presupposing a god. I think you do the same.
LikeLike
I guess the Christian Identity and Kingdom Identity people claim an objective basis for their moral opinions in their god. And they use this to justify a white supremacist position – like Hitler’s. I don’t think there position is valid – and I make that judgement without presupposing a god. I think you do the same.
Again Ken, that does not deal with my point:if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite. And that is “reality.”
And if you know any Christian Identity people invite them here, I will be happy to destroy their position biblically. I have done it before…
LikeLike
A simple declaration “if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite” proves nothing. It can be used to justify white supremacy or the ‘thinking matters’ diktat that the Dalia Lama shouldn’t declare a moral position. It can be used to justify terrorist acts, wars, interference in basic human rights, etc., etc.
James, if you want to advance a model to explain human ethics you will have to do better than a dogmatic declaration. And from previous comments I know you cannot do better.
In the meantime you and your ‘thinking matters’ mates have no moral authority to deny ethical decision-making to others. And that goes for me and my mates as well as the Dalai Lama.
LikeLike
A telling response from Stuart at Thinking Matters. (it’s a bit weird for a discussion to be carried out on separate blog sites. However, ‘Thinking Matters’ does have a policy of selectively preventing comments so it is simpler, and less wasteful, to give my own response to Stuart here).
Stuart confirms an apologist position of denying a moral position to non-theists. However, he criticises me for not presenting an explanation for atheists having moral positions. Perhaps Stuart should check out some of the discussions presented here previously (eg. Where do our morals come from? and others).
However, the point about Stuart’s position is that his apologist model just doesn’t correspond with reality (i.e. non-theists do take up moral stands and on matters like Hitler they are generally consistent). So, however we try to explain that, the one thing we do know is that the apologist position is clearly wrong.
It seems to me pretty obvious that one should not retain a false model – even if one does not currently have an alternative explanation. In fact, clinging on to a falsehood (as Stuart does) only prevents the search for a correct explanation.
LikeLike
No one says that atheists can’t be moral or make moral judgments. That’s been said numerous times. The question is, upon what foundation is that judgment built? What is the standard for good and evil? Can you demonstrate one?
There’s a reason many atheists I meet are consistent moral relativists.
LikeLike
It seems to me that all this is building towards is the far off conclusion that atheists have a complex, socially-constructed, agile, communitarian basis for morality, and theists have a rigid, archaic, inadaptive one with no factual basis whatsoever.
LikeLike
James said…”But if there is no objective standard for moral law then it is just opinion – preference. And if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite. And that is “reality.”.
No 62: ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that’s because they don’t want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
LikeLike
@ apologianick:
“No one says that atheists can’t be moral or make moral judgments.” – well actually ‘Thinking matters’ did say Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler. They clearly claim atheists like the Dalai Lama are incapable of making moral judgements.
And, yes, it is possible to understand how we make moral judgements and society does develop standards of ethics and morality. We don’t have to believe in a god to do this. In fact, research shows that people’s morality is generally independent of their religious beliefs.
Instead of attacking others these apologists should spend some time and effort in presenting a reasonable model for how they develop their own moral positions – because this is certainly not obvious from their writings.
LikeLike
Of course their morality is independent of religious beliefs. It’s called Natural Law which is spoken of even in Scripture and teaches that God has placed the concepts of right and wrong inside the hearts of people.
And we don’t, as it were, develop our moral positions, but develop the morality of mankind. It is the common morality we are all to share. It is based on God though and his goodness being his being and thus having goodness be that which is in accord with the design of God.
You might want to read some thinkers on Natural Law.
Now if someone says atheists are incapable of making moral judgments, they are wrong. But the question is what is the basis and if we just have the society determining morality, which society? Is one society better than another? How can we know without something outside the two to compare them that is absolute and objective?
LikeLike
A simple declaration “if there is no God then no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite” proves nothing. It can be used to justify white supremacy or the ‘thinking matters’ diktat that the Dalia Lama shouldn’t declare a moral position. It can be used to justify terrorist acts, wars, interference in basic human rights, etc., etc.
Of course it proves something Ken, it proves that no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite. That my friend is “reality based.” And if can prove otherwise please state you case – you have not done so, so far…
LikeLike
Apologianick said…”It is the common morality we are all to share. It is based on God though and his goodness being his being and thus having goodness be that which is in accord with the design of God.”
It is the common morality we are all to share. It is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster though and his goodness being his being and thus having goodness be that which is in accord with the design of His Noodliness.
Apologianick said…”How can we know without something outside the two to compare them that is absolute and objective?”
No 62: ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that’s because they don’t want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
…………………………………………………
James waves his hands in confusion thusly…”Of course it proves something Ken, it proves that no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite.”
Huh?
LikeLike
James waves his hands in confusion thusly…”Of course it proves something Ken, it proves that no opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite.”
Huh?
You can’t read english? In a godless universe no moral opinion is more vaild or correct than its opposite… If you think that conclusion is incorrect please make an argument…
LikeLike
James said…”You can’t read english?”
No, I can read English.
Thanks for asking.
Can you read in English?
(giggle)
James hits the reset button with…”In a godless universe no moral opinion is more vaild or correct than its opposite… If you think that conclusion is incorrect please make an argument…”
Oh you’re just repeating yourself?
Ok.
For a moment there I thought you were trying something different.
Perhaps it would be easier for all of us if you just referred to the index number of your cookie-cutter argument.
In this case it’s No. 62.
(shrug)
LikeLike
For a moment there I thought you were trying something different.
The truth of the argument doesn’t change Cedric, and remains valid, just because you are tired of hearing it makes no difference… And the fact that you have no counter, isn’t my fault…
Are you going to cut and paste something now?
LikeLike
James said…”The truth of the argument doesn’t change Cedric, and remains valid…”
James, why do you suppose that people think that No.62 is..well…silly?
James said…”And the fact that you have no counter, isn’t my fault…”
No need to apologise for that.
It’s not that No. 62 really needs a counter.
It’s just that people who invoke No.62 are making a logically flawed argument.
No.62 isn’t just wrong.
Its FAMOUS for being wrong.
Look it up. People have actually heard of this argument before.
It failed to impress then.
It fails to impress now.
Repeat it all you like.
Bore us to death with you plodding slow-witted nature.
(Now that’s something you should be apologising for!)
😉
Repeat yourself and repeat yourself and repeat yourself.
If that’s how you want to spend your life, go for it.
Advertise to the world that you have nothing new to add.
You think that No.62 is a humdinger of an argument.
Well, there you go. Good for you.
We get it already.
Ok?
LikeLike
You: It is the common morality we are all to share. It is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster though and his goodness being his being and thus having goodness be that which is in accord with the design of His Noodliness.
Me: Actually, this doesn’t really deal with what I say but tries to pin it on another deity. I haven’t even said the Christian deity, although that’s the one I believe in. You’ve still put the solution in something outside of humanity. Now if you want to know why I believe in the concept of an infinite being whose existence is his essence and whose goodness is his essence, that’s another discussion. This one is simply on whether atheism has a basis for morality and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.
You: No 62: ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
Me: Not saying that either. It’s not conclusive, but it does lend itself to that belief and we will have to examine other factors.
You: (2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
Me: Not at all! There are some who believe in absolute morality. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins both argue such, but Dawkins especially in the God Delusion makes the same mistake our blogger is making here. No one is asserting that atheists have no absolute moral standards. It is asserted they have no ontological basis. As for the rest of this, it’s just childish. There are some atheists that are better people I think than Christians. The question is though still, upon what basis does the atheist determine what is good?
LikeLike
@ apologianick:
“No one is asserting that atheists have no absolute moral standards.” – you are ignoring the fact that the Thinking Matter blog is actually saying Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler.
However, I guess from your comment that you actually agree that ‘thinking Matters’ is wrong. That’s progress.
“Upon what basis does the atheist determine what is good?” – I have argued here for a moral logic based on the objective fact that we are separate sentient beings, and also based on our evolution as a social species. This appears, in my view, to be the basis for all humans – despite their different religious beliefs. The fact that we arrive at our morality in basically the same way helps explain why we can reach agreement on things like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
If you don’t agree with this and think that you arrive at your morality in a different way – then surely you should answer the question: “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
I have yet to seen any convincing answer to this which doesn’t (on closer examination and removal of metaphor and hyperbole) resolve into the answer I give for atheist and theist alike.
LikeLike
No. 62 is a complete straw man. That’s not the argument I put forward. I, like you Cedrick, think it is a ridiculous argument. That brings me to another straw man of Ken’s. I have never argued that Atheists cannot criticise Hitler. I have argued that they should not, if they cannot ground that beliefs beyond personal feelings. I have repeated over and over in the articles I have written that when an atheist makes a moral judgement they are being inconsistent with their worldview. Obviously they are free to be inconsistent and often are. The very word should implies that atheists do already make moral judgements.
The very notion of tolerance implies that one disagrees with the other. If one agreed with the other, then one wouldn’t need to tolerate them, would they? In any case, we are not passing judgement on you, or being intolerant of you – only your ideas. Ideas that we argue, do not comport with reality.
LikeLike
I have argued that they should not, if they cannot ground that beliefs beyond personal feelings.
How is my personal opinion necessarily any more subjective that Paul’s or Matthew’s? Matthew I don’t mind – quite progressive for his time. Paul I consider an ogre. I do no see any evidence that these men’s opinion are an ‘objective’ basis for morality. Not anymore so than any other men’s opinions.
LikeLike
19:
Cedrick’s posting ‘No. 62’ was addressed to Apologianick, so why write as if it were addressed to you? (“That’s not the argument I put forward.”) Unless you claim to also be Apologianick 🙂 Read more carefully, maybe?
Regards what you did write: I would like to think that you’d agree that repeating something doesn’t make it any more correct and that writing high-hand phrases that can be read as put-downs, like “The very word”, will suggest to some readers that you hold contempt others. Contempt, of course, implies intolerance and judgement. (Or perhaps more accurately, arises from intolerance and judgement. But, whatever, you get the gist of what I mean.)
More practically, the objection to Hitler is grounded in reasoning beyond personal feelings (please note I’m not using the word ‘belief’, but ‘reasoning’). I believe some of this has already been explained on this blog before, so I’ll stop at this point.
LikeLike
@ Stuart:
“when an atheist makes a moral judgement they are being inconsistent with their world view. ” – Well, as an atheist, I disagree. And I think it is the height of arrogance for someone to tell me what I should think – based on their inadequate understanding of my “world view.” (“World view” is a quaint little term I first came across in Soviet Communist philosophical writings in the 60s).
However, what I do notice is the complete avoidance of Christian apologeticians making a detailed presentation of their own theory of morality – free of hand waving, metaphor and rhetoric. I, for one, would be very interested in a brief summary here.
This seems to be a strong parallel to creationist/ID arguments which don’t (on the positive side) go any further than the claim “god did it.” Instead they concentrate on the negatives – searching for real and imagine “gaps” in scientific knowledge to discredit it. Here apologetics concentrates on their imagined dilemma for atheists instead of presenting a positive case of their own morality.
Personally I have no problem in finding a consistency between my “world view” and my moral judgements. However, Stuart, I would be interested in you connecting your own world view and moral judgements – in their own right without justification by disparagement of others.
Currently I cannot see, for example, how a theist “world view” morality can be used to arrive at a decision such as whether or not to stone a 13 year old girl for the crime of having been the victim of rape. Justifying it either way, perhaps (as was done recently) – but not an objective source to base a moral decision on.
LikeLike
You: However, I guess from your comment that you actually agree that ‘thinking Matters’ is wrong. That’s progress.
Me: Hard to call it progress since you don’t know any of my past positions. I’m all for criticism of a position. It’s a free market of ideas. I just want to make sure the ideas have a foundation behind them.
You: I have argued here for a moral logic based on the objective fact that we are separate sentient beings, and also based on our evolution as a social species. This appears, in my view, to be the basis for all humans – despite their different religious beliefs. The fact that we arrive at our morality in basically the same way helps explain why we can reach agreement on things like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Me: That doesn’t answer the question. Before you arrive at some idea of goodness, you have to know what goodness is. How is this known in an atheistic world? How do you determine it. You can say “We have a map to get to Baltimore,” but if you don’t know what that is, how would you know if you had ever arrived? Maybe you arrived in Philadelphia and thought it was Baltimore.
You: If you don’t agree with this and think that you arrive at your morality in a different way – then surely you should answer the question: “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
Me: Already answered it and it would go back to first realizing that good is a transcendental like Plato did. We do not determine what is good. We discover what is good. I’d also go to Aristotle who told us good is that which is desirable for its own sake. Then I’d go to Augustine and Aquinas and show how being is goodness and God fits the criteria as a being of pure actuality whose existence is his essence. Goodness is that which fits the nature of the design that God made it and goodness is being.
You: I have yet to seen any convincing answer to this which doesn’t (on closer examination and removal of metaphor and hyperbole) resolve into the answer I give for atheist and theist alike.
Me: I’m curious if you’ve ever read any ancient work or have just stuck to moderns.
LikeLike
23:
Two very quick points as I have to go:
Firstly, I find it hard to read your posts as you don’t refer to other post numbers, or say show “You” is. After some searching on the page for the words you have written next to “You”, I deduced that it’s Ken; there are several others posters in this thread, y’know 😉 You also don’t quote what subsequently appear to be quotes, so readers have to keep checking if they are literal quotes, or your putting his meaning in your own words.
Secondly, from your post 23: “We discover what is good.” I think if you read a little, you’d find that evolution also discovers what is good (for the species), too, through trial and error.
Regards your final sentence in post 23 and in the spirit of tit-for-tat: I for one wonder if you read anything outside of apologetics 😉 I know others seem to do this: it has the effect of re-enforcing what they want to be true, since they only read words that agree with the position they already hold. Its also has the effect of not exploring an issue, as the reading is limited to particular positions (essentially the positions the reader started with).
LikeLike
“Actually, this doesn’t really deal with what I say but tries to pin it on another deity.”
Ah, you spotted that. did you?
I’ll give you credit for being quicker on the uptake than James. He still hasn’t figured that one out.
Doesn’t even have to be another deity. Pixies, the spirit of Elvis, teapots in orbit around Jupiter etc., it’s all good.
“I haven’t even said the Christian deity, although that’s the one I believe in.”
Did you really have to? The capital “G” in God and the fact that you did not use an article before God made it a pretty good guess that you were talking about the deity commonly associated with the Mormons, Pentacostals, Catholics etc.
If you want to get all obscure about what you were referring to then…fine.
“You’ve still put the solution in something outside of humanity.”
No. I’m just taking your solution and inserting the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make a point.
I don’t regard your position as a solution at all.
Far from it.
“Now if you want to know why I believe in the concept of an infinite being whose existence is his essence and whose goodness is his essence, that’s another discussion.”
So you’re not going to talk endlessly about your god?
Thank you.
If only other people could display good manners like yours.
(Hint: James, I’m looking at you!)
“This one is simply on whether atheism has a basis for morality…”
I have’t breathed a word about atheism.
I am not claiming to have an answer on the basis of human morality. I don’t know.
I leave that sort of thing to the philosophers and the psychologists and the anthropologists of the world.
“…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
….and visa-versa, yes? Excellent.
😉
In any case,I never claimed this. Nobody here is claiming this.
The only person that indulges in such fuzzy-headed thinking is James.
He believes in No.62.
(shrug)
“Not saying that either. It’s not conclusive, but it does lend itself to that belief…”
It lends itself to that belief?
(…pause…)
Really?
How convenient.
So a god that you just so happen to already worship, happens to fit the bill?
Not some other god?
Not the FSM? Or pink unicorns?
The first cab off the rank of possibilities happens to be…you very own “brand-name” god?
Lucky you. You got in on the ground floor.
“No one is asserting that atheists have no absolute moral standards.”
No one? NO ONE?
Are you sure you want to say this?
(Hint: Read some of the postings by a certain troll on this board. Ask yourself, where did he get his ideas from.)
“There are some atheists that are better people I think than Christians. The question is though still, upon what basis does the atheist determine what is good?”
Shall we just cut to the chase?
You have the pre-packaged answer, right?
This is the beginning of a long and dreary discussion that starts of sounding sciency, yet somehow ends up in theology. Not just any theology either (oh no!), it’s going to end up in Christian theology.
During the discussion, you will be dissatisfied with any of the mundane possibilities that science suggests….and so you will invoke your god to fill in the gap.
Ok.
So we have…
“”There are some atheists that are better people I think than Christians. The question is though still, upon what basis does the atheist determine what is good?”
Which will lead us to what number?
Perhaps No.474?
No.474: ARGUMENT FROM SKEWED ASSUMPTIONS
(1) You’re an atheist? But you’re so nice!
(2) I just assumed you were a Christian.
(3) The niceness must be the light of God shining in you, whether you know it or not.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
LikeLike
I think the idea of atheists showing moral outrage is rather irrational. They are in essence complaining about purely natural acts. And said outrage does not extend to other equally disturbing acts of nature like a pack of wolves ripping a elk apart. So why this selective outrage, especially considering the fact that we are determined beings? And I will again quote from Dawkins. And if you think I’m quote mining, then show me where the obvious meaning is incorrect – read the link !
Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics.
Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame…
But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment.
Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.
There you have it. We determined beings,our brains are governed by the laws of physics. A “truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility.” And the ideas of blame and responsibility are useful fictions.
LikeLike
James said…”So why this selective outrage, especially considering the fact that we are determined beings?”
Yes, James.
You’ve asked this question before.
Multiple times on multiple threads.
You seem to be really concerned by it.
The answer eludes you still? That’s very sad.
Think harder, James. Think real hard.
Why do you suppose that people who don’t happen to go to your church have moral outrage?
Why, James, why?
You have clearly convinced yourself that it’s irrational for them to do so.
Congratulations. Nurture that certainty. It’s all yours.
Yet,and yet, despite your convictions, they do.
Strange, huh?
Think hard, James. Think really hard.
Maybe the answer will come to you.
Don’t give up.
(giggle)
LikeLike
James you keep repeating this “In a godless universe no moral opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite” when this is obviously ridiculous. As I and many others have told you again and again in this blog, there are many scientific studies that demonstrate that our moral mechanisms are built into us and largely inaccessible: they have been hard-wired by evolutionary processes. God is not necessary for us to understand what is morally right or wrong. Neuroscience has even identified certain areas in the brain that are part of our moral machinery. Further, patients with damage in those parts of the brain demonstrate immoral behaviour and lack of understanding of moral conflicts.
Also, how does God provide objective moral guidelines? Through the Bible? And I will repeat to you once again that the Bible is open to many different interpretations.
Further, this other stupid statement of yours, that there has not been moral advancement but only a change in opinions: only mentally retarded (or religious) people do not consider our moral jumps throughout the last two centuries as advancement. EVERYONE understands that the steps to abolish slavery, provide equal rights to everyone etc etc are advances in our moral books and not just different opinions. If they were just opinions how do you explain the fact that we ALWAYS move towards better moral guidelines instead of the backwards direction?
Finally, of course you are quote mining again. Dawkins in between what you mention also says this:
“Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution.”
So there it is: good and evil are indeed parts of us. And we do not simply dismiss immoral behaviours: we have developed more sophisticated mechanisms. But you just bypassed that inconvenient part, right James?
LikeLike
Stavros said…”As I and many others have told you again and again in this blog, there are many scientific studies that demonstrate…”
And again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again etc.
Hit that re-set button James.
Hit it.
Don’t let carpal tunnel symptoms slow you down.
Keep going.
DON’T GIVE UP!
Think hard, James. Think really hard.
“So why this selective outrage, especially considering the fact that we are determined beings?”
Yep. No denying it. That’s a real toughie.
If only you could find an answer.
Think, James.
Think.
LikeLike
>b>James you keep repeating this “In a godless universe no moral opinion is more valid or correct than its opposite” when this is obviously ridiculous. As I and many others have told you again and again in this blog, there are many scientific studies that demonstrate that our moral mechanisms are built into us and largely inaccessible: they have been hard-wired by evolutionary processes.
How is my claim that no moral opinion is more valid than its opposite “obviously ridiculous?” Are you not making my point when you say we are “hard wired?” Why is one person’s hard wiring more morally correct than another person’s hard wiring? Answer this and we can move on to your other points…
LikeLike
No Cedric, it’s really time you start thinking and answer the question. As matter of fact deal with Dawkin’s quotes…
LikeLike
James said…”How is my claim that no moral opinion is more valid than its opposite “obviously ridiculous?”
Yes, James.
Exactly. How could anybody consider your claim ridiculous.
Pshaw!
Think hard, James. Think hard.
James said…”No Cedric, it’s really time you start thinking and answer the question.”
I’m not losing sleep over it.
I’m not the one that has an obsessive-compulsive disorder that forces me to endlessly hit the re-set button.
You have a question that you need the answer to?
Wonderful.
Not my problem.
Think hard, James.
““So why this selective outrage, especially considering the fact that we are determined beings?”
Yes, James.
Think hard.
(giggle)
LikeLike
James if you had any idea about biology (or any field of science for what matters) you would know that the wiring is the same in all people. What differs is the cultural upbringing that fine-tunes (an expression you really like) some of the available machinery based on the environment and the social norms the person is raised in. In a single sentence: the moral machinery is the same in all of us, some parameters only change depending on the environment. But the machinery defines the limits of how much the environment can shape our moral book.
Your statement “in a godless universe…” is ridiculous because it has been pointed out to you many times (and now again) that we DO have some sort of universally accepted moral guidelines hard-wired to our brains.
LikeLike
#31 James did you not see my reply (#28) regarding Dawkins’ quotes?!?
LikeLike
#31 James did you not see my reply (#28) regarding Dawkins’ quotes?!?
So there it is: good and evil are indeed parts of us. And we do not simply dismiss immoral behaviours: we have developed more sophisticated mechanisms. But you just bypassed that inconvenient part, right James?
Yes I did miss it, I was focusing on your first claim. Do you agree that assigning blame and responsibility are useful “fictions?” Is our sense of responsibility is a “fiction?”
Your statement “in a godless universe…” is ridiculous because it has been pointed out to you many times (and now again) that we DO have some sort of universally accepted moral guidelines hard-wired to our brains.
Tell that to the Satlinists who ran the gulags or the radical Muslims this week in Bombay. Why is your hard wiring more morally correct than theirs?
LikeLike
“Why is your hard wiring more morally correct than theirs?”
It’s not MY wiring: EVERYONE condemns these kind of actions! Even the criminals themselves can understand the consequences and probably know the immorality of their actions (unless they’re psychopaths or mentally challenged -which might be true for the muslims as is for many dogmatists like Stalin as well). This is not a matter of moral understanding: those people have an agenda they are trying to promote by all means.
LikeLike
To Heraclides:
Two very quick points as I have to go:
Firstly, I find it hard to read your posts as you don’t refer to other post numbers, or say show “You” is. After some searching on the page for the words you have written next to “You”, I deduced that it’s Ken; there are several others posters in this thread, y’know You also don’t quote what subsequently appear to be quotes, so readers have to keep checking if they are literal quotes, or your putting his meaning in your own words.
My reply: Very well.
Heraclides: Secondly, from your post 23: “We discover what is good.” I think if you read a little, you’d find that evolution also discovers what is good (for the species), too, through trial and error.
Me: Which doesn’t address the problem as it still has good as a transcendental and can there really be a transcendental in a naturalistic worldview?
Heraclides: Regards your final sentence in post 23 and in the spirit of tit-for-tat: I for one wonder if you read anything outside of apologetics I know others seem to do this: it has the effect of re-enforcing what they want to be true, since they only read words that agree with the position they already hold. Its also has the effect of not exploring an issue, as the reading is limited to particular positions (essentially the positions the reader started with).
Me: Yep. I’ve read a number of atheistic writings as well as writings of the ancients including Plato and Aristotle and in history Plutarch and Tacitus. I believe in being well-read in many areas.
LikeLike
To Heraclides:
Two very quick points as I have to go:
Firstly, I find it hard to read your posts as you don’t refer to other post numbers, or say show “You” is. After some searching on the page for the words you have written next to “You”, I deduced that it’s Ken; there are several others posters in this thread, y’know You also don’t quote what subsequently appear to be quotes, so readers have to keep checking if they are literal quotes, or your putting his meaning in your own words.
My reply: Very well.
Heraclides: Secondly, from your post 23: “We discover what is good.” I think if you read a little, you’d find that evolution also discovers what is good (for the species), too, through trial and error.
Me: Which doesn’t address the problem as it still has good as a transcendental and can there really be a transcendental in a naturalistic worldview?
Heraclides: Regards your final sentence in post 23 and in the spirit of tit-for-tat: I for one wonder if you read anything outside of apologetics I know others seem to do this: it has the effect of re-enforcing what they want to be true, since they only read words that agree with the position they already hold. Its also has the effect of not exploring an issue, as the reading is limited to particular positions (essentially the positions the reader started with).
Me: Yep. I’ve read a number of atheistic writings as well as writings of the ancients including Plato and Aristotle and in history Plutarch and Tacitus. I believe in being well-read in many areas.
LikeLike
“Do you agree that assigning blame and responsibility are useful “fictions?” Is our sense of responsibility is a “fiction?””
James do not try to distort what Dawkins is saying, you are putting too much emphasis on the word “fiction” as used in everyday contexts. Do not try to make something out of nothing (after all you don’t like that right?). Dawkins specifically says that it is a useful mechanism we have developed (kind of as rules of thumb) in order to be able to quickly make moral judgements and decisions on conflicting issues.
LikeLike
It’s not MY wiring: EVERYONE condemns these kind of actions! Even the criminals themselves can understand the consequences and probably know the immorality of their actions (unless they’re psychopaths or mentally challenged -which might be true for the muslims as is for many dogmatists like Stalin as well). This is not a matter of moral understanding: those people have an agenda they are trying to promote by all means.
Stavros, now you are reading minds?. The Stalinist may, like the Muslim, believe that what they are doing is for the greater good (of state or god). You have no idea what they think. And the fact is the Stalinist and the radical Muslim actually do these things. So what if they think this is “wrong?” Didn’t Dawkins say that our sense of responsibility is a re “fiction?” What obligation to we have to listen to our conscience in a godless universe. How is our conscience morally binding?
LikeLike
Hey Nick, did you ever post on Theology Web?
LikeLike
James I am not reading minds, others have done it for me: which part of “lots of scientific studies” did you not understand? The fact that some people overcome their moral guidelines in order to selfishly defect and make some sort of gains on other expenses doesn’t mean that we have no moral guidelines at all! And keep in mind that many Christians who supposedly get their morals from God, very often do immoral actions.
It is in human nature to try to defect sometimes for personal gains (or because they’re mentally problematic). That’s why society has developed means for punishing those that defect. There will always be humans that play by their moral books and humans that overcome those (for whatever reason) and act immorally. This is only natural to expect. It certainly doesn’t change the fact that we DO have some sort of objective morals hard-wired.
Our conscience is not morally binding, and morality is not simply a matter of what our consciousness says -to reduce it to that is naive. Our conscience might provide emotional “hunches” as to whether something is morally good or bad (in a way that perhaps David Hume would love) -hunches that are once again traits of our evolutionary background.
LikeLike
Wow.
Who’da thunk?
James hits the re-set button again…
“What obligation to we have to listen to our conscience in a godless universe. How is our conscience morally binding?”
No.352: ARGUMENT FROM RIGHT AND WRONG (I)
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate right and wrong.
(2) I want there to be ultimate right and wrong, so I don’t have to decide.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
(yawn)
LikeLike
James I am not reading minds, others have done it for me: which part of “lots of scientific studies” did you not understand? The fact that some people overcome their moral guidelines in order to selfishly defect and make some sort of gains on other expenses doesn’t mean that we have no moral guidelines at all! And keep in mind that many Christians who supposedly get their morals from God, very often do immoral actions.
Again Stavros, they do not “overcome” anything. They murder because nature programmed them to murder. Plain and simple. And yes, it does mean that you have no objective basis for believing your moral sense is any more correct than theirs. Nature programmed you do do one thing, and nature programmed them do do another. Remember our sense of responsibility is a mere “fiction.”
It is in human nature to try to defect sometimes for personal gains (or because they’re mentally problematic). That’s why society has developed means for punishing those that defect. There will always be humans that play by their moral books and humans that overcome those (for whatever reason) and act immorally. This is only natural to expect. It certainly doesn’t change the fact that we DO have some sort of objective morals hard-wired.
But there still is no “objective” source for morality (if it was objective it would have to exist independently of mankind, if not it all remains subjective). At best you could say what the majority considers moral. But is the majority always correct? What if the majority thought it was perfectly moral to enslave the minority? Then slavery would be “good?”
LikeLike
To Cedric:
Ah, you spotted that. did you?
I’ll give you credit for being quicker on the uptake than James. He still hasn’t figured that one out.
Doesn’t even have to be another deity. Pixies, the spirit of Elvis, teapots in orbit around Jupiter etc., it’s all good.
My reply: Actually it has to be all good. If our transcendental is not goodness itself, then it is good by something beyond itself and we don’t have a solution to the problem. Nevertheless, you still have to have a transcendental.
Cedric:Did you really have to? The capital “G” in God and the fact that you did not use an article before God made it a pretty good guess that you were talking about the deity commonly associated with the Mormons, Pentacostals, Catholics etc.
If you want to get all obscure about what you were referring to then…fine.
Me: Why yes. A Muslim could have said the same thing and actually, Mormonism isn’t a monotheistic religion but a polytheistic religion and their God is not transcendental ultimately so they have the same problem.
Cedric: No. I’m just taking your solution and inserting the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make a point.
I don’t regard your position as a solution at all.
Far from it.
Me: Ah. So saying you don’t regard it as a solution counts as a point somehow? This must be some new technique. I often prefer people to give a reason why it’s not a solution instead of a mere assertion.
Cedric: So you’re not going to talk endlessly about your god?
Thank you.
If only other people could display good manners like yours.
(Hint: James, I’m looking at you!)
Me: No. That would be a red herring. Now if you come to the conclusion that a transcendental basis is necessary and God fits that and ask “What makes your God different from X?” then that will be the time to answer that question.
Cedric: I have’t breathed a word about atheism.
I am not claiming to have an answer on the basis of human morality. I don’t know.
I leave that sort of thing to the philosophers and the psychologists and the anthropologists of the world.
Me: Socrates would say you have completed step one in saying you don’t know. Now if you wish to point to the philosophers, then I suggest you consider what they said. Plato believed in the form of the good as the greatest form. Aristotle said it is that which is desirable for its own sake. Augustine and Aquinas would both say that God being a simple being and being good would be goodness. Locke, the most quoted philosopher of the founding fathers of America, was a strong believer in Natural Law. (Which is what got Clarence Thomas in so much trouble.) Kant said that one thing that would always hold him in awe was the Moral Law within. He even spoke of God as necessary for ethical theory. God, freedom, and immortality. All three.
Cedric: ….and visa-versa, yes? Excellent.
Me: And when we come to the point of which worldview ultimately is valid, I am ready for it.
Cedric: In any case,I never claimed this. Nobody here is claiming this.
The only person that indulges in such fuzzy-headed thinking is James.
He believes in No.62.
(shrug)
Me: 62 really doesn’t take Natural Law thinking seriously.
Cedric: It lends itself to that belief?
(…pause…)
Really?
How convenient.
So a god that you just so happen to already worship, happens to fit the bill?
Not some other god?
Not the FSM? Or pink unicorns?
The first cab off the rank of possibilities happens to be…you very own “brand-name” god?
Lucky you. You got in on the ground floor.
Me: Actually, there are a number of gods that I think could establish it on some level, but I have argued before that the Trinitarian concept makes the most sense of relational morality. However, a Muslim or a Jew could make the same arguments I am making.
Also, that it happens to be the God I worship says nothing about the truthfulness or the falseness of the position that I hold.
Cedric: No one? NO ONE?
Are you sure you want to say this?
(Hint: Read some of the postings by a certain troll on this board. Ask yourself, where did he get his ideas from.)
Me: Touche. If anyone thinks atheists can’t be moral, they don’t know what they’re talking about. If they say though that there is no basis for them to be moral, that is a valid point.
Cedric: Shall we just cut to the chase?
You have the pre-packaged answer, right?
Me: I think it’s best that when someone asks the question, the other person answers. Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that God makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Cedric: This is the beginning of a long and dreary discussion that starts of sounding sciency, yet somehow ends up in theology. Not just any theology either (oh no!), it’s going to end up in Christian theology.
During the discussion, you will be dissatisfied with any of the mundane possibilities that science suggests….and so you will invoke your god to fill in the gap.
Ok.
So we have…
Me: Science cannot answer a philosophical question. It is a category mistake. If the idea of good and evil is just what our genes tell us, then we are simply the determiners of good and evil. In the end, moral relativism will be the result.
Cedric: Which will lead us to what number?
Perhaps No.474?
No.474: ARGUMENT FROM SKEWED ASSUMPTIONS
(1) You’re an atheist? But you’re so nice!
(2) I just assumed you were a Christian.
(3) The niceness must be the light of God shining in you, whether you know it or not.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Me: Um. No. Mockery of Natural Law theory doesn’t count as a real argument. I would say the atheist is good because they do know what good is. It’s something built into humanity that we know some things are good and some things are evil. Good and evil have an ontological reality outside ourselves and this can be presented as a knowledge claim.
LikeLike
James. In reply to your question to me:
Yes. Not only did I post on TheologyWeb, but I do post on TheologyWeb. I invite anyone to come and join us. It’s the best place to debate on the internet.
LikeLike
“What obligation to we have to listen to our conscience in a godless universe. How is our conscience morally binding?”
No.352: ARGUMENT FROM RIGHT AND WRONG (I)
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate right and wrong.
(2) I want there to be ultimate right and wrong, so I don’t have to decide.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
No no Cedric,
1. All our moral acts are determined, and completly natural.
2. We are a part of this determined nature.
3. We have no objective standard with which to judge natural acts.
3. Therefore moral outrage is irrational.
LikeLike
Yes. Not only did I post on TheologyWeb, but I do post on TheologyWeb. I invite anyone to come and join us. It’s the best place to debate on the internet.
Good to see (read) you again. I used to post there as “seer.”
LikeLike
You should come back sometime then.
LikeLike
You should come back sometime then.
Yes, it is a great site. But it gets to the point that you pretty much know how everyone is going to respond to any given subject. Besides I thought I would share my winning personality with other kids… ; )
LikeLike
James you say: “Again Stavros, they do not “overcome” anything. They murder because nature programmed them to murder. Plain and simple. And yes, it does mean that you have no objective basis for believing your moral sense is any more correct than theirs. Nature programmed you do do one thing, and nature programmed them do do another. Remember our sense of responsibility is a mere “fiction.””
obviously you didn’t even read or understand my comments -both on how nature hard wired our moral sense and on how you distort the term “fiction”. Immune to logic…
“What if the majority thought it was perfectly moral to enslave the minority?” they did at some point at the vastly Christian America -remember? But then there was that thing I have mentioned, moral advancement, which didn’t originate from religion, remember that as well? OK, now try to “hard-wire” these things in your brain so that you won’t reset again after only two comments…
LikeLike
obviously you didn’t even read or understand my comments -both on how nature hard wired our moral sense and on how you distort the term “fiction”. Immune to logic…
I understood you perfectly Stavros, that’s the problem. And remember “fiction” is Dawkins term:
Fiction: 1 a: something invented by the imagination or feigned ; specifically : an invented story.
So it is with our sense of responsibility, according to Dawkins. I think it is you Stavros who is “immune to logic.”
they did at some point at the vastly Christian America -remember? But then there was that thing I have mentioned, moral advancement, which didn’t originate from religion, remember that as well? OK, now try to “hard-wire” these things in your brain so that you won’t reset again after only two comments…
So nature hardwired us to be religious and to enslave others. And that is wrong – why? And what is moral advancement? Who decides what is advanced?
LikeLike
Apologianick said…”Actually it has to be all good.(later)…Nevertheless, you still have to have a transcendental.”
Ergo, No.62.
(shrug)
……………………………………………………..
Apologianick said…””A Muslim could have said the same thing…”
Indeed they could have.
Could have.
However, when you said “God”, I was correct in making the assumption that you were referring to the Christian special-brand, right?
“…Mormonism isn’t a monotheistic religion but a…”
Imagine Mitt Romeny saying that on TV?
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=101iKpLSuq0
As near as I can tell, Mormons use the “God” word with a capital “G” too.
(shrug)
………………………………………………………..
Apologianick said…”This must be some new technique. I often prefer people to give a reason why it’s not a solution instead of a mere assertion.”
Yes, it’s a new technique. It’s called humour.
You invoke your special brand-name god.
I take your assertion and insert some other brand-name god.
Job done.
For example:
God blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…
Flying Spaghetti Monster blah, blah, blah, blah…
Insert your own favourite god. Rinse and repeat.
Easy really.
……………………………………………………
Apologianick said…”Now if you wish to point to the philosophers…”
Nah. I’d rather just leave such questions to them.
I notice that you haven’t recommended any anthropologists or human behaviouralists or biologists. Why is that?
Apologianick said…”62 really doesn’t take Natural Law thinking seriously.”
James, however, takes No.62 VERY SERIOUSLY INDEED!
(groan)
Please, go ahead and talk to him about it.
Have fun.
Apologianick said…”If anyone thinks atheists can’t be moral, they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
(…waiting for the “but”…)
Apologianick continues…”If they say though that there is no basis for them to be moral, that is a valid point.”
Ah, there it is.
🙂
Ok, give it your best shot. What’s your argument?
Please don’t use No.62.
Please.
Apologianick said…”I think it’s best that when someone asks the question, the other person answers.”
Yours is a rhetorical question.
The preacher clearing his throat just before he starts his sermon.
So skip the foreplay and give us your answer.
“Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that God makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.”
Well, um…how shall I put this gently?
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Vishnu makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Asathoth makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Baal makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
(shrug)
Apologianick continues…”It’s something built into humanity that we know some things are good and some things are evil.”
Wait. Hold on there a second.
Built into humantity?
By what?
Or should I say, perhaps,…(hushed silence)…by whom?
Please. Continue.
🙂
P.S.
Please don’t use No.62.
It’s not just dumb. It’s getting a little boring by now.
LikeLike
So you show once again that you missed my point about you distorting Dawkins’ use of the term “fiction”. Good. It makes it easier for everyone else to see that there is no point in trying to talk reasonably with you.
“So nature hardwired us to be religious and to enslave others.”
Straw man, no one said about enslaving others. I said caring for our own groups but then due to larger societies we had to learn to become even more cooperative. But you didn’t read that either…
“And what is moral advancement? Who decides what is advanced?”
You reset again… read my previous comments on moral advancement. No wait. You are not going to do this obviously so I will just copy paste (hey, your favorite tactic!) here for you:
only mentally retarded (or religious) people do not consider our moral jumps throughout the last two centuries as advancement. EVERYONE understands that the steps to abolish slavery, provide equal rights to everyone etc etc are advances in our moral books and not just different opinions. If they were just opinions how do you explain the fact that we ALWAYS move towards better moral guidelines instead of the backwards direction?
Everyone understands them as advancements because everyone has the same hard-wired moral guidelines. Culture then parameterizes our morality but always based on this underlying moral “book”.
You make me (and everyone else here) repeat myself James and I hate this. I have been teaching university students for 4 years and they can grasp much more difficult stuff much easier than you! What’s wrong with you? If you reset again do not expect any response from me, sorry…
LikeLike
James, it doesn’t work.
You are impressing nobody here.
You are useful only as comedy value.
You plodding, dull-witted nature can only cause normal Christians to blush with embarrassment.
If anybody wishes to truely understand James’ nature and what he believes in then I invite all and sundry to check out some of his memorable moments on some of the other threads here.
Do check out the threads “A naturalistic approach to human morality.” and “Belief – a curse?”, “Being good for goodness sake” and perhaps the funniest one “Let’s celebrate!”.
Enjoy.
LikeLike
“Please don’t use No.62.
It’s not just dumb. It’s getting a little boring by now.”
Oops.
I don’t wish to imply that Apologianick is getting boring.
I mean than No.62 has been invoked endlessly by “You know who” for weeks now around here.
Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and agian and again and again and again and again and again and again etc.
In that sense, it’s boring.
Apologianick is, hopefully, a different sort.
LikeLike
Straw man, no one said about enslaving others. I said caring for our own groups but then due to larger societies we had to learn to become even more cooperative. But you didn’t read that either…
How is it a strawman? Did not the natural process make us religious and cause us to enslave others? How is that “wrong.”
So you show once again that you missed my point about you distorting Dawkins’ use of the term “fiction”. Good. It makes it easier for everyone else to see that there is no point in trying to talk reasonably with you.
Let’s try again: fiction:a false report or statement which you pretend is true:
We merely pretend that moral responsibility is true. So how have I distored Dawkins’ words. Be specific please…
If they were just opinions how do you explain the fact that we ALWAYS move towards better moral guidelines instead of the backwards direction?
You just don’t get it. How do you know these are “better moral guidelines?” Better according to whom? The majority?
Everyone understands them as advancements because everyone has the same hard-wired moral guidelines. Culture then parameterizes our morality but always based on this underlying moral “book”.
But you just admitted that some don’t see these as advancements. Most of Islam would not. Why Tis your opinion more correct or valid? that is what you refuse to answer. Because you hold it? Because the majority holds it? What if in the next 100 years Muslims become the majority in the world? Will their moral opinion be an advancement?
LikeLike
To Cedric:
Apologianick said…”Actually it has to be all good.(later)…Nevertheless, you still have to have a transcendental.”
Ergo, No.62.
(shrug)
Me: 62 is actually a way to mock a real argument. It’s a straw man. Let’s see what good will be rooted in? Will it be the individual? Then you have individual moral relativism where something is right simply because I say it is right. X says rape is right. Y says rape is not right. Who’s right? Both of them!
Will it be the society? Then whatever the society does is right by definition. One society thinks it’s moral to take innocent people and throw them into the Gulag. One society thinks it isn’t? Who’s right? Both of them. What happens to the student who is raised Christian and joins a fraternity at college? The Fraternity society says getting drunk and having sexual intercourse outside of marriage is fine. The Christian society says “No it isn’t.” Which one should the student choose? He can’t tell unless there’s something outside of both of them.
Now what if it is rooted in a transcendental? It will mean that goodness is an ontological reality outside of us. It would also have to be unchanging or else we simply have relativism again. It would have to be eternal for otherwise we could just ask “Where did it come from?” It would also need to be a source of authority or else we can ask “Why should we care?”
……………………………………………………..
Cedric: Indeed they could have.
Could have.
However, when you said “God”, I was correct in making the assumption that you were referring to the Christian special-brand, right?
Me: Correct. My contention though is that this is not an argument for Christianity proper but for theism.
Cedric: Imagine Mitt Romeny saying that on TV?
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=101iKpLSuq0
As near as I can tell, Mormons use the “God” word with a capital “G” too.
(shrug)
Me: Take it from someone who has read up on Mormonism. The King Follett Discourse which Joseph Smith said has the basic principles of the gospel teaches polytheism.
Check Page 317 of the 26th printing of Mormon Doctrine by Bruce McConkie under “God.” In starting the topic with the Trinity says “There are three gods.”
Look up quotes by the early presidents like Brigham Young. Polytheism was taught.
………………………………………………………..
Cedric: Yes, it’s a new technique. It’s called humour.
You invoke your special brand-name god.
I take your assertion and insert some other brand-name god.
Job done.
My reply: Except that I seriously doubt the concepts are the similar even though you categorize them all by the term “god.” There is a vast difference between Allah in Islam and YHWH in Christianity. The truth of my claim is rooted not in the category but in the nature of the God I trust.
Cedric: For example:
God blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…
Flying Spaghetti Monster blah, blah, blah, blah…
Insert your own f
Me: And is simply a childish way to argue a position. It’s the same mistake pluralists making thinking all concepts of God are the same. Not even close. If you want to counter a real idea, give a real argument.
……………………………………………………
Cedric: Nah. I’d rather just leave such questions to them.
I notice that you haven’t recommended any anthropologists or human behaviouralists or biologists. Why is that?
Me: Because I don’t think they can answer the question. If we’re going to find what is binding on humanity, we’re going to have to look outside of humanity. I don’t go to anthropologists to study what goodness is but rather how societies see it. I don’t go to biologists because goodness is not a scientific category. I don’t go to behaviourists because I am not interested in what the behavior is but if it is good and behaviourists can’t tell me that. Philosophy deals with ontological realities and thus, it can tell me what goodness is.
Cedric: James, however, takes No.62 VERY SERIOUSLY INDEED!
(groan)
Please, go ahead and talk to him about it.
Have fun.
Me: I also take it seriously. My dialogue is with you now. Let’s keep it that way. If you have a problem with natural law, please show it.
Apologianick continues…”If they say though that there is no basis for them to be moral, that is a valid point.”
You: Ah, there it is.
Ok, give it your best shot. What’s your argument?
Please don’t use No.62.
Please.
Me: The argument is natural law is the basis. It’s the law that all humanity understands. You simply set up a straw man and knock it down without realizing the deep philosophical argument behind it.
It’s really a terrible way to limit your thinking.
Cedric: Yours is a rhetorical question.
The preacher clearing his throat just before he starts his sermon.
So skip the foreplay and give us your answer.
Me: I believe I already have. Thanks for showing again the atheistic side has no answer. It’s okay. Harris and Dawkins can’t come up with one either.
Cedric: Well, um…how shall I put this gently?
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Vishnu makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Asathoth makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
Now you have said earlier you don’t know and my stance is that Baal makes the most sense.You don’t consider this a solution, but I’ve yet to see why.
(shrug)
Me: Again, a non-answer. Your position assumes all concepts of God are the same and then argues from their. The presupposition is false. If I have to go into the nature of God and how God in Christianity is distinct from God in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
Wait. Hold on there a second.
Cedric: Built into humantity?
By what?
Or should I say, perhaps,…(hushed silence)…by whom?
Please. Continue.
P.S.
Please don’t use No.62.
It’s not just dumb. It’s getting a little boring by now.
Me: By God, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch. But hey, if you want to stick to shallow thinking, that’s your choice.
LikeLike
Haha it is like talking to 5 year olds! “Let’s try again: fiction:a false report or statement which you pretend is true” Yay! You defined the term! Now try to see how it is being used by Dawkins and read my previous comments…
“Did not the natural process make us religious and cause us to enslave others?”
There is the straw man exactly there and I have discussed this in my previous comment you incapable of reading James.
“You just don’t get it. How do you know these are “better moral guidelines?” Better according to whom? The majority?”
No you ignorant James it is YOU that doesn’t get when I say that science shows how these guidelines are built into us and that only mentally retarded (like you apparently) do not consider these as advancements! So: better according to our nature.
“But you just admitted that some don’t see these as advancements. Most of Islam would not”
Once again, no, you incapable of reasoning James, I only said that culture parameterizes our moral book. If you remember I explicitly stated that this moral book places limits on this parameterization, but since you are incapable of comprehending even the simplest scientific ideas you missed that too. And guess why Muslims might have difficulties accepting these advancements? Because they are f***ing religious and their stupid God keeps telling them all sorts of crap. But, once again, and try to follow me for once James: science has shown that even those Muslims DO have the same moral principles as everyone else. It is just that their ridiculous God commands them right now (as does your God you).
Got that? Are you going to make me say all these things yet again?
LikeLike
Apologianick said previously…”Actually it has to be all good.(later)…Nevertheless, you still have to have a transcendental.”
So later Apologianick goes through the options…
Will it be the individual?
(Cedric thinks.” He’ll say no and then invoke his brand-name deity)
No, not the individual.
Will it be the society?
(Cedric thinks.” He’ll say no and then invoke his brand-name deity)
No, not society.
Now what if it is rooted in a transcendental?
(Cedric thinks “Bingo”)
Cedric: Transcendental? You mean like, oh, I don’t know really, maybe…a god?
Apologianick: Yes, a god would do it.
Cedric: Hmm, a god, eh? Well, what god?
Apologianick: I’m glad you asked me that, Cedric. It just so happens that I happen to have a very special brand-name god.
Cedric: Ah. No.62. Okayyyy.
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”My contention though is that this is not an argument for Christianity proper but for theism.”
Oh, theism. That’s nice.
(yawn)
………………………………………………………
Apologianick sorts out the real Christians from the fake ones with…”Take it from someone who has read up on Mormonism.”
But surely the Mormons themselves have read up on Mormonism too?
Who to believe? Who to believe?
In any case, the video clip clearly has Mitt saying God with a capital “G”.
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”It’s the same mistake pluralists making thinking all concepts of God are the same.”
Let me guess. You know better, right?
Your concept of gods is somehow better than, say, the pizza guy because…?
Apologianick said…”If we’re going to find what is binding on humanity, we’re going to have to look outside of humanity.’
Why?
Apologianick said…”If you have a problem with natural law, please show it.”
Natural Law? Never mentioned it.
(shrug)
If you want to invoke Natural Law to answer the question you raised, go ahead.
Make it interesting.
Keep it short.
Apologianick said…”You simply set up a straw man and knock it down without realizing the deep philosophical argument behind it.”
No doubt. I look forward to your explanation of how No.62 is really just a strawman.
So far, all we have is your assertion that it is a strawman.
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”Thanks for showing again the atheistic side has no answer.”
You must remember this. A kiss is just a kiss. A sigh is just a sigh.
“…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
(shrug)
………………………………………………………
Apologianick said…”Your position assumes all concepts of God are the same and then argues from their. The presupposition is false.”
Says you.
Why is your opinion more important or correct than the guy who delivers the pizza in my neighbourhood?
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”If I have to go into the nature of God and how God in Christianity is distinct from God in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.”
You’re not getting this, are you?
(sigh)
If I have to go into the nature of the Flying Spahgetti Monster and how His Noodly One in Pastafariantism is distinct from Pixies in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
If I have to go into the nature of the Great Thragwart and how Thragwartism is distinct from Islam in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
If I have to go into the nature of Allah and how Islam is distinct from Shintism in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
………………………………………………………
“By God, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.”
By the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Zeus, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Bast, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Li Nezha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By No-Cha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Dylan, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Macha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
Etc,etc, etc.
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=b6nHDHMjVGg
LikeLike
No you ignorant James it is YOU that doesn’t get when I say that science shows how these guidelines are built into us and that only mentally retarded (like you apparently) do not consider these as advancements! So: better according to our nature.
There you go accusing radical Muslims, Stalinists, and slave owners of being mentally retarded. You are jut poisoning the well. Accusing anyone who disagrees with you or the majority with being mentally ill… First that is not an argument, nor is it a “fact.” Many of the men who populated the hierarchy of the Nazi party came out of the best universties of Europe.
Again, according to our “nature” is not an argument since our nature is also to rape, murder and war.
And guess why Muslims might have difficulties accepting these advancements? Because they are f***ing religious and their stupid God keeps telling them all sorts of crap. But, once again, and try to follow me for once James: science has shown that even those Muslims DO have the same moral principles as everyone else. It is just that their ridiculous God commands them right now (as does your God you).
Are you really this completely ignorant Stavros? If you are correct then there is “NO GOD” telling them anything. They believe and do what they do because AND ONLY BECAUSE nature created them to think and act that way. IT IS AS NATURAL AS ANY OTHER HUMAN BEHAVIOR, AND NO BETTER OR WORSE…. You really are unthinking…
Yay! You defined the term! Now try to see how it is being used by Dawkins and read my previous comments…
Lets: But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
So does a scientific view of the nervous system make the very idea of responsibility nonsense Stavros? YES OR NO.
LikeLike
37:
“Very well.”
You write this, but basically ignore my suggestions?? (No quotes, not post number(s), and you’ve continued doing it.) How am I supposed read your reply. Arrogance, or that you’d don’t understand what I mean my using quotes (basic English, surely?) and post numbers (self-evident, surely?) Others might suggest you’re doing it intentionally to be difficult 😉
“Which doesn’t address the problem as it still has good as a transcendental and can there really be a transcendental in a naturalistic worldview?”
You obviously have no idea at all what you are writing, as you’ve written a complete contradiction in terms. (Perhaps because you’re blindly parroting what you think you are “supposed” to say?) Obviously the “good” from evolution is not transcendental: this is so self-evident that I can’t see how anyone would think it is. And obviously its not a “worldview” in the case of evolution, a worldview is a personal perspective or philosophy: evolution doesn’t have that.
(Somehow I find myself not believing your final claim, as your posts contradict it: I can’t see knowledge from other domains on display.)
You’re talking poppycock I’m afraid.
LikeLike
James, if I was as ignorant in science as you are, and as incapable of very very simple understanding as you are, I would say that you are a living refutation of the Theory of Evolution and I would put you as an exhibit in the Creation Museum.
Your total misunderstanding, distortion, and misrepresenting of ALL valid arguments that go against your blind beliefs show your incapacity to follow a structured dialogue. But we already knew that, right?
For tonight, I have no intention of saying EXACTLY the same things over and over again. You are like a goldfish that can only keep in mind the last two comments and nothing else. Immune to education -but we already knew that too, right?
LikeLike
@ apologianick – November 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm
To my question – “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?” – you reply “Already answered it.”
Well, I don’t see the answer. Can you or Stuart give a brief exposition replying to that question?
As I said, I have no problem finding a basis for my moral decisions – which obviously makes your claims about my position wrong. However, I really want to have clear understanding of the model you propose regarding the basis theists use for moral decisions. I am open minded but until I have one there is no choice for me but to go with my current thinking which appears to be supported by the empirical evidence.
LikeLike
James, if I was as ignorant in science as you are, and as incapable of very very simple understanding as you are, I would say that you are a living refutation of the Theory of Evolution and I would put you as an exhibit in the Creation Museum.
You are avoiding the points:
1.Dawkins clearly says that a scientific view of the nervous system makes the idea of responsibility “nonsense.” Do you agree – yes or no?
2.If materialistic evolution is true then the radical Muslim was determined by nature to think and do what he does, just as you were determined by nature to think and do what you do. Except for calling those who disagree with your moral retarted, you have offered no rational argument for why your opinion is more correct or vaild than theirs.
3.There is no objective rule to judge between these behaviors. As one well known atheist said: “What ever is, is right.”
4. You can only appeal to the majority. What the majority believes to be right, is right. But that brings up a host of questions – like what if the majority believes that enslaving a minority is right – does it become right? What if the Musilms become the majority on earth (and looking at their birth rates that just might happen) will that majority be morally correct?
5. There is no moral advancement. Because what one considers as an advance is subjective. And there is no objective moral rule to mitigate between different opinions of constitutes advancement. We are left, not with moral advancement, but mere moral difference.
6. The reason why I have to keep repeating myself is because you are irrational. And you are dense.
LikeLike
James (post 66).
re 1: Perhaps you’d like to show the full context in which he supposedly made this claim first?
(Its not given in this thread.)
I can’t reply to your other points, as aren’t pointing to the source. What post do 1, 2., etc. refer to? Its clearly not the same post as the not-a-quote quote at the top refers to, so I have no means to know what statements your points refer to (expect the last, which is pure ad hominem and as such does really refer to anything).
LikeLike
“Except for calling those who disagree with your moral retarted, you have offered no rational argument for why your opinion is more correct or vaild than theirs.”
Ergo No.62.
We get it.
(yawn)
LikeLike
re 1: Perhaps you’d like to show the full context in which he supposedly made this claim first?
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html
It was linked in post 26. “Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car.” I have linked it in the past
Lets: But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
He also said:
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics.
So we are determined
And:
Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.
Our sense of blame and responsibility is merely a “useful fiction.” But of course that would be correct if there was no freedom of the will and we were determinied beings… Mere biological machinces created by mother nature… Which obviously Dawkins thinks we are…
LikeLike
James said…”Our sense of blame and responsibility is merely a “useful fiction.” But of course that would be correct if there was no freedom of the will and we were determinied beings… Mere biological machinces created by mother nature… Which obviously Dawkins thinks we are…”
Did it ever occur to you to actually read any of Dawkins’ books?
You seem to be really fascinated by what he thinks.
“Mere biological machinces created by mother nature… Which obviously Dawkins thinks we are…”
So what do YOU think we are, James?
Share.
(giggle)
When you actually try and articulate your own thoughts in your own words, you are comedy gold.
We know you normally hide behind “stumper” questions and then sit around mindlessly waiting to be spoon-fed an answer, yet perhaps today will be different.
Entertain us.
What’s your argument.
🙂
LikeLike
Cedric, if you have something from Dawkins that contradicts his points in “Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car” then present them. If not, then of course we are biological machines – slaves to the undelying laws of pyhsics. Ideas like blame and responsibility are truely “fictions.” You think and do what these mindless forces cause you to think and do. You are a mere cog in the machinery of nature. But I’m willing to bet Cedric, that even you think that you are more than that – don’t you?
And I have man clear time and time again what I think man is.
LikeLike
James said…”And I have man clear time and time again what I think man is.”
Yes.
It all comes back to your god.
You invoke him.
That’s your answer.
We understand that.
So what now? What do you want?
LikeLike
68:
Yup, a quote-mine. You’ve misrepresented him in the past, as you do here, so what’s new? (This one has been explained to you in the past, too. Read from the start, these paragraphs have a quite different meaning to placing them on their own: their full meaning is set up by the preceding text that’s not given in your quotes.)
That our bodies are ultimately governed by the laws of physics does NOT say “we are determined”. You really need to go back to school for that one. Simple cases needed for simple minds I guess 😉 So, a simple case: consider identical twins. Go on, tell how us all how identical twins are genetical identical, “determined” (your thesis), yet quite different in what they choose to do, etc.
Hint: I can answer with one word (two if you include ‘the’ or ‘their’), but it’d squash your “determined” thesis 😉
Its very boring having address the same old lines from you, Mr Reset Button.
LikeLike
James:
According to you, identical twins would be identical in everything they ever did… 😉
LikeLike
That our bodies are ultimately governed by the laws of physics does NOT say “we are determined”. You really need to go back to school for that one. Simple cases needed for simple minds I guess So, a simple case: consider identical twins. Go on, tell how us all how identical twins are genetical identical, “determined” (your thesis), yet quite different in what they choose to do, etc.
Are you being honest with what Dawkins said Heraclides? No you are not, again:
Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
And:
But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
Isn’t a murderer or rapist just a machine with a defective component? Is not the very idea of responsibility “nonsense?” Heraclides responsibility can only be “nonsense” if we are determined beings. If we have any degree of moral freedom then responsibility is no longer “nonsense.”
And:
As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics.
If the human brain is governed by the laws of physics – where is free will? How can there be choice?
The facts are Heraclides,I have quoted Dawkins correctly. And if he is right then we are just “machines” (his words) – the laws of physics dictate our thoughts, and the very idea of responsibility is “nonsense.” And here is another fact Heraclides – you know that you are more than a biological “machine.” That you are a rational and moral agent – that you actually do make moral choices and that responsibility isn’t “nonsense.” But you can’t get that from materialism…
LikeLike
So what now? What do you want?
Admit that you are just a determined cog in the machinery of nature, that moral responsibility and human rationality are nonsense. Or, admit that in your heart of hearts you know that you are more than that. And that “more” can not be found in the deterministic materialism of atheism…
LikeLike
James said…”Admit that you are just a determined cog in the machinery of nature, that moral responsibility and human rationality are nonsense.”
James, nobody here goes around saying this.
Nobody.
Why are you so determined to make up strawmen?
Do you want to have a monologue all by yourself on the Internet and rant away or do you want to engage with people?
Has anybody here said that “human rationality is nonsense”.
Well, no.
So why bother to pretend otherwise?
Has anybody here said that “moral responsibility is nonsense”?
Once again. No.
James said…”And that “more” can not be found in the deterministic materialism of atheism…”
The wha..?
Once again, you seem to be involved with your own private conversation with yourself.
Deterministic materialism of atheism?
I have no idea what on Ear…
(…pause…)
(…pauses again…)
Ahem…
Oh. OH!
Deterministic Materialism of Atheism? The old D.M.A?
Oh, that! Well, why didn’t you say so before?
Yes, yes, of course.
No introduction necessary. The D.M.A. That thing.
Hmm, yes.
Well, it goes without saying really, doesn’t it?
Why, just last week I overheard somebody on the bus mentioning that…
Yes, yes.
The D.M.A.
So, er, what was the question?
“And that “more” can not be found in the deterministic materialism of atheism…”
So..”more” cannot be found in the D.M.A?
You want me to admit that?
(shrug)
Ok.
I admit it.
“More” cannot be found in the D.M.A.
So what now?
How does that help you?
LikeLike
James, nobody here goes around saying this.Nobody.
That is exactly what Dawkins said.
Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not?
“Machine, mechanistic…” Like I said you are merely a cog in the machinery of nature…
LikeLike
James said…”That is exactly what Dawkins said.”
James, what do you want?
How many people have pointed out to you that you’re quote-mining?
As Heraclides has already said…
“Yup, a quote-mine. You’ve misrepresented him in the past, as you do here, so what’s new? (This one has been explained to you in the past, too. Read from the start, these paragraphs have a quite different meaning to placing them on their own: their full meaning is set up by the preceding text that’s not given in your quotes.)”
You shouldn’t be doing this.
It’s dishonest.
People have repeatedly tried to explain this to you.
Why are you just ignoring them?
It’s easy for a lurker to read the entire thing for themselves and see that you’re quote-mining.
You gain nothing this way.
It’s very wrong of you.
………………………………………………….
Quote mining.
Quote mining is the practice of purposely compiling frequently misleading quotes from large volumes of literature or speech.
The term is pejorative. “Quote miners” are often accused of contextomy and misquotation, in an attempt to represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately. For example, if a person being quoted disagrees with some position, a quote miner will present quotes that suggest that instead, this person is supportive of this position. Material that ostensibly bolsters this position is often taken out of context. Exposition that is at odds with the argument being made in the same text is excluded or otherwise obscured.
The expression is also sometimes used in a slightly weaker sense, merely meaning that a quote is being used to support an idea that the original author rejects. In this second case, even a quote which is accurate can be considered a “mined quote”.
The phrase originated in the mid-1990s. It is commonly used by members of the scientific community to describe a method frequently employed by creationists to support their arguments, though it can be and often is used outside of the “science vs. faith” discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
LikeLike
Cedric, the link is there for everyone to read. Now instead of throwing out unfounded accusations show me from the link how “exactly” I have taken Dawkins out of context. How his meaning changes in context.
Hint, quoting Heraclides, who is completely bias, won’t help….
I’ll be waiting…
LikeLike
James, as I’ve pointed out to you before, on another thread, there is more to what Dawkins wrote. In which he explains why we don’t actually act in this way.
Your ‘arguments’ are becoming very tedious, you know.
LikeLike
James, as I’ve pointed out to you before, on another thread, there is more to what Dawkins wrote. In which he explains why we don’t actually act in this way.
Well of course Alison. I know that,it is clear in the article.
Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution.
So evolution programmed us to think this way, but as Dawkins goes on: Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.
So it is a useful “fiction.” This does change, at all, what I have been saying. What Dawkins said: But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not?
That a “scientific, mechanistic” view of the nervous system makes the very idea of responsibility “nonsense.” This is deterministic, we are mere machines, as Dawkings goes on: Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
I have taken nothing out of context. The very reason that moral responsibility is “nonsense” is just because we are “mechanistic” “machines” – no freedom of the will, therefore no responsibility.
I’m glad you guys are arguing against this view of humanity (keep raging against the machine), but let’s not predend that Dawkins did not say exactly what he did say.
LikeLike
74:
In your first not-a-quote quoting my words I did not refer to Dawkins’ words, but your own! Duh. Which I notice you haven’t answered… (And please, you can use quotes: they take just as much effort type: exactly the same number of characters… you illustrated that you know how to do this in the same post, so you have no excuse.)
Quote-mining isn’t about “getting the words wrong”, its about putting them out of their context, thus altering their original meaning. I did point that out to you explicitly: told you exactly how they are out of context.
You’re being Mr. Reset Button again: this has been done before, several times I believe. I’m not doing this again, its boring. Take it back to the thread you started this on, if really excites you so much.
LikeLike
To Heraclides from his post 62:
You: You write this, but basically ignore my suggestions?? (No quotes, not post number(s), and you’ve continued doing it.) How am I supposed read your reply. Arrogance, or that you’d don’t understand what I mean my using quotes (basic English, surely?) and post numbers (self-evident, surely?) Others might suggest you’re doing it intentionally to be difficult
Me: Whine whine whine….
You: You obviously have no idea at all what you are writing, as you’ve written a complete contradiction in terms. (Perhaps because you’re blindly parroting what you think you are “supposed” to say?) Obviously the “good” from evolution is not transcendental: this is so self-evident that I can’t see how anyone would think it is. And obviously its not a “worldview” in the case of evolution, a worldview is a personal perspective or philosophy: evolution doesn’t have that.
Me: Of course it’s not transcendental! That’s the whole point. If one accepts naturalism, how can there be anything that is transcendental? What is this basis for goodness out there? You cannot even say there is progress being made unless there is some goal and in naturalistic evolution, it is not going towards something, it is just going.
You: (Somehow I find myself not believing your final claim, as your posts contradict it: I can’t see knowledge from other domains on display.)
You’re talking poppycock I’m afraid.
Me: Hey. If you want to assume I’m a liar, it’s going to be your problem.
LikeLike
To Cedric from post 60:
You: So later Apologianick goes through the options…
Will it be the individual?
(Cedric thinks.” He’ll say no and then invoke his brand-name deity)
No, not the individual.
Will it be the society?
(Cedric thinks.” He’ll say no and then invoke his brand-name deity)
No, not society.
Now what if it is rooted in a transcendental?
(Cedric thinks “Bingo”)
Cedric: Transcendental? You mean like, oh, I don’t know really, maybe…a god?
Apologianick: Yes, a god would do it.
Cedric: Hmm, a god, eh? Well, what god?
Apologianick: I’m glad you asked me that, Cedric. It just so happens that I happen to have a very special brand-name god.
Cedric: Ah. No.62. Okayyyy.
My reply:
So do you normally do straw men like that? It’s just assuming my idea of God is wrong because it’s the one I believe in. Notice something about your so-called #62. It doesn’t refute the argument at all! It doesn’t say “Well here’s why God can’t be a foundation of morality” nor does it say “Here is a naturalistic foundation of morality.” It assumes the argument isn’t valid but gives no reason why. When you really want to engage an argument, let me know.
……………………………………………………….
You: Apologianick said…”My contention though is that this is not an argument for Christianity proper but for theism.”
Oh, theism. That’s nice.
(yawn)
Me: Hmmm. Somehow, I gather this is supposed to be considered a response in some circles.
………………………………………………………
You: But surely the Mormons themselves have read up on Mormonism too?
Who to believe? Who to believe?
In any case, the video clip clearly has Mitt saying God with a capital “G”.
……………………………………………………….
Me: Actually, they haven’t. Many Mormons don’t know their history. We spent a few months with them here in dialogue and they didn’t know about facts like the King Follett Discourse. I showed quotes from a source of theirs and I urge you to look for quotes from the presidents of the church. You could even come to theologyweb now and find that Mormons at the most would simply claim monolatry, which is not monotheism.
You: Let me guess. You know better, right?
Your concept of gods is somehow better than, say, the pizza guy because…?
Me: Why yes. I do. I know better because I’ve actually done my homework and read up on world religions and notably by going to their sources that they consider Scripture.
You: Why?
Me: What is binding on us will be unchanging. If we can change it, it’s not binding. If it’s something outside of us, it cannot be changed by us. We do not change the moral law. We discover it.
You: Natural Law? Never mentioned it.
(shrug)
If you want to invoke Natural Law to answer the question you raised, go ahead.
Make it interesting.
Keep it short.
Me: Actually, it’s the position I’ve been arguing for. Natural Law is that moral truths are known by human beings by nature of their being human beings. When a human comes to understand what murder is, he knows that murder is wrong. There are some acts that are absolutely good and some that are absolutely evil. This is a view treating good and evil as realities that exist outside of us.
Cedric: No doubt. I look forward to your explanation of how No.62 is really just a strawman.
So far, all we have is your assertion that it is a strawman.
Me: Given above. You might want to consider actually reading something by a Natural Law thinker and especially consider the statements of the philosophers made earlier including Kant.
……………………………………………………….
You: You must remember this. A kiss is just a kiss. A sigh is just a sigh.
Me: And a non-answer is a non-answer.
You: (shrug)
Me: And history repeats.
………………………………………………………
You: Says you.
Why is your opinion more important or correct than the guy who delivers the pizza in my neighbourhood?
Me: Because I’ve actually read on the topic. Let’s consider some things.
In Christianity, God is triune.
In Islam, this is the sin of shirk.
In Hindu, there is a monistic concept with Brahman being ultimate.
In some sects of Buddhism, the question of God is irrelevant.
And that’s just on the surface. We could look deeper such as the Muslim concept of Taqdir and Voluntarism vs. the Christian concept of simplicity in the nature of God.
……………………………………………………….
Cedric: You’re not getting this, are you?
(sigh)
If I have to go into the nature of the Flying Spahgetti Monster and how His Noodly One in Pastafariantism is distinct from Pixies in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
If I have to go into the nature of the Great Thragwart and how Thragwartism is distinct from Islam in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
If I have to go into the nature of Allah and how Islam is distinct from Shintism in all other worldviews, I would be glad to do so.
Me; Which again assumes all of them are the same. Is it just this enjoyable to make such a statement about all world religions?
………………………………………………………
You: “By God, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.”
By the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Zeus, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Bast, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Li Nezha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By No-Cha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Dylan, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
By Macha, which your straw man idea of saying #62 doesn’t touch.
Etc,etc, etc.
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=b6nHDHMjVGg
Me: Somehow, I suppose this is thought to deal with what I said.
LikeLike
To Ken from 64:
Well, I don’t see the answer. Can you or Stuart give a brief exposition replying to that question?
As I said, I have no problem finding a basis for my moral decisions – which obviously makes your claims about my position wrong. However, I really want to have clear understanding of the model you propose regarding the basis theists use for moral decisions. I am open minded but until I have one there is no choice for me but to go with my current thinking which appears to be supported by the empirical evidence.
My reply: The problem is though, what is this basis in naturalism? There’s a reason many atheists I meet are moral relativists. They say they can find no such basis and that nothing is absolutely good or evil.
In Christianity, the idea is that goodness is being and I would urge you to read Augustine and Aquinas on this. Augustine would be the best place to really start as he is foundational in dealing with the so-called Problem of Evil. God is pure goodness for he is pure being and creating all things, all is good insofar as it fulfills the purpose for which he created it. We do not murder because life is good fulfilling the purpose for which it was made. We are not to practice sexual immorality because of what sex is and what human persons are.
Overall though, if anybody wishes to continue a discussion, I urge them to come to TheologyWeb and find me on there.
LikeLike
@ December 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm – apologianick and Stuart
I am still waiting for brief response to my question:
“upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
This would be more fruitful than the stramannery involved in attacked an imagined atheist argument.
James:
re you continual copy and pasting of a quote from Dawkins
I find the obsession you and other apologists have for Dawkins fascinating. However, the copy and paste technique is just a manifestation of selecting and distorting evidence. It’s dishonest and you attempt to give an incorrect picture of Dawkins’ actual beliefs. He has clearly stated that as a scientist he is a committed Darwinian in his investigation and understanding of natural development and evolution. But regarding society and politics Dawkins is a passionate anti-Darwinian. I surely don’t have to descend to the copy and paste to show this – it is absolutely clear from even a minimal reading of his books and opinion articles (from following the evidence – all the evidence, rather than selecting to “prove” one’s own bias).
Now, if I wanted to give a biased, dishonest, representation of Christian beliefs I could selectively copy and paste from their holy book – the bible. There is some pretty horrible stuff there. But that would be dishonest wouldn’t it? – because a proper understanding of today’s Christian viewpoints would require consideration of much more than that.
LikeLike
@ apologianick:
Woops – we have crossed here.
Still I can’t see any clarity in your answer. Can you briefly describe, without metaphor or rhetoric (as I have tried to do for my own morality in Where do our morals come from? and other articles) how you determine what is right and wrong – the objective morality theists talk about.
LikeLike
83:
I did not whine, unless you are meaning that you are whining in which case, fine 🙂
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and considered that you might not realise what is usual or how difficult your posts are to read, and offered some suggestions. In reply I got a bizarre “Very well” that I couldn’t make a head or tail of, hence my reply. If you impose some other tone (whining) on my posts, that’s your doing, not mine. I didn’t have to extend you the courtesy of giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your reply at post 83 suggests I would have better pouring scorn on you.
I suggest you use quotation marks where they apply: we are using English, after all… 😉
Regards your transcendental bit: you’re babbling. I’m not going to repeat this again, so read carefully. You wrote:
““Which doesn’t address the problem as it still has good as a transcendental…”
Your words “it still has good as a transcendental” have you saying that it is transcendental. Now you are contradicting these words by writing “Of course it’s not transcendental!”. So which is it? You seem to want to have it both ways.
The reason its not transcendental has nothing to do with your pseudo-philosophy, by the way. You do not need to apply any “philosophy”, its not by definition. And as such your original comment that I objected to as nonsense, is nonsense: you applied the word out of its defined meaning. Don’t look at me for that, they’re your words.
“What is this basis for goodness out there? You cannot even say there is progress being made unless there is some goal and in naturalistic evolution, it is not going towards something, it is just going.”
Now you’re babbling so much nonsense, that there is nothing to reply to.
I didn’t assume you are a liar: I wrote that the impression I get from your posts are that you don’t know much about other things, despite you claim to. Only you can correct that impression. ‘Poppycock’ does not mean “lie” either, it means “nonsense”.
LikeLike
In your first not-a-quote quoting my words I did not refer to Dawkins’ words, but your own! Duh. Which I notice you haven’t answered… (And please, you can use quotes: they take just as much effort type: exactly the same number of characters… you illustrated that you know how to do this in the same post, so you have no excuse.)
The fact is Dawkins points logically lead to determinism. When he calls human beings “machines” and says that a “scientific, mechanistic” view of the nervous system makes the very idea of responsibility “nonsense” or that the idea of responsibility is a useful “fiction” – this is deterministic language. And why you would want to deny this is beyond me – Dawkins is perfectly clear.
LikeLike
89:
Dawkins has nothing to do with it, as I pointed out before, It your weird mind, maybe, but I replied to YOUR (get it, YOUR) erroneous “So we are determined”. I even quoted it to make that clear. And why you would want to keep making out that I was replying to the Dawkins’ quotes when I have already clarified this is beyond me – I even quoted you to make it perfectly clear what I was replying to.
The correct answer, James, is that YOU (incorrectly) inferred, goodness knows how, that Dawkin’s points “lead to determinism”: I replied to YOUR incorrect statement, ON THIER OWN. More to the point, why don’t you move this back to the thread you first brought this idiotic stuff up from, Mr Reset Button?
LikeLike
James said…”Cedric, the link is there for everyone to read.”
People have.
That’s why they know you’re quote mining.
James said…”how “exactly” I have taken Dawkins out of context. How his meaning changes in context.”
People have tried. Multiple times.
It’s hasn’t worked. You’ve just shoved your fingers in your ears and kept on quote mining.
If you’re so obsessed with Dawkins, why not actually read for yourself what he has to say?
You gain nothing by quote mining.
It’s dishonest.
LikeLike
Apologianick said…”It’s just assuming my idea of God is wrong because it’s the one I believe in.”
No. It really doesn’t matter what god you personally choose to believe in.
Insert any god/gods/supernatural being/mega-aliens you like.
It’s all good.
Way back at the beginning of this dialogue it was easy to predict that you had a pre-packaged “ready to go” answer.
That answer was, naturally, your god.
Not some other god, mind you.
Oh no.
Your god.
That’s how it’s always done. I was hoping to save some time.
…………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…“Well here’s why God can’t be a foundation of morality”
It doesn’t have to.
Think about it.
Think really hard.
Focus.
“Well here’s why Thor can’t be a foundation of morality”
“Well here’s why Frosty the Snowman can’t be a foundation of morality”
“Well here’s why the Great Pumpkin can’t be a foundation of morality”
See? Why do you suppose that most normal people don’t go around worrying about why Sky Woman/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/Orisis can’t be a foundation of morality?
“Here is a naturalistic foundation of morality.”
(awkward silence)
Um, I’m not the one putting forward an argument.
I’m not defending “the naturalistic foundation of morality”.
Never mentioned it.
You want to put forward an argument that your god is the foundation of morality?
Go ahead.
Nobody’s stopping you.
“When you really want to engage an argument, let me know.”
More empty words.
You’re here to preach. Nothing and nobody will stop you.
Pity that.
(sigh)
……………………………………………………….
Apologianick said…”Somehow, I gather this is supposed to be considered a response in some circles.”
Yes, it’s the response that is given when when some nobody from the local church starts to clear their throat in preparation for an impromptu and uninvited sermon.
The weary rolling of the eyes and the shuffing of the feet of a trapped audience who will now have to suffer listening to somebody droning on and on about their brand-name god.
It’s the tight, polite smile that the ambushed householder paints on their face when nice young uninvited men in polyester suits knock on the door to talk to them about gods.
………………………………………………………..
“And a non-answer is a non-answer.”
They’re your words. If you define it as a non-answer, then fine.
(shrug)
………………………………………………………..
Previously Cedric said…”Why is your opinion more important or correct than the guy who delivers the pizza in my neighbourhood?”
Apologianick: Because I’ve actually read on the topic.
So has my pizza guy.
And?
“In Christianity, God is triune.
In Islam, this is the sin of shirk.
In Hindu, there is a monistic concept with Brahman being ultimate.
In some sects of Buddhism, the question of God is irrelevant.
And that’s just on the surface. We could look deeper such as the Muslim concept of Taqdir and Voluntarism vs. the Christian concept of simplicity in the nature of God.”
Let’s try again, shall we?
In Pastafarianim, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is of Oneness with Pasta.
In Dyakism, this is the village avatar.
In the Unification Church, there is the understanding that Father (Mr Moon to outsiders) is the physical second coming of Jesus Christ.
In some sects of Sumerian religious life, the question of gods are very relevent.
And that’s just on the surface. We could look deeper such as the the role that Utu plays in upholding the principles of justice and the Khalsa concept of military training.
(shrug)
………………………………………………………..
Apologianick said…”Which again assumes all of them are the same.”
Ah, you’ve noticed, have you? Well done.
🙂
Apologianick said…”Is it just this enjoyable to make such a statement about all world religions?”
I find it saves a lot of time. Plus it is rather funny.
Try it with the Mormons, for example.
Every time they go on and on about their god, just insert some other god (or perhaps your favourite cartoon character) and…let the hilarity ensue.
………………………………………………………
Apologianick said…”Somehow, I suppose this is thought to deal with what I said.”
Oh yes. Very effectively too!
You make an assumption.
I call you on it and have some fun in the bargain.
LikeLike
Sigh…. here, Cedric, I’ve made some popcorn 😉
LikeLike
“Sigh…. here, Cedric, I’ve made some popcorn”
Oh, Alison, you sweet talker, you.
You know just how to talk to a fellow.
Don’t mind if I do.
(munch, munch, munch)
Should we leave some for Heraclides?
(…thoughtful pause…)
Well, if there’s any left…perhaps.
(munch, munch, munch)
LikeLike
I’ll go & make some more 🙂 (More entertaining than what I’m supposed to be doing at the moment!)
LikeLike
Na, you have it. I prefer European-style chocolate & fine wine… 🙂 More erudite tastes and all that 😉
Just kidding. My budget works off simpler tastes… That is what I’d prefer given a choice, though… 🙂
LikeLike
Choooocolate 🙂 When the daughter & I were in Europe in February (someone else was paying,well, for me anyway) we went on Deutschbahn & they give you chocolates if you are first-class travellers. Ok, the ticket price might be a little less if they didn’t (but not much), but it was a nice touch. Daughter saved hers & brought them home for our Significant Other; I was most impressed. And, and, we stayed with a friend in Madrid & he took us into town to a chocolate ‘bar’ – all these plump Spanish persons sitting round sipping liquid chocolate (I think melted with a little milk to keep it fluid) out of large cups. Which probably contributed to the plumpness. Made worse by the decadent habit of accompanying one’s chocolate with churros: strips of deep-fried extruded dough. We rather liked Madrid 🙂
LikeLike
Fooooood.
If you ever go back to Europe, I recommend three places.
Saltzberg.
The best marzipan in the world.
(Though I went there to check out the castle)
Munich.
City of pastry shops and bakers.
The people there take their desserts and sweets very seriously. Glorious stuff.
San Sebastian.
Finest chefs and cuisine EVAR. Even the French admit it.
Their meats and seafood are addictive.
LikeLike
Segovia. Cochinillo. = Suckling pig, cooked in a bread oven or something similar. Fat all runs out, meat beautifully tender, crackles to die for. (I ignored the teeny tiny trotter & crispy little ear.)
LikeLike
Most of the posts from the atheist side of this thread are, to my mind, proving they are experts at avoiding answering the question, missing the point, and talking too much when they have nothing to say. One wonders if you all are equating mockery with an argument. Cedric especially reminds me of a proverb I read in a good book – look it up – Prov 17:28.
As Ken asked a semi-intelligent question I’ll attempt give an answer. Here is what he asked.
My Answer:
Metaethically when I say “x is right/wrong” I mean to ascribe to x the property of rightness or wrongness. This objectivalist position makes two ontological commitments – that there is an x and that there exists a property of rightness/wrongness. In short I am a ethical nonnaturalist.
I do not think you can put morals in a test tube. Or that rightness or wrongness could be tested scientifically. Worth and value are qualitative terms prescribed by prescribers, and not descriptive terms that can be quantified by science.
(On an ethical naturalist’s perspective you can test morality scientifically, but there one has to reduce moral properties to non-moral properties by giving the word “right” in the statement “x is right” an operational definition such as “x is what is approved by most people,” “x is what creates a tranquil society,” “x is what maximises happiness,” or “x is what produces survivability,” etc. But this moral reductionism confuses an “is with an “ought.” Moral properties are normative properties unlike natural properties. Also there are cases when it is clear that some things are wrong and some things are right, even when the statement is reduced to non-moral natural definition. For example, when “x is right” comes to mean “x is what is approved of by most people,” if Hitler won the war and succeeded in brainwashing or killing everyone who disagreed with him, would his ‘final solution’ be wrong?)
The source, basis and foundation of these properties must find a transcendent ground, and that resting place must be the greatest conceivable being. Whoever this being (as I’ve mentioned before, the axiological argument I put forward is consistent with Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) can rightly be called God, who would not only be the perfect arbiter of all that is good, but whose very nature is good. (I contend in my argument that as no ground can be found in the natural world it must transcend the natural world.) This speaks to the moral ontology, of which I have chiefly been concerned.
But what you ask is concerning moral epistemology. That is how we know what is right and wrong. This is a finer point on the argument which a great number of comments in this tread seem to have not discerned. I am quite open to different theories there. Some of our understanding of what is right and wrong may come from our social and cultural surroundings, some from psychology or biology. I think it likely (especially as I do believe in the God of the Bible), that God has placed the moral law in all our hearts so even our thoughts at one moment condemn us, at another moment praise our actions. You also have authority figures as arbiters of how we come to know morality, that includes parents, civil law, religious law (for myself I would say the principles extracted from the Bible because it is an authority on what God’s perfect will is). There could be many ways one determines what is right and wrong. In forming the moral views of course we all have our intuitions, and consider them prima facie – that is not to say they don’t have supporting reasons as well. We use reason and logic, empathy and compassion.
But of course, one can know what is right and wrong, good and evil, their moral duties and responsibilities, and not have a reason why they are really good or right, etc. Also, as an absolutist (as opposed to relativist), I think one’s moral view can be mistaken (ie. one thinks they know what is right, but what they know is right, is objectively wrong, ie. Hitler). So its on the ontological question one needs a foundation – a foundation I contend that naturalism cannot supply. So in sum, moral epistemology is not the issue that I’m dealing with, but moral ontology.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
I am now replying to your post Where do our morals come from? (see: https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/where-do-our-morals-come-from/) I’m posting it here and back at the thinking matters page entitled Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler (see: http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/atheists-should-not-criticise-hitler/#comment-1312)
For clarity, first let me draw the discussion back to the syllogism.
(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.?
(2) Objective morals do exist,?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Now Ken agrees with (2) that objective morals do exist. He therefore denies (1) by asserting a ‘moral logic’ exists wholly apart from God.
In essence Ken’s response here “Where do our morals come from?” is an attempt to draw a line between the belief that God does not exist and the existence of objective moral values. How is this line a more rational, more scientific understanding?
Determined to live in an atheistic universe, yet having to deal with the furniture that belongs in a theistic universe, Ken requires a faith commitment to prop-up his system of thought. He freely admits he cannot explain the existence of objective moral values (apart from God), but somehow, science will win the day and eventually offer an explanation.
What does Ken mean by objective morality? There we are left to speculate. He has left us one clue however. He likens moral propositions to arithmetic, so to say “murder is wrong” is similar to say that 1+1 = 2.
The implications of Ken’s ‘moral logic’ are significant. (i) The proposition 1+1 = 2 is true by definition. (ii) Arithmetic represents propositional truths that necessarily exist. (iii) Simple math is completely abstract such that if it exists it exist in a mind-independant universe.
In Ken’s thought it seems, morals are propositions that are true by definition, and exist necessarily. This ‘moral logic’ represents a ontological commitment, and its clear (at least to me) from the lack of an explanation for this property that it is contrived. It is also difficult to square with on a naturalistic worldview. If the above implications to Ken’s ‘moral logic’ follow and are what he intended, the foundation for morality will have to be found outside the scope of the scientific method and the realm of testability.
Let’s assume now that this was not what he intended, and he is not stepping outside the naturalistic worldview. How can you measure worth in a test tube?
C.S. Lewis’ insight was that morals are not descriptive, but prescriptive. Rather than describing what the world is like, they prescribe what the world should be like. His objection to Hume’s problem of miracles was that the laws of nature are descriptive of what usually happens, not prescriptive of what must happen. There’s nothing I can see about the moral law that is purely descriptive. The statement “x is wrong” is I contend not like 1+1=2. Arithmetic speaks of an “is,” while morality speaks of an “ought.” Wrong is a qualitative term – prescriptive and not descriptive – and so the answer to what the basis of morality is must be metaphysical.
Prescribed rules must have a prescribers. Moreover, a universal moral law needs a moral lawgiver that is above all people at all times and all places. The theist naturally has an answer ready.
We all believe in objective moral values (theists and atheists alike), and live like they do everyday (that is Premise 2). So the atheist must deal with these objective morals. The questions that arise are (i) how these objective moral values exist, (ii) how they hold humanity accountable, (iii) what is their source, and (iv) why they establish a basis for what we both call right and wrong. Until the answers can be provided, the far better explanation is the one provided by theism.
As these explanations cannot be given by atheism, naturalism or Ken, understandably the argument then moves on to how the Bible cannot be the standard of morality. But the Bible is not the question before us at the moment. The argument entails that a god exists, not that the doctrine of inerrancy or infallibility is true. The moral argument doesn’t give us the Christian God. It does however give a transcendent, morally perfect and personal being, – and that is consistent with the Christian concept of God.
LikeLike
I have to admit I prefer to talk about food, especially when Stuart’s overly long post could have simply been a link to the identical post on his blog! (The only addition is the first paragraph as far as I can see).
So, back to food 🙂 I wish I had more money when I was travelling in Europe. But pastries & good coffee in the morning were good…! I’d love to get a job over there, not that I can imagine having much luck. Food is very expensive there, though. Or at least that’s what I thought at the time.
Italian ice-cream was good 🙂 Not as creamy, but great flavours.
I took up this habit of looking out for crowds of younger people heading out for the night and just wandering after them, good way to find the local haunts, although it meant I often had to work hard at keeping track of where I was so I could walk back later.
LikeLike
The correct answer, James, is that YOU (incorrectly) inferred, goodness knows how, that Dawkin’s points “lead to determinism”:
Are you daft? Of course his points lead to determinism. Why is responsibility “nonsense?” If we have moral freedom? He calls men machines?” Do machines decide what they are going to be? If our minds are governed by the “laws of physics” where is free will?
LikeLike
102: I have no interest in your nonsense, thank you.
LikeLike
I have no interest in your nonsense, thank you.
Because you are not being honest. Why is responsibility “nonsense?” If we have moral freedom? He calls men “machines?” Do machines decide what they are going to be, do? If our minds are governed by the “laws of physics” where is free will?
You don’t like the thought of being a slave to the mindless forces of nature. Good for you, but that is what you are left with is materialism it true.
LikeLike
@104 For a credible account of the existence of free will and personal responsibility in a physical world, I would recommend you read Dan Dennetts Freedom evolves. I am just about finished this, and think that he does a good job here. Highlighting in particular the lack of solutions to the important issues that attempts to introduce indeterminism into the free will issue provide.
As per @103, I have no wish to again engage in pointless circular discussions with you, so this is all I will say on the subject. If you actually honestly want to see how free will can be possible in a deterministic world, read the book.
LikeLike
104: “Because you are not being honest.” Don’t speak for me, please, that’s being dishonest. If I had wanted to give a reason, I’d would have. So you know, part of the reason I didn’t is I have no wish to be involved with you at this point.
LikeLike
I have no wish to again engage in pointless circular discussions with you, so this is all I will say on the subject. If you actually honestly want to see how free will can be possible in a deterministic world, read the book.
Free will in a “deterministic world?” That is a contradiction in terms.
LikeLike
@107 He does slightly redefine free will to be meaningful free will, but with that small caveat, makes a bloody good case for it. I personally don’t find the issue that important to my worldview, but it is an interesting question, and for somebody whose whole personal ideology seems to hang on the question of free will in a deterministic world, you might find it illuminating.
LikeLike
You might find this review by Roger William Gilman interesting. It seems that it is still determinism from beginnig to end. It is not a “slight” redefinition of free will, it is a denial of free will in any classical sense.
http://www.logosjournal.com/gilman.htm
LikeLike
@109. Hey, I’ve ready the book buddy, why would I need to read reviews of it? To check that I have the correct opinion of it, or what. This highlights the same problem that others have pointed out with your postings James, quote mining, lack of engagement with the subject. I mean have you ever actually had a thought or opinion of your own. Your postings resemble badly assembled pre school collages without the charm.
LikeLike
Nick, did you ever find out the story about MMP in Germany? No big deal if you didn’t–just curious.
LikeLike
Nick…”Hey, I’ve ready the book buddy, why would I need to read reviews of it?”
See James?
People actually read books for themselves.
They don’t need pre-digested opinions.
You should try it.
You have issues with Dawkins?
Well, maybe you should inform yourself about him.
Properly.
Actually bother to read some of his books.
Don’t have to buy them.
Just grab some of his latest work from the library.
It’s what educated people do.
LikeLike
Stuart said…”One wonders if you all are equating mockery with an argument.”
People often laugh at clowns.
(shrug)
………………………………………………………
Stuart said…”Until the answers can be provided, the far better explanation is the one provided by theism.”
Apologianick disagrees with you…
““…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
…………………………………………………….
Theism doesn’t actually “explain” anything.
A: Where do our morals come from?
B: No idea.
A: Ahah. Therefore goddidit!
A: Where does a child’s smile come from?
B: No idea.
A: Ahah. Therefore goddidit!
A: Where does lighting come from?
B: No idea.
A: Ahah. Therefore Thordiddit!
No.98: ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn’t X amazing!
(2) I don’t understand how X could be, without something else (that I don’t really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can’t come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Stuart, try thinking a little before you post.
LikeLike
@111 Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten about that. I know just who to ask about this one, a friend is coming around in a week to help me bore some holes in the wall (Stahlbetton is a complete pain without the correct equipment), and he has a good knowledge of political history.
LikeLike
I mean have you ever actually had a thought or opinion of your own. Your postings resemble badly assembled pre school collages without the charm.
Here, I thought I was full of charm! It does change the fact that Dennett still teaches determinism and redefines “free will?”
LikeLike
James said…”Here, I thought I was full of charm!”
How sad.
Wrong again.
“It does change the fact that Dennett still teaches determinism and redefines “free will?”
This is your “own opinion or thought”?
Nope.
However, thanks for moving on from your Dawkins quote mining.
It didn’t work very well for you.
Worked very well for the rest of us in exposing you (for the umpteeth time) what a dishonest and desperate person you are.
Why not try a real argument?
Be daring and different.
Let your hair down.
(giggle)
LikeLike
@ Stuart – December 1, 2008 at 9:54 pm
A pity this is buried in a huge number of comments. However, Thanks for responding. Unfortunately you reply is still not clear to me. It suffers from an attempt to argue against or discredit my comments on morality. These aren’t convincing – and they are not what I wanted.
I repeat my question “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?”
I just want a brief clear answer to that question.It doesn’t help to bury it in an attack on your interpretation of an atheist position, as you did in your comment.
For example – It’s no good saying that atheists have no way of judging Hitler. Tell us how you , as a theist, determine that Hitler’s actions were wrong. Then we can judge if you do it in a different way to me.
Dredging through you comments for substance (ie. ignoring the attacks on non-theists) I think you actually agree with my hypothesis about moral intuitions having arisen through our evolution as a social species. (“God has placed the moral law in all our hearts” is to me just a metaphorical way of saying this – akin to Einstein’s “God does not play dice”).
You also seem to agree that morality is usually encoded in society via social organisation, laws, religious and other teachings, etc.
You have clearly not understood my point about an objective basis for some of our moral logic and behaviour arising from our existence as individuals, sentient beings.
However, it does seem to me that the extent of agreement shown does support my point that we all derive out morality in the same secular way – although we might justify it using ideology and religion.
In the absence of a clear exposition of how you determine what is objectively right and wrong can I interpret you comment on the Bible (“the principles extracted from the Bible because it is an authority on what God’s perfect will is”) as presenting your answer? That you justify your criticism of Hitler (assuming that you do criticise him) by reference to some clause or other recorded in the Bible? (Of course this raises subsidiary questions but let’s leave those for the moment)
This seems to be the only way I can interpret your comments to give substance to you claim of an objective moral basis for theist morality. Is this what you mean by a “moral ontology,” by an “ought”, by “prescription of morals”?
Can you give a clear answer on this?
LikeLike
Re: 117
Ken, I have not really been concerned about the epistemological question “how do we know what moral code to follow?” or “how do we determine what is good?” I have been concerned with the ontology of morality, ie. “is there such a thing as good,” or “Is what is right and wrong just a ‘useful fiction?'”
I answered in a general way how people know (I gave almost a whole paragraph). For the theist in particular – I can agree it is much the same as any other person.
As you may know, I have serious doubts about the full scope of evolutionary theory being correct, but I am completely open for some sort of evolutionary developmental thesis of how society and culture shapes our understanding of what is right and wrong. My hypothesis is in the end it will not be a comprehensive understanding. (Also that it will not be philosophically superior to theistic views of ethics, as I don’t think naturalism can give us any confidence that naturalism itself is true).
Not really. Its almost a direct quote from Romans 2. Its more like saying God has given everyone a faculty of conscience and intuition so we can determine and decide for ourselves what the correct understanding of morality is and how we live accordingly. In essence, on the condition that the cognitive faculties are operating correctly as God intended, everyone has within themselves the ability to discern what is good from natural revelation.
Where the Christian theist (notice the distinction between just the theist and the Christian) has an advantage over the non-theist is s/he also has special revelation. That does not mean the special revelation is applied at all, or if applied, applied consistently. It also does not mean the non-theist cannot take the special revelation (the Bible) as a guide to live by themselves. In fact I think many unconsciously do.
[
When Nietzsche’s declared “God is dead” (he didn’t prove it by-the-way, he assumed it) his conclusion was that traditional Christian-based values die with Him. It was Neitzsche’s philosophy that was in part the justification used for Hitler and the Nazi’s atrocious acts. He of course predicted the 20th century would be the bloodiest of all time, and he was right. The point I’m making here in parenthesis is Nietzsche was frustrated because he saw that no one – yet – including himself, could shake of the remnants of Christian morality and live consistently with atheism. Jean Paul Sartre had similar problems.
]
What I mean by objective moral values is that there is a moral standard above all people, at all times and all places. How one determines objective moral values exist?
– Firstly, by appealing to our common, basic, fundamental moral intuitions. Torturing a baby isn’t just wrong, its wrong for all people at all times and all places. If objective morals do not exist what Hitler did to the Jews wasn’t plain and simply wrong, it was only wrong is a lesser, more relativistic sense. If there was ever a time when unacceptable practices were acceptable, two options become available for the meta-ethicist (1) moral relativism (which premise 1 implies is the result of metaphysical-naturalism / atheism) (2) they were objectively wrong to participate in the practice.
– Secondly, by carefully assessing worldviews. Moral absolutes are expected in a theistic worldview, but unexpected and surprising in a physicalistic or naturalistic worldview.
Your fixed to the epistemological question. The bible represents just one way in which one can know the difference between right and wrong, for example it encourages and prescribes certain modes of behaviour. But the Bible is irrelevant to the original axiological argument I posed. That argument is concerned with the existence or state of being of moral values (moral ontology) and whether they are objective (absolute and universal).
Objective moral values, duties, and properties such as worth, value and rightness all are prescriptive and evaluative – they carry with them an “ought” and not merely a descriptive, factual “is.” And so they must find a qualitative, transcendent ground in the very nature of the greatest conceivable being. (As goodness is a perfection, the greatest conceivable being will be perfectly good, just and moral.) Also as morals are prescribed by persons, the greatest conceivable being will be personal. (That this being is consistent with the being revealed in scripture is another, separate argument.)
Can you please give a clear answer on what you mean by moral logic? And what reason you have for asserting it?
In summary: It is in the ontological sense that I have argued that naturalism cannot give us objective moral values, but that theism can. And as objective moral values exist, it follows that God exists. Thus we have an argument, and as I pointed out before, to deny its conclusion, one has to give plausible reasons for denying one of the premises.
LikeLike
However, thanks for moving on from your Dawkins quote mining.
It didn’t work very well for you.
Worked very well for the rest of us in exposing you (for the umpteeth time) what a dishonest and desperate person you are.
I don’t know if you guys are just dense or that you so hate the idea that you are merely slaves to the deterministic forces of nature that you are dishonest. Any rational person will see that Dawkins was teaching determinism. Otherwise responsibility would not be “nonsense.”
For all the lurkers, I suggest you read “Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car” for yourself.
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html
Basil Fawlty, British television’s hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn’t start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. “Right! I warned you. You’ve had this coming to you!” He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a MACHINE with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
LikeLike
For the umpteenth time, James – what does Dawkins then go on to say?
LikeLike
For the umpteenth time, James – what does Dawkins then go on to say?
I aready posted that Alison, here it is again:
Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live.
The idea of blame and responsibility is a “useful fiction.” What is the “truer analysis of what is going on?” That we are like Basil’s car – machines with defective parts. Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?
Again:
But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment. Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
This is determinism, from beginning to end Alsion. And they fact that you guys are arguing against this obvious conclusion is eye opening. You don’t like being the slave of the blind forces of nature – do you? You really do believe that you have moral and intellectual freedom – don’t you…
LikeLike
James said…”I don’t know if you guys are just dense or that you so hate the idea….”
Exactly James.
You don’t know.
You’re clueless.
Everybody here thinks you’re a dishonest dolt because of this quote mining fiasco.
It’s cringe-worthy.
Try reading what Dawkins is actually saying, rather than what you want him to say.
Human rationality is nonsense?
Moral responsibility is nonsense?
If Dawkins actually said this, not as a rhetorical device or as a provocative statement designed to launch a discussion, then people would be all over it by now.
If Dawkins actually said this and meant it…then you’d expect it to be spelled out by him in detail, repeatedly.
Look at his work. He doesn’t claim this anywhere.
There are plenty of Dawkins’ collegues that are prepared to take him to task over any number of things that he writes.
Yet nobody (apart from the usual suspects of creationist web-stes) is getting very worked up over Dawkins proclaiming…”Human rationality is nonsense” and “moral responsibility is nonsense” because that’s NOT WHAT HE SAID.
Read some of Dawkins’ work.
Read it properly.
Like an adult.
Don’t just cut and paste reviews from the Internet.
Don’t just go on and on and on about him.
Sit down.
Grab the book in question.
Read the damn thing.
Sheesh.
LikeLike
e.g. “Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father…” and later “Don’t judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?” Note how ‘responsibility’ has the specific meaning intended when its kept in its context 😉
You also leave out that his article is also pointing (negatively) at the notion of retribution, as in the (Christian) “atonement for ‘sin'” concept.
He’s pointing out that the concept of punishing people in the way that we do, arises from taking an approach consistent with the religious “atonement for ‘sin'” concept, which he compares with Basil bashing his car. Instead we could look at what’s actually at fault (and presumably, fix it if possible).
His words “Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty?” are pointing out that looked at the way I’ve mentioned above, the judge’s punishment (atonement for ‘sin’) is the same as Basil bashing his car.
The first sentence in “Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?” is using analogy, for goodness sake. Note that the defect could be education, which could include religious education too. (Or religious “education” depending on your point of view.)
LikeLike
121:
No-one is “arguing against determinism”, James. They are just pointing out that you are misrepresenting Dawkins. You’re also taking determinism far too far, to extremes no-one would support. Dawkin’s article isn’t “all determinism” at all. Look at the example of education I mentioned. There are other non-deterministic things in the article. (I’ll you show us you can actually read by quoting them yourself.) All you are doing is persisting in quote-mining: selectively quoting bits and placing them out of context.
LikeLike
Dawkin’s article isn’t “all determinism” at all. Look at the example of education I mentioned. There are other non-deterministic things in the article. (I’ll you show us you can actually read by quoting them yourself.) All you are doing is persisting in quote-mining: selectively quoting bits and placing them out of context.
Heraclides, that is the part you don’t get. It’s all determined, even the education. How could it be otherwise? But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of… If the nervous system is “mechanistic,” then there is no room for freedom. Nothing escapes the physical laws of nature, not biology, not culture, not education – nothing escapes the Matrix.
LikeLike
His words “Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty?” are pointing out that looked at the way I’ve mentioned above, the judge’s punishment (atonement for ’sin’) is the same as Basil bashing his car.
Nonsense, he is taking about punishement in general:
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics.
Retribution “as a moral principle.” Why? Because our brains are goverened by the laws of pyhsics. Do you believe that punsihing criminals is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour?
LikeLike
125:
“It’s all determined, even the education.”
Wow 🙂 I always find it incredible just how far some religious people will take making excuses, to the point of contradicting even their own words and definitions with the dumbest statements in order “to be right” about some silly religious-based idea that they just have to have right.
Anyway, I take it he’s conceded the earlier points 🙂
LikeLike
118:
Looking at what you have posted, you might just as well have written “I would like all morals to only arise from theism”. It seems to me to be a lot more accurate representation of your position. It’d be a lot shorter and is of course just an assertion, but that’s part of my point.
In particular, I don’t see you demonstrating anything and in the absence of demonstration, I can’t see how you have an argument for anything either.
I could for example demonstrate that “care of young” (hence the “morality” of not harming the young of your own species) is an evolutionary trait in mammals.
I could go on but to be honest I can’t be bothered giving you much of my time. A point to note is your post strongly indicates that you have not considered at alternative explanations, never mind demonstrated that they aren’t useful, let alone demonstrating that your alternatives are. Without that as far as I can see your extended “explanation” is just an extended assertion.
LikeLike
James, all I can is that you are a religion-blinded idiot who tries to read silly things into others’ words. Nothing more from me again until you grow up, which you seem perpetually keen to show everyone you will never do.
Ken: you’ve got a blog spam-bot, I think!
LikeLike
James, oblivious to all reasoned discussion around him, sitting by himself with his fingers in his ears, babbled thusly…”Nothing escapes the physical laws of nature, not biology, not culture, not education – nothing escapes the Matrix.”
No. 82: ARGUMENT FROM “THE MATRIX”
(1) We cannot prove that we don’t live in a Matrix-like world.
(2) Therefore we cannot know reality.
(3) If reality is contingent, then everything is possible.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
LikeLike
“It’s all determined, even the education.”
Wow I always find it incredible just how far some religious people will take making excuses, to the point of contradicting even their own words and definitions with the dumbest statements in order “to be right” about some silly religious-based idea that they just have to have right.
Anyway, I take it he’s conceded the earlier points
Are you slow or just dense? Our brains are goverened by the laws of physics, they are mechanistic. It then follows that every thing we create (education, culture, court systems, etc…) are themselves deterministic, and how we respond to these systems is also mechanistic. There is no moral or intellectual freedom in any of this. If you can find a source for said freedoms in this model, please present it. So I have not conceded anything nor contradicted myself.
LikeLike
James said…”There is no moral or intellectual freedom in any of this.”
Apart from you, who says so?
Nobody.
You are chanting to yourself in the corner.
Your position is futile.
Your only hope is to create an endless series of strawmen to knock down.
Maybe you should focus on the real discussion around you?
LikeLike
@ Stuart – December 2, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Stuart – I aren’t interested in reading a lengthy and rambling comment such as this. But you did give an answer, of sorts, to my question “upon what basis does the theist determine what is good?” – “For the theist in particular – I can agree it is much the same as any other person.”
So then – how can you then say “Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler” with the at least the implied attitude that theists can? A pretty fundamental contradiction, I would think, for any human wishing to live in a pluralist society.
Are you prepared to revise this comment or acknowledge that it is wrong?
LikeLike
131: See 129.
LikeLike
To Ken; a one sentence reply would go like this:
“You are confusing should not with a cannot.”
That I hope that is pretty obvious to everyone.
“Should” gives an added moral component, that “can” is lacking. If ones philosophy cannot affirm the existence of objective moral values and give reasons why such-and-such is simply and utterly wrong or really right then one lacks the ability to make objective moral judgements (such as condemning Hitler) while remaining consistent with their worldview. Since one should be consistent with their worldview (someone pointed out here something to the effect that Dawkin’s makes it clear he has no wish to thoroughly integrate his beliefs on evolution with his moral life – this represents to my mind a miserable intellectual failure and the inadequacy of atheistic thought) it follows that “the atheist should not criticise Hitler.”
Is anyone prepared to lay forth a clear and concise argument (without the accompanying strawmen, *giggles*, invective, etc.)?
LikeLike
“Can” is self-defined in that it deals with the realm of the possible. “Should” requires that the statement be given context. The statement “X should do X” requires that you append a “…if X is to be achieved”. The theist takes this to automatically mean “…if you are to obey God’s divine law as revealed in scripture” or some such and rarely feels the need to give “should” statements a context.
But when the atheist completes the phrase “atheists should criticise Hitler” with “…if one disagrees with Hitler’s methods of governing” (or “…if one abhors violence”, etc, etc) then it is a completely reasonable and logical sentiment.
When a theist expresses doubt that an atheist can logically hold a moral belief it is really only highlighting the theist’s inability to think outside of the framework they’ve surrounded themselves with and a forgetfulness that they have to, themselves, contextualise any “should” sentence with a reference to a God.
LikeLike
136:
Good post.
135:
There is a saying in science that goes in a variety of forms, but the gist of it is “If you can’t explain your work to the cleaning lady, then you don’t understand your own work.” Your long-winded rambles to me say “I don’t really understand this.”
(They do suggest what it is that you would like to be true.)
LikeLike
@135 The problem with your approach is that you think that you have an objective basis for morality, but your bible is as open to interpretation as any other source of information, so is far from objective.
What is worse than that, is that unfortunately your source of morality lacks the ability to be confirmed/reinforced by experiment or empirical observation. This is the benefit that a rational (or scientific) approach brings to a topic. Underlying this approach is the understanding that everything is contingent and any theory (scientific, or of any other type) requires coherent confirmation to increase the confidence level in that theory to a usable or reliable level.
What you are missing when you bandy around terms such as objective morality is a defined context. If you define a context, then of course it is possible to derive an objective morality rationally based on consequences (consequentialism). What is the relative part here is the context. What weighting do you give to individual flourishing vs societal cohesion etc.. These issues are not easy, but ignoring the issues, waving your hands around and trying to find truth in unconfirmable cryptic babblings strikes me as not the best approach to improve the world.
LikeLike
@136 Good post also!.
@137 Also a good post, my thoughts exactly. When somebody is unable to communicate their idea to others, this sets warning bells ringing for me. That reminds me of a quote from Noam Chomsky on the subject of post modernism (you can read that in the wikipedia article on post modernism if interested).
LikeLike
Let me first say I am pleased with the reasoned and level headed responses. It is a welcome change from the invective. Thank you very much. 🙂
@ 136
A fairly good post. I take your point that “can” deals with the realm of the possible. The appended statement to the statement “X should do X” I have been inferring throughout is “…if one is to remain consistent with their worldview.” No reference to God or the Bible hidden in there.
Contextualising the moral statement “Hitler was wrong” to “if one disagrees with Hitler’s methods” is subjectivism – it says nothing beyond personal feelings. As an ethical theory it is woefully inadequate as all people make moral judgements that refer above and beyond themselves to an objective standard of what is right and wrong (regardless of personal feelings). Remember Hitler believed what he was doing was right? Was he then moral?
@138
The Bible has nothing to do with the axiological argument I have annunciated. As it is “open to interpretation” you are dealing with how one knows which particular actions is right and wrong. But the argument is not concerned with that at all. It is just concerned with if there is such a thing as right and wrong.
And its that concern (‘moral ontology’) that cannot be answered by science or physical experimental testing. As the name suggest it is a metaphysical matter.
As I have mentioned before briefly, the objectivalist (for the cleaning lady – one who believes in objective standards of right and wrong) who redefines right in the statement “X is right” as “what is beneficial to individual flourishing,” or “…societal cohesion,” or such like reduced moral properties to non-moral properties. If you do this you are an ethical naturalist.
Two things I’ll say the ethical naturalist (which amounts to what you call a “consequentialist”) in refutation. First, it confuses an “is” with an “ought.” Natural properties do not carry normativeness – that is, they just are, there is no property of rightness that instructs how one ought to act. Second, moral reductionism fails for there are always cases where an act is right even if it does not have the natural property. For instance, if one reduces the moral property to a natural property, where “right” becomes “what produces societal cohesion,” then Gahndi’s non-violent civil disobedience campaign was wrong, for it produced massive civil dissent and discordant factions. But its clear to most people that shaking off the bonds of their colonial oppressors with non-violence, and the struggle for national independence was right.
I have defined the context of what I mean by “objective morality” several times before. That is, that such a thing is right or wrong even if the whole world disagrees, and such that is the case for all people at all times and all places.
LikeLike
To no one in particular, and everyone who is following this conversation,
There are two huge red thumbs that are still throbbing: two questions that (as far as I can see) are yet to be answered.
First, if you want to avoid the conclusion to the axiological argument I proposed, which premise do you disagree?
To repeat the argument:
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, God exists.
Second, if its the first, how does one on naturalism (without reference to God) affirm the existence (not knowledge of) objective moral values?
LikeLike
“The appended statement to the statement “X should do X” I have been inferring throughout is “…if one is to remain consistent with their worldview.” No reference to God or the Bible hidden in there.”
Erm? Let’s try as you suggest:
Atheists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] to remain consistent with their worldview.
Theists Should Not Criticise Hitler if [they are] is to remain consistent with their worldview.
It seems to me that all this does is force you (Stuart) to define just what you mean by “worldview” for each set of people.
(I’d note that this word game doesn’t actually avoid referring to a G-d concept in the case of theists, since everyone knows Christian theist’s worldview includes a G-d concept in one of various forms: it only avoids the word.)
I wrote earlier (post 128), that I don’t believe you have presented an argument at all. I was going to point out why and suggest you try again, bearing in mind a number of things, but thought it’d be simpler to ask you to try write something simple, hence my post 137. You might want to read the Chomsky quote Nick referred to, too.
LikeLike
Du’h. The first point is founded on an assumption, so the lot is moot.
You need to rewrite this, it’s nonsensical. What do you mean by “if it[‘]s the first”?
Here’s one of my points about you lack of argument that you need to address:
You might want to first show if Gareth is right or not (see first post in your thread). If no-one can “affirm the existence of objective moral values and give reasons why such-and-such is simply and utterly wrong or really right” the whole “debate” is pointless. It would seem sensible to show this is possible at all first, surely? If you don’t IMO you’re starting with an assumption, one that would make the entire exercise moot.
LikeLike
Stuart said…
“1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, God exists.”
Psst.
Stuart.
Over here….
No.62.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
This may come as a shock to you but people make fun of this kind of thinking.
Read what you wrote again.
Can you think of any possible objections?
Let me help you with that.
1) If the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, The Flying Spaghetti monster exists.
1) If Luke Skywalker does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, Luke Skywalker exists.
1) If Krishna does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, Krishna exists
🙂
I love it when a plan comes together.
LikeLike
Simple. The atheistic worldview and the theistic worldview. I’ll use the dictionary definitions as opposed to the modern bastardized definitions such as “no belief in God.” A “worldview” is a philosophy of life, where your beliefs seek integration with your everyday thoughts and actions.
Its a valid argument in that it follows the laws of logic. It is a sound argument as it is valid and the premises are more plausible than their negations, if not true. The onus is on you then to show how it is not more plausibly true than its negation, rather than just asserting its falsehood (or whatever you are trying to say.) By the way, “moot” means its subject to debate, so I take your point and await your answer. 🙂
Second question: if one disagrees with the first premise, how does one one without reference to God affirm the existence of (not knowledge of) objective moral values?
Simple. The atheistic worldview and the theistic worldview. I’ll use the dictionary definitions as opposed to the modern bastardized definitions such as “no belief in God.” A “worldview” is a philosophy of life, where your beliefs seek integration with your everyday thoughts and actions.
Its a valid argument in that it follows the laws of logic. It is a sound argument as it is valid and the premises are more plausible than their negations, if not true. The onus is on you then to show how it is not more plausibly true than its negation, rather than just asserting its falsehood (or whatever you are trying to say.) By the way, “moot” means its subject to debate, so I take your point and await your answer. 🙂
Second question: if one disagrees with the first premise, how does one one without reference to God affirm the existence of (not knowledge of) objective moral values?
It is on naturalism that one cannot affirm the existence of objective moral values (and remain consistant with their view). Or so I contend. Do you disagree? Pray tell?
One can certainly know metaphysical properties. Think about truth, love, propositions, numbers, etc. One can certainly have experiences with objective moral values, if they exist that is. The way we know they do exist is to reflect on our own moral experience.
LikeLike
146:
“Simple. The atheistic worldview and the theistic worldview. I’ll use the dictionary definitions as opposed to the modern bastardized definitions such as “no belief in God.” A “worldview” is a philosophy of life, where your beliefs seek integration with your everyday thoughts and actions.”
You haven’t actually defined the worldviews! All this does is force you (Stuart) to define just what you mean by “ atheistic worldview” and “theistic worldview”… Given previously it was “their worldview”, for each of theists and atheists, its self-evident back then that it was ‘atheistic worldview’ and ‘theistic worldview’: you’ve added nothing because you haven’t actually defined them…
“Its a valid argument in that it follows the laws of logic.”
Its still founded on an assumption, making it pointless unless you first prove the assumption.
“By the way, “moot” means its subject to debate”
Actually, not really, unless you are the kind of American that wants to impose a slightly dated U.S.A. meaning of the word on everyone else 😉 It more commonly means, loosely speaking, “irrelevant”. This is/was a U.S.A./British English difference, but apparently the meaning you give is on the wane in the U.S.A., so you might want to get with the program 😉
But even by your definition, it’s moot, because you haven’t proven the assumption. That’s up to you to do.
“Second question: if one disagrees…”
You need to establish the assumption holds first, or it’s moot, either way you define moot! 🙂
“Or so I contend. Do you disagree? Pray tell?”
This is a cop-out, asking others to do your work for you (and in the negative, too). (I should add, this is the very thing that people here get annoyed with James over.) “Or so I contend” is not an argument, its doesn’t demonstrate anything. As it is presented, its just a possibility, nothing more.
144: I thought it looked overly familiar…!
LikeLike
A theistic worldview included the notion of God, who gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability. – ie. the premise: if objective moral values exists, God exists.
I don’t think you’ll ever actually engage with the argument, so I don’t konw why I’m explaining this again. I don’t know any other way other than repetition to get it across.
On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of God) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist. It is an unexpected feature of the universe in which we live. So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if God noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist (if you want to affirm the existence of objective moral values)?
The argument is a good one.
LikeLike
Stuart struggles with…”On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of God) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist.”
On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist.”
Doesn’t matter whether it’s difficult or not.
It does not help your argument.
As Apologianick clearly said…”…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
Stuart said…”It is an unexpected feature of the universe in which we live.”
Unexpected? Huh? Who says so?
Stuart digs himself deeper into hole number 62 with…”So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if God noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist…”
Let’s try that again…
So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist…
(awkward silence)
Can you see the glaring flaw in your argument now?
Do you see why it fails to impress most people as being sound?
If an athesist has no idea where moral values come from, it does not follow that therefore your brand-name god poofs into existence.
Or Zeus.
Or Nodens.
Or Nyarlathotep.
If an athesist has no idea where lighting comes from come from, it does not follow that therefore your brand-name god poofs into existence.
Or Ishtar.
Or Crom.
Or Ulthar.
Keep going though. Continue this line of reasoning.
Should be good for a laugh.
LikeLike
(apologies if this is a double post)
Stuart struggles with…”On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of God) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist.”
Let’s try that again…
On the atheistic worldview (which excludes the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) it is difficult to see why objective moral values, duties and accountability exist.”
Doesn’t matter whether it’s difficult or not.
It does not help your argument.
As Apologianick clearly said…”…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
Stuart said…”It is an unexpected feature of the universe in which we live.”
Unexpected? Huh? Who says so?
Stuart digs himself deeper into hole number 62 with…”So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if God noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist…”
Let’s try that again…
So, if you are going to deny premise 1 – that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster noes not exist, then objective moral values do not exist – you need to show how on atheism objective moral values do exist…
(awkward silence)
Can you see the glaring flaw in your argument now?
Do you see why it fails to impress most people as being sound?
If an atheist has no idea where moral values come from, it does not follow that therefore your brand-name god poofs into existence.
Or Zeus.
Or Nodens.
Or Nyarlathotep.
If an atheist has no idea where lighting comes from come from, it does not follow that therefore your brand-name god poofs into existence.
Or Ishtar.
Or Crom.
Or Ulthar.
Keep going though. Continue this line of reasoning.
Should be good for a laugh.
LikeLike
Stuart,
I personally don’t believe in objective morality in the way in which I suspect you mean it. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if you even believe it. Let’s break it down:
You say that objective morality is “such a thing is right or wrong even if the whole world disagrees”. And you say that this comes from “God, who gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability”. Not only is this a circular argument but if you believe God to be anything more than a fundamental force of nature then surely this is merely moving morality to being subjective to God? We see it in your own scripture where God commands people to slaughter children (an act that everyone would call objectively wrong had God not commanded it in the first place). This means that God subjectively makes up his own right and wrong. This means that what you think is objective is really just deferred subjectivity.
We could do much the same thing if we decided to define Ken’s moral instincts as “right or wrong even if the whole world disagrees”. This would now be the same kind of ‘objective morality’ as you define it as with the exception that we have more evidence that Ken really exists.
Most (all?) people who claim a kind of objective morality actually have a deferred subjective morality. Usually deferred to their parents, the pope, God, or someone/something else they believe to be more capable than them.
LikeLike
“I don’t think you’ll ever actually engage with the argument, so I don’t konw why I’m explaining this again. I don’t know any other way other than repetition to get it across.”
If you can’t see it: I’m trying to get you to make an argument in the first place, one that can be addressed. So far you haven’t: these revisions bringing it closer, but you are still not there yet. You still haven’t defined the terms clearly, unambiguously.
I note that you had to introduce the G-d concept, at last. I was waiting for that. It was part of the reason I was pushing you to define your starting point properly. Given ‘(a)theist’ and ‘worldview’ are linked in the statement, this implies the G-d concept as part of the ‘worldview’. You earlier claimed “No reference to G[-]d or the [b]ible hidden in there.”. Can you now see, by you own example, that your earlier claim was wrong? (And by implication, that Nick was right?) The G-d reference was “hidden” there all along. If you keep going and define these starting points properly, the bible reference will be too. Keep going 😉
I also wrote earlier “since everyone knows Christian theist’s worldview includes a G-d concept in one of various forms: it only avoids the word.” Part of what I am doing in getting you to create your argument is getting you to see what Nick, I and others can: that your “argument” is founded on this G-d concept and biblical teachings, not logic or some universal truth.
Let me continue, bearing in mind that your “argument” still isn’t quite really for “prime time”, as these founding statements are far still too loosely defined.
“who gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability. – ie. the premise”
If you are now conceding that your “argument” rests on the premise that “G-d gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability” (fine, and good), then you need to demonstrate that this is premise true, or your argument will be moot. You will probably also find that explaining “gives a basis for objective moral values, duties and accountability ” will require that you bring in references to the bible (hence my statement that the bible reference will be there too, above). You will also find, that you need to demonstrate that this G-d itself exists, too: if this is your premise and G-d doesn’t exist, then your argument also falls down.
But keep going, you’re on the right track 😉
Note now that you are getting closer to an argument, I can now start to address it. You still need to define the starting point unambiguously, and to demonstrate that your premise holds. This, in turn, will require you to expand your premise so that that things the premise itself are founded on are exposed and resolved. Then you’ll have a proper starting point.
LikeLike
Taking up Stuart on his little story:
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist
3) Therefore, God exists.
What does he mean by objective moral values? To me, objective means existing independently of the observer. It implies an “outside existence”. Something existing “out there” that we can observe, look at, interact with, learn about – describe the location of.
So, Stuart, where are these objective values, how can I locate them, how can I learn about them, describe them. (Apparently I need them to be able to judge someone like Hitler!).
A simple clear answer is all I want (or should I assume that these “objective morals” are “located” in the bible?)
Stuart – you are asking for a non-theist description or definition of “objective vlaues.” My perspective on this was presented in Where do our morals come from? – where I talked about “some of our morality, and moral logic, being objectively based“. (That is – based on objective reality – not objective in themselves).
I don’t think there is such a thing as “objective moral value” (if I did I would have to define their location etc.) – but I think that we can talk about moral values with an objective basis in our existence as independent, sentient, conscious intelligent beings. This objective basis serves me well in determining how I should judge thinks like fascism, racism, slavery, etc. – in a way that the Christian/Jewish Bible cannot do. That’s why I can, and should, criticise Hitler.
Can you, Stuart, give (describe) the objective moral values (and their location) which enables you to criticise Hitler?
LikeLike
@ Stuart:
“A “worldview” is a philosophy of life, where your beliefs seek integration with your everyday thoughts and actions. ” – The problem then is that you go on to talk about an “atheist worldview” as if it is one definable thing – rather than seeing world views as attached to individuals.
My atheism is simply a belief that there is no god – its says extremely little about my “world view”. The word “atheist” can lump me together with the Dalia Lama, Llyod Geering (and other Christian atheists), Dawkins, and more than 50% of New Zealanders (according to census and poll data). I am sure my “world view” would be different to most of those people. We cannot say that all these people have the same “world view” in terms of their beliefs, thoughts and every-day actions.
LikeLike
@ Stuart:
“Dawkin’s makes it clear he has no wish to thoroughly integrate his beliefs on evolution with his moral life – this represents to my mind a miserable intellectual failure and the inadequacy of atheistic thought”
Do you realise how pathetic this argument is? You are saying that because I observe violent behavior by a predator like a lion then I must include such violent behaviour in my social activity. That I should base my moral code on what I observe happening between a bacteria and a virus. That I should not criticise Hitler because I observe predation and violence amongst non-human animals.
That is an extremely silly argument – a “miserable intellectual” and moral “failure” – completely inadequate of any thought.
LikeLike
I see that Bnonn and/or Stuart at Thinking Matters (http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/atheists-should-not-criticise-hitler/) have deleted my most recent post. This was preceded by trying to plant “not contributing” on me as an excuse. I made a single side-post to another poster in the thread; Bnonn and Stuart responded several times foisting on me things I did not say, which I felt obligated to correct. They continued, so it took several attempts to correct. Bnonn’s initial reply in particular struck me as a rush of blood to the head (so I choose not to response to the name-calling portions of it). I am left with the impression that having rushed in and accused me of things I didn’t write, and failed to get their “charges” laid on me to stick, they have resorted to setting up an excuse to remove me from the thread instead! 🙂
I closed my first post on the thread on their blog with “Self-justification is about as pointless as it gets.” Making a straw-man argument to dismiss me is self-justification. Perhaps I should infer from their example that their blog is “about as pointless as it gets”? 😉
JK.
Anyway… I guess this shows, yet again, the loowwww moral standards of apologists! Or that they have paper-thin skins for people that present articles slating others.
So that others who are following this “argument” “across two blogs” can see it, I have included after this paragraph my deleted post (unaltered), written in response to Bnonn and Stuart complaining about my continuing to post. I’d add that that I did in fact question Stuart’s logic. (I questioned Stuart’s entire approach, as did the poster I wrote to.) I’d also add that the things I refer to in my penultimate paragraph I did out of not wishing to take things too far, a courtesy perhaps I shouldn’t have bothered to extend to them and maybe in future I won’t.
LikeLike
Ken, the formatting in my post under moderation is a little messy: if you let it go, I’ll re-post it in tidier form. (I need to delete the line breaks within the blockquoted paragraphs.)
LikeLike
@ Heraclides:
Yes, I’m afraid that the angry young men at “Thinking Matters” are a bit too judgemental and insecure in their ideology to allow full, vibrant and respectful discussion. There seems little point in contributing anything there if they just resort to deletion.
LikeLike
I suppose its one way idealistic youth comes out. Its just a shame it has to be wasted on fundamentalist religion instead of something more positive.
LikeLike
Ken said…”There seems little point in contributing anything there if they just resort to deletion.”
Hot-house flowers.
Take them out into the real world and they wilt.
LikeLike
Ken,
Objective moral values are values that exist independent of a person or their judgement, not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
An example: An objective value would be that Hitler was wrong, even if he had won the war, and succeeded in either killing or mind-washing everyone who opposed him.
An example: An objective value would be that it would be wrong to boil a baby even if it was a global cultural norm.
Your naturalism severely limits the scope of human knowledge. If things needed a locale to exist, then things like the laws of logic, numbers, abstract objects, propositions, would not exist. As its undeniable that things like the laws of logic do exist as you have to assume them to even think, I don’t have any problem with moral values (as I have described them above) objectively existing.
Think about a police officer who sees a bank robber fleeing. He blows his whistle and shouts, “Stop in the name of the law.” Now the police officer has just invoked a law, established by a higher authority (the nation) to compel the thief to cease running. Now this law is written on a piece of paper with ink and is locked in a vault in Capital City. But the paper is not the law? The law is the principle described by the words on the paper. The idea that transcends all the citizenry, no matter their ethnicity, religion, opinions and feelings.
Objective moral values make sense as a feature of the universe if God exists. They are grounded in his divine commands which flow necessarily from his nature. Lets not get distracted on what these objective morals are, or how we come to know them. It is enough for the argument I propose to show that they exist, or at least that their existence is more likely than their non-existence.
To discern the truth value of the existence of objective moral values, I propose you reflect on your own moral experience. Ask yourself, could it ever be permissible to boil a live baby? Could it ever be right to deliberately swerve the mac truck your driving into a group of children waiting to cross the road?
If God does not exist and if objective moral values do exist, where do they come from? As the naturalist has to answer to this question, it is more reasonable, as Emmanuel Kant said, to believe and live like God does exists in order to make sense of morality. If you are going to believe that there is no god and still live like there are objective moral values, and if you are to have a fully integrated worldview, then you’ll need an explanation as to how you get them.
It’s not an argument, but a statement of belief. It thought you would recognise that. Here is the argument. Atheistic-evolution implies there are no objective moral values or standards. Yet Dawkin’s moralises all throughout his writings as if objective morals do exist. Therefore he lacks a thoroughly integrated worldview. That’s all I’m saying, nothing about lions social behaviour, etc..
LikeLike
@ 149
Cedric. Whatever name you put in place of “God” in the argument, if the premises are more plausible than their contradictories, the conclusion follows inescapably. So, since you wish to replace the God with the undeveloped concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lets do it…
1) If the Flying Spagetti Moster does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist.
3) The Flying Spagetti Monster exists.
So from this argument what can we say about the properties of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (if this being exists)? The Flying Spagetti Monster is perfectly moral being that transcends authoritatively all morally capable life. This itself implies this being is also perfectly just and righteous. Also the Flying Spagetti Monster is a personal being as moral values can only be prescribed by personal agents. It is not a far leap from there to conclude also this being is transcendent and has endowed humans with inherent worth, prescribes moral duties, and supplies ultimate moral accountability.
Gee, the Flying Spagetti Monster seems quite similar to the what traditionally has been called God. Isn’t that peculiar?
The argument doesn’t profess to prove anything beyond those two main contentions. That this being is personal. That this being has a perfectly moral nature. But that in itself is enough to destroy naturalism, as naturalism cannot explain the existence of objective moral values.
@150
Unexpected on atheism that is. Who says it? Great atheistic thinkers; Satre, Nietzsche, Neilson, Kant, etc…
LikeLike
@ 151
Damian,
I have already responded partially in my response recently to Ken’s questions by defining “objective moral values” once more. The key point in the definition is it is irrespective of people’s feelings or opinions.
Now of course everyone has their own feelings on moral issues, so we could say that we have our own subjective moral values. But the point in the argument is to point out that there are objective moral values. Even if there’s only one, the argument carries through.
Re: deferring to God’s subjective morality.
This objection is dealt with briefly in my response to the Euthyphro Dilemma on the original post and Thinking Matters. (see here: http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/atheists-should-not-criticise-hitler/ ). The response is to say that God is good because his nature is good. Not because he follows an arbitrary set of rules he determined or felt like these particular standards were the ones people should follow. His divine commands flow necessarily from his own nature. Therefore, the objective moral values that God establishes are not merely his preference, opinion or feelings, but represent for us objective values, duties and responsibilities, and makes sense of the moral accountability.
This need only be possible to blunt the horns of the Dilemma. The axiological argument doesn’t profess to prove that the God presented is the God of the Bible. As I’ve mentioned before, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and biblical infallability are not a even bought into the discussion.
I don’t see the circularity you mention, can you point it out syllogistically for me?
LikeLike
Stuart, your examples fail your own definition of “objective values” as they include the word ‘wrong’, which makes them circular, in the sense of ‘circular logic’: they use the concept you seek to define (rightness/wrongness aka moral judgements). The ‘wrong’ would be decided by the individual making the judgement, using their opinions, etc. based on their “moral code”, so your examples would not be independent of the person making the judgement: they would be dependent on the “moral code” of the person making the judgement. Which leads back to Gareth’s point about if objective values are even possible at all, as I mentioned at the end of post 143, which you haven’t addressed yet. Until you address this, using the term ‘objective value’ itself is open to question.
“Your naturalism severely limits the scope of human knowledge.”
No. Superstitious beliefs limit the scope of knowledge because they replace “we don’t have an answer yet” with a potted answer that blocks people seeking the real truth, never mind seeing how things actually are. Knowing that you don’t know something is honest and directs future investigation.
“As its undeniable that things like the laws of logic do exist as you have to assume them to even think“
The latter (emboldened) portion is not true. You want to read a history of science that starts with primitive man. Numbers were invented, not just “there always” as your statement implies. Ditto for (human representation of) the laws of logic, physics, etc. Ancient man did not have these things and could certainly think. Hell, even many so-called “primitive” tribes of recent times don’t have formal logic (as in “laws of logic”) and very rudimentary mathematics (basic arithmetic at most), but can certainly think.
“Objective moral values make sense as a feature of the universe if God exists.”
There you go again, making a flat assertion that inserts G-d in somehow, as a flat assertion I’m going to ignore the paragraphs based on it. It does reveal your real objectives to my mind, however (i.e. the “argument” itself is really irrelevant to you.)
Regards the beliefs you attribute to Dawkins, I am under the distinct impression that you have imposed your own beliefs in there on him (i.e., in your words, “evolution implies there are no objective moral values or standards”). I think that this is called put words in others’ mouths 😉
Getting back to the main line of things, I’m waiting for you to restate your argument more completely, so there is actually an argument to be considered.
162: I’ve already pointed out that since the first point is founded on a premise, until the premise is established, there is no argument to be had. Its the same reason you need to finish stating your arguments, its still got unsatisfied premises in it.
Your last bit uses the fallacious “appeal to authority” argument 😉
LikeLike
“But the point in the argument is to point out that there are objective moral values.”
But you don’t establish that there are objective moral values first…
“The response is to say that God is good because his nature is good.”
You have just asserted “because his nature is good”. (Q: is it a sin to you to refer to H-m as ‘him’?) Basically, because you want to view it that way: nothing objective about that.
You might want to get back to defining your argument. I think you’ll find in defining properly you’ll reveal your real “argument” to yourself 😉
LikeLike
defining it properly, sorry.
LikeLike
Stuart said…”So from this argument what can we say about the properties of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (if this being exists)?”
The key word here is “if”.
Surely you should deal with that little word first before you start eagerly assigning properties?
“The Flying Spagetti Monster is perfectly moral being that transcends authoritatively all morally capable life.”
It/She/He is?
How do you actually know this?
Did you ask The Noodly One personally?
Hmm?
Or is this just pure guesswork on your part?
“This itself implies blah, blah, blah…”
Stuart? Stuart?
Before we go running off with the “implications”, perhaps we should get part one organized first?
“Also the Flying Spagetti Monster…”
Once again. Where are you getting your information on the FSM? Are you even sure the FSM (praise be forever the pasta sauce) actually exists?
Stuart said…”It is not a far leap from there to conclude blah, blah, blah…”
Stuart? Hello?
Stuart?
Let’s leave the “far leaping” alone for a minute, shall we?
You have some more basic problems at that part one bit before you go launching off into Pastafarian apologetics.
Stuart said…”Gee, the Flying Spagetti Monster seems quite similar to the what traditionally has been called God. Isn’t that peculiar?”
Not really. Predictable really.
You have your pre-packaged brand-name god, ready to go.
It never occurs to you that others have different brand-name gods that they would argue would fit the description just as well.
Of course, you’re going to shoe-horn in your god.
That’s where your interests lie.
Now what would have been REALLY impressive is if you had said…”Gee, the Flying Spagetti Monster seems quite similar to the what traditionally has been called Mithra. Isn’t that peculiar?”
Or perhaps…”Gee, the Flying Spagetti Monster seems quite similar to the what traditionally has been called Osiris. Isn’t that peculiar?”
………………………………………………..
Stuart said…”The argument doesn’t profess to prove anything beyond those two main contentions. That this being is personal. That this being has a perfectly moral nature.”
It doesn’t prove anything at all.
“That this being is personal.”
What being?
(Personal? Never mind. Whatever)
WHAT BEING?
How do you know there is a being, personal or otherwise in the first place?
Moral nature?
What moral nature?
This doesn’t make any sense.
All you’re doing is waving your hands in the air.
You have demonstrated nothing.
Argument No. 62 DOES NOT WORK.
People make fun of it for a reason.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
I am more that a little surprised that you don’t seem to get it yet.
LikeLike
167: regards your linked page, I have to laugh at the huge list only to skip to the very last “proof”, interestingly numbered 666 🙂
LikeLike
@152
Heraclides:
I can see I was wrong to say there is no reference to God. I should have clarified I was thinking of the particular Christian concept of God. As I replied to Cedric, the moral argument only gives us ground to say there exists a perfect being whose nature is morally perfect, that this being is personal, and that this being transcends authoritatively all moral agents.
The argument admittedly has limited scope, which is why it gains its full force in a cumulative case for God’s existence.
Argument for Premise One in the axiological argument.
1) x’s contradictory (y) is equivalent to not x
2) x’s existence explains the existence of objective moral values
3) y’s existence does not explain the existence of objective moral values.
4) Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe that objective moral values do not exist given y, but given x one is entirely rational for believing that objective moral values do exist.
5) Traditionally it is asserted that God explains the existence of objective moral values.
6) Therefore, x is the assertion that God exists (theism)
7) Therefore, y is the assertion that God does not exist (atheism)
8) Therefore, if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 8 doesn’t have to be true. It only needs to be more likely than its contradictory, called atheism.
LikeLike
I don’t know why I said “called atheism” at the end there. Its late.
I should have said the contradictory is – if y then objective morals do exist.
LikeLike
“I should have clarified I was thinking of the particular Christian concept of G-d.” Same difference, just replace ‘theist’ with ‘Christian’. This isn’t right either. The more correct thing to say is that by definition it must have a reference to whatever deity the theist believes in. If the theist is Christian, then it’ll be the Christian G-d.
“As I replied to Cedric, the moral argument only gives us ground to say there exists a perfect being whose nature is morally perfect”
If you would complete stating your argument, you might learn if it does or not.
“The argument admittedly has limited scope, which is why it gains its full force in a cumulative case for God’s existence.”
Now you’re really getting silly. Its limited, but its not limited. Yeah, right. In reality it has no scope at all because it isn’t an argument to start with. You really need to go back and define your argument properly and start from there.
Your “logical argument” is very idiotic. 2 & 3 do not arise from 1.In fact they arise from nowhere, i.e. they are flat assertions introduced into the “logic”. (It also follows that ‘therefore’ in 4. is nonsense.) You keep posing as a “philosopher” by flashing words around, but you can’t seem to think to save the life of you. I can therefore infer that you have simply copied this from some website or book without any idea at all how ridiculous it is 😉 JK.
“Premise [X] doesn’t have to be true. It only needs to be more likely than its contradictory”
Ignoring the grammar issues, this would only true if you abandoned using logic and start playing with statistics instead. But in that case, it wouldn’t be a logical argument. Formal logic (e.g. logical algebra) doesn’t contain “more likely” because “more likely” doesn’t give rise to either “true” or “false”. In fact, as logic contains no scalar (numerical) elements, I doubt very much it can ever generate “more likely” statements either. You’re talking poppycock again, I’m afraid 😉
You still haven’t defined your original argument… really until you do, all of this will be a waste of time.
LikeLike
Heraclides said…”I have to laugh at the huge list only to skip to the very last “proof”, interestingly numbered 666″
Yes, I thought that one was rather droll.
🙂
The vast majority of the arguments are so ridiculous that the first reaction is to write them off as being just for laughs.
The real horror only begins once you see people on the Internet ACTUALLY USING these arguments!!
Not as a joke but being deadly serious.
When James started using them, I thought “Well, maybe he doesn’t realise” so I gave him the link.
Yet, he not only kept on using those same agruments…he started to use others on the list!
😮
I think the record on one thread that he hijacked here was about nine? (ten?) different arguments from that site.
One after the other.
It was wierd.
Funny? Sure. Yet, more that a little disturbing.
Poe’s Law? You be the judge.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
LikeLike
I’ve heard of Poe’s Law before, but that page is new to me. I love the inclusion of “test yourself” examples, with ROT13-encoded answers… 🙂 Only a computer geek would think of that.
An hour and more has passed and no progress from Stuart on presenting is his argument properly. It’d be a pity if he doesn’t complete what he started as he was (finally!) starting to head in a useable direction.
LikeLike
One of the problems here is perhaps a fuzzy definition of what morals are in the first place. This is perhaps fundamental to the differences in approach.
If we drill down behind the concept, in my view morals must be statements about actions and consequences. Nothing else makes sense. If there is no action taken then there is no consequence (of course inaction in a particular situation can also be considered an action). If there is no consequence, then how can something be immoral. Nothing has happened, good or bad.
Given the above, good or bad must be related to the consequences. And when you are talking about actions (choices) that people make and the morality of those actions, surely this must be related to the good or bad of the consequences. To recap, if the action has no consequence, then how can you say that it was good or bad.
Now you can look at the consequences of actions from a completely subjective point of view from the context of an individual. In other words were the consequences of the actions (moral decisions) taken good or bad for a particular individual. Then we can add some objectivity to the morality by looking at the context of a larger group such as a family, community, society or the whole human race. The level of objectivity achieved depends on what grouping you are looking at. If this is the level of the human race, then you could state objectively and in principle calculably whether or not the consequences of particular actions are good or bad (objectively so) and thus derive whether they are moral.
However, If you want to define your morality as objective to the entire universe, which it seems like Stuart etal want to do, then the difficult task of calculating the consequences becomes a lot harder.
Striking the above problem (that of defining a universe level of objective morality), it appears to me that Stuart etc… fall back into defining that as what feels right to them. Instinctive, or instinctual morality. The problem is, that science is starting to tell very plausible stories about where our feelings come from, and uncover a large amount of bias and so on about these instincts. I think that this is why people like Stuart seem to have such a hard time with evolutionary theory, as this obviously underpins an understanding of our feelings and instincts.
This finally leads to Stuarts philosophical arguments for a god. It seems obvious to me (and others here) that he has reached a conclusion first (based on his instinctive feelings) and then is trying to finding plausible sounding justifications for the predetermined conclusion. Talking kindly to Stuart, this is a bias that everybody can or does fall into easily.
There is however, light at the end of the tunnel. Ken has spoken very eloquently before on his blog about looking clearly at the evidence and the benefit of being proven utterly wrong about something. In my opinion, humans can tune their intuitions by education, experience and thinking. This is how I think the rational mind works. I think that most decisions are made based on intuitions (i.e not consciously chosen). I think that those intuitions are delivered by internal pattern matching processes in our brains that draw upon structures and patterns stored in our memories (probably more complex than that, but you get what I mean). Furthermore, the experiences we have in our lives, build upon the pattern matching that occurs, so that our experience to a large extent can drive our intuition. Our conscious mind also feeds into this process by cogitating over issues and forming beliefs that also feed into our intuitions.
Given the above, we can I think, change our intuitions about subjects such as evolution, so that our feelings are more rational.
LikeLike
The last two paragraphs of @174.
This might be the way in which someone can become wise, and perhaps highlights the age old question of the difference between wisdom and intelligence. In other words, perhaps intelligence can be defined as the ability to think consciously through a complex issue, whereas wisdom perhaps is the ability to feel rational intuition about complex issues.
LikeLike
@ Stuart – December 4, 2008 at 10:55 pm
My dictionary defines objective as “based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions” or “existing independently of the individual mind or perception”. So I think it’s worth asking where your “objective morality” exists – or what facts it is based on. I think I have done that with my morality – ascribing some of it (especially basic morality) to our existence as independent, conscious, intelligent, sentient beings. Now, I think I can easily derive from that a morality which includes finding Hitler’s actions wrong, baby boiling wrong, slavery wrong, sexism wrong, etc., irrespective of what the social acceptance of such things is. I think most people can do that.
However, you claim something “extra” which you just do not explain. On what basis do you make such moral conclusions? It’s no good talking about objective morality, or a god – that just doesn’t answer the specific question.
Things like “laws of logic, numbers, abstract objects, propositions” etc are “based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions” – although they exist in the minds of men. This doesn’t require a god – just the existence of the facts from which they are derived.
So, I repeat my question. On what basis do you deny me the right to make moral judgements (that I “shouldn’t” make such judgements) – to declare Hitler was wrong but claim that right for yourself? You have not demonstrated any special source for your moral conclusions.
To repeat dogma like “If God does not exist and if objective moral values do exist, where do they come from?” shows an unwillingness to interact with this discussion. I have presented an objective basis for our (yours and mine) morality. You haven’t dealt with this or presented an alternative.
How do you know Hitler and baby boiling is wrong?
How do you advise other who want answers to specific moral questions (where is you list of “objective morals” or do you derive them on the run)?
How do you confront the obvious empirical fact that the vast majority of people (theist and non-theist alike) have absolutely no problem deciding that Hitler and baby boiling is wrong? This is clearly not a matter of opinion (which would be indicated by a broader statistical distribution) on their part nor, I suggest, would one find a significant difference between theists and non-theists in making these specific decisions.
LikeLike
@ Stuart – December 4, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Evolution is no more (or no less) atheistic than any other science. The fact that you feel the need to append that word indicates some sort of obsession on your part. In science we never do that.
You observe, correctly, that Dawkins does make moral observations in his writing (and his speeches). I have never heard him talk about “objective morals” (or as I would say an “objective basis for morality”) – usually stressing the role of evolution in producing social moral attitudes. However, I think we can conclude that he believes our species does have fundamental moral attitudes in the way that I have described. That is one reason why both you and I can agree with his moral conclusions.
LikeLike
@ 171
Heraclides,
I don’t know where you studied logic but you need to review your notes. How can you make a blind man see!
The argument is right before you. How do you construe a simple syllogism into “not an argument?”
3 arises from 1 and 2 when they combine. It uses the formal logical law modus tollens.
I should have said “more plausible,” but what is the difference really? A sound argument doesn’t need logical necessity or mathematical certainty. And in this argument, the conclusion is only as strong as the premises that proceed it.
I have repeatedly defined the terms and the syllogism. What are you talking about?
Impugning the argument and calling it “silly” and “poppycock” is tantamount to defeat. Unless you can show a premise is false (or less plausible that its contradictory), or find an informal fallacy, the conclusion is awarded.
LikeLike
@ 174.
Nick,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want to give your thoughts some careful consideration so I’ll take my time responding. I do notice two immediate problem that present themselves.
First;
Your utilitarianism seeks to provide a basis on what we call good or bad. But the question I am posing is if there is such a thing as good and bad. Its ontology which is the concern, not epistemology.
Second;
So you seek to determine what is good and bad. You propose people do this by looking at the consequences to any action, which are either good or bad. You’ve reasoned in a circle and haven’t told us anything about what is good or bad.
In any case, as an ethical theory I don’t think utilitarianism is completely devoid of merit. Consequence of actions can be very helpful in determining how we know what is good and bad, but I don’t think it will be a sufficient understanding.
What you have done is taken the position of an ethical naturalist. I’ve spoken about this before on this thread. With moral reductionism you’ve taken moral values and given them a operational definition. But in doing so you have reduced a moral property to a non-moral property and my criticisms I gave above apply equally here.
Can I request you post this comment also at http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz/2008/atheists-should-not-criticise-hitler/#comment-1312.
LikeLike
oopse. If you can take it off i’ll put on again better this time.
Deleted – as requested. Ken
LikeLike
@179.
I will grant you that good or bad can be difficult to describe on an objective basis. There needs to be some level of agreement about underlying assumptions before you get anywhere.
This is pretty much the case with anything though. When talking about temperature for example, there needs to be agreement about whether the measure is Celsius, Farenheit, Kelvin or Boltzman distribution before the numbers start making sense.
I would posit that good and bad are measures also, the terms need to be defined and shared before they start to have objective meaning. In this fashion we could define good in the context of human beings in a vast number of ways, we would probably start uncontroversialy with fundmental concepts such as good physical and mental health, then perhaps move into slightly murkier territory with things like the ability to find fulfillment by being able to be useful to society through the application of your capabilities. Now, I am not going to try and do this all in one post here, but hopefully you get my point, these ideas of good and bad can be determined across a population. Without this important business of defining and agreeing contexts and terms, then you have nothing, but I see nothing here that is outside the capability of human beings and their societies.
The above process of negotiating the definitions of good and bad and navigating/regulating consequence causing actions is called politics and lawmaking. I find it interesting that what seems to work best in these areas is secular government and lawmaking. This whole process is upset by claims from certain sectors to ultimate truths or understandings. If these are not demonstrable, then they are worthless.
Now , as far as I can understand it, you posit some sort of unobservable (to all intents hidden) being with vast powers that somehow knows or makes what is good or bad, and is somehow the underpinning of all meaning in the world.
I have a number of problems with that concept, here are a few:
– Your god hypothesis does not help in defining good and bad, there is still an issue of interpretation. Even if there was some celestial arbiter that defines good and bad, how do we find out about it from an unobservable hidden god. Here the bugger is in the detail, you might say that we need to look in that well known communication from god called the bible, but have you actually read the thing. You can interpret that sort of stuff in so many different ways that it is in all intents and purposes meaningless. All you end up with for good and bad are interpretations from your preferred theogens. This is before you even consider then dubious authenticity of the tome in question,
– Science has shown us how to derive meaning in the world, by reproducibly explaining how things happen, and where things come from. Will it provide a purpose (whatever that is), I don’t know. But, what it is bloody good at (better than anything else we have come up with) is determining the nature of objective reality and how that works. I think that science/rationality can and should be applied to issues of morality also. This is vastly superior in my opinion to creating a bucket called god that we load with anything non obvious or hard to understand , and then leave those topics forever off limits to true understanding.
– What you posit has no use. Perhaps it is possible, but how can we begin to know how likely. Also, what use is your theory of a god. To my mind, by setting up lots of barriers to true knowledge, it would be akin to chopping our mental legs off to adopt your theories.
– To be frank, basically, you guys are making it all up. Its fiction and fantasy. If it wasn’t, then you would be able to demonstrate and confirm your ideas through empirical observations and experiments. We ask that of everybody that purports to know the truth of anything. If you have anything in the bag of this nature, let me know, I could well change my mind.
Finally, I am happy if you want to posit a god of the gaps that reduces in size as our knowledge increases, but I prefer to label this bucket unknown rather than god. I think thats a bit more descriptive.
LikeLike
@182. Oops slip on the italics tab. Also, that should be God hypothesis, not god theory 🙂
Fixed (I think) – Ken
LikeLike
178:
“How can you make a blind man see!”
Yes, you (Stuart) are quite blind it seems 😉 (Let me give your words back to you…) You are making up excuses! In any event, I meant a proper argument: I did say this earlier, I didn’t prefix it again thinking that by now you knew that.
But back to the thread of the conversation, which I am now getting the impression you are avoiding. So far you have advanced you argument from:
to
adding the “why” clause to the should, that is the context of the ‘should’, from Damian’s input. This then moved to:
after I pointed out you haven’t defined ‘worldview’. At that point you try to excuse yourself as “… thinking of the particular Christian concept of G-d.”, but I think you now realise doesn’t hold either for the same reason as you moved the argument forward earlier. As I pointed out 171: “…by definition it must have a reference to whatever deity the theist believes in. If the theist is Christian, then it’ll be the Christian G-d.”, e.g.
You also conceded that your argument included a premise: “…if objective moral values exists, G-d exists.” I pointed out that this itself rests on premises (e.g. “if G-d exists”; does the existence of a god, or anything, create objective moral values), which need to first be resolved. You might also want to explicitly show how this is a premise of:
On this note, you may want to bear in mind some things I wrote earlier:
As I wrote earlier, you still need to:
“You still need to define the starting point unambiguously, and to demonstrate that your premise holds. This, in turn, will require you to expand your premise so that that things the premise itself are founded on are exposed and resolved. Then you’ll have a proper starting point.”
Perhaps you would like to complete presenting a proper argument, one without unsatisfied premises (or logical leaps) and there might be a starting point?
You are going to have to define each and every possible worldview (!) and resolve the premises they involve. But to make things more compact, we can restrict ourselves to the Christian theist, perhaps. (The problem with the atheist “worldview”, is that you are defining a worldview in terms of negatives, the non-acceptance of theism, so it includes all other possibilities, as Ken pointed out. This will leave you with an essentially infinite number of worldviews to define…) Once we have done this you can come back to the atheist. After all, if you can’t establish it for Christian theists (which I take to be a point of difference for you), you won’t have an argument that is useful to you. And also a-theist is the “anti” of theist, so resolving one might lead somewhere useful. So where to next? Define ‘Christian theist worldview’ explicitly and resolve any premises in it. I’ll (rightfully) leave that to you, its your worldview so you should define it, not me (i.e. I don’t want to “tell you want you think”).
Until you resolve these things you still won’t have presented a proper argument. You do need to work your way through the premises first, before trying to move forward. Much of the rest of this thread has you trying to leap forward assuming that you have already established this, but it should really be done first, I think, or there is no proper argument to found it all on.
Keep going, you will get there 🙂
Regarding your eight-point “argument” introduced in post 169, you are reducing yourself to the same cut’n’paste “arguments” that characterises some creationists, who are-rightfully-ridiculed for it. It makes you, like other creationists appear to have no idea at all that these “arguments” are not as they are completely fallacious. (Cedric has pointed out many times that these are extremely well-known and well-known to be illogical.) You own variation on the theme is to try throw around “big words” to try make it sound as if you must be right. These “big words” don’t alter the “arguments” being presented. This one of the main reasons I find your “philosophising” fake and just a smoke screen.
LikeLike
This is your premise, not mine. If a Christian critises Hitler he is being consistent with his worldview because he can provide a basis for the existence of good and evil, namely God. The atheist (which I said before I will be using the definition ‘he who believes that God does not exist,’ not the barstarised definition of ‘he who does not believe in God.’) cannot do the same.
Before the argument begins we need not be in a position of knowledge about God’s existence. The premise “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist” is based upon the concept of God as the foundation of objective moral values, and the plausibility that in his absence, there is no basis for the existence of objective moral value.
As the sole explanation of objective moral values, with the added bonus of explaining moral duties and accountability, the idea that there is a God triumphs over the idea that there is not. As Kant says, to make sense out of our moral life we have to live like God exists.
The eight point argument there is my own invention, not a cut-and-paste job. Ridicule does not take the place of refutation.
What big words are you having trouble with?
LikeLike
“This is your premise, not mine.”
Erm, you wrote that, not me. That’s why I quoted it 😉 You’re calling it a premise now? Before you were calling it your argument.
“Before the argument begins we need not be in a position of knowledge about God’s existence.”
Yes, you do, because as far as I can see your “argument” rests on that. If you want to prove me otherwise, by all means do: but to do that you need to finish stating your argument fully, defining things completely, etc. (which I note you haven’t attempted to do). By they way, you have already acknowledged that your argument contains the premise (your word, not mine) “…if objective moral values exists, G-d exists.” This premise, in turn, very obviously rests on “that G-d exists”, as I have already pointed out to you. Thus it would seem clear that, by your own words your argument needs to be in “a position of knowledge about G[-]d’s existence.”
“The premise “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist” is based upon the concept of God as the foundation of objective moral values”
If you claim that, then the the argument falls if you can’t prove this premise. I also did write about this in the same post you refer to: “I pointed out that this itself rests on premises … does the existence of a god, or anything, create objective moral values” Read what I wrote, eh? Why tell me something I already pointed out to you as an issue, as defence? This isn’t establishing your point, it forces you to prove this, in turn.
You should also show that this is actually a premise of the “argument” first, too.
“The eight point argument there is my own invention”
I’ll take that “on faith”, for the courtesy’s sake. But if so, it is your logic that is shoddy, rather than your following someone else’s 😉
“What big words are you having trouble with?”
Oh, poor little Stuart just has to end with a feeble poke at me 🙂 I never wrote that I was having trouble with any words: I wrote that your use of them is to prop yourself up, in particular I pointed out that use of them doesn’t make your “arguments” any more convincing or “right”. In fact, they suggest that you hope to “win” by bluster, rather than logic. That might work on some of your more naïve creationist colleagues, but not me 😉
You might want to complete defining your “argument” proper rather than throwing objections at me. Until you complete your “argument”, we still don’t really have an argument to consider, really.
LikeLike
186:
When I say “you wrote”, I should have written, that your “expansion” of “worldview” led directly to this. I was not presenting a premise, but the outcome of your “expansion” of “worldview”.
LikeLike
@ Stuart – December 6, 2008 at 10:43 am
I really do wonder at the value of participating in this discussion with the apparent refusal to interact with specific arguments (by misrepresenting them). And, let’s face – it no one is changing their viewpoint – and I certainly don’t feel there is any substance in the theist attack on my morality.
However, I think I may have got from you a list of these ‘god-given’ ‘objective values’: “goodness or rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice and equality” and evil or wrong “such as hatred, abuse, selfishness, discrimination and oppression.”
Well, what do you know – I can accept all these (and more) – and I didn’t have to postulate a god to do that!
1: Many of these are “hard-wired” – in the sense they have arisen naturally via our evolution as social animals. Without these adaptions we could not have successfully carried out our social interactions.
2: Some of these – basic human rights – equality, oppression, discrimination are easily derived via a moral logic based on the objective fact of our existence as separate, conscious, sentient, intelligent beings. One advantage of such moral logic is that we can derive the correctness of important human rights (such as equality) despite our social conditioning often opposing these (as, for example, sexism, racism, gay-bashing, etc.)
Humans do have a conscious – a moral awareness. And it is not god-given – it has arisen naturally.
So – all this without any mention of a god – and that is in fact how we all do it. God may come later as a justification – but that’s all she is.
Law givers and Moral Duties:
Here is where the danger and evil of religion comes in. If we have to argue that our rights and moral values are granted to us by a god, that we require that god’s permission, that we can’t derive our our own moral rights and values relying on our naturally derived conscious and intellectual abilities – then we become the victims of scoundrels. Our duty to god becomes a duty to these scoundrels. We know where this has lead.
Moral values, human rights, permitted social mores become god-given. And how do we know what is permitted? – why from the ‘word of god’. And how do we get that? – from the Imams, Popes, priests, ministers, tele-evangelists of course who either interpret the “holy scriptures” or make it up on the run. And then everything does become permitted.
Stoning 13 year old rape victims is carrying out god’s will. Similarly, killing those not of god’s favoured race. Child abuse, sexual predation by priests and ministers, child marriage, etc. Slavery, segregation, apartheid, war, colonialism, imperialism, racism, denial of human rights to women, homosexuals and apostates is ‘god’s will’. We have seen it all before – done in the name of god (often with king and country as accomplices) all in my lifetime and some still current.
And this is the problem with a ‘god-given’ “objective morality” – which is, in fact, a subjective authority-based morality. And playing with words like ‘duty’, ‘naturalism’, ‘atheist’, ‘theist’, ‘accountability’, ‘world view’, ‘ontology’, ‘epistemology’, etc., and peppering comments with out-of-context quotations, is just a way of attempting to cloud this fact.
For the secularist (and most of us are at heart): Morality is about doing what is right – no matter what you are told.
For the religious apologist: Religion is about doing what you are told – irrespective of it being right.
Harsh words – but the fact is that religion (and the ‘objective morality’ story) is used, and was used in the past, to justify anti-gay, anti-women, anti-science and anti-secular prejudice and actions. I am not characterising all religious people that way but I think most people recognise that this sort of attitude from a minority is what gives religion a bad name.
Used this way religion really is evil.
LikeLike
Ken @187. Well said on objective morality. I was trying to say something similar in a not so clear way.
Stuart. I think that people here have successfully posited some objective morality concepts that don’t require a god or gods. This kinda undermines your whole argument really. And on your point that atheists (or anybody else for that matter) should not criticise Hitler, what’s invalid about doing this from the basis of subjective morals anyway. I suspect that the reason you have bought this up has not so much to do with a point as it has with an attempt to draw connectors between atheism and national socialism. I think that you have strayed well into Godwin’ law territory with that wee clanger.
LikeLike
@ 187.
Ken,
This is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. How we came to know certain facts that pertain to morality is totally irrelevant to the question of are there objective moral values?
At most the rest of the post proves (1) that you do believe in objective moral values (that is, if you mean the lists of values you give pertain to the whole of the human race), and (2) that our apprehension of objective morality is subjective.
LikeLike
189:
“This is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy.”
No, its not. The origins of these behaviours matter, as it’s their origins that make these behaviours not based on religious contexts and objective in the manner you asked for.
“How we came to know certain facts that pertain to morality”
What Ken listed were not “facts that pertain” to morality, but social behaviours that carry with them moral values. I’m quite sure you can see that they are behaviours, not “facts” per se. They seem perfectly fine examples of moral behaviours that are not based on a religious context, but pre-date religions. They are also objective in the manner you asked for, as the development and “use” of these behaviours is not dependent on any one individual (mythical or real).
“pertain to the whole of the human race” I would think that’s a given, unless you are suggesting that some human are aliens 🙂 (More seriously, I think you need to add social “evolution” to pure genetic evolution, as this will have an element to play in some of them; passed down via teaching the young, etc. Note this is still not based on religious concepts and is still objective in the manner Stuart wanted.)
“our apprehension of objective morality is subjective”
“apprehension” ??? Think you mean some other word, surely? So far, you have written about people having objective morals or not, not being anxious about them or not! Perhaps you might try re-write this?
Nice summary by the way Ken.
I hope to read Pratchett’s Small gods over the break. It’ll be interesting how much of this he weaves into it.
LikeLike
You have not escaped talking about how one know what morals are, ie. apprehension of…
I have been talking about how ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have their foundation in reality.
LikeLike
That’s not being anxious about them, unless you are trying to foist that on others 😉 (Which, I have to say, wouldn’t surprise me the least seeing your past behaviour.) You know there is such as thing as people happy to work things out or people just working things out without any particular stress either way… 😉
“I have been talking about how ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have their foundation in reality.”
No, you made it quite clear that you were talking about how atheist don’t have objective morality (and therefore, in your “argument” shouldn’t criticise Hitler). Are you trying to shift the goal posts? 😉
LikeLike
I see Bnonn/Stuart are is/are still deleting my posts on Thinking Matters… its a more that little pathetic, really. Can’t be much of a “thinking” blog if they remove posts that they don’t want to think about… makes it a bit more like a “let’s not think” blog 🙂
As a practical matter, since the “debate” has basically ground to a halt on their blog owing to a lack of constructive posts (something that they should think about), so pointing their readers to this thread (as I have been trying to do) seems to be the right think to do.
But to paraphrase something I have been writing on their blog, that Bnonn (?) keeps removing:
It is a shame that “whoever it is” (Bnonn?) is deleting my posts, as it means that his blog is presenting a one-sided view of the “debate”. It makes his blog a little like a totalitarian state, where objectors are “removed” so that there are no objections to the ruler’s power! (Ruler [rhetorical question]: “Do I see any objections…? No, therefore I must be right”.)
LikeLike
Nick,
To answer the first half of the quote;
“Atheists should not criticise Hitler” is the title of the post on Thinking Matters. Its not the argument. The argument is clarified later on when I stated (near the beginning) that “I think you’re confused on one of the finer points of the argument. The point is not that atheists cannot discern or know what is right and wrong. The point is that an atheist cannot be consistent with their view if they want to affirm the existence of objective morals. ”
To answer the second half of the quote;
If the subjectivist wants to cry foul over something, they are free to. It just carries no meaning. On subjectivism moral statements are equivalent to personal preferences like taste. So I think that as an ethical theory it is worthless. If “What Hitler did was wrong,” is equivalent in value to “Wearing clashing colour is wrong,” then it really does fail. Objective morals are what is needed.
Where the argument I have been putting forward takes hold is that in a world without God, there just is not any valid explanation to how morals gain their objectivity. Ken says they arise naturally, but I think that’s a category mistake and confuses objectivity with subjectivity. Objectivity means without involving feelings or personal opinions, which if the qualitative right and wrong somehow derive from the nature of sentience or because we’re intelligent they are not objective after all but subjective opinions. Adding people quantitatively is still subjectivism and therefore insufficient, after all all Nazi Germany was objectively wrong and if he’d won over the whole world, he’d still be wrong. What is needed to explain our common moral intuitions is a qualitative standard, and that can only be found in the metaphysical realm as worth, value, rightness and wrongness are not physical (chemical, electrical, neurological, biological, sociological, cultural, or localised in any way) properties.
Saying our moral values derived from evolutionary social pressures is the genetic fallacy as their origin and our gradual subjective apprehension of them no more undermines their objectivity than our fallible apprehension of the physical realm undermines the objectivity of that realm.
Moreover objective moral values are properties that belong to persons. Ken’s ‘moral logic’ is an underdeveloped theorem, which I requested more information on but he hasn’t supplied. Thus far, I don’t see any way the principle, say ‘rightness’ exists as the equation 1+1=2 exists, in the mind-independent universe. By definition arithmetic “is.” But ‘rightness’ not only “is” but carries with it an “ought.” Thus without a mind existing qualitatively above all people, objectivity in values cannot exist.
LikeLike
Stuart fumbles around with…”The premise “If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist” is based upon the concept of God as the foundation of objective moral values, and the plausibility that in his absence, there is no basis for the existence of objective moral value.”
Oh dear, oh dear.
Let’s try again shall we?
The premise “If Mithra does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist” is based upon the concept of Mithra as the foundation of objective moral values, and the plausibility that in his absence, there is no basis for the existence of objective moral value.
The premise “If Thor does not exist, then lightning do not exist” is based upon the concept of Thor as the foundation of electricity, and the plausibility that in his absence, there is no basis for the existence of lightning.
(Damn but that’s funny)
🙂
…………………………………………………..
Heraclides said…”It is a shame that “whoever it is” (Bnonn?) is deleting my posts, as it means that his blog is presenting a one-sided view of the “debate”.”
Stuart, who is deleting Heraclides’ posts on your site?
How many have you deleted?
Why (if it’s actually you) have you deleted them?
…………………………………………………..
Stuart frets…”Where the argument I have been putting forward takes hold is that in a world without God, there just is not any valid explanation to how morals gain their objectivity.”
It doesn’t matter if the person you are arguing with can’t come up with a valid explanation for subjective morals.
IT DOESN’T HELP YOUR ARGUMENT.
It doesn’t matter if the person you are arguing with can’t come up with a valid explanation for why there is lightning.
IT DOESN’T HELP YOUR ARGUMENT.
Your argument MUST STAND ALONE.
As Apologianick clearly said…”…and even if mine is shown to be false by you, which it won’t be, that still does not show your worldview to be valid.”
No.98: ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn’t X amazing!
(2) I don’t understand how X could be, without something else (that I don’t really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can’t come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
LikeLike
194:
Erm, Stuart, you are writing a mix of travelling around in circles, like James does when is trying to avoid answering people, and wriggling around trying redefine things, dismissing opposition out of hand, and the like, with big chunks of it making no sense. And you end by trying to “ask of others”. All of these are a sure sign of a loser looking for a way out to me. Sorry, but just that’s what experience shows me 😉
Its pointless posting your reply (194) on your blog if Nick isn’t posting there. Seems you are anxious about my comment that the “debate” is dead in your thread. I suspect that’s the outcome of Bnonn (or you) deleting posts that don’t suit you… 😉
I think your latest posts show nicely that your “argument” is just you wanting to assert things as true (i.e. by fiat) to suit your religious needs, as they are just a string of assertions with padding “fluff”, most of which makes no sense. I tried to help you see the real argument you are presenting, for yourself, by getting you to expand out the definitions and premises. You were getting somewhere (albeit very, very slowly!), but you seem to have given up on that.
195: It’ll probably be Bnonn and its pointless counting them, really. I took to simply reposting the same post each time it was deleted (slightly updated if needed). It just pointed out to readers that the “real” “debate” is over here and pointed out the bit I paraphrased above (193) about how I felt about their blog given they were deleting my posts. It doesn’t really matter much, its just I find it amazing how hypocritical apologists and a surprising number of religious people are. I know the the more right-wing ones are “just like that”, but after all these years of seeing it, it still amazes (and appals) me.
LikeLike
Cedric,
Where your objection that I am arguing from ignorance fails is you can’t see the category correctly. Its like you expect to eventually find the sound of the colour red. Objective morals can’t arise out of nature. Neither can rightness or wrongness.
LikeLike
@194 One of the problems with this sort of debate is that people use terms such as objectivity in different ways and with different meanings. Objective as a term is notoriously difficult to pin down anyway (hence the siren flames of post modernistic claptrap), but if we take your definition of not involving feelings or opinions, then I could offer a couple of further points.
As I see it, we have at least two cognitive processes ongoing relevant to morality. 1-Intuition/instinct (or feelings) 2-Conscious thought or rationality. As I have stated in an earlier post, I think that intuitions/instincts are informed by many different things, some examples are; structural physiological factors as the result of evolutionary adaptions or byproducts, individual experience and conscious rationalising. You might notice a bit of a feedback loop here with number 2 feeding into number 1.
Also as I stated earlier, I tend to think that people operate most commonly under an intuitive basis, with the influence of conscious rationalisations being more post facto.
Given the above, I do not think that feelings and opinions can be removed from any discussion on morality. This however is not a problem if we tweak your definition of objective a tiny wee bit. Lets make objective mean; outside of individual feelings or opinions. I think that we now have a definition of objectivity that is useful in a discussion on morality. Perhaps this helps you understand where myself and also I think Ken are coming from in the previous posts. To meaningfully define an objective (human) morality does not give this existence apart from human feelings and opinions, just independent of an individual persons feelings and opinions. If we can define and agree across a group of people as to what is good and bad from a consequences basis, then this by our definition and our context, that being the previously stated group of people, is objective morality
If on the other hand, you would like to view morality as good and bad from the context of the universe, and thus truly objective of human thoughts or feelings (in other words removed from humanity), then I think you have a problem there.
As Ken has stated, presupposing a god defined morality does not necessarily make this objective, as you now have a subjective morality based on the thoughts and feelings of one god, and if you look at those god defined morals from the context of human morals, then there could well be a disagreement. For example, old testament style vengeful and punishing god vs enlightenment style human rights. Which takes precedence in this situation? And doesn’t the shear fact that this is a posable question again undermine your arguments.
How could you possibly know what matters at the level of the universe. I mean, its is a pretty big place. I suspect that humanity itself probably does not mean much when looked from the context of the universe, and I for one would not like to presuppose what the universal significance of the human race is. This “human centric” path has been well traveled by various religions in the past, and perhaps underpins your problem here. To restate this; It is pretty obvious to me that you have started at your conclusion first (i.e god) and then tried to build a philosophical argument for your conclusion. The gaping gaps and jumps in your reasoning come because you have started with the premise of human god given centrality, so you have problems setting the context in which your “objectivity” is operating as you have assumed that everything relates to humans.
LikeLike
@197 Ever hear of synesthesia? Its a reasonably common occurrence (could be as high as 1 in 20) in humans where different sensory inputs get mixed and people quite literally hear colours, see sounds or most commonly perceive that numbers are innately coloured. As in 5’s are always green, etc…
As people have been saying, you will have to define to a much greater level, what you mean with objective, right and wrong, because they are pretty obviously not the same meanings that other people here have for those concepts. I actually think that if you were to analyse what you really mean with these words, you would find that you have built your god concept into these words at a basic level, which is why your argumentation makes sense to you, but not to anybody else who does have the same assumptions.
LikeLike
Sorry for the flood of posts, but I thought I would strike while the iron is hot.
Another point on the whole objective morality issue. To further stress the importance of the context in which you are considering objectivity
I don’t particularly like Stuarts Hitler example, so lets consider a hypothetical case. Lets start with an individual human, perhaps named Bob. Lets suppose that Bob becomes a strong believer in animal rights (perhaps he is radicalised down at his local juice bar ;-)), and dispairs the enslavement of and extinction of species that are the direct consequence of human actions. Lets also suppose that Bob, just happened to have access to a means to destroy humanity. Perhaps he works in a germ warfare lab or something like that. Now, what is the moral action for Bob to take? Should he destroy humanity? I would say that you would need to determine the context in which to consider the morality. Examples follow:
– From the context Bob, its hard to say what would be moral. We would probably have to ask Bob. I.e this will be pretty subjective to Bob’s thoughts and feelings.
– From the context of the human race, I think we could quite safely say that this action would be immoral, most people would agree that this is a bad outcome for humans.
– From the context of the universe. Who knows? Would the universe even notice? Perhaps the death of the human race would avoid some future potential catastrophe with universe shaking consequences, in which case it could be a good thing.
– From the context of a species of animal about to be made extinct through human actions, the death of the humans would probably be hugely beneficial. I.e. good.
And I could go on and on,,,, it gets a bit tricky for some of these contexts. How about from the context of sheep, or other domesticated food animals. From one angle could say that they are more successful being human food animals, more numerous etc… but from another point of view, they live a fraction of their normal life spans under humans. I think in the case of sheep, they are normally slaughtered at 6 months.
Given the complexity of the undertaking, perhaps its understandable that people would like for there to be easy answers and thus seek out dogmas that provide those easy answers. That does not make them right however.
LikeLike
Stuart said…”…you can’t see the category correctly.”
Oh I see.
You’re not really making an argument from ignorance.
Heck no!
It’s just that I (and everybody else) can’t “see the catagory correctly.
How convenient.
Aren’t you just special.
🙂
http://www.jibjab.com/view/230287
Stuart said…”Objective morals can’t arise out of nature.”
Really? How do you actually know this?
Even if this is true, how does this help you?
Think about it.
You are just waving you hands helplessly.
Read your postings here.
They are embarrassingly silly.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly having fun but…
🙂
Aren’t you just a wee bit uncomfortable making such a dopey argument….in PUBLIC?!?
LikeLike
198:
“One of the problems with this sort of debate is that people use terms such as objectivity in different ways and with different meanings. Objective as a term is notoriously difficult to pin down anyway (hence the siren flames of post modernistic claptrap), …”
That’s why I took to referring to “objective in the manner you [Stuart] asked for”. Only, of course, he’s now re-defined it… typical strategy from creationists, I have to admit: if something doesn’t fit or you’re getting boxed in, re-define the terms…! (That he needs to, suggests rather strongly that he’s trying to find a way to avoid what people have shown him.)
“Lets make objective mean; outside of individual feelings or opinions. I think that we now have a definition of objectivity that is useful in a discussion on morality. Perhaps this helps you understand where myself and also I think Ken are coming from in the previous posts.”
This is the same as my own working definition, for what its worth. If I recall properly, it is also how Stuart originally defined it (I can’t be bothered searching back to find it). I agree with the approach you’re taking, if that’s worth anything.
Stuart:
“Objective morals can’t arise out of nature. Neither can rightness or wrongness.”
Bearing in mind Nick’s point about how you define “objective”: they can. Animals have evolved behaviour patterns that aid their survival. For animals that live in groups, these behaviours (have to) include how any one individual interacts with others. The origins of these behaviours aren’t dependent on feelings, but on that they are successful strategies that promote survival.
They may later have had what, in one context, we might consider “feelings” associated with them, being how brains have evolved to sense the hormones that drive behaviours and use this to derive an “emotional state” that can cause co-related activities useful for survival. This is not quite the meaning of “feelings” that you [Stuart] refer to as far as I can see. More practically, this is true for all people, so it cannot be a point of difference for atheists and theists. The only point of difference I can see is one that arises from the terms ‘atheist’ and ‘theist’ themselves: the latter believe in mythical beings that “instruct” them how to behave; the former don’t and can draw on conclusions based on material outside of a context of belief in a authoritarian mythical being. In the end, though I agree with Nick, most behaviour is actually “instinctive”: hormones pretty definitively and very powerfully define people’s emotional states and behaviour after all. Much of the religious “moral codes” are justifications as Ken said. Some simply codify accepted behaviour that we’d all agree on. Others justify some pretty immoral behaviour from the point of view of a secular population (but actions that probably serve(d) the “survival” of that particular religious meme).
Anyway, your latest post re-enforces that you are just making assertions that suit your religious needs. It means, for me, that there is no “debate”. That is, while your assertions show what you would like to be true, it also shows that you have no interest in working out if they are true or not. But, then, that’s the religious meme talking: “don’t question the morals of the gods”, which results in “their” words stated by fiat rather than reasoning.
LikeLike
Nick,
Of course if you tweak the definition of objective to include feelings (on any level – even the whole human race) then its not objective any more – its subjective. But our intuitions tell us that the whole human race could be wrong. The whole human race was wrong once when you consider scientific facts especially like the flatness of the earth. But as we have good reasons to accept the earth is round, we also have good reasons for saying rape is never acceptable. There is no more reason to deny the objectivity of moral values than there is to deny the objectivity of the physical world.
You’re so close to perceiving the consequences of atheism. At the universal level our actions bear no significance, ergo there is no right and wrong on the universal level (according to your utilitarian ethic). What the whole human race does with itself is insignificant, so our petty projects matter not a whiff. In the grand scheme of things, the best we can do is get along and leap into the non-rational realm to actualise ourselves, pretending that what we do with our lives really matters. In a universe without God, nihilism is the rational end product, and the morals we form are no more significant that the dust on our feet.
Which only reinforces the first premise, If God does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
Cedric,
I know its a category mistake because the correct definition makes it so. (Nick, that God is not implied in that definition is obvious.) Many top class philosophers and ethicists have offered similar arguments for God’s existence, including Robert Adams, William Lane Craig, William Alston, Mark Linville, James Porter Morland, Paul Copan, John Hare and Stephen Evans – in public.
Heraclides,
I’ve already criticised the ethical naturalist’s position. You are just restating it.
And if those were objective (in the sense that I have been using it) moral values, then (1) its the genetic fallacy – for how we came to know something is irrelevant to the truth of the object of that belief, and (2) its enormously improbable that in the course of human evolution we would have struck upon the particular principles of right and wrong that were objective.
If social and biological evolution determines what is objective then given a different set of conditions and pressures it is entirely rational to think that actions such as rape, could have been right instead of wrong. As Michael Ruse asks, is rape right on Andromeda? But to say rape could ever be right is counter-intuitive. We believe its wrong – always has been, always will be, anywhere and everywhere we go.
The consistent thing to do on atheism is deny objective moral values. But as we can’t live without them and everything within us shouts there are things that are really right and really wrong (in my and the dictionaries ‘objective’ sense), you have to inconsistent with your view to decry injustice, or praise mercy, or else believe in objective moral values and believe in God.
Message to all,
It take your point that you’ll never be convinced (on this argument at least). Because I’ve wasted so much time chasing you guys who are running around in circles, unless you have a specific question or a new criticism that I haven’t yet addressed, I’ll take a break. Though don’t think this is waving the white flag. I still think the premises are well established, defined and plausibly true, and the logic sound. Heraclides, I don’t know who was deleting your posts. I myself would have left them on, as you admitted you didn’t want to interact with the argument. Ken, I would still like to hear your development of ‘moral logic’ if you have formulated it further. Nick, I think I do have the goods to establish God’s existence ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ with this and other arguments, so keep an eye out on http://www.thinkingmatters.org.nz 8)
LikeLike
“I have been talking about how ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have their foundation in reality.” That’s what I have been saying in my reference to ‘objectively-based morality.’ Actually Pinker says much the same things along the lines that human sentience is the reason we know torture and murder are wrong.
This is very different to ascribing them to a god. When right and wrong are ‘god-given – they are then determined subjectively by man (and it usually is a man – a pope, Imam, etc., etc.) and justified by authority – by claiming the particular moral claim is given by god – is the ‘word of god.’ God is the ‘ultimate authority’ and she authorises whatever her spokespeople want.
So the ‘objective morality’ becomes very much a subjective morality – and very much immoral. The subjective morality of the god-given ‘objective morality’ means that everything is permitted – as long as it is permitted by the leaders, Imam, Pope, etc.
Just take the mess religion makes of same sex relationships today – this sort of issue is much clearer to the secular ethicist.
LikeLike
Stuart,
“I’ve already criticised the ethical naturalist’s position. You are just restating it.”
No, you have misstated others’ position, then criticised that, rather than the position these people hold. Basically you rest it all on foisting something on others that is not true of them, from something you have derived from your religion’s (unjust) criticism of others. I would gather from your recent posts that you have no real interest in understanding what your line of argument actually breaks down to (Ken has some good words on that, and I agree). Instead you charge off with supposed inferences that don’t even follow logically from your initial (erroneous) starting point. That is partly why I was trying to get you to expand your argument to expose its premises, etc., in the first place.
And, no, I did not “restate it”, I elaborated on it, extending on some points that Nick and Ken introduced and gave some more concrete details. You are trying to dismiss my words (and the others’ words that I referred to) out of hand.
“You’re so close to perceiving the consequences of atheism. At the universal level our actions bear no significance, ergo there is no right and wrong on the universal level (according to your utilitarian ethic). … In a universe without God, nihilism is the rational end product, and the morals we form are no more significant that the dust on our feet.”
I am not heading the that direction at all: you are doing exactly what I just wrote about in my first paragraph again. Your paragraph includes several HUGE logical leaps… as well as your usual foisting things on others. Pretty typical of apologists in my experience: big logical leaps and flat assertions buried in a sea of words. In the end, all that seems to matter to you to issue your assertions that self-justify your religion.
Your “Message to all” is a bit of stunt, eh? Trying to foist all wrongs on others, not a and not whit of wrong to yourself, without bothering to consider that these criticism you throw at others apply to yourself more than anyone else in this thread…
“as you admitted you didn’t want to interact with the argument.”
No, I didn’t. I wrote saying that my initial post didn’t in response to you and Bnonn delivering a few terrible blood-rush-to-the-head responses to that post. In your keenness to attack me, you made out that post was directed “to the argument”: I explained it was directed to a particular poster as a follow-on to some remarks that they made, which I agreed with and not “to the argument”. I never said anything about not wanting to as you claim here. After all I have gone to considerable trouble here, haven’t I? Don’t you ever think and read others words for what they have written and not some meaning you want to inflict on them???
(I suspect Bnonn deleted my posts in fit a pique. His initial response to me was clearly a “rush of blood to the head” thing. I imagine that left him preferring to (hypocritically IMO) continue to attack me rather than back up and apologise.)
More seriously, I take this line as you writing this as trying to dismiss my posts: you seem careful not to give me any positive credit for anything 🙂 In my experience, that is a sign of trying to avoid facing someone’s valid observations 😉
“Though don’t think this is waving the white flag.”
Let’s see: You foist all wrong on others, do the routine “demand that others do the work” line, then excuse yourself. Someone shout me a Tui?
LikeLike
Stuart said…”In a universe without God, nihilism is the rational end product, and the morals we form are no more significant that the dust on our feet.”
Ah yes, dust.
No.354: ARGUMENT FROM DESTINY
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate destiny and my destiny is dust.
(2) I can’t accept that because I want more.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Stuart hits the re-set button with…”Which only reinforces the first premise, If God does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.”
Yep, good ol’ number 62.
No.62: ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS
(1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists.
(2) Atheists say that there are no absolute moral standards.
(3) But that’s because they don’t want to admit to being sinners.
(4) Therefore, there are absolute moral standards.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
Stuart continues with…”I know its a category mistake because the correct definition makes it so.”
Oh yeah, that sounds convincing. NOT.
🙂
No.131: ARGUMENT FROM INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY
(1) [Christian posts argument.]
(2) [Atheist refutes argument.]
(3) Atheist, you obviously didn’t understand my argument.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Stuart said…”Many top class philosophers and ethicists have offered similar arguments for God’s existence…”
Actually, those people are not known as “top class philosophers” or “ethicists” they’re much better known as Christian apologists.
Why don’t you feel comfortable using that term?
Surely these people are honoured to be known as Christian apologists, right?
Does it surprise me that Christian apologists embarrass themselves in public by using No 62?
Not in the slightest.
Plenty of other apologists for other religions have invoked No.62.
Why should the Christian community be any different?
Tradition, tradition, tradition.
“If God does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.”
Let’s try that again, shall we?
If Agrona does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
If Chalchiuhticue does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
If Frigg does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
If Ereshkigal does not exist, objective (in the sense that I have been using it all along) moral values do not exist.
Insert you own particular brand-name god. One size fits all.
No waiting.
Rince and repeat.
Stuart declares victory and pulls out with…”Because I’ve wasted so much time chasing you guys who are running around in circles, unless you have a specific question or a new criticism that I haven’t yet addressed, I’ll take a break.”
No.32: ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don’t give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Stuart gives once last squeek of defiance…”Though don’t think this is waving the white flag.”
Heavens no. You have self-evidently trounced us, Sir.
This is a glorious victory for you.
A tour-de-force of your intellectual prowess.
You’ve shown us the error of our ways with sweet reason and logic.
No doubt you will proudly link this thread to your own blog so that lurkers can read for themselves how you fared. Right?
(insert sound of crickets chirping here)
Stuart said…”I still think the premises are well established, defined and plausibly true, and the logic sound.”
Yes. How sad.
(shrug)
………………………………………………
Stuart said…”Heraclides, I don’t know who was deleting your posts.”
Maybe you should find out and take them to task?
This site, for example doesn’t censor anybody.
Yours does.
Hmmm.
Quick question for you.
How old do you think the Earth is?
Your buddy Bnonn thinks it’s 6000 years old.
So, naturally, I was curious as to how old you think the Earth is.
So, um, how old do you think it is?
(Just asking)
LikeLike
Not that any of those opposing evolution, etc., will read it, but perhaps this new book is worth a peek: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2008/december/99-ape-new-museum-book.html
One quote from the blurb (and the reason for posting this here): “Read the latest research about how new species evolve, uncover the flaws in ‘intelligent design’, find out what evolution has to say about psychology, the development of the human mind and morality, and how we are still evolving, in this new book.”
Spot “morality” in there 😉
LikeLike
Spot “morality” in there
Yes, but so what? Perhaps we will morally evolve into more selfish, more immoral beings. We will cheat and lie more.
Study: More teens cheat,steal and lie
http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html
CHICOPEE, Mass. (WWLP) – For more young people, always doing their own work in school and always telling the truth might be a thing of the past.
The Josephson Institute released its annual report card on the ethics of American youth.
In a survey of nearly 30,000 teens, over 30 percent admitted to stealing from a store within the past year. Fourty-two percent said they lied to save money and 64 percent admitted to cheating on a test.
Some Chicopee High School students told 22News it happens more than you think.
“There are definitely kids that are slacking, don’t do their work. They’re like, ‘can I copy?’ And other kids feel bad,” said Jeffrey Pula, a junior at Chicopee High School.
As for the reasons behind the dishonest behavior in some of their peers, these teens point to added pressures, laziness, and the need for some to show off.
Despite the high levels of dishonesty, respondents in this survey felt that they often do what’s right. A whopping 93 percent said they were satisfied with their personal ethics and character.
And you can find the report here, and all the numbers are up from the 2006 report:
http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html
So they are cheating, lying and stealing more. Yes, morality may be evolving – but is it getting “better?” And if cheating, lying and stealing helps one survive better then what’s the problem anyway?
LikeLike
James said…”Yes, but so what? Perhaps we will morally evolve into more selfish, more immoral beings. We will cheat and lie more.”
Perhaps many things.
Perhaps.
Or…perhaps not? Perhaps. Maybe. Um, yeah? Perhaps.
Speculate some more for us.
🙂
What if, hypothetically speaking, it’s true.
So what?
Even if you don’t like it, invoking No.62 doesn’t get you anywhere.
(shrug)
LikeLike
All you know is trolling, isn’t it James?
LikeLike
I am a bit shocked.
I have just done a bit of a crawl through Wikipedia through various pages from Christian Apologetics, through to divine command theory etc… Apologies to Iapetus, who I think probably understands this stuff, but to me, a lot of this stuff sounds like the output from people with far too much time on their hands and some shonky first premises. Perhaps its a matter of sorting wheat from the chaff, but a lot of this stuff reads like arguments about fantasy. Make something up and then develop complex arguments for and against.
It seems as though all this dodgy thinking is just lying around waiting for people to stub their minds on. I am perhaps gaining a bit of insight into why I don’t understand half the things that our Christian Apologetic friends argue. Give a man a connection to Wikipedia and some conclusions that he wants to rationalise and Bobs your unkle.
This might sound a bit naive, but is there a concept of accepted philosophy? I.e. some sort of guide through the crap, or is all this stuff considered valid? Essentially, I am asking how credible this profession is.
LikeLike
Nick,
It in nutshell: very little credibility 😉 I’ve seen several “professional” philosophers openly say that they think very little of these people and consider that they are defacing their field with their nonsense! 🙂
From the wikipedia entry to ‘Christian apologetics’: “Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.” (Of course, I am using wikipedia intentionally as a bit of a joke…!)
Point is, its a self-justification exercise. “Truth”, “accuracy”, even “honesty” don’t really have a lot to do with it in my experience. Anything that sounds plausible to them seems to be good enough. And it seems that the more they can make is sound “profound” and “complex” the better: easier to confuse the naïve into thinking it means something, I guess. (This is my main objection to James & Stuart, etc., using “philosophy”: they’re using to to obfuscate, not illuminate, they should be able to explain most of it without reference to philosophical terms, really.)
I’m sure that the more qualified people think that they are doing something worthwhile, but these people seem to have taken on board quite substantial assumptions before they start, in much the way that ID “scientists” sound when they try attack evolution.
“Perhaps its a matter of sorting wheat from the chaff, but a lot of this stuff reads like arguments about fantasy.”
I wouldn’t bother. You only have to pick up the odd logical leap and you’d quickly realise its a waste of time. Personally, I’d ask them to make a simple statement of their argument (as Ken does), then expose the premises, then ask them to justify the premises. The premises will invariably include “G-d exists” in one form or other by the very nature of what they are trying to promote or justify.
Their approach is a variation of the shotgun approach in some ways: present something complex enough with enough threads within it, and any opposition will never be able to address them all in a reasonable amount of time and beside the proponent can always start wriggling around using the slack in the “arguments” to drag it out.
FWIW, your reaction reminds me of writing to a Catholic priest about his blog post. Even after years of seeing the apologetic nonsense, I had this romantic notion that a priest would be someone more thoughtful, considerate, etc. In practice the guy proved even more conceited that many “ordinary” Catholics I’ve met, and did some amazingly hypocritical things (which, even more amazingly he “justified”!) In the end all I could say was “Pfffth”! 🙂
LikeLike
All you know is trolling, isn’t it James?
Why is it trolling Heraclides to present facts? The facts are that morals have evolved here in the states among the young (and I suspect it is the same in most western conutries) – they are getting more lazy and selfish. They lie, cheat and steal more. So if morality is evolving what is it evolving to? And if cheating and lying and being more selfish promotes better survival then why it is “wrong.”
Look at what just happened on Wall St. Hundreds of top level speculators, traders, CEOs, CFOs, etc.. gamed the system and walked away will billions – while gutting the 401ks of hard working folks. I personally know people who lost over half of their retirement funds. Did any one go to jail, no, what they did was deeply unethical, but not illegal. So they sit in their gated communities, with their private security and private jets and laugh at the “suckers.”
And you Heraclides have nothing to say to such men…
LikeLike
What if, hypothetically speaking, it’s true.
So what?
Even if you don’t like it, invoking No.62 doesn’t get you anywhere.
Then, the fact remains, no behavior is objectively better than it’s opposite. So in the future spare us your irrational moral outrage when Muslims stone a young woman for adultery – it’s merely a part of nature…
LikeLike
213: And your reply is to continue trolling. What’s new?
LikeLike
213: And your reply is to continue trolling. What’s new?
Truth hurt?
LikeLike
James doesn’t get it.
“Then, the fact remains, no behavior is objectively better than it’s opposite.”
Once again.
So what?
How does this help you?
If, for the sake of argument, it is true….then what?
You invoke your brand-name god?
Big deal.
(shrug)
“Truth hurt?”
No. You are a troll.
Everybody knows it.
You are a troll that has run out of ideas.
Stuart has run off with his tail between his legs.
Apologiannick fared no better.
No.62 is not an argument. It’s just a joke.
Anybody who mindlessly repeats it is just a clown.
LikeLike
Stuart has run off with his tail between his legs.Apologiannick fared no better.
You are joking right?
If, for the sake of argument, it is true….then what?
And that wasn’t my point, this was my point: So in the future spare us your irrational moral outrage when Muslims stone a young woman for adultery – it’s merely a part of nature…
So can we expect you to spare us your inane and irrational moral outrage over simple acts of nature in the future?
LikeLike
Anonymous?
Hmm.
Somebody got a little steamed and forgot to log on with his handle.
Oh dear.
🙂
“You are joking right?”
About what? Do you see either of them still here?
Was there something powerful about their arguments that you found particularly inspiring?
No? Well, neither did the rest of us.
You can only go so far with hapless hand waving.
You certainly had nothing to contribute while Stuart and Apologiannick were around.
In fact, you were conspicuous by you absence.
Oh well, better luck next time.
“So can we expect you to spare us your inane and irrational moral outrage over simple acts of nature in the future?”
James? James?
You’ve tried this before. It didn’t work.
Repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it all you like.
It.
Doesn’t.
Work.
If your going to ever make a successful argument, then you have to actually pay attention to what people are saying. Not what you want them to say.
Otherwise, you’re just babbling to yourself.
The lonely, embittered man all by himself in the corner that the others show tolerance and pity for.
LikeLike
I took a break, that’s all. I do have other things to do that this. I’m only back to share my observations of the conversation since I left. The invective from the arguments detractors is at an all time high. But the refutation is at an all time low. It seems to me the repetition from the theistic side is far surpassed by the repetition from the atheistic side, and is only due to the lack of interaction with the actual argument.
Cedric, you number 62’s etc., are comical misrepresentations of the actual argument. Straw men all of them. And the list of apologists I gave, who have all defended and presented moral arguments for God’s existence, are ethicists and philosophers in their own right. There’s no dishonesty there. Some of these are apologists are eminent philosophers so mocking them is ad hominem and simply ridicule of the arguments because they came from apologists is the genetic fallacy. Please take my advice and read Proverbs 17:28.
LikeLike
Funny, I swear Stuart is now resorting to trolling!
“I’m only back to share my observations of the conversation since I left.”
Let’s see now. I was “banned” from your thread for (supposedly) not contributing, for sharing my observation about your arguments to another poster following that poster making similar observations that I agreed with. And here I find you stating that you are posting to not contribute, but observe… the very thing that you and Bnonn howled at me for and had me “banned” for… You wouldn’t want to be called a hypocrite, would you?
PS: If you read my post correctly, you might have inferred that your apologists are only “eminent” in the eyes of other apologists’ and their followers’, not in other philosophers’ eyes 😉 I have read comments about apologists by philosophers and to be polite, they don’t consider apologists to be philosophers, they see them as people who abuse “philosophy” to market their cause. That’s the opinion of those philosophers, not me: you’re attacking the wrong person. But then, you often seem to.
PPS: I think that proverb suits is appropriate for you to consider. Let me give you some more advice: don’t criticise others of things you do yourself. Your post is a very fine example of this. Literally every thing you have criticised others of in it, you have done, or are doing, yourself.
LikeLike
If you read my post correctly, you might have inferred that your apologists are only “eminent” in the eyes of other apologists’ and their followers’, not in other philosophers’ eyes
That is nonsense Heraclides. Men like Plantinga, Alston, Wolterstorff, Berkely, Locke, Descartes, Thomas Reid, Kierkegaard, Anselm, William of Ockham, Aquinas, etc, etc, etc… Have been, or are, well respected christian philosophers and apologists. Respected in the field of philosophy.
LikeLike
Stuart said…”I’m only back to share my observations of the conversation since I left.”
Nothing new to add then? Hmm, pity.
“But the refutation is at an all time low.”
Refutation?
Try reading the comments here.
No.62 does not work.
It’s not just wrong. It’s famous for being wrong.
Stuart said…”Cedric, you number 62’s etc., are comical misrepresentations of the actual argument.”
(Not according to James, our local troll. He LOVES No.62.)
Besides, imagine how much more powerful your assertion that No.62 is just a strawman would be if you, y’know, actually DEMONSTRATED how No.62 is a strawman.
I know it’s a radical thought!
Yet I’m sure we would all be interested to read your simple, honest step-by-step explanation.
How is your argument radically different from No.62?
As Heraclidies said…”Pretty typical of apologists in my experience: big logical leaps and flat assertions buried in a sea of words. In the end, all that seems to matter to you to issue your assertions that self-justify your religion.”
Deal with your logical leaps and assertions.
Otherwise, you are offering nothing but No.62.
………………………………………………….
“And the list of apologists I gave…”
Apologists? So NOW they’re suddenly apologists?
After I looked them up and found out that they were apologists?
NOW they have the title “apologist”?
Ok then. Thank you for being honest.
Stuart…”Some of these are apologists are eminent philosophers so mocking them is ad hominem…”
Some? Some?? SOME???
That’s NOT what you said before.
What did I call them Stuart? Apologists.
Is calling them apologists some kind of slur?
Am I MOCKING them by calling them apologists?
Surely not.
I’m sure they are all proud to be called apologists, right?
You have no problem calling them apologists, yeah?
That’s not an “ad hominem”, right?
Here’s what you originally said…”Many top class philosophers and ethicists have offered similar arguments for God’s existence.”
Top class philosophers and ethicists have offered arguments for God’s existence?
WOW. Stop the presses. Film at eleven!
Now we have…..
Apologists (some of whom are considered eminent philosophers by other like-minded Christians) have all defended and presented moral arguments for God’s existence.
(…awkward silence…)
Um. Wow. That’s, er, well, kinda predictable really.
I mean, if apologists didn’t do that then I guess they wouldn’t call themselves apologists.
Hmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(public_relations)
………………………………………………
Stuart said…”I took a break, that’s all. I do have other things to do that this.”
Fair enough.
James, however, does not have other things to do than this.
Aren’t we all lucky?
🙂
James is our own local version of Brother Micah.
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=EdPaouPz2yY
So Stuart, who is the Big Brother that is censoring comments at your site?
What did you find out?
Do you appreciate the fact that your comments don’t quietly disappear around here?
Not even James’?
…………………………………………..
Quick question for you.
How old do you think the Earth is?
Your buddy Bnonn thinks it’s 6000 years old.
So, naturally, I was curious as to how old you think the Earth is.
So, um, how old do you think it is?
(Just asking)
LikeLike
James, firstly, as I wrote, I am not the person who wrote this: you are criticising the wrong person. Secondly, you can nay-say all you like, but I have read non-apologetic philosophers rather “robustly” dismiss the apologetic arguments of these people. While their names may be well-known, this does not mean that their arguments are well regarded today. Thirdly some people go right off the rails, some through age, others through religious “conversion”: the results can be stunning declines of otherwise good (wo)men.
LikeLike
Heraclides, do you even know who Locke, Descartes and Kierkegaard are? Who simply dismisses them or the likes of Plantinga? Are they bias atheists?
LikeLike
I have closed the discussion because it has deteriorated. No doubt we can get back to the real issue on a new post.
LikeLike
Pingback: With God, anything can be permitted? « Open Parachute