Here's something that happened this week: David Brooks wrote a bad column about secularism. In fairness, it gets off to a decent start:
Over the past few years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who are atheist, agnostic or without religious affiliation. A fifth of all adults and a third of the youngest adults fit into this category.
As secularism becomes more prominent and self-confident, its spokesmen have more insistently argued that secularism should not be seen as an absence -- as a lack of faith -- but rather as a positive moral creed. Phil Zuckerman, a Pitzer College sociologist, makes this case as fluidly and pleasurably as anybody in his book, “Living the Secular Life.”
Zuckerman argues that secular morality is built around individual reason, individual choice and individual responsibility. Instead of relying on some eye in the sky to tell them what to do, secular people reason their way to proper conduct.
Secular people, he argues, value autonomy over groupthink. They deepen their attachment to this world instead of focusing on a next one. They may not be articulate about why they behave as they do, he argues, but they try their best to follow the Golden Rule, to be considerate and empathetic toward others. “Secular morality hinges upon little else than not harming others and helping those in need,” Zuckerman writes.
Having enjoyed Zuckerman's previous book Society Without God, I'm looking forward to reading this one as well. If Brooks had stopped here, I would have thought it a pretty good column. The trouble is that from here the column rattles off a series of bullet points that are meant to convince us that it is terribly difficult to live without religion. All of them deserve a vigorous response, but to keep this to a reasonable length I will just focus on one:
Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies. Religious people inherit creeds that have evolved over centuries. Autonomous secular people are called upon to settle on their own individual sacred convictions.
If Richard Dawkins had written those first two sentences he would have been accused of indulging in caricatures of religious people. He would be charged with making religious people look like thoughtless zombies, just mindlessly adhering to moral principles other folks had taught them.
Let's see if we can enumerate everything that's wrong with Brooks's argument.
First, religious people no less than secular people have to work out their convictions for themselves. Blindly following the dictates of authority figures is fine for children, but we mostly expect adults to be more thoughtful than that. Deciding that one should follow the teachings of clerics and holy texts is as fateful a decision as anything secularists face.
Second, to the extent that religious folks can be said to inherit moral creeds, those creeds are frequently very poor ones. They are often based on very dubious notions about “natural law” and can often lead to very bad consequences. To go for the low-hanging fruit, do I need to remind you that slavery was routinely defended in explicitly religious terms? Things are scarcely different today, where the most repressive and immoral views about women and homosexuals are promoted by religion. You might retort that many Christians hold far more sensible views on those subjects than do the extremists, but that only supports my argument. They hold those views precisely because they bring their own ideas and values to the discussion, and don't just rely on the teachings of their religious authorities.
Third, secular people, no less than religious people, can tap into a long tradition of thought and argument. It's not as though secular morality is some new thing. Many great philosophers have weighed in on the subject, and their thoughts are far more deserving of serious consideration than anything found in the world's holy texts, or anything shrieked from a pulpit on Sunday morning.
Finally, and most significantly in my view, no one needs a moral philosophy. True moral dilemmas are exceedingly rare, and most people go their whole lives without ever encountering one in their day-to-day experience. Yet most people also manage to go their whole lives without behaving badly, or at least with no more than the trivial sort of badness we all sometimes engage in. Even when we do behave badly, it is almost never because we are confused about the right thing to do.
How many people, though, have really thought seriously about the differences between consequentialism, virtue ethics, deontology, and the divine command theory? Somehow we all manage to know right from wrong without consulting the works of moral philosophers. That is because most people just regard it as obvious, even axiomatic, that you shouldn't hurt other people without an awfully good reason, or that we should have some empathy for other people. Most moral questions can be resolved with a few basic principles nearly everyone accepts instinctively, or perhaps because we learned them at a very young age. Asked to explain why murder is wrong, most people will just reply with a funny look, as thought it reflects poorly on a person even to raise the question. That reply is entirely appropriate in my opinion.
The sheer ubiquity and cultural force of religion can make it difficult to live the secular life, in some parts of the country more than others. In practice, it can sometimes be difficult to live without religion simply because you might be seriously limiting your social options by doing so. But finding one's way to right moral thinking is not one of the problems secular people face. The reality is precisely the opposite, in fact. Clear thinking about morality cannot begin until you shake off antiquated and harmful religious notions.
- Log in to post comments
I think I could agree that no one needs, or at least requires, a moral philosophy. Technically, no one need do anything.
And I definitely would agree that atheists can and often do behave in ways that others, even Christians, would say appears moral. The atheists’ morality is based on the old Golden Rule (GR). However,
1)Atheists’ adherence to GR is conditioned strictly on their own self-interest.
2)The atheist’s self-interest has no basis other than as a preference or matter of taste.
3)The atheist’s morality is only a preference/matter-of-taste because life itself, in his evolutionary view, is simply an accident (and an extremely rare one in both space and time) which is neither good nor bad (for “good” and “bad” are meaningless in evolution).
4) The atheist’s attempt to value the goodness of his or others’ morality thus contradicts his evolutionary world-view.
5)Consequently, the atheist has no basis for valuing human life, other than to say he may like to keep it (as he may like to eat chocolate).
6)As a result of the above, the atheist’s morality has no real integrity and dependability. The only thing transcendent about it is that it transcends (and contradicts) his evolutionary world-view.
Well said. Those of us without a deity to lean on can mine the rich legacy of moral thought available to all. It's not that hard.
Be Honest, don't hurt others without good cause, follow the Golden Rule, be humble.
sean s.
JR writes “Finally, and most significantly in my view, no one needs a moral philosophy. True moral dilemmas are exceedingly rare, and most people go their whole lives without ever encountering one in their day-to-day experience.”
I guess we would disagree over what is “exceedingly rare”.
Are the millions of Americans touched by the million+ abortions performed every year in the U.S. encountering moral dilemmas?
How about the untold millions affected by divorce and marital infidelity? And the millions more in the works flowing from the pandemic of pornography?
To sean samis,
Yes, hypocritical atheists are free to steal, or rely on, the rich legacy of moral thought.
Such atheists also are free to, and almost invariably DO, steal, or rely on, the rich legacy of the acknowledgement of design. Rare is the pro-evolution paper or article which avoids use of words like design, engineered, information, purpose.
Dog bites man.
See Noevo,
If non-believers borrow from the vast legacy of moral thought, that is not stealing. If someone steals from you, you lose the use of the thing stolen. But if non-believers borrow an idea from you, you still get to use the idea. That’s not theft, not by any definition.
Regarding, “Rare is the pro-evolution paper or article which avoids use of words like design, engineered, information, purpose.”
I cannot fathom what you’re getting at here, or how it matters in this context.
sean s.
... and, See Noevo, regarding your #1, well I usually ignore comments by persons of one faith commenting on what other “must” believe; and I advise others to do likewise. Your comments are thoroughly ignorant.
sean s.
"How many people, though, have really thought seriously about the differences between consequentialism, virtue ethics, deontology, and the divine command theory? Somehow we all manage to know right from wrong without consulting the works of moral philosophers."
Indeed I picked after searching for 15 years (well, not continuously) an ethical system that matched my needs. I did so because I want to try to be consistent.
#1 "Atheists’ adherence to GR is conditioned strictly on their own self-interest."
One such self-interest is good relations with other people. So there is no problem.
"The atheist’s attempt to value the goodness of his or others’ morality thus contradicts his evolutionary world-view."
Non-sequitur - in fact an is-ought fallacy used as a strawman. Try this, if you want to learn something:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/watching-the-detectives/peter_kropo…
Bottom line: human beings are no cats. They are social beings. Hence goodness can be "a matter of taste" (the correct term is subjective) and totally be explained in terms of evolution.
Yup, you're ignorant - about 150 years behind.
SN,
Natural selection is perfectly capable of designing, engineering, and the like without any purpose but short term fitness. I am sure you will ignore or dismiss this, but like I have suggested to Phil, reading Dennett on natural selection should set you straight. It probably won't, but it should.
Sean samis #6 responds “Regarding, “Rare is the pro-evolution paper or article which avoids use of words like design, engineered, information, purpose”, I cannot fathom what you’re getting at here, or how it matters in this context.”
What I was getting at is a comparison, a similarity, to another atheist behavior. You had pointed out that “Those of us without a deity to lean on can mine the rich legacy of moral thought available to all.” Atheists also mine the rich legacy of design.
Sean samis #7 writes:
“and, See Noevo, regarding your #1, well I usually ignore comments by persons of one faith commenting on what other “must” believe; and I advise others to do likewise. Your comments are thoroughly ignorant.”
Two more comments:
1)Where did I indicate “what others “must” believe”?
2)If you think my comments are thoroughly ignorant, I’m surprised your first response to them was “Well said.”
MNb #9 quotes my “#1 “Atheists’ adherence to GR is conditioned strictly on their own self-interest”,
and responds with “One such self-interest is good relations with other people. So there is no problem.”
Why does an atheist want good relations with other people, if not for a desired reciprocity (i.e. ‘I’ll be good to you because I want you to return the favor and be good to me. Because I like being treated “well” rather than being treated “badly”, just like I like the color blue more than green.’)
My statement 4) was not a non-sequitur nor a strawman.
I read the Norman Johnson piece on Kropotkin. I would ask them and you:
What is the purpose of life? And on what basis do you value life, human life in particular?
Actually, you’ve already answered the questions by saying “Hence goodness can be “a matter of taste” (the correct term is subjective)…”
See Noevo;
Regarding, “ What I was getting at is a comparison, ... Atheists also mine the rich legacy of design.”
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I won’t bother to dispute whether science mines the “rich legacy of design” or not. Either way, it does not matter. Deistic explanations would not harmed by such mining (if it occurs) nor deprived of anything by it. Deistic explanations are only harmed by their inability to utilize their “rich legacy” with the same effectiveness that science uses it (in the event of such mining).
Similarly, non-believers can mine the rich legacy of moral thought, and probably to greater good than deists have. Deistic tradition will only be harmed by the poor comparison they make beside non-religious applications of moral thought, or so I predict.
No harm, no foul.
Regarding, “Where did I indicate “what others “must” believe”?”
Well, lets see: from your #1:
Atheists’ adherence to GR is conditioned strictly on ...
... atheist’s morality is only a preference/matter-of-taste ...
... atheist has no basis for valuing human life...
Blah blah blah. Unless you are an atheist, you have no standing to assert these things, or should I say: you have exactly the same standing that at atheist has to make assertions about your beliefs. That’s the GR in action.
And of course, my use of the word “must” was in the sense of “necessarily has these traits” and not in the sense of “is obligated to believe in a certain way”. English is messy that way.
Regarding, “If you think my comments are thoroughly ignorant, I’m surprised your first response to them was ‘Well said.’”
I’m pretty sure you are not a newbie to these discussions, so you must be aware of the phenomena wherein two people hit submit at the same time. When I submitted my comment (numbered 2) there were no other comments posted. Yours arrived ahead of mine and got the #1 spot, but I had not seen it when I posted my comment. Jason’s comments are well said. Yours? Not so much.
sean s.
See Noevo;
Regarding, “Why does an atheist want good relations with other people, if not for a desired reciprocity (i.e. ‘I’ll be good to you because I want you to return the favor and be good to me. Because I like being treated “well” rather than being treated “badly”, just like I like the color blue more than green.’)”
How is this different from the believer doing certain things to retain their deity’s favor. “See, God? I was nice to that guy; so you promised to be nice to me.”
Sameo-sameo.
sean s.
Michael Fugate #10 writes:
“Natural selection is perfectly capable of designing, engineering, and the like without any purpose but short term fitness.”
So Mr. or Mother Natural Selection not only has a purpose in mind, but designs and engineers toward the accomplishment of that purpose.
Sounds like a person who’s not only intelligent, thoughtful and assiduous, but well-educated, too. A real go-getter. Mr. or Mother NS should be able to get a well-paying tech job, even in this anemic economy. If only he/she had a Social Security number.
Sean samis #14 writes:
“Similarly, non-believers can mine the rich legacy of moral thought, and probably to greater good than deists have. Deistic tradition will only be harmed by the poor comparison they make beside non-religious applications of moral thought, or so I predict.”
Example, please, of the non-believers “greater good” moral thought?
Yes, as you show, I never said anything about “what others “must” believe”. In other words, I never said anyone is obligated to believe or do anything. However, I did say, in essence, that all atheists who claim to have morality necessarily have the traits I listed in #1. And that's true also.
Sean samis #15 writes:
“Regarding, “Why does an atheist want good relations with other people, if not for a desired reciprocity (i.e. ‘I’ll be good to you because I want you to return the favor and be good to me. Because I like being treated “well” rather than being treated “badly”, just like I like the color blue more than green.’)” How is this different from the believer doing certain things to retain their deity’s favor. “See, God? I was nice to that guy; so you promised to be nice to me.””
No, not sameo-sameo.
The atheists’ “morality” of self-interest is no better than that of the lions in Johnson’s hyperlinked article above.
And remember, lions sometimes eat their young.
There are most likely fence posts with more self-awareness.
I knew you wouldn't even try to understand natural selection. I anticipated, you delivered.
Faced with being called an ideologue, Paul Krugman once wrote that everybody has an ideology because everybody has values and a mental model of how the world works. With a bit more snark, Ophelia Benson jokingly calls it "irregular verbs" when people say, effectively, "my long involvement in issue X makes me an expert; your long involvement in issue X makes you prejudiced".
In that spirit, we should realise that everybody has a moral philosophy, even if they couldn't put the proper fancy name on it. The only way not to have one would be if they didn't know what to do when faced with the chance to steal, to lie, etc., and we are daily faced with these options. But everybody knows what to do, and nearly everybody will also know why, even if it is just the primitive "because you just don't do such a thing" style deontology that most people never mature beyond.
See Noevo-
You are welcome to keep commenting here, even though we obviously disagree on these sorts of things, but I'd appreciate it if you could consolidate your comments more. Instead of writing three separate comments to reply to three separate points, just write one comment that addresses all three at once. I don't like seeing my “Recent Comments” bar overwhelmed by one name.
See Noevo;
Regarding, “Example, please, of the non-believers 'greater good' moral thought?”
It should be clear my comments are a prediction, statements about the future I expect to be. Examples of the future are never available in the present. As the Rabi told me once when I asked how you know if something is a prophecy; “Wait a while”.
Regarding, “I did say, in essence, that all atheists who claim to have morality necessarily have the traits I listed in #1. And that’s true also.”
No, it's not. I am not an atheist, but I am a non-believer. No, the traits you listed are not necessary. I don't think they are even reasonable.
Regarding, “The atheists’ ‘morality’ of self-interest is no better than that of the lions in Johnson’s hyperlinked article above.”
Perhaps, but the believer’s self-interest is no better either. It is sameo-sameo. If there’s a distinction, you’ve yet to specify it.
sean s.
Sean samis #22 responds to my “Example, please, of the non-believers ‘greater good’ moral thought?”,
with “It should be clear my comments are a prediction, statements about the future I expect to be.”
So, you can’t think of an example in recorded history where the atheists have evolved one ‘greater good’ moral thought.
I’m shocked. I guess we’ll have to look to tomorrow and tomorrow, as evolution “progresses”.
“I am not an atheist, but I am a non-believer.” As someone once said, sameo-sameo.
Me: “The atheists’ ‘morality’ of self-interest is no better than that of the lions in Johnson’s hyperlinked article above.”
You: “Perhaps, but …”
Thank you. You need say no more.
See Noevo,
Regarding, ”So, you can’t think of an example in recorded history where the atheists have evolved one ‘greater good’ moral thought.”
First, ‘evolved’ is not an appropriate verb in this context.
Second, my comments were predictions of the future. Shall we explore the many and manifest moral failures of believers in history? Oh, never mind, nearly ALL involve believers.
Regarding, “I’m shocked. I guess we’ll have to look to tomorrow and tomorrow, as evolution “progresses”.”
We’ve not been talking about evolution.
Regarding, “Thank you. You need say no more.”
So, we agree: the believer’s self-interest is no better than the non-believer’s, or the lion’s. Thanks. You need say no more.
sean s.
To sean samis #24:
“First, ‘evolved’ is not an appropriate verb in this context.”
That was a mistake on my part. I should always put quotation marks around “evolved”.
“Shall we explore the many and manifest moral failures of believers in history?”
No need to. There is a difference between “moral failures” and “moral thought/moral philosophy”. Just as there’s a difference between, for example, a corrupt cop and the law enforcement thought/philosophy his badge represents.
“We’ve not been talking about evolution.” Really? I thought everything involved evolution.
“So, we agree: the believer’s self-interest is no better than the non-believer’s, or the lion’s.”
No, we don’t agree on that.
We agree that the “morality” of self-interest of the non-believer is no better than that of the lion.
You need say no more. Now hush. “Don’t speak!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-yGbi0ycss
Before we continue any conversation SN, let's see how much you know about natural selection. If you are merely dismissing it out of ignorance, then nothing more need be said.
Here goes - answer the following ( I am not asking that you believe any of this true, only what your understanding of it is - your answers will not be construed in such a way that suggests you endorse evolution)
What is the role of variation?
Name some of the ways variation arises.
What is the role of heritability?
Why aren’t all traits 100% heritable?
What is the role of fitness?
How is fitness determined?
What is the difference between relative fitness and absolute fitness?
How would the survivorship curve of a human differ from a tree or a fruitfly?
How would the reproductive curve of a human differ from a tree or a fruitfly?
What is a life table and how would it be used in a study of natural selection?
Does having high fitness guarantee you will survive to reproductive age? If you survive, does high fitness guarantee you will reproduce?
Can an individual evolve during its lifetime?
If no selection occurs, can evolution still occur? Explain.
why is it that Christians (in particular) are so often such vile creatures?
Can there ever be anything more repulsive than a stranger walking up to you and demanding to know if you believe in their god?
Is there nothing more likely to make you want to kill someone than their asserting that their system is in every way superior to anything whatsoever that you might value?
is there ever a more clear reason to detest Christians than when one or more overwhelm a comments section with their astoundingly shallow, self-centered and aggressive attitude to the rest of the world?
If i could snap my fingers and have all Christians suddenly disappear from the world i am sure the world would be quite noticeably more peaceful afterwards
and a lot more honest
p
See Noevo, #25
now you're just being snide and snarky.
"atheists have evolved one ...thought"
Atheist brains work just like yours, physically.
They think ideas, not evolve them.
Try treating the folks here as co-workers, and less as pin-cushions for your wit.
Peak Oil Poet--
Kindly don't use my blog to muse about the consequences of genociding religious groups you don't care for. I allow my commenters a lot of latitude, but I do have my limits. So knock it off.
"If i could snap my fingers and have all Christians suddenly disappear from the world i am sure the world would be quite noticeably more peaceful afterwards."
Salt preserves flesh so be careful what you wish for Peak Oil Poet!
Just for the record, as one who is both an avowed atheist and one who often finds much to agree with in Jason's arguments and general views, I nevertheless think that there is a very great deal in the following which is rightly contestable--though I won't bother here--or probably not even later--to go into how and why:
"Finally, and most significantly in my view, no one needs a moral philosophy. True moral dilemmas are exceedingly rare, and most people go their whole lives without ever encountering one in their day-to-day experience. Yet most people also manage to go their whole lives without behaving badly, or at least with no more than the trivial sort of badness we all sometimes engage in. Even when we do behave badly, it is almost never because we are confused about the right thing to do."
I'd say we really do need a moral philosophy; that we and others suffer when we ignore that need; that texts can help but aren't always necessary or sufficient.
So, for the religiously faithful readers here, please note that not all atheists accept the views cited above. Something which, for lack of a better word we can and do call "spiritual" is perhaps--at this stage of human evolution--a practical necessity and I don't think that is a bad thing. A thoroughly scientific non-religious person can find or construct all that he needs in a morality or a spiritual life without resort to anything supernatural. And people do this and have done it for millennia. No magic or miracles required--not even a baseless and cringing faith in things which are supposedly such like.
To Michael Fugate #26:
For your quick quiz I’ll give some quick answers.
“What is the role of variation?” To vary.
“Name some of the ways variation arises.” A good way: Natural random expression of a trait already present in the gene. A bad way: Mutation of the gene.
“What is the role of heritability?” To inherit. Just think if you didn’t inherit anything from your parents! You could have popped out of the womb as a stalk of broccoli.
“Why aren’t all traits 100% heritable?” First, give me one that isn’t.
“What is the role of fitness?” To determine whether organism survives and reproduces.
“How is fitness determined?” By surviving and reproducing. (Yes, it’s circular.)
“What is the difference between relative fitness and absolute fitness?” The difference between you and God.
“How would the survivorship curve of a human differ from a tree or a fruitfly?” Not sure, but I imagine more trees than humans die from insect infestation and more fruit flies than humans or trees die from being swatted or squashed.
“How would the reproductive curve of a human differ from a tree or a fruitfly?” Not sure, but I have a question for you: How many non-fruit flies have resulted from the genetics experiments on thousands of generations of fruit flies?
“What is a life table and how would it be used in a study of natural selection?” Never heard of a "life table" but I’ve heard of Mr./Mother Natural Selection (see his/her resume above).
“Does having high fitness guarantee you will survive to reproductive age? If you survive, does high fitness guarantee you will reproduce?” Ask the dinosaurs.
“Can an individual evolve during its lifetime?” Have you ever seen one who did?
“If no selection occurs, can evolution still occur?” Selection necessitates a selector. Who’s selecting? Oh, I forgot. It’s Mr./Mother NS. What do you mean, “still” occur? Explain.
To MobiusKlein #28:
My condolences. I’m sorry you haven’t “evolved” a sense of humor.
To Jason Rosenhouse #29:
I can understand your mild rebuke of Peak Oil Poet:
“Kindly don’t use my blog to muse about the consequences of genociding religious groups you don’t care for.”
But are you implying Peak Oil Poet knows of “genociding religious groups” which he DOES care for?
#34
he got it wrong anyway - my reference was to the Christian idea that with the Rapture all Christians would disappear. Being the spiritually inclined person i am i thought that might i have had the power to give you what you want it would be a win-win situation - the world would undoubtedly be significantly more peaceful (there being none of you around to wage endless illegal wars on peoples) and you'd get what you hope you have coming to you.
and yes i do know of the genociding (sic) of religious groups - in particular those who are of specific ethnic origins and, not that i know many of them personally, i do care about the fact that they are being exterminated or otherwise badly treated
and no, it's not only Christians who have a nasty track record of genocide, it's a human thing, built into us as a consequence i guess of evolution on a planet where everything is trying to survive mostly by killing everything else
but on an English language blog, supposedly about evolution, the only people that aggravate anyone are, hmm, let me see, ah yes - Christians
because why? Ah yes, the Bible is is the truth and all else is just lies and an opportunity for Christians to hang out teaching us all how wrong we all are
again
ad nauseum
two guys in a boat. No food, no hope of rescue. They agree not to kill each other - the form an agreement based on an agreed moral philosophy
until one falls asleep
p
See Noevo;
Regarding, “I thought everything involved evolution.”
This may explain why you don’t understand evolution: looking for it in all the wrong places.
Regarding, “We agree that the 'morality' of self-interest of the non-believer is no better than that of the lion.”
... which is no better than the morality of the believer’s self-interest, looking out for themselves.
Sameo-sameo.
sean s.
SN, thanks for the "answers", but just as I thought - my fence post analogy was correct. Bye.
Every xtian wakes up and decides to persist in believing in 1) a book, a particular translation. 2) a particular interpretation of that book by a pope or minister.
In any afternoon she might decide that's not the best way to act. This is just like an athiest, who woke up not regarding one interpretation of one translation of one text as the best explanation of everything. She might, although its not common, decide to follow some narrow belief system. An "absolute" morality is always chosen by a relativist decision. Sameo...
To sean samis #36:
Me: “I thought everything involved evolution.”
You: “This may explain why you don’t understand evolution: looking for it in all the wrong places.”
Where would be a wrong place?
Regarding your view that the morality of the believer is no better than that of the non-believer, for both operate on “self-interest, looking out for themselves”:
I agree that everyone, believers as well as non-believers, chooses to take certain actions only if he sees at least some benefit, even if indirect, to himself. I could add some qualifiers to my comment #1 part 1) to further sharpen the difference between believers’ self-interest and non-believers’ self-interest. However, perhaps the difference can be seen just as easily by repeating the joke or parable given by The Peak Oil Poet #35:
“two guys in a boat. No food, no hope of rescue. They agree not to kill each other – the form an agreement based on an agreed moral philosophy. until one falls asleep.”
Do you understand the parable?
See Noevo;
Just to recap:
You in #1: “1) Atheists’ adherence to [the Golden Rule] is conditioned strictly on their own self-interest.”
You in #13: “Why does an atheist want good relations with other people, if not for a desired reciprocity (i.e. ‘I’ll be good to you because I want you to return the favor and be good to me. Because I like being treated “well” rather than being treated “badly”, just like I like the color blue more than green.’)”
Me in #15: “How is this different from the believer doing certain things to retain their deity’s favor. ‘See, God? I was nice to that guy; so you promised to be nice to me.’ Sameo-sameo.”
You in #18: “No, not sameo-sameo. The atheists’ ‘morality’ of self-interest is no better than that of the lions in Johnson’s hyperlinked article... And remember, lions sometimes eat their young.”
Me in #22: “Perhaps, but the believer’s self-interest is no better either. It is sameo-sameo. If there’s a distinction, you’ve yet to specify it.”
You in #23: “Thank you. You need say no more.”
Me in #24: “So, we agree. The believer’s self-interest is no better than the non-believer’s, or the lion’s. Thanks. You need say no more.”
You in #25: “No, we don’t agree on that. We agree that the ‘morality’ of self-interest of the non-believer is no better than that of the lion. You need say no more. Now hush. ‘Don’t speak!’”
Me in #36: “... which is no better than the believer’s self-interest, looking out for themselves. Sameo-sameo.”
You in #39: “I agree that everyone, believers as well as non-believers, chooses to take certain actions only if he sees at least some benefit, even if indirect, to himself. I could add some qualifiers to my comment #1 part 1) to further sharpen the difference between believers’ self-interest and non-believers’ self-interest.”
I’d be very interested in those qualifiers. I suspect they will result in a distinction without a difference, but I’d like to see you try.
Regarding, “Where would be a wrong place?”
Here, talking about morality and moral systems. Evolution, with regards to moral systems is at best a metaphor. Even you said that regarding your use of the word evolved” “That was a mistake on my part. I should always put quotation marks around ‘evolved’.”
This is a minor, semantic distraction. Go ahead and use the word if you like, I’ll let it go. Small potatoes.
sean s.
I would not be so positive about our general behavior as you are. It is true that most people show a certain respect towards other people in daily life, but it is also true that few people make great sacrifices to help others. I think a moral philosophy really can make us more altruistic on the margin.
By the way, since I can not comment on the old post I just wanted to let you know that I picked up the Penzler locked room anthology after reading your recommendation and it has been excellent so far.
To sean samis #40:
Me: “I agree that everyone, believers as well as non-believers, chooses to take certain actions only if he sees at least some benefit, even if indirect, to himself. I could add some qualifiers to my comment #1 part 1) to further sharpen the difference between believers’ self-interest and non-believers’ self-interest.”
You: “I’d be very interested in those qualifiers. I suspect they will result in a distinction without a difference…”
Consider again the two-men-in-a-boat parable above. You didn’t answer my question as to whether you understood it. I’ll answer for you:
Assuming the one who’s still awake is an atheist (let’s call him “A”), he’d have no compunction of breaking the agreement and killing his sleeping partner (let’s call him “B”), and will do so, for several reasons:
1)Killing B will benefit A by increasing A’s chances of survival.
2) A won’t suffer any retribution for killing B because there are no witnesses and A can make up an adequate story or alibi, if needed, regarding the absence of B.
3)A has no qualms since A never saw any value to B’s life to begin, unless B could help him. But B is only a liability to A now. So…
So… The scenario would play out differently if A was a believer. A wouldn’t murder B.
Me: “Where would be a wrong place [to look for or talk about evolution]?”
You: “Here, talking about morality and moral systems. Evolution, with regards to moral systems is at best a metaphor.”
Well, do you believe morality comes from our brains? And do you believe our brains evolved from non-brains? I think your answer to both questions must be “Yes”. So discussions of evolution in regard to morality should be fine, for you.
P.S.
When I use forms of the word “evolution”, I normally put them in quotation marks to indicate I don’t believe in evolution.
@39 SN: "Where would be a wrong place?" (to look for evolution):
The origin of the Universe.
The South Pole.
A power line.
To MNb #43:
“@39 SN: “Where would be a wrong place?” (to look for evolution):
The origin of the Universe.
The South Pole.
A power line.”
No. “Evolution”, as in a Godless/materialistic account of origins biological and universal, touches these also.
The origin of the Universe: Part of modern cosmology, which is virtually entirely about cosmological evolution.
The South Pole: An unusual part of our planet which is a product of cosmological and geophysical evolution. It also has penguins, which evolved from non-peguins.
A power line: An example of man’s further evolutionary progress in harnessing new tools to aid in survival.
Evolution tales can be told anywhere and about anything.
Sean samis #40 says evolution is the wrong place to look “Here, talking about morality and moral systems. Evolution, with regards to moral systems is at best a metaphor.”
MNb #43 hints at the same.
Au contraire.
Here’s one of limitless examples. Watch for the “E” word!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530061.100-what-makes-us-altrui…
If you use evolution in all those places, you have lost the thread. May as well use evolve to discuss catching the bus.
MobiusKlein complains:
“If you use evolution in all those places, you have lost the thread. May as well use evolve to discuss catching the bus.”
How about saving the bus (or other automotive) so you can catch it? Done.
http://www.livescience.com/5485-evolution-sink-save-gm.html
a pregnant woman and the father in a boat...
three men in a boat
a kid-AI-nutter and a bunch of athiests in a boat
the lists are endless and everchanging
I said something simlar in comment over or Coyne's blog on the same op-ed. Mr. Brooks seems to have forgotten cultural inheritances such as the Declaration of Indipendence and Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). Or the golden rule, which is pan-cultural. Its not like every generation of secularist has to reinvent the moral wheel here. We've got lots of good, historical, moral rules of thumb we can apply.
See Noevo @44: it sounds to me that you're using the term 'evolution' in either its most broadest meaning only (change over time), or perhaps in multiple ways. I think that confuses the issue. Secularists don't (necessarily) base their morality on the observed occurrence of natural selection, aka Darwin's survival of the fittest. So no, the atheist boat companion in your @42 would not necessarily kill their fellow boatgoer. Some might. Some Christians might too; it depends on the person's individual character. Based on observations of actual human behavior (rather than your own mind experiment, which paints all atheists or secularists as callous self-centered sociopaths), atheists don't seem to be any less moral than Christians.
eric #49 writes
“Based on observations of actual human behavior …atheists don’t seem to be any less moral than Christians.”
Yes, don’t SEEM to be any less moral than Christians. That’s one of the first things I wrote in comment #1.
Right, but its a backhanded compliment at best, because you then go on to claim six different points that make atheists out to be narcissistic sociopaths.
What prevents atheists from having noble motives? Are your comments based on thinking about how you would behave if you didn't believe in God?
To eric #51:
“Right, but its a backhanded compliment at best, because you then go on to claim six different points that make atheists out to be narcissistic sociopaths.”
My six points are factual.
But “narcissistic sociopaths”? Your words, not mine. And I would never call someone who may like to eat chocolate a narcissistic sociopath (cf. comment #1).
Nice dodging See, but no dice. What prevents atheists from having noble motives? Are your comments based on thinking about how you would behave if you didn’t believe in God?
Eric The Noble #53 whines “What prevents atheists from having noble motives?”
Answer: Integrity.
Integrity to, and consistency with, their godless and materialistic evolutionary world-view.
See again the entirety of comment #1.
people sometimes ask questions like "what would you do if...?"
along the lines of what might one do when in a certain situation (usually one of moral dilemma, risk, etc ie a question that really is a pointless request for the essence of our nature)
we'd all like to think that in such situations those attributes of ours that we judge to be of worth will be what we exhibit
but all our thoughts and words fly away when we are actually in those situations - many studies have shown this to be the case - from almost trivial acts of theft right through to self sacrifice and murder
the one flaw in all of the endless reams of Christian assertions about goodness etc is that history and biology and sociology and psychology and RELIGION teach us that when push comes to shove so called spiritual Christians are no less likely than anyone else to turn on their peers and kill and eat them
they assert they have a moral code based on their belief in God
but God is literally the last thing that enters their mind (as a post event rationalization) when providence dumps them in the poo
the third commandment essentially tells us not to assert (unless called upon by a court to give evidence) - proselytizing Christians are a seething bag of assertions - unending lectures essentially asserting that they are more spiritual, more honest, more trustworthy etc - none of which is true (more likely, seeing as they like breaking the first three commandments, they are less honest, less trustworthy and the last people on earth you'd want to share a foxhole with)
Christians are also always breaking the second commandment - by describing interminably the attributes of God - (God is this and God is that) they paint a face on God and then lead themselves to believe and do homage to the image in their head they created - i mean, think about that for a moment - if God did exist and did create this humungously big and complex universe how could a puny human ever have any inkling whatsoever of the nature of God - it's sheer self delusion to think otherwise
I do think that a bunch of people who have to live together are best to have a basic code of behaviour but such a code is pretty obvious (or, often, in real societies, subject to legislative changes are human societies evolve) and any such code goes out the window as soon as that bunch is confronted with a different group who have other views as to what's right and wrong (for the moment at least)
Religions are a hard nut to crack - you can't legislate them away quickly (though removing tax incentives is a good start) and you can't get rid of them by any means other than genocide or sufficient time: all peoples tend towards the secular if you stop bombing them back to the stone age every few years, in other words, if we are all comfortably getting by then fundamentalism tends to end up isolated in small (nutter) groups. Stirring things up on a regular basis keeps religion bubbling up as this group or that grasps at anything they can use as a flag to call others to support their belief that someone should treat someone else more fairly
it is my opinion that human society can not really evolve in any meaningful direction unless we try our best to base what we think and believe on as much truth as possible. Science, so far, often seems to be the only little flicker of light in the darkness that might provide some sort of valid direction (not necessarily easy and not necessarily agreed upon by everyone at the same time)
the last thing we humans need to to anchor our thinking, aspirations and future survival in ancient books written by people who would probably flounder in the modern world
it's not easy for someone indoctrinated at an early age or by emotional trauma to shed that indoctrination - one might just as well attempt to rip out ones own cancer - yes it would be beneficial but it would be nasty, bloody and difficult and might leave little more than a shell
It's a tough call for Christians - if they live anywhere other than amongst other uneducated, similarly indoctrinated people, they are continuously bombarded with evidence that all they believe in might come tumbling down
some fight this by doing various things to try and bolster their belief
like throw themselves at those average people who have time to hang out on blogs
you can't shed false belief by looking for saviors
you can only do it by working really hard to be honest with yourself
and there's the answer to whether or not any ONE needs a moral philosophy - they only do if they want to walk around in this world unclouded by false belief in how things work - and are prepared to suffer the day to day consequences of living with "i don't know"
so, here's one of those questions with no real answer i started with:
if you were the last human alive on earth - and there was no one to wrong or to wrong you - would you want to look at it all with open eyes and acceptance of reality for what it is
or would you want to cover your head with a shroud of belief and turn your back on everything except your aspiration to go hang out with your God?
p
How ironic that one of the “truth” tellers here goes by the name “Peak Oil Poet.” Probably all in with Al Gore.
Peek at this:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/peak-oil-debunked-again-1417739810
@44 SN: "The origin of the Universe: Part of modern cosmology, which is virtually entirely about cosmological evolution."
Good job changing the meaning of terms during a discussion - ie shifting the goal posts. This is not what you were talking about in your first comment. There you were talking about biological evolution.
Is there any sincere apologist around?
See Noevo:
The naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy, See. Most people recognize that; evidently, you're one of the few who don't, and instead think its solid logic that every nonbeliever must follow and does follow.
How interesting that the only people who believe Al Gore represents the current science, or is some sort of idol of people concerned with the climate are the scientifically illiterate - as you demonstrate.
To MNb #57:
No goal post moving by me.
I didn’t define “evolution” in #1. I did in # 44: “Evolution”, as in a Godless/materialistic account of origins biological and universal.
To eric #58:
I don’t understand your comment. Please explain in your own words why my position is fallacious.
See Noevo: sure. its fallacious because there is no logical reason to create a normative behavioral claim out of an observation of how nature behaves. "Oughts" do not come from 'is"es. The observation that water runs downhill doesn't provide us with a moral law that it is good to run downhill. Does it? The observation that nuclei decay via quantum tunneling doesn't provide us with a moral rule that it is ethical to run through walls, does it? So why do you think the observation that some species kill each other for personal benefit provides us with a moral rule that it is ethical to kill each other for personal benefit?
Heck, even if you did think such is/ought reasoning was legitimate, you still have that slight problem of chimpanzees vs. bonobos. Nature seems to have produced multiple ways of social living, some peaceful and cooperative and some nasty and violent. On what basis can you insist that we must only draw our 'ought' lessons from the nasty and violent ways when they are not the only social constructs we observe in nature?
To eric #62:
““Oughts” do not come from ‘is”es. The observation that water runs downhill doesn’t provide us with a moral law that it is good to run downhill. Does it?”
Would you agree with me that there is no “ought” in evolution and no “ought” in nature?
There is no "ought" arising directly from natural laws, or theories such as survival of the fittest. Humans are social animals. We are part of nature. We construct social codes. Those codes are therefore also part of nature - our nature. Does that help?
Maybe I can fast forward the conversation past the gotcha. No, I don't think there is an objective morality. I think we must construct it based on our goals and values. Where I thiink you may be going radically wrong is in thinking that atheists and nonbelievers must, by some necessity (which you still haven't explained) have evil or self-centered goals. Do you really, honestly think I don't feel love for my kid? Empathy and compassion for others?
To eric #64:
Part 1:
“There is no “ought” arising directly from natural laws…Humans are social animals. We are part of nature. We construct social codes. Those codes are therefore also part of nature – our nature. Does that help?”
No. At least it doesn’t help you. Not if you’re trying to validate atheists’ morals. Here you’re saying humans are part of nature and the social codes we construct are also part of nature – our nature. But in #62 you said there was “no logical reason to create a normative behavioral claim out of an observation of how nature behaves.” You say humans are social animals (an arguable claim). But even if they are, so what?
Part 2:
Do I think you don’t feel love for your kid or empathy and compassion for others? No. I just know that your feelings, IN TERMS OF ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION, are neither good nor bad. They just are. As you’ve admitted that you do not think there is an objective morality, then, in your view there is nothing objectively wrong with, for example, a less-feeling parent killing his child in or out of the womb.
Part 3:
“Where I thiink you may be going radically wrong is in thinking that atheists and nonbelievers must, by some necessity (which you still haven’t explained) have evil or self-centered goals.”
What is “evil” in a mind that recognizes no objective morality?
Right. "Nature" has multiple meanings. It can mean what happens in the absence of humans. Or there is the bigger meaning that includes humans. I'm trying to point out that there is no logical or rational reason to derive our morality from things like the behavior of water or lions, but instead we derive it from our goals, empathies, etc. as social animals.
True. There is very much morally wrong with it though, based on most standard human ethical and moral systems.
But this objective/subjective discussion hides a deception in your argument, a commonality you are unwilling to admit. You draw your morality from books and your own personal experience. From people and things in the world You have no objectively confirmable direct line to God. We are both subjectivists, in other words. You just draw your subjective moral judgments from a different source than I.
(Late as usual, but better late than never;-)
Here I'll have to disagree with Jason as well as with Brooks.
People should develop explicit moral philosophies in order to comport with their own ontologies and for the sake of logical consistency. Most people eventually do encounter moral dilemmas that don't resolve by recourse to instinct, implicit cultural norms, or immediate feelings. This is especially true for anyone whose job entails any degree of responsibility or authority.
Holding explicit principles and requiring moral consistency is essential where the links between values, decisions, actions, and consequences, are indirect or not immediately apparent. For example consider the links between consumption habits and ecological and social justice values, and the direct consequences of one's actions on others who are at a substantial distance geographically or in time.
Having an explicit moral framework enables anticipating the moral considerations that will obtain when new facts become apparent: being morally proactive rather than reactive, and reducing risk of succumbing to emotional demagoguery, deliberately misleading arguements, and the like.
---
There is nothing intrinsically better or worse about "inheriting" moral principles and reasoning from various historical sources whether religious or secular, as compared to reasoning them out "from scratch." I've spent years reasoning my principles out, more or less "from scratch," as I generally take a "clean slate" approach to most things. But that does not make me a more moral person (or less so), than someone who "inherits" their entire moral system from some pre-existing source.
To my mind the "from-scratch vs. inherited" issue is of tertiary importance. I would rank-order the issues as:
1) Most important: make your moral code explicit.
2) Live by it in a consistent manner as far as possible.
3) Reason it out and seek to make it empirically and logically consistent. (This is the "from-scratch" part.)
Virtually all of us have a moral sense, in that we have a conscience and similar states of mind which incline us towards certain behaviours and away from others, and which also incline us to praise and condemn such behaviours in others. Our moral sense arises primarily by a combination of natural selection, inculcation as children and societal influence throughout our lives. It may also be influenced by conscious reflection, but conscious reflection is not the primary source. And having such a moral sense does not require the adoption of a "moral philosophy", if by that we mean a fundamental moral proposition or a set of moral propositions.
To assume that a moral sense requires a moral philosophy is to make the common mistake of overestimating the role that propositions and arguments play in forming our states of mind. That said, it's useful for people to aim for some consistency in their moral judgements. More consistency means more inclination to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves, and that tends to make the world a better place all round.
It's probably this mistake (of overestimating the role of propositions and arguments) that leads SN to assume that atheists need a "basis" for their morality, and the only basis he can think of is "preference or matter of taste". Well, a moral sense could be considered a matter of preference, in a broad sense, in that it inclines us to moralistically prefer certain behaviours to others. But that's true for everyone, not just atheists. And if we needed a fundamental moral proposition on which to "base" our morality, theists would be in just the same paddleless boat as atheists. What fundamental moral proposition justifies accepting God's commands as the basis for morality? Justifications have to stop somewhere (the alternative is an infinite regress), and the moral principle "it's moral to do what God says" has no more justification than any other. If anything, it's worse off than the Golden Rule, which at least has the virtue of not appealing to a mythical being (and to obviously man-made accounts of what God says), but rather relies on a sense of fairness that nearly all of us share to some degree.
Eric #66 writes
“But this objective/subjective discussion hides a deception in your argument, a commonality you are unwilling to admit. You draw your morality from books and your own personal experience. From people and things in the world You have no objectively confirmable direct line to God. We are both subjectivists, in other words. You just draw your subjective moral judgments from a different source than I.”
No.
I will admit to a commonality of certain views about ethical behavior. (I will NOT admit to a universality of same, and neither would you.)
I will also admit that one’s morality derives largely from things outside of one’s self.
However, I know that Christian morality, or at least Catholic morality, has a basis which is intellectually satisfying. It is supported by the witness of history (starting with the witness of miraculous, physical, historical events) and by philosophical and logical reasoning.
In contrast, the atheists’ morality is intellectually baseless. The very term “atheist morality” is, I think, essentially oxymoronic.
Richard Wein #68 writes
“… it’s useful for people to aim for some consistency in their moral judgements. More consistency means more inclination to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves, and that tends to make the world a better place all round.”
A “better” place? If you believe you are a product of a godless abiogenesis and evolution, there is no such thing as “better”.
“… if we needed a fundamental moral proposition on which to “base” our morality, theists would be in just the same paddleless boat as atheists. What fundamental moral proposition justifies accepting God’s commands as the basis for morality?”
Theists are not in a paddleless boat. However, it’s good you admitted that atheists are. Theists, or at least Catholics, are on firm rock.
And one does not use a fundamental moral proposition to begin to build a basis any morality. The Catholic uses not just faith, but also reason. And the reasoning is supported by history and logic, as well as by Scripture.
G @67: better add
4) Be willing learn from experience and revise it as needed.
See Noevo:
You don't find the Bill of Rights intellectually satisfying?
The preamble to the Constitution to be intellectually satisfying? There are many, many sources of non-biblical philosophy, ethics, and discussions of morality out there. Some of them even form the foundation of the society in which you live.
Genesis 11: 5-7 (NIV). " 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” That's some deep and logical foundation. God doesn't want us to be able to achieve what we could working together.
How about Exodus 20:5 (NIV): "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"
That's a double dose of rational goodness! First God decides something is immoral because it makes him jealous. Then he decides the proper response is collective punishment, literally punishing the kids for the sins of the parents.
I suspect you merely use that phrase as an insult. As a description, its factually incorrect for probably most atheists. Just ask them the intellectual basis of their morality and most can probably list off a bunch of source material or philosophies.
Yes, we know what you think. The problem is, asserting it does not make it so. You simply assert that atheists have no basis or have only preferences and have no reason to value human life, and you don't seem too inclined to actually listen to atheists who say otherwise.
Eric #72 asks me
“You don’t find the Bill of Rights intellectually satisfying? The preamble to the Constitution to be intellectually satisfying?”
I’m in favor of the Bill of Rights.
I’d say I find the Bill of Rights somewhat intellectually satisfying, but less intellectually satisfying than
the Constitution, which is less intellectually satisfying than
the Declaration of Independence,
which says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“There are many, many sources of non-biblical philosophy, ethics, and discussions of morality out there.”
I agree 100%.
“I suspect you merely use that phrase [“atheists’ morality is intellectually baseless”] as an insult.”
No, I use it as a true factual description, in terms of their atheistic evolutionary world-view.
“You simply assert that atheists have no basis or have only preferences and have no reason to value human life, and you don’t seem too inclined to actually listen to atheists who say otherwise.”
I’ll listen to you, eric. And we can really get to the bottom of this.
I’ll listen to your answers to my questions, one at a time.
Question 1: Why do you, eric, value human life?
Because I love. Because I feel empathy for others. Because knowing pain and pleasure myself, I don't generally wish pain or denial of pleasure on anyone without a compelling reason (IOW, the freedom to pursue life etc... is my default position, exceptions bear the weight of evidence). Because after studying the golden rule and other arguments in favor of equal treatment and basic human rights, and studying what human society looks like when we wdo and don't act that way, a high valuation of human life seems very rational to me. Because it works as a social system far better than the alternatives. Less important, but still in my thoughts, is that life is valuable because we contribute many great and beautiful things to the world, and we have a potential to leave the world a better place than it was before we entered it. We do not always live up to that potential, but I'm not going to go around murdering people because they got a B on their history essay or because they don't recycle their coke bottles.
You'll note that my evolutinary worldview was not menitoned once in the above. Because as I have been trying to tell you and you seem incapable of grasping, I do not draw my morality from the observable fact that species descend with modification via the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection.
Tit for tat: why do you value life, See?
To eric #74:
Last things first.
To answer your question, I value human life for some reasons similar to yours:
1)Feelings (e.g. of love, of empathy)
2)Utilitarianism (e.g. society seems to work better for you and me and everyone with the Golden Rule; great and beautiful human contributions to society)
However, and more importantly, I value human life for reasons not dependent on feelings or considerations of utility. Specifically, on a belief – a belief grounded in reason, logic, history, and Scripture - that human life is the most precious and valuable gift from God, who made us in his image and likeness.
Now, regarding other things you wrote:
1)As you don’t believe in objective morality, you would have no objection to a very different valuing of human life by someone who doesn’t share your feelings of love, empathy and utility, correct?
2)It was wise for you not to talk much about your evolutionary worldview in this context. Because to be consistent with your evolutionary world-view (cosmological and biological), you would have to admit that all life is an undirected “accident”, and further that life is an extreme anomaly in the space and time of the universe (e.g. human life comprising only the last 0.0002% of scientists’ timelines).
It seems to be that atheist Craigh Hicks was in need of a moral philosophy.
I wonder if atheist Craig Hicks was a poster here?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-c…
Re. Eric @ 71: YES. Definite yes on "4) Be willing learn from experience and revise it as needed."
Observe, hypothesize, test, publish, refine. That applies to moral codes sought through reasoning, as much as it applies to knowledge sought via empirical methods.
Funny thing is, I explicitly apply that method to arriving at ontology and the starting premises for moral reasoning, but I'll admit that it didn't occur to me to make it explicit in my moral reasoning. I've been doing it, but doing it _implicitly_, which isn't good enough.
SN:
Of course I would object, if what they wanted to do was something I considered immoral. That is part and parcel of having a moral code. Subjectivity does not require I withhold judgment.
I do admit that. Your last statement is poorly parsed (the human species is not the measure of the rarity of life in the universe), but gist-wise, I have no issue with those statements. The question to you is - what do they have to do with my ability to think about morality?
have to interject
we do not know if life is an "accident". It was not so long ago a young mathematician came up with a proof that the universe would quite naturally create life in and as a consequence of the nature (structure) of the universe.
His proof might turn out to be flawed but the idea is enough
i don't think many up-to-date-with-their-reading people would bet on the likelihood of life, even intelligent life, being uncommon in the universe.
And that's quite central. A lot of dogma would be exposed as silliness if the universe was creating life all over the place. You may leap to stupidities like "how come we haven't seen them yet" but that only because you have no grasp of time on an evolutionary scale - even fleeting explosions of "i'm here" written in FOX news extremes for hundreds of years might be comparatively brief in the scheme of things
back to value of life - it's a nasty slippery subject frequently and deeply explored by humans. Forever. It's always going to end up subjective because there will always be conundrums that have no "non-death" endings.
Don't Kill - is not a universal - you might choose to take it as one and that's your prerogative but it's not - consider so many cases from ethics (mind) experiments or even just consider whether or not you would kill to save a loved one.
There are no universal truths. That's the whole meaning of the first three commandments but it seems to have been lost because people keep failing to take into consideration the evolution of the sophistication of world views.
Back the we said "God" - out of ignorance and some people made up balderdash stories to embellish and convince (like a news reporter or politician might do)
but there is only reality
play games as much as you wish, build towers as much as you can
there is only reality
p
To eric #79:
Me: “… you would have no objection to a very different valuing of human life by someone who doesn’t share your feelings of love, empathy and utility, correct?”
You: “Of course I would object, if what they wanted to do was something I considered immoral. That is part and parcel of having a moral code. Subjectivity does not require I withhold judgment.”
Sorry. Inadequate wording on my part with “you would have no objection.” Of course you could, and probably would, have an objection. But your objection would not be based on objective morality, and so would be a subjective matter. Essentially, your objection would have the same moral substance as someone objecting against vanilla because you (and perhaps most people) prefer chocolate.
Me: “Because to be consistent with your evolutionary world-view (cosmological and biological), you would have to admit that all life is an undirected “accident”, and further that life is an extreme anomaly in the space and time of the universe (e.g. human life comprising only the last 0.0002% of scientists’ timelines).”
You: “…I have no issue with those statements. The question to you is – what do they have to do with my ability to think about morality?”
Oh, you can have a “morality”, and even think about it, regardless. But you cannot have or do either in a way that means anything or that makes any sense, given your evolutionary world-view.
I say this for at least three reasons:
1)When I said “…in your view there is nothing objectively wrong with, for example, a less-feeling parent killing his child in or out of the womb”, you responded with “True. There is very much morally wrong with it though, based on MOST standard human ethical and moral systems.” So, your admittedly subjective morality is, in your opinion, strengthened with numbers, by a normative condition, if you will. Well, the overwhelmingly normative condition in the history of the universe is NON-life. So, any value you may have in favor of life is not only admittedly subjective, but your valuing of life is devalued further by its rare, non-normative reality.
2)The very existence of life is an accident, in your world-view. In common understanding and usage, “accidents,” while perhaps not always “bad”, are usually considered to be “bad”.
3)More fundamentally, in the evolutionary view, there is no such thing as “good” or “bad”, only “what is”. And if you “ain’t”, that’s “OK”, too.
True. As is yours. At least, you can't demonstrate to me that your morality is objective. You have no goodometer. No eviloscope. You use a book, but not a book everyone agrees sets an objective moral standard. So while you claim objectivity, it sure looks to this outsider like you're just another garden variety subjectivist who happens to feel very strongly that they've got the right answer. Similar to me, but with less humility, because I'm not claiming my moraliity has some independent metaphysical existence.
Not all subjective assessments are the same. My morality is grounded in all the things I listed for you, rather than merely the feeling ice cream elicits on my taste buds.
Your morality derives from a book and your understanding of God. Personally I would say that that is also not equivalent to a subjective judgment based on the feeling ice cream elicits on your taste buds, however, if you want to argue that all subjective judgments are equally poorly founded, then I will happily talk about the Bagavad Gita, New Testament, Torah, Koran as merely different flavors of ice cream.
What? Are there undead space vampires getting a vote on human morality that I don't know about? Are you giving rocks a vote on what the bill of rights should contain? The fact that the universe is filled with nonliving matter has nothing whatsoever to do with how life should be valued. Its a complete nonsequitur. The universe is also filled with hydrogen. This does not mean that hydrogen is morally good while all other elements are evil. The universe is filled with non-life therefore humans shouldn't value human life? Who thinks like that? Wait, I know the answer! See Noevo making up a straw man atheist thinks like that. No actual atheist thinks like that, only the one in your head.
Now you want to base human morality on English word choice? I could just as easily have said serendipitous. Wow, now life is good because that word is usually intended to mean good! Or I could call it contingent. That must mean life is intellectual, because contingent is an intellectual word.
No, See Noevo, me agreeing with your choice of the word "accident" does not mean life has no value to atheists. Sheesh. Worst. Gotcha. Ever.
To eric #82:
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that my morality is just as subjective as yours but just different, then, you would say that
1) All morality is subjective, that is, there is no objective or true “right” or “wrong”.
2) And because there is no objective right or wrong, there is no “better” in between them.
3) Your particular morality is based on your emotional feelings and on your concept of utility.
Correct?
Me: “your admittedly subjective morality is, in your opinion, strengthened with numbers, by a normative condition, if you will. Well, the overwhelmingly normative condition in the history of the universe is NON-life.”
You: “The fact that the universe is filled with nonliving matter has nothing whatsoever to do with how life should be valued.”
I didn’t say it did. You did. I’ll repeat much of a section from above: When I said “…in your view there is nothing objectively wrong with, for example, a less-feeling parent killing his child in or out of the womb”, you responded with “True. There is very much MORALLY WRONG with it though, BASED ON MOST STANDARD human ethical and moral systems.” So, your admittedly SUBJECTIVE morality is, in your opinion, STRENGTHENED with NUMBERS (i.e. by HOW MANY subscribe to it), by a NORMATIVE condition, if you will. Well, the overwhelmingly normative condition in the history of the universe is NON-life. So, any value you may have in favor of life is not only admittedly subjective, but your valuing of life is devalued further by its rare, non-normative reality.
See Noevo;
Regarding your “two-men-in-a-boat parable” in #42, your error is in 3).
1) and 2) apply equally to everyone, but the prejudicial stereotype expressed in 3) is worthless. Do all atheists conform to your prejudice? I know that’s not true. And do all theists “have qualms” about killing and “value the life of others” as you imply. I also know that’s not true. Murdering theists are not rare at all. How the scenario plays out is not determined by who is awake.
Regarding “do you believe morality comes from our brains?”
Not actually. Morality comes (at least) from our minds and its conclusions about what behaviors work best in a community.
Regarding “do you believe our brains evolved from non-brains?”
In the matter of morality, that’s irrelevant.
To eric you wrote, “My six points [in #1] are factual.”
No. I went back and reviewed them. 1) applies equally to theists and atheists; 2) through 6) are just flat wrong.
And 3) says that “‘good’ and ‘bad’ are meaningless in evolution” which means discussing evolution in the context of morality is inappropriate. You shot yourself in the foot!
You also wrote to eric that “what prevents atheists from having noble motives is Integrity. Integrity to, and consistency with, their godless and materialistic evolutionary world-view.”
Noble motives are perfectly consistent with a “godless and materialistic evolutionary world-view”.
Again you told eric, “See again the entirety of comment #1.”
It hasn’t changed: your comment #1 is almost entirely wrong.
You asked eric, “Would you agree with me that there is no “ought” in evolution and no “ought” in nature?”
I agree there are no “oughts” in evolution. But the term “nature” is too broad to fit this question. Nature made us social animals with the ability to relate to and empathize with each other, and to conceive of goals and conditions that benefit a “greater good”. We humans do best living in communities. These mental abilities and our social nature create “oughts”, and their roots do run down to nature.
You asked eric, “What is “evil” in a mind that recognizes no objective morality?”
There is no objective morality, not even theists think there is.
What is Evil?
Evil is any act which 1) causes harm, 2) is intentional and 3) is unnecessary.
Harm: any physical injury, financial loss, or impairment of liberty; or a substantial risk of any of these against the express consent of the one harmed or placed at risk.
Intentional: includes premeditation, recklessness, and unreasonable negligence.
Unnecessary: not justified by mitigation or prevention of harms or injustice nor justified by the consent of the one harmed.
This probably covers more than 80% of genuine evil, and is a good starting point. I do not claim it is complete. Suggestions will be considered.
Notice there is no reference to any deity needed.
I quit reading around #66, the thread’s getting too muddled. Or I’m tired and behind in my caffeine quotient.
sean s.
First, I actually laughed out loud when I read what Peak Oil Poet wrote: “There are no universal truths.”
POP: you just asserted a universal truth!!
And then you wrote “but there is only reality ... there is only reality ”
Yet another Universal truth!! TWICE!! Thanks. I needed the laugh.
See Noevo wrote “... I know that Christian morality, or at least Catholic morality, has a basis which is intellectually satisfying. It is supported by the witness of history (starting with the witness of miraculous, physical, historical events) and by philosophical and logical reasoning.”
One other reason to dismiss See Noevo’s claim that atheists are less moral: believers of the Abrahamic Tradition claim to draw their morals from a God whose conduct itself is indefensible.
See Noevo wrote “In contrast, the atheists’ morality is intellectually baseless.”
Several have described the intellectual bases of a non-believers’ morality. You don’t like it, but it does exist.
See Noevo wrote “A ‘better’ place? If you believe you are a product of a godless abiogenesis and evolution, there is no such thing as ‘better’.”
I don’t think you have standing to tell others what they do or don’t think. I know I am probably “a product of a godless abiogenesis and evolution” and I have no difficulty understanding what “better place” means.
See Noevo wrote “Theists, or at least Catholics, are on firm rock.”
I’m sure you believe that. Those of us on the boat can see your rock is just another raft.
See Noevo wrote “The Catholic uses not just faith, but also reason.”
Perhaps Catholics do, but I suspect the correct term is ‘misuse’, like some guy driving a screw in with a hammer. He’s using the hammer and the screw, but not correctly.
See Noevo wrote “Question 1: Why do you, eric, value human life?”
I value life because it is precious and rare, and fragile. Human life adds a degree of sentience to that, something quite special. I love and cherish living things and especially humans. The golden rule reminds me that I must treat them as I want them to treat me.
See Noevo wrote “As you don’t believe in objective morality, you would have no objection to a very different valuing of human life by someone who doesn’t share your feelings of love, empathy and utility, correct?”
Wrong. Those that have different feelings represent a threat to myself and others. I would have very strong objections.
To eric’s answer to the above See Noevo replied: “ Sorry. Inadequate wording on my part with ‘you would have no objection.’ Of course you could, and probably would, have an objection. But your objection would not be based on objective morality, and so would be a subjective matter. Essentially, your objection would have the same moral substance as someone objecting against vanilla because you (and perhaps most people) prefer chocolate.”
No. Someone’s objection to vanilla (as vs. chocolate) lacks the same tangible threat to others that their failure to value human life does. These “preferences” are categorically different, and likewise objections to them.
See Noevo wrote “It was wise for you not to talk much about your evolutionary worldview in this context. Because to be consistent with your evolutionary world-view (cosmological and biological), you would have to admit that all life is an undirected “accident”, and further that life is an extreme anomaly in the space and time of the universe (e.g. human life comprising only the last 0.0002% of scientists’ timelines). ”
Again, you're presuming you can tell others what they must think. These items you mention are for the most part irrelevancies. Being “created” by a “designing deity” means that deity can always make more, reducing our “specialness”. To the extent that life is an anomaly and rare, that only increases its value, which is quite high anyway.
sean s.
To sean samis #84, #85:
I started reading your posts, but pretty quickly stopped, as I could see we weren’t going to agree on anything.
With one possible exception. You said “Murdering theists are not rare at all.”
I agree somewhat. I might say “self-identified” theists.
See Noevo #69: It is supported by the witness of history (starting with the witness of miraculous, physical, historical events) and by philosophical and logical reasoning.
The very concept of miraculous, physical, historical events is, I think, essentially oxymoronic. As I understand history miraculous events are entirely outside its purview.
The Peak Oil Poet #80:
i don’t think many up-to-date-with-their-reading people would bet on the likelihood of life, even intelligent life, being uncommon in the universe.
Well, given that most of the universe by a large stretch seems to be empty space, it seems that for any given cubic metre of space it is unlikely to find life. But your points are valid. In truth we don't really know enough about the universe to determine how common (or otherwise) life is. It will also depend on what one defines as life.
See Noevo #75:
a belief grounded in reason, logic, history, and Scripture
Now you're just being silly. History?!?? Reason?!? It is based on unverified assertion. Oh, and what happened to faith? Do you believe without faith?
eric #82:
"Your [See Noevo's] morality derives from a book and your understanding of God."
Funny thing is though that when confronted with some incongruity about their god christians tell us that he is really beyond human understanding. Whether god is understandable depends mostly on the point they are trying to make, or avoid. Logic? Pah!!
I would be inclined to pay more attention to a catholic spouting about morality if the catholic church, over the course of history, hadn't exhibited some truly corrupted morality, from the Albigensian Crusade, to the burning of people alive for their beliefs or dissing the pope, and its tepid response to the Holocaust. The catholic church was, if anything, an enabler of the Holocaust with centuries of antisemitic teaching. In more recent times the church's response to child abuse has typified by mere self preservation, and shown no morality except when it has been brought to heel by external authorities. Personally I am disgusted by catholics who think they can instruct others on morality.
SN@86: No True Scotsman? After reading the entire thread, I'm disappointed that you'd stoop to that level.
I wrote to See Noevo that “Murdering theists are not rare at all.”
See Noevo replied (in part), “I might say “self-identified” theists.”
And who are we to say they are not theists? Because they are sinners? Because they are awkward for your argument?
See Noevo also wrote, “I started reading your posts, but pretty quickly stopped, as I could see we weren’t going to agree on anything.”
Perhaps, but we don’t need to agree on much to learn a lot from each other. I never thought I’d change your mind. But your disengagement is your call.
sean s.
To sean samis #92:
“I wrote to See Noevo that “Murdering theists are not rare at all.”
See Noevo replied (in part), “I might say “self-identified” theists.””
Perhaps another way of saying it is: “Satan is definitely a theist, too.”
“Perhaps another way of saying it is: ‘Satan is definitely a theist, too.’”
Well, only if Satan exists. But that still would mean that the moral behavior of theists is not better than atheists. So you do concede the point?
sean s.
To sean samis #94:
“But that still would mean that the moral behavior of theists is not better than atheists. So you do concede the point?”
Of course not. No reason to.
See Noevo @83:
Empirically it certainly seems that way. But if you have an evilometer, let me know.
I think my point about rocks voting was a spot-on reply to this. You seem to be saying that when we count "numbers supporting" a moral system, we should somehow include or consider the amount of inanimate matter making up the universe. I disagree; rocks etc. do not get a vote on human morality. Why should they?
Again, you appear to be making up an atheist in your head whose views are not at all those of actual atheists. IMO life should be valued more because of the unique forms it takes. In stark contrast to your atheist straw-man, here is Carl Sagan's words: "For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
To eric #96:
Me: “1) All morality is subjective, that is, there is no objective or true “right” or “wrong”.”
You: “Empirically it certainly seems that way.”
Thanks for answering #1. But you didn’t respond to #2 and 3.
2) And because there is no objective right or wrong, there is no “better” in between them.
3) Your particular morality is based on your emotional feelings and on your concept of utility.
Correct?
To repeat:
Me: “…in your view there is nothing objectively wrong with, for example, a less-feeling parent killing his child in or out of the womb.”
You: “True. There is very much morally wrong with it though, BASED ON MOST standard human ethical and moral systems.”
“IMO life should be valued more because of the unique forms it takes.”
Hence, your love of snowflakes.
“In stark contrast to your atheist straw-man, here is Carl Sagan’s words: “For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
Maybe someday, eric, you’ll found the S.E.T.L. project. (Search for Extraterrestrial Love.)
Until then, you’ll just have to grin and bear it.
2) There is "better" between them because we make normative judgments based on values.
3) Among other things. I would probably not consider myself a strict utilitarian.
Now I've answered all three of your points, you can answer two of mine. You claim an objective morality: how can you tell its objective rather than subjective? How can *I* tell?
To eric #98:
Thanks for answering my #2 and #3, to wit
#2: There is no objectively “better” morality.
#3: Your particular morality is based on your emotional feelings and on your concept of utility (although less strictly on the latter).
“Now I’ve answered all three of your points, you can answer two of mine. You claim an objective morality: how can you tell its objective rather than subjective? How can *I* tell?”
The answer is not all that complex, but does involve multiple, though relatively simple, steps. Like “opening a door”. It’s “simple”, but actually somewhat involved. First, you have to recognize that there is a door, and that it’s closed. Then, you have to approach the door. Then, you have to reach out to the door knob…grip it… turn it… pull it.
Anyway, I’m not going to get into all of it right now. Better to let you think, and maybe read about it. In the meantime, I’ll just say this about the steps:
They start with something like Descartes’ “I think therefore I am.”
And end with “Jesus Christ, speaking through the Church He established, said so.”
Think about it.
actually there are many doors
Christians (and other deluded souls) sometimes start by stepping into the hallway - at first in quick rushes, and then in longer excursions, eventually in treks
http://thepeakoilpoet.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-i-dont-dig-buddhism.html
p
First, you imagine there is a door, and then you convince yourself that because a lot of other people have imagined the same door for a long time, there must really be something behind the door, like “Jesus Christ, speaking through the Church He established.”
Voila!
See Noevo:
So if someone doesn't have faith in Jesus, you don’t have any independent evidence or rational argument with which to support your claim of an objective morality. The way someone becomes convinced of the objective morality of Christianity is through conversion. Is that right?
Okay, did that for 30+ years. The door was opened, I did not see the objectivity of it. Even as a believer, “commandment of God” did not seem rationally equivalent to “objective moral judgment” to me. Can I now conclude your morality is merely subjective, or are you going to No True Christian me?
To eric #102:
It is often said that everyone wants the truth. That they’ll search for it and follow it wherever it leads.
But it’s not true.
I’m not going to say anymore now. But I found this, which addresses some of the steps I was referring to. Please take a careful look.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration
That's it? "On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired." Parts of it read like a very poor recapitulation of CS Lewis' "Lord, liar, or lunatic" argument, which wasn't good to begin with.
On 1) The bible gets many things wrong. Even just limiting ourselves to the NT, there are numerous inconsistencies.
On 2) No, you cannot derive an infallible Church from the bible getting some historical facts right. That's like claiming that JK Rowling's descriptions of London means Hogwarts is real.
On 3) inspired is not the same as inerrant, so even if I granted you the first two,you have still merely shown me that your morality is man's subjective interpretation of some objective message, not the objective message itself.
And your first comment seems to just be agreeing with what I said before without admitting it: you don’t have any independent evidence or rational argument with which to support your claim of an objective morality. Its faith that makes you believe your morality is objective; you have no argument that is compelling to an unconverted person.
Farewell, eric.
See Noevo wrote, “Farewell, eric.”
The market place of ideas is not for the faint of heart.
sean s.
Earlier, I received some pushback when I wrote
“Well, do you believe morality comes from our brains? And do you believe our brains evolved from non-brains? I think your answer to both questions must be “Yes”. So discussions of evolution in regard to morality should be fine, for you.”
However, consistent with my statement is what an evolutionist wrote recently:
“Humans are highly social creatures. Our brains have evolved to allow us to survive and thrive in complex social environments. Accordingly, the behaviors and emotions that help us navigate our social sphere are entrenched in networks of neurons within our brains… Prejudice evolved in humans because at one time it helped us avoid real danger.”
http://theconversation.com/humans-are-wired-for-prejudice-but-that-does…
To sean samis #106:
You write: “The market place of ideas is not for the faint of heart.”
I would be more precise.
I think the market place of ideas has no shortage of participants who are faint of heart, and mind. However, the separation of wheat from chaff in the market place of ideas is NOT for the faint of heart or mind.
And a wise person once said, “Never try to argue or reason with an idiot.”
Others wise men have said similar things:
“do not throw your pearls before swine”
“And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.”
“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah." So he left them and departed.
See Noevo;
Regarding, “Earlier, I received some pushback when I wrote ‘Well, do you believe morality comes from our brains? And ...’”
I responded to your original question with:
Not actually. Morality comes (at least) from our minds’ and its conclusions about what behaviors work best in a community. In the matter of morality, [whether our brains evolved from non-brains] is irrelevant.
You might not like my answer, but your point did not go unanswered.
Regarding the quote you cut from The Conversation, it represents the opinion of one person. More significantly, you’ve deliberately extracted that last sentence about prejudice from the writer’s context. The parts you omitted are emboldened:
“In social psychology, prejudice is defined as an attitude toward a person on the basis of his or her group membership. Prejudice evolved in humans because at one time it helped us avoid real danger. At its core, prejudice is simply an association of a sensory cue (e.g., a snake in the grass, the growling of a wolf) to an innate behavioral response (e.g., fight-and-flight). In dangerous situations time is of the essence, and so human beings adapted mechanisms to respond quickly to visual cues that our brains deem dangerous without our conscious awareness.”
Prejudice in the writers definition is a natural, unconscious instinct for dealing with sudden dangers, not a quotidian moral concept to be consciously applied. Letting instincts lead you around by the nose all the time is a moral failure, but evolution is not where that moral failure is found. It’s found in laziness.
As you wrote to eric in #52: “My six points [in #1] are factual.”
And at least 5 of these 6 are all or in part wrong. Number 3 says that “The atheist’s morality is only a preference/matter-of-taste because life itself, in his evolutionary view, is simply an accident (and an extremely rare one in both space and time) which is neither good nor bad (for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are meaningless in evolution).” Which means discussing evolution in the context of morality is inappropriate because in the context of evolution, good and bad are meaningless.
(The part about morality being “only a preference/matter-of-taste” is bogus.)
sean s.
Farewell, sean.
See Noevo;
“Never try to argue or reason with an idiot.”
... except that disagreement is not evidence of idiocy. Maybe I’m the idiot. Maybe you are. Either way, withdrawing from the conversation is not a sign of wisdom.
“do not throw your pearls before swine”
This requires you unhumbly believe your words are pearls. What if they are not? How will you know except to put them out there for critique and objection?
If this is how you feel about us (your pearls before we swine), then it means you are not open to the possibility that you, See Noevo are wrong. Could I, sean s. be wrong? Of course. I live with a teenager and a used-to-be teenager, the possibility of being wrong has been in my face for more than a decade!
But what if it's you who are wrong?
“And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.”
Again, assumes you are inerrant. That kind of attitude may impede your persuasion. If you can’t be wrong, why would anyone think you were honest?
“but no sign shall be given to [them] except the sign of Jonah.”
I would take the sign of Jonah in a heart-beat. Better than nothing, which is what I’ve gotten so far.
sean s.
Proverbs 16:18
To sean samis #111:
“Either way, withdrawing from the conversation is not a sign of wisdom.”
Can’t say I didn’t try.
"“do not throw your pearls before swine”. This requires you unhumbly believe your words are pearls. What if they are not? …you are not open to the possibility that you, See Noevo are wrong. Could I, sean s. be wrong? Of course… But what if it’s you who are wrong?”
“Wrong”? How would you know that someone’s moral view is wrong OBJECTIVELY? (I’m assuming that you, with eric, believe there is no such thing as objective morality - objective right and wrong.)
“I would take the sign of Jonah in a heart-beat. Better than nothing, which is what I’ve gotten so far.”
So you say.
Mat 28:17; Mark 16:14; John 11:45.
Sn, without any external evidence for things in the bible there is no reason to believe any item in it. No historical support, no physical support = just a book of so so stories.
To dean #114:
Do you know, or at least believe beyond any reasonable doubt, that Aristotle or Augustus Caesar were actual persons, who wrote and did certain things which we acknowledge today?
If so, why?
Dean,
There is lots of archaeological and historical evidence. You simply choose sources based on whether or not you like what you hear.
SN, because there is external evidence.
Phil - which you haven't been able to demonstrate - your repeated falsehoods don't measure up - they are as empty as your "science" rebuttals.
To dean #117:
You believe in Aristotle and Augustus Caesar because of external evidence such as what?
#118 Emporor Augustus? Coins, lots of coins. Statues, busts and other artefacts. Lots of them. His own biography plus lots of independent writings. All within his own lifetime or shortly thereafter.
We believe that Aristotle and Augustus Caesar existed because of ample evidence that they did. For example, there exists a large body of philosophical writings attributed to Aristotle. This attribution (and here's the important point, SN), is independent of the works in question. That's the difference between attribution of these works to Aristotle and the belief in Biblical inerrancy. The evidence for Biblical inerrancy is that the Bible says it is inerrant. That is NOT independent evidence. Of course, if it somehow turns out that we find evidence that the writings we attribute to Aristotle were not in fact written by him, we would cheerfully give up belief in the existence of Aristotle. I am sure, given the appropriate evidence, that you would give up belief in the Bible, right SN?
SN:
I don't claim your morality is objectively wrong, I claim its subjective. I've asked you for argument or evidence that you have an objective morality and your response seems to be 'first, you find Jesus. Then you'll see.'
That is not a compelling defense of objectivity. A decent rule of thumb or indication that something has objective existence is that people don't have to share your political, social, or religious values to agree it exists. Beauty is subjective; different cultures have different ideas about what comprises beauty. The moon is objective; everyone sees it in the sky, regardless of culture. By telling me that only people who find Jesus can see the objectivity of your morality, you are essentially admitting its subjective.
To sean T #120:
“The evidence for Biblical inerrancy is that the Bible says it is inerrant. That is NOT independent evidence.”
Where does the Bible say it’s inerrant?
“Of course, if it somehow turns out that we find evidence that the writings we attribute to Aristotle were not in fact written by him, we would cheerfully give up belief in the existence of Aristotle.”
You mean, you would cheerfully give up belief that Aristotle wrote it, not that Aristotle didn’t exist. Correct?
“I am sure, given the appropriate evidence, that you would give up belief in the Bible, right SN?”
Certainly.
The only reason I believe the Bible is God’s word is because the Catholic Church says it is. So, given appropriate evidence that the Catholic Church was not established by Christ, then I would give up belief in the Bible.
"The only reason I believe the Bible is God’s word is because the Catholic Church says it is. So, given appropriate evidence that the Catholic Church was not established by Christ, then I would give up belief in the Bible."
The right wing continually rants about how the education system is failing its "customers". They conveniently ignore folks like you who massively failed the education system.
To eric #121:
“I don’t claim your morality is objectively wrong, I claim its subjective.”
Now, I may be a bit confused by that. I THINK you’re saying that objective morality MAY exist, but we can never know it with certainty because all of our views of morality are SUBJECTIVE. Or something like that, I guess.
“I’ve asked you for argument or evidence that you have an objective morality and your response seems to be ‘first, you find Jesus. Then you’ll see.’”
No. Actually, I said something closer to ‘LAST, you find Jesus’.
“By telling me that only people who find Jesus can see the objectivity of your morality, you are essentially admitting its subjective.”
One of the intermediate steps to objective morality is acknowledging God, our Creator, and religion, which is a means of knowing, worshipping and obeying God.
In honor of Presidents Day, I offer some words by presidents and patriots that relate to this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports… Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." – George Washington, from his farewell address
Now, there are many gods in many religions. Even in Christianity, there are literally tens of thousands of denominations and independent congregations (i.e. essentially, tens of thousands of different Jesus Christs). Given that each of them conflicts with the others, logic tells us that they can’t all be right. Only one can be right. And with this, you get closer to the final step.
To dean #123:
Although I have a bachelors from a highly-touted east coast university and a masters from the Ivy League, I would agree, at least, that fancy degrees, including PhDs, are no guarantee of a good education that enhances intelligence, knowledge, critical thinking and common sense.
'Something like that' is fine. Whether there is an objective morality or not, you've given me no confidence that you are accessing it. We're up to post #125, and still no observation or argument about why we should think your morality is objective.
At most one (conflicting sect) could be right. But the other possibility is they could all be wrong. Moreover this argument equates or assumes that if you can show a god-given morality, you've shown an objective morality. Plato pointed out the flaw in that logic four hundred years before your religion even existed.
"Although I have a bachelors from a highly-touted east coast university and a masters from the Ivy League,"
If true, I wonder how much those institutions would pay to withdraw them if they could see your "arguments".
Unless the "degrees" were in religion - no real educational standards there.
"are no guarantee of a good education that enhances intelligence, knowledge, critical thinking and common sense."
Well, since you fail in all of those categories, you've finally stated something that is correct.
To eric #126:
“We’re up to post #125, and still no observation or argument about why we should think your morality is objective.”
Not true. In #103 I provided an article that argues, indirectly, for my point. [I say “indirectly” because the article is primarily an argument for the Bible’s inspiration, not for any particular moral philosophy. However, the answer to both is ultimately the same, and the only one that makes any sense: “Because the Catholic Church says so.”]
“Moreover this argument equates or assumes that if you can show a god-given morality, you’ve shown an objective morality. Plato pointed out the flaw in that logic four hundred years before your religion even existed.”
Please explain briefly.
To dean #127:
Brilliant!
SN,
I agree that a morality that amounts to "because the Catholic Church said so" would be objective in the sense that everyone could agree whether a particular action is moral or not based on that morality. Is the situation contradictory to the Church's teaching or not? That is a question with an objective answer.
However, I am not so sure that this is what we're looking for when discussing the idea of an objective morality. It seems to me to be no less objective to say that what is moral is whatever is legal according to the laws of the USA (any other country would work just as well, of course). Such a morality would be no less objective in that same sense than the "whatever the Catholic Church says" morality. We could ask "is it legal according to US law?" and arrive at an objectively agreed upon answer.
The problem comes, of course, when we start to question the authority of our moral philosophy giver, whether that be the Church, the laws of the USA or some other authority. For instance, we have no objective basis to say that the use of birth control is morally wrong. A non-Catholic might well argue that using birth control is not morally wrong. What's your objective basis for convincing someone who does not recognize the moral authority of the Catholic Church that the Church's teaching on this matter is objectively correct?
SN,
I still think you are a bit mired in circularity. You claim that you know that the Bible is true because the Catholic Church says it is. You claim also that the Church has the authority to say this by virtue of the fact that the Church was established by Christ. How do we know that the claim that Christ established the Church is true? Mainly because the Catholic Church says it is!
How do we know that the gnostic Christians, the Arians, or someone else was not the true church of Christ and that the Catholic Church is not just the one branch that happened to gain temporal, political power upon the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine? The only evidence in favor of the Catholic Church's claim to have been established by Christ is that the Catholic Church itself says it.
See Noevo asked me, “How would you know that someone’s moral view is wrong OBJECTIVELY?”
You confuse things, See. Your opinion could be right but your words trash. It happens. Your inability to articulate your point is independent of whether your position is correct.
What determines whether your words are persuasive? Obviously it is your persuasive success or failure.
And if I have to show your words are OBJECTIVELY wrong, then wouldn’t you have to show OBJECTIVELY that we others are “swine”? Or that we are blameworthy for being unpersuaded? Please demonstrate the OBJECTIVITY of your own claims.
Regarding your Biblical citations: since I am a doubter, patchworks of Biblical citations have no force with me. The Bible does not validate belief in God, belief in the biblical God validates the Bible.
See also wrote, “The only reason I believe the Bible is God’s word is because the Catholic Church says it is. So, given appropriate evidence that the Catholic Church was not established by Christ, then I would give up belief in the Bible.”
You need to talk to some Protestants.
Regarding, “Because the Catholic Church says so.”
Now all you need is an objective reason for the rest of us to trust The RCC so much. I cannot even imagine such evidence. Whatever moral authority The RCC ever had, it squandered long ago. As someone wrote earlier, for anything to be “objective” then belief in it cannot be dependent on ideology or religion.
eric wrote, “Plato pointed out the flaw in that logic four hundred years before your religion even existed.”
See asked, “Please explain briefly.”
I suspect eric is referring to Plato’s Euthyphro dialog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro
sean s.
To Sean T #130:
“…I am not so sure that this is what we’re looking for when discussing the idea of an objective morality. It seems to me to be no less objective to say that what is moral is whatever is legal according to the laws of the USA …Such a morality would be no less objective in that same sense than the “whatever the Catholic Church says” morality.”
What you’re describing is a bit like apples and oranges for at least two reasons: 1) Not all laws are moral, and not all that is moral is prescribed by law; 2) When I say a morality is “objective”, I mean more than clearly discernible when considered in a specific framework. By “objective”, I also mean true, true universally and transcendentally (i.e. Divinely).
“For instance, we have no objective basis to say that the use of birth control is morally wrong.”
Of course, I disagree. But, assuming you’re an evolutionist, I can understand why you would say that.
“A non-Catholic might well argue that using birth control is not morally wrong.”
Absolutely, including many self-identified “Catholics”
“What’s your objective basis for convincing someone who does not recognize the moral authority of the Catholic Church that the Church’s teaching on this matter is objectively correct?”
The Church has taught extensively, and deeply, on this matter (artificial birth control). I won’t even attempt to explain even the tip of the iceberg here. I will, however, give you a good starter “article”:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_e…
To Sean T #131:
“I still think you are a bit mired in circularity. You claim that you know that the Bible is true because the Catholic Church says it is. You claim also that the Church has the authority to say this by virtue of the fact that the Church was established by Christ. How do we know that the claim that Christ established the Church is true? Mainly because the Catholic Church says it is!”
But this is exactly the point that the article I provided argued against. That is, it said the argument for the authority of the Church is NOT CIRCULAR, but rather spiral. This is NOT a semantic difference. The spiral argument is essentially a logical and historical argument using sources outside of the Bible and outside of the Church.
“How do we know that the gnostic Christians, the Arians, or someone else was not the true church of Christ and that the Catholic Church is not just the one branch that happened to gain temporal, political power upon the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine?”
Off the top of my head I’d say some of the things to consider are longevity, continuity and consistency. How are those gnostics and Arians doing today?
And regarding the Roman Empire, a couple thoughts: 1) It’s remarkable that the powerful, world-dominating Roman Empire officially adopted as its religion the beliefs that originated from what many even today consider a tiny, crazy cult of Jews founded by a man who, if he existed at all, was either crazy or evil. And that the impact is felt around the world still, right down to how we mark time (e.g. 2015 A.D.); 2) The Roman Empire is no longer around, but the Catholic Church is.
A morality derived from an authority is not the same as an objective morality. It can still be subjective. To see this, consider that a "two thumbs up" movie review from Siskel and Roper (back in the day) is not the same as a claim that there exists an objective standard of a good movie, and their rating reflects it.
In fact, I would say that if your ultimate argument for morality is "because x says it," that is a pretty good indication of subjectivity. Appeals to authority are generally used when the speaker can't think of any more reasoned or convincig argument; that is why they are considered fallacious. IOW, if you had a compelling case for objective morality, you wouldn't need to say "because the Catholic church says so," you could just instead give me that compelling case.
As Sean says, I was referring to the Euthyphro.
To sean samis #132:
“Swine” wasn’t my word. I was just quoting Christ.
“The Bible does not validate belief in God…”
Agreed.
“… belief in the biblical God validates the Bible.”
Disagreed. Illogical, circular argument.
“You need to talk to some Protestants.”
I’ve talked and listened to plenty of Protestants over many moons. In short, that’s why I would never want to be anything other than Catholic.
“Whatever moral authority The RCC ever had, it squandered long ago.”
I can just imagine what you’d like to bring up. But as with so very many, you confuse infallibility with impeccability.
“Now all you need is an objective reason for the rest of us to trust The RCC so much. I cannot even imagine such evidence…for anything to be “objective” then belief in it cannot be dependent on ideology or religion.”
You can’t even IMAGINE such evidence? How about extra-Church things like logic, reason, and the witness of history?
“I suspect eric is referring to Plato’s Euthyphro dialog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro”
I tried reading the wiki but it doesn’t make much sense to me. I don’t believe in gods (plural) and the focus on “pious” or “piety” clouds the issue. The issue is, such and such is moral, is right, because God, the creator of all that is, said so.
Well I might quibble about the phrasing of that last bit, but gist-wise, I agree: "objective morality" refers to the idea that moral judgments such as good and evil have some metaphysical reality to them separate and independent of the species doing the reasoning.
Which is why I keep asking you for your evilometer. If evil is some objective, independent characteristic of things or actions, you should be able to make me a detector that I and other non-christians agree can be used to point at stuff and see whether it is evil or not, the same way I can point a detector and say "yep, it's emitting radiation." The closest thing you have to that is the bible, but the bible is like Sean's mention of US law: it's an "in framework" authority, not a pan-framework objective heuristic.
A theist who hasn't heard of the Euthyphro? Either you're young or a liberal arts education is not what it used to be. In very short (and I probably do it major injustice) form, and modifying it to focus on the points revelant to this debate:
1. If what God says is moral, then he could say "killing is moral" tomorrow and it would be so. That does not fit with the notion of morality being objective.
2. OTOH if actions are moral or immoral regardless of God's commands, that would indeed be objective but then morality is something separate and higher than God - a set of principles even he cannot change. That doesn't fit with the notion of a tri-omni God.
So you can have an objective morality or a tri-omni God, but not both, as they are mutually contradictory.
To eric #135:
“A morality derived from an authority is not the same as an objective morality.”
Yes, most times, but not always.
First, I’ll repeat what I said recently: When I say a morality is “objective”, I mean more than just clearly discernible when considered in a specific framework. By “objective”, I also mean true, true universally and transcendentally (i.e. Divinely).
Second, when the morality comes directly from the authority who is God Almighty, the morality is “objective.”
SN,
Not sure if you've ever had a logic class at any of the schools you went to, but if you did, you really ought to see if you can get a refund. Your claim that the Catholic Church must be the standard for objective morality. You know that the Church is such as standard because it was established by Jesus. Leaving aside whether or not Jesus really was divine (which is most certainly in question) and assuming for the sake of argument that he was, what evidence, independent of Catholic teaching on the matter, is there that the Catholic Church is THE church established by Jesus? Your main contention is that there aren't many arians or gnostics or other early sects still out there. There still are some such believers out there, but even if there were not, that still does not establish the claim. The Bible itself makes reference to how difficult it will be to obtain the Kingdom and how very few will get in. Does that square well with the single largest Christian denomination being the one that got it right? Given that scripture, would you not expect that it might well be a small group, such as the gnostics who were the real church established by Jesus?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue in favor of Arianism or Gnosticism over Catholicism; I don't believe any of them. I'm just trying to make you see why your logic is weak. I certainly don't expect that you'll change your mind, but perhaps you'll see that your arguments are more faith-based than they are logic-based; that's all I can hope for.
BTW, another weak link in your logic is your failure to understand that you are indeed begging the question when you state things like comparison of laws of the US to the teaching of the Catholic Church is not a valid analogy. You are starting with the assumption that the Catholic Church's teaching provides a divinely-inspired objective moral philosophy. The very existence of such a moral philosophy is precisely what is in question in this debate. Therefore, assuming that there exists such a moral philosophy is begging the question. There are objective moral standards, as I pointed out earlier, that will allow one to determine if a given action is moral under that standard. An action is either legal or not under US law. An action is either moral or not according to Church teaching. What we don't have is a universal standard that all individuals can agree upon. The Church certainly does not fit that bill.
To eric #137:
“Which is why I keep asking you for your evilometer.”
Here’s a starter kit, an “evilometer” 1.0:
The ten commandments.
Me: “Off the top of my head I’d say some of the things to consider are longevity, continuity and consistency.”
You: “That argument would support the notion that Jewish, Buddhist, or Hindu morality is more objective than Christian morality, as all three beat Christianity in the longevity and continuity.”
OK. Now, add the historical record of human beings willingly submitting to execution for refusing to deny their WITNESS of a miraculous event, namely, the self-predicted PHYSICAL resurrection of their leader.
Then, you got something.
P.S.
Who are the undisputed earthly heads of Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism these days?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Perhaps this article would be better for you to read. The main question of the Euthyphro, in more modern terms, is "does the fact that God commands us to perform an action make that action moral, or does God command us to perform that action because that action is moral?" In other words, does morality attach to an action simply by virtue of its being pleasing to God or are those actions pleasing to God which are moral to begin with?
To eric #138:
“1. If what God says is moral, then he could say “killing is moral” tomorrow and it would be so. That does not fit with the notion of morality being objective.”
If God said, hypothetically, “killing [i.e. murder] is moral”, then killing is moral, objectively.
However, reality being what it is, murder is not moral. Murder is not moral based, tentatively, on our innate moral sense (which glows brighter in some more than others (an innate moral sense which comes from…?)), but confirmed by divine revelation (a divine revelation confirmed by Christ’s Church, whose authority is confirmed by logic, reason, history).
“2. OTOH if actions are moral or immoral regardless of God’s commands, that would indeed be objective but then morality is something separate and higher than God – a set of principles even he cannot change. That doesn’t fit with the notion of a tri-omni God.”
In that case, would murder be moral objectively? If not, why not, objectively speaking?
SN, Another non-sequitor. Why must the one true standard for objective morality have an earthly spokesman in charge of the organization. If the standard is objective, we would not need a Pope for there to be agreement on it. For instance, would you say that science is useless for obtaining objective knowledge? (Saying that WOULD be contrary to Catholic teaching, BTW, which states that science, by telling us more about nature brings us a better understanding of God). Who is the earthly head of the scientific community? Objectivity can be reached by consensus. The history of the Catholic Church itself, in fact, contains instances such as this. Or do you not believe that the determinations of the Council of Nicea represent objective morality?
See Noevo:
I think here you are asserting as a premise one of the conclusions we are arguing about. Certainly, Plato and others did not accept that what you assert is prima facie true; rather, whether a command of God is objectively moral must be argued, rather than asserted as a premise.
Did you bother to read the rest of my post? I specifically talked about the bible as not an adequate evilometer.
See Noevo:
Well I'm glad you clarified your position. That's what's typically called Divine Command Theory and you aren't alone in holding it. I personally find it pretty damn frightening and backwards, but there it is.
I think Plato would have said that in that case (if #2 is correct), it means that murder is objectively immoral even for God, and so when he murders, he's behaving immorally.
To Sean T #140:
“You know that the Church is such as standard because it was established by Jesus. Leaving aside whether or not Jesus really was divine (which is most certainly in question) and assuming for the sake of argument that he was, what evidence, independent of Catholic teaching on the matter, is there that the Catholic Church is THE church established by Jesus?”
Well for starters, begin with Pope Francis, and proceed to Pope Benedict XVI, then Pope John Paul II, and continue on until you get to St. Peter.
“Your main contention is that there aren’t many arians or gnostics or other early sects still out there.”
No, that is NOT my main contention. See #141.
“The Bible itself makes reference to how difficult it will be to obtain the Kingdom and how very few will get in.”
Agreed.
“Does that square well with the single largest Christian denomination being the one that got it right?”
Certainly. The CC doesn’t HAVE to be the single largest, but it can be. Right now, Catholics number only about 1 billion or so, versus a total world-wide pop of about 7 billion. Not only that, but many Catholics, or at least self-identified “Catholics”, may very well not make it to heaven. Conversely, many non-Catholics COULD make it, according to Catholic teaching. Only God knows the number for sure. But it’s true about “few” (cf. Mat 7:14; Mat 7:21-23; Mat 22:14; Luke 13:23-24).
“BTW, another weak link in your logic is your failure to understand that you are indeed begging the question when you state things like comparison of laws of the US to the teaching of the Catholic Church is not a valid analogy.”
Not true. Read again your #130. You said, and I would agree, that whether something is consonant with a given framework CAN be decided “objectively”. YOU, not I, brought up the example of US laws. I would agree that here, too, a decision can be made whether certain actions are legal “objectively” within the U.S. legal framework. I only pointed out that 1) laws and morality are two different things, and 2) The word “objectively”, in the context of morality, specifically, Christian morality, has additional meaning (i.e. true universally and divinely.).
“You are starting with the assumption that the Catholic Church’s teaching provides a divinely-inspired objective moral philosophy.”
Again, not true. I END with the CONCLUSION that the Catholic Church’s teaching provides a divinely-inspired objective moral philosophy, AFTER making assumptions about the validity and trustworthiness of our logic, reason, and witness of history.
“What we don’t have is a universal standard that all individuals can agree upon.”
No. I would say we DO have a “universal” standard, but that all individuals don’t agree upon it. (“Universal” meaning universally and divinely true. But as I noted some time ago, not everyone knows or even wants the truth.)
To Sean T #142:
“In other words, does morality attach to an action simply by virtue of its being pleasing to God or are those actions pleasing to God which are moral to begin with?”
“Moral” and “morality” are basically other words for what is “good” and what is “true”. God is good. God is true. God is not only all-good, God IS the Truth. He is pleased by things which accord with His nature. We are not God. We are creations of the Creator. Unlike all other creatures, we are made in His image and likeness. However, we often don’t live up to His standards and His nature because we have a fallen nature due to our sin. In other words, we often don’t behave “morally.” He has given us His moral standard. We CAN live up to it, with the continual forgiveness and help He has promised us. But many give up (cf. Mat 10:22; Mat 13:20-21).
G.K. Chesterton once said something like ‘Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.'
Time to take a break for dinner and other things.
To Sean T #144:
“SN, Another non-sequitor. Why must the one true standard for objective morality have an earthly spokesman in charge of the organization. If the standard is objective, we would not need a Pope for there to be agreement on it.”
Well, it wasn’t my idea, and it wasn’t Peter’s idea. It was Christ’s idea. And it probably was a good one, for several reasons:
1)Have you ever heard of a really, really large group of people with a singular mission (e.g. manufacturing profitable consumer products; winning re-election for a candidate; getting to heaven) which miraculously worked in perfect concert WITHOUT leadership and management? Every football team has a head coach and quarterback, every corporation has a CEO and management, every religious congregation has a pastor or rabbi or head. (Although regarding that last one, in Protestantism, the pastors/heads don’t agree with the other pastors/heads, sometimes even within the same denomination.) Of course, even with visible leadership, the team members can screw up. But the screw ups would be greater and more numerous without the leadership.
2)The God-given reality is that humans are SOCIAL rational animals. We come from other humans and are raised by other humans (our parents), LEARN FROM other humans (e.g. family, community, school, church). God creates individuals, and individuality is thus important. But just as important is relationship with other individuals. As the Catholic Church so often teaches, ‘It’s not either/or. It’s both/and.’ It’s not just about me, it’s about we, too. God Himself is a “We” (i.e. the Trinity). Normatively, the individual can’t make it on his own, including making right sense of morality. We need teachers, and specifically, the right teachers (cf. Acts 8:30-38; 2 Peter 3:16).
3)Just because something is “objectively” true doesn’t necessarily mean it’s readily ascertained. Again, by “objective” morality I mean a morality which is true universally (although usually NOT understood NOR obeyed universally) because it is from the Creator of the universe.
“For instance, would you say that science is useless for obtaining objective knowledge?”
Of course not. Anyone can obtain much objective knowledge about the physical world, and science is just one of the formal ways of doing so. But even scientists rely on others - in receiving their technical training, in gaining and holding their employment, and in receiving others’ confirmation/duplication of their research consistent with proper scientific methodological standards. Actually, the Catholic Church works this way sometimes. For example, a lone theologian may develop new philosophical/theological/spiritual insights, and the Church may adopt them, provided they are consistent with, and not contradictory to, existing Church teaching. The Church has made such individuals “Doctors of the Church.” (And don’t tell anybody, but some of the Doctors are women!)
(Did you know the fathers of the Big Bang Theory and of modern genetics were Catholic priests?)
But generally speaking, science is not a good analogy to most organizations or to the Church, because science is interested only in the physical world and most people aren’t “scientists”, if you know what I mean.
“Objectivity can be reached by consensus.”
I would say objective truth is not subject to consensus. The truth is the truth whether everyone believes it or no one believes it. And a real scientist would say the same thing.
P.S.
I don’t understand what point you were trying to make about the Council of Nicea.
To eric #145:
“whether a command of God is objectively moral must be argued, rather than asserted as a premise.”
That’s either an example of reductio ad absurdum or something Satan may have said. Perhaps both.
To eric #146:
[[[eric] 2. OTOH if actions are moral or immoral regardless of God’s commands, that would indeed be objective but then morality is something separate and higher than God – a set of principles even he cannot change. That doesn’t fit with the notion of a tri-omni God.”
[SN] In that case, would murder be moral objectively? If not, why not, objectively speaking?
I think Plato would have said that in that case (if #2 is correct), it means that murder is objectively immoral even for God, and so when he murders, he’s behaving immorally.]]
I’m becoming increasingly less interested in what you think. What would Plato think?
"Brilliant!"
Hmm. What should be done to someone who makes as many false statements about science and history as you have, who apparently (evidence from another blog) questioned the validity of quantum mechanics, and made a comment about not thinking any research should be done just for the sake of learning something that has no immediate application, but then claims to have attended top tier schools for an education?
If your "education' allows you to be as dishonest and uninformed as you have demonstrated yourself to be, you deserve nothing more than disdain.
Wow. Reposted for amusement value.
Um, the bit you quoted covers that. I can repeat it without the personal caveat if you like: Plato would have said that if #2 is correct, then murder is objectively immoral even for God, and so when he murders, he’s behaving immorally.
To dean #153:
Bravo!
To eric #154:
[eric]“whether a command of God is objectively moral must be argued, rather than asserted as a premise.”
[SN] That’s either an example of reductio ad absurdum or something Satan may have said. Perhaps both.
Reposted for amusement value.
SN: we have reached agreement on something! We both agree that was an amusing exchange.
Looking back over some of this thread, I thought it remarkable that not one remark was made about #3:
[JR writes “Finally, and most significantly in my view, no one needs a moral philosophy. True moral dilemmas are exceedingly rare, and most people go their whole lives without ever encountering one in their day-to-day experience.”
I guess we would disagree over what is “exceedingly rare”.
Are the millions of Americans touched by the million+ ABORTIONS performed every year in the U.S. encountering moral dilemmas?
How about the untold millions affected by DIVORCE and MARITAL INFIDELITY? And the millions more in the works flowing from the pandemic of PORNOGRAPHY?]
I guess when you don’t need a moral philosophy, then, well…
Remarkable.
Hmmm...my immediate family has dealt with all four of those (though the last technically didn't cause any dilemma), and I don't recall anyone reaching for Bentham, Mill, Kant, or the Bible. What we did reach for is each other.
To eric #159:
But things like abortion, divorce, marital infidelity, and pornography are objectively OK, right?
It just feels better if you can objectively hug someone in the wreckage afterwards.
Hell, it usually feels better if you can hug someone while watching pornography. It doesn't usually leave a lot of wreckage behind, though, unless you're into live Klingon burlesque acts.
Seriously, you do get that "objectively OK" is a meaningless phrase until you establish the existence of objective morality in the first place, yes? You're not OK with any of those four. I'm OK with three of them. Various other people might be OK with one, two or all of them. And that's pretty much all there is to say about it, unless you can introduce new facts or observations that other people subjectively judge to be morally relevant.
"Anton Mates" could be an anagram for just “Me, Not Satan.”
Could have fooled me.
#161: don't worry about it, SN's using the common debating strategy of ignoring the beam in one's own ethics while pointing out the mote in others. Always attack, never offer constructive solutions, and hope the audience doesn't notice what you're doing and awards you a win by default.
@160: No, SN, I don't think there is an objective morality. But I answered your point directly and you basically have no response to my answer: we did not need your biblical system of morality or any other system in order to address those four topics. Four topics which, frankly, in good subjective systems of morality may be okay some of the time, depending on context.
Yes it feels better to hug someone when they are going through difficulties. Yes empathy can help people to better resolve tough situations or deal with the results of them. It shows forgiveness, a value that Christians are supposed to have in spades but which you seem to have wholly replaced with righteous indignation and judgment.
SN doesn't win
everyone watching decided he was a halfwit long ago
it's pointless having any discussion with a someone who can not escape their indoctrination
SN is someone lost
p
To eric #163:
“Yes empathy can help people to better resolve tough situations or deal with the results of them. It shows forgiveness, a value that Christians are supposed to have in spades…”
It almost sounds like you want “forgiveness.”
But forgiveness for what?