March 22, 2007
-
Atheism and Morality
50 Questions and
Answers…Check out Richard Carrier's presentation of the basis for
Secular ethics:Intro:
This post really isn’t about atheistic ethics…its
just about human ethics. It doesn’t matter where morality came
from…we recognize it as a part of us…it works in a certain way…and we can
figure out how to make it work best through observation, trial and error, and
we can have objective conversations about it just as we can about the health of
any other human system…like say in terms of nutrition, for
instance. The human genome isn’t diverse
enough for anyone to claim some established alternative moral drive and it
obviously has a fairly stable genetic precedent given that some of our nearest
relatives in the animal kingdom exhibit similar behavioral patterns…and as
history moves on we have the luxury of adjusting culturally to a holistic
appraisal of what evolution has given us despite the barbaric extremes of
ancient history. Granted the secular world
is still in its philosophical infancy and thus you may very well just be
hearing holistic concepts take root. It
isn’t arbitrary though there are of course subjective levels to it…and it’s
obvious why it works the way it does to the extent if we meet aliens that
manage to cooperate with one another to traverse the depths of space, we would
likely be able to count on convergent evolution making our empathy
based moral systems compatible. If they’re
too busy killing each other or being completely apathetic towards one
another…good luck facilitating their space program.
The problem arises in regards to definition of terms
and the identity of what morality actually is.
Theists tend to identify morality as part of an ontological
theistic tautology. If you identify the
world as a “creation” then obviously that means there is a
“creator.” If you identify morality as a
“given moral law” then obviously that means there is a “moral law
giver.” And the reasoning breaks down if you
don’t take these terms as seriously as they
do. I’m sure they wouldn’t be impressed if I
call myself an “evoluture” and proclaim that means I must have come about via
macroevolution. Or if I identify morality as
a “behavioral pattern” that means there was a “behavioral pattern
cultivator.” But theism naturally plugs into
personal sensibilities rather easily because God is just a big person in the
sky. Thus being naturally a little
solipsistic with your terminology leans in a overly self-satisfying theistic
direction that is entirely unimpressive to an adult mind that knows to set your
impulses and emotions aside for the sake of taking the truth for what it is
first...and then dealing with it and figuring out how to feel about it
second.Of course we are inclined to define things in
personal ways. We’re
people! [I apologize for the exclamation point...I do
loath them.] But that doesn’t mean the entire arena of
personhood didn’t come about through impersonal processes or that that context
somehow invalidates personhood. The evidence
is the evidence and the truth is the truth.
If you want to dispute the scientific community’s claim to the
“fact of evolution” take that up in peer reviewed journals or at least on a
different post. Creationists attack
evolution with conceptual difficulties and then they complain when they get
mere conceptual corrections (thus they change the nature of their original
objection and fail to note they've lost a point).
The main problem isn’t the evidence at large for macroevolution
but instead it seems to be about various misunderstandings of the idea and what
it means and how it applies in all areas. I don't really
like saying creationists misunderstand the idea...because that's not entirely
accurate. They fail to give it any interpretative charity as they are
more interested in running the idea into the ground than in pondering its full
implications or allowing it any foothold in their minds. Is that a
misunderstanding? I'll call it a "misappropriation of
interest."
I’ve been asked why this
post is so long…what have I got to prove, etc…why can’t I sum things up in a
short and sweet way like every great philosopher… Well I’m afraid I
have to point the finger back at the theists for the first question…this post is
a reflection of the ridiculous lengths theists will go to avoid validating
natural ethics. No excuse is left behind here at ARU. The
second…well theists ask atheists to directly answer questions…so I go out of my
way to directly answer every question and what do they complain about then…that
I actually did it. Why so long? Well each answer to each
question is fairly short. I don’t expect everyone to read through the
whole thing in one sitting. Just click on the one or two questions
that interest you most and come back for more some other time. The
list of questions is much more organized now, so I don't know how I could make
it simpler. If theists accepted an explanation like, "Evolution
did it," as easily as they accepted the explanation, "God did
it," obviously my job would have been done long before it
started.Important note: I
use the term “evoluture” instead of the term “creature” to demonstrate that we
can in fact talk consistently about evolution without theistic
overtones.Please also take note that I am not an objectivist...though I do strive to be
objective. And I am not the opposite extreme which would be a relativist...though
I don't think moral judgment is healthy if it exists solely in a vacuum devoid
of context. For the record, I've created my own philosophical outlook
which is confrontationalism. You
shouldn't have to go read up on it if you are familiar with the normative terms
of objectivity and common sense. I'll give a friendly warning to
those very few who will notice and change course...keep and eye on the
nuances. It will save everyone a lot of trouble.
The basics:
2. Where did morality come
from?3. Why is it the way it is and why do we
value it?4. How can atheists have a reliable basis
for their morality?5. Why should I personally make use of
morality?6. What are the top ten reasons why an
atheist should be
moral?8. How does one find out what is
moral?9. What kind of moral system is this you
are advocating, ARU?10. Why do you think atheistic morality is
more objective
than theistic
morality?11. Are you saying that atheists have the
right to impose their ethics on other
people?12. You know, an atheist can’t convince
anyone to put someone else first,
right?14. Isn’t it just based then on subjective
feelings?16. So the majority is always
right?18. What happens
in the off chance that we do meet aliens that aren’t “system
compatible?”_______________________________________________________
Common objections to the
evolutionary origin of
morality:19. If we are the by-product of evolution,
isn’t life meaningless?20. How can we trust evolution to give us
logic, reason, and ethics?21. Can’t morality evolve
then?22. If evolution is how we got here, then
isn’t what Hitler did the right thing in principle?
24. Shouldn’t we take, “survival of the
fittest” seriously in terms of ethics?25. Isn’t helping others contradictory to
the “ethics” of the survival of an
individual?27. How can evolution explain altruistic
behavior?28. What about Darwinists that try to
extract morality from evolution?31. What exactly is it that you think
evolution made us good at, ARU?32. So you are saying we are just
chemicals right? Refined by evolution or
not?33. Why should I accept evolution since it
doesn’t boost myself
esteem?35. How could evolution explain the desire
for social acceptance?37. Yeah…I get all that. But how
can an atheist say rape is objectively wrong?
_______________________________________________________
Theism’s dysfunctional relationship
with morality:38. But what if I think morality ought to
have cosmic significance?39.
But isn't Christian morality the most absolute and
objective?40. Doesn’t objective morality prove God
exists?41. But isn’t everything the Biblical God
does, good by definition?42. Why should God listen to an
atheist?43. How can we judge God with human
standards?44. But aren’t ethics also about doing
what God wants?45. What about the soul and free
will?46. You realize that the Bible doesn’t
teach divine command theory or Euthyphro’s dilemma, right?48. But isn’t theistic morality at least
coherent (aka nice in theory)?
49. Surely you’ve found some loopholes in
the theistic arguments, right
ARU?50. You use the phrase, “moral
extremophilia.” What does it
mean?Morality is a system that is used to appropriate
ourselves to each other in prosperous ways. The conscience helps
guide and correct our behavior and keeps us in the sphere of relative goodness
so that indirectly the “selfish gene” can continue to propagate itself at our
expense. Now, I think this function is several steps removed so that
there is no tyrant whipping us into fulfilling our destinies as glorified copy
machines…but I do believe it is likely the ultimate answer to why we are moral
beings (and is a lot more modest and coherent explanation than something about
raping a woman being written in heaven)…though the answer doesn’t necessarily
imply any relevance to actual moral questions.
People are free to do what they want.
Morality is voluntary. It’s not
about telling people what to do with absolute authority or having easy answers.
It’s about finding the right way to live your life and having a
naturally compelling effect on others by example and via intelligent
conversation. It should be compulsory on the
social level (aka law enforcement) in terms of not hurting other people, but
for the sake of personal integrity…not even God makes you do anything you don’t
want to do. However if you want to master
the “good life” for yourself and those around you the conversation may begin
that takes into account all ethical systems available, everything we know from
the study of behavior in humans and animals, understanding the nature of your
own personal moral impulses and intuitions, and whatever other resources we may
have that can give us moral insight to sort through and make the most sense
of. This doesn’t mean we can’t be wrong…but
it does mean we can be correctable when we are mistaken if only you care to
point it out in some logical way.As far as theistic religion is concerned morality is
the great escape from God’s responsibility in our relationships with
him. Do we actually commune with the almighty in legitimate
ways? Or do we instead obsess over what we do and don’t do, crediting
that to God’s absentee account? If we follow certain rules God,
wherever he is, will love me…when in fact there is no quality relationship
going on. It’s a feeling scam, in my opinion. It’s
just about the only thing I can think of that can go on when there isn’t a real
person on the other end of the relationship…finding your place in terms of what
you won’t do. If this weren’t such a big
deal for theism, then why in the world would theists pick this root of behavior
out of a long list of all sorts of other evolved traits as being so damn
special?
2. Where did morality come
from?I presume morality came from the same place every other
functional human system came from. Where did the ability to process
visual information come from? Where did the circulatory system come
from? Where did feelings come from? According to the theory of evolution it evolved in
the distant past along with the rest of our cognitive functions. I
suppose it’s possible we happened to lack morality at sometime in the past (as
a species) and aliens came by and “upgraded” us with the ability to discern
between good and evil…but the important part is that it is there and there
seems to be no reason to put morality on a pedestal apart from other
evolutionary cultivations. I suppose I could make up some story about
the evolutionary pathway of monkeys who learned how to be a good people (for
which we only have indirect evidence), but I don’t think that would do a debate
much good.Even if I’m mistaken and
God did in fact create Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago, my arguments still hold
up. We don’t need any deity to make morality work for us.
The biblical God could die and we’d still have enough grounds to be good
people.If you doubt evolution, I suggest these two
resources at TalkOrigins:29 Evidences of Macroevolution
in order to see what kind of evidence is presented…its not all grade A, but
there is some good stuff.Index to Creationist Claims in the event
you have a hundred random questions about evolution in general.3. Why is it the way it is
and why do we value it?Good and evil are systemic tautologies of our
inherited behavioral patterns common to our entire species…and to many other mammals as well at a base emotional
level. The most
significant difference seems to be our ability to intellectually compute moral
circumstances conceptually.The principles that guide our system of
feelings could be argued to be evolutionary trial and error “observations” of
what did in fact continue the species in the past that we have
inherited. More of this…less of that. These are the terms
over time genetic evolution has to work with. Bogus principles yield species
that don’t survive as well as others and its no wonder we don’t see too many of
them. These are neurological tautologies cultivated because they
sustain the system. Things are valuable
because we value them and we value them because they are
valuable.
This doesn’t mean things aren’t valuable…it means
it’s a limited self-justifying system universal to our species at least…but not
a cosmically significant one. You can either
take it on its own terms and enjoy it for what it is, or look for some
comforting fantasy framework that over-justifies it.
To avoid the simple fact that we are a bit delusional to think
food, sex, and people are actually important in terms of the rest of the
universe, you instead swallow an even bigger delusion that says they are
transcendent ontological absolutes. We are emotionally
attached to these principles since naturally we would be better off loving the
hand that "feeds" us. And naturally there are always those
of us that go too far and say, “Not only do I love her…I could never love anyone
else!” And then when they break up, they go on and say and believe
the exact same thing about the next relationship as though the previous did not
happen. But the value we find ourselves in does have its right
measure, context, and merit on its own limited self-justifying terms that have
been cultivated in a naturally obvious way to do what they
do.4. How can atheists have a reliable basis for their
morality?To deny the obvious proposition that an atheist
knows the difference between right and wrong is to deny the common ground you
have to be standing on for any of your doctrines to work (as it is an empirical
claim anyone should be able to test in their own “hearts”,
Romans
2:15). The only thing needed
after the common ground affirmation is a plausible reason why that can be the
case (where morality came from). May the best meta-theory win
(or at least be properly understood for crying out
loud).Even monkeys and various other mammals demonstrate
dependence on moral principles hard-wired into them. In captivity it is known
that monkeys will forsake food for many days so that their cage mate do not
have to undergo electric shocks. The box where the food is, happens
to be wired up so whenever they reach for it...their buddy gets
zapped. Why should they care? Aren't they "just
animals?" Did they learn that from the Bible? Does
their negative behavior otherwise indicate they fell from grace a long time ago
by eating of the forbidden banana? Not to mention, anyone that just
has a playful dog should be easily able to see a wide spectrum of emotional
diversity, from happy to sad, to proud and ashamed,
contentment...fear. Etc. Why would packs of animals stay
together? Why would they ever help each other? What would
be the most obvious connecting psychological principle that we know of...other
than empathy and whatever else may be going on in our heads fueling our
intellectual level of morality? Let's be open-minded and not so quick
to jump on the speciesism bandwagon to support our pet metaphysical
claims.Instead of trying to
undermine the legitimacy of secular ethics, you should instead rejoice that
when you make an objective argument for a moral imperative that withstands
scrutiny, I (at least) will agree with you and fight toward the same end for
everyone. And naturally since God is infinitely wise and he actually
cares about our well-being, there should be no reason his ethics should not
hold up to rational inquiry and criticism.5. Why should I personally make use of it?
You can dedicate your entire life to immorality,
hurting other people and yourself even if you will burn in the deepest level of
hell for all eternity. But incidentally, apart from the afterlife,
you are trapped in the moral fabric of your own hard-wired system and you will
likely be miserable in this life as a result, creating a
neurological hell ("No rest for the wicked," etc.). Many
philosophers have noted this internal phenomenon. And science has
confirmed the basis of it, neurologically. The same neurons you use
to experience empathy for others are the same neurons you apply to your own
situation. So you are constrained internally in one way or another
towards orienting yourself to your neighbors at large…this can either be
profitable to you, by treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated…or
it can be some effed up version of it…in other words you can have double
standards but find yourself with extreme antagonism towards others for reasons
“you can’t explain.” But you don’t have the option really (other than
complete seclusion) to not be a part of the system, good or bad.
Consider Jeffrey Dahmer. Serial killer who
professed belief in meaningless evolution as his justification for doing
whatever he wanted. Low and behold he finds Jesus once he gets into
prison and repents of his sins. Assuming all of this is correct, and
I think it is, what are we to conclude? Evolution is evil?
Or that Jeffery here, experienced the natural reciprocation of his moral system
and unconsciously used Christianity as an excuse to come back to his senses…to
his natural state of affairs as a moral evoluture? Our moral drive is
like psychological buoyancy. If a buoy is pushed under the water, the
natural ethical buoyancy of the mind will attempt in one way or another to
right the ship…it may take a long time…it may never manage to get there…but the
natural tension of the system is there regardless and does manifest in various
ways. Many people experience this as they get older after having
lived a rebellious life as a teen and into their adult years. They
get over it…but why? Religious experience? It’s not always
the catalyst. People call it growing up, but I call it the natural
buoyancy of the moral drive. It is more difficult to live against the
grain indefinitely and morality becomes the path of least resistance into old
age.So
there are internal reasons as well as the obvious external reasons…the
universal law of reciprocation. Even if the cops don’t get
you…someone else might. And not only that but if you live without
moral integrity when no one is watching, you’ll likely find yourself unable to
feel as you would expect when the bad times come. The innocent suffer
as martyrs…the guilty suffer wickedly. Suffering happens to all…so
which would you prefer? And the innocent feel justified receiving
gifts while the guilty are not as open. No one is going to hold you
accountable for this…but consider what you would like to experience in the
future even if there are no external consequences.
If your goal is to be
miserable and destructive, then morality is not for you…but that isn’t the
natural goal of most people and thus there is natural common ground discerned
in almost all belief systems…and the sociopaths out there who aren’t born with
a full deck can’t be convinced by anyone. You don’t lose anything you didn’t
already not have in the ethics of humanism. For this reason I hold
morality up with “open hands.” It is only the solution to your
problem if your problem is how to live a fulfilling life. No amount
of wishful thinking changes that deal and only seekers will likely listen to
anyone. No matter how many dubious metaphysical propositions you have
in your head…how in the world does that affect your neighbor’s
behavior? Belief in eternal punishment gets you very
little. However acting like a role model might…people do respond to
that. But how does that have anything to do with heaven or
hell? Can’t even atheists be role models of good
behavior?
6. What are the top ten reasons why an atheist
should be moral?If God didn’t exist, would
you have no objective reason to be moral? Atheists do. And
they think you are insane for thinking otherwise. If a Christian’s
life points to the reality of God, why don’t moral atheists point to the
independence of moral objectivity?10. You might
have to live the rest of your life.9. To avoid being
punished by the authorities.8. To reap bad
things in life less.7. To protect the
good things in life more.6. You can’t
escape hard-wiring in your head as a moral
evolture.5. To suffer as a martyr when bad things
happen.4. To receive gifts as an innocent when
good things happen.3. To be at peace
with your fellow human beings.2. To make the world a better place for
loved ones.1. To be at peace with yourself.
These are all good reasons
to be ethical as a human being…even when no one is looking. Being
caught is a minority problem. What do any of them have to do with the
“security camera in the sky?” When you detach yourself from the
confines of theism, you'll find yourself up against the natural need for ethics
just like every apostate before you. From your vantage point now
however, it probably only seems like there's no reason to be
ethical. Way to think outside the
box.7. How can you say that we should do
anything? Moral or not? How do you
get from an evolutionary “is” to a moral “ought?”
Notice I qualify my moral “ought’s” with a goal(and
if I don’t, that is what I mean). They are all conditional
statements…not blind atheistic dictates based on my preferences. For instance I
might say, “*If* God wants to be called a lover of
humanity…*then* he has to actually love humanity.” It’s just the identity property in
action. If he doesn’t wish to be an ethical being…sure, he can do whatever he
wants. He can even go so far as to demand that we call him good even though he
isn’t. But unless he uses
his power to force my mind to think 1+1=3, I’m not going to honor
that. Ethics are the right tool for the job of living a prosperous
and fulfilling happy life. And if you are a human like me, likely
that is your general goal and morality is therefore for you telling you what
you “ought” to do (and not do) towards that
end.8. How does one find out what is moral?
Observation. Trial and error.
You already have a sense of right and wrong. Build on it.
Consider multiple perspectives and use logic to sort it out for the
best. Read the Bible. Read the Koran. Read the
Tao Te Ching. Don’t listen to everything you are told…question
it. Compare it. It will become evident if you are seeking
it because it is an integral part of you that simply needs to be
nurtured.9. What kind of moral system is this
you are advocating, ARU?It’s simple moral
maturity. It’s not based on any one method. It is my
contention that pretty much every ethical system can be seen as a tool on the
moral tool belt that works best in different situations. Like if you
are president, perhaps utilitarianism should be the best approach since it is
predominantly concerned with large numbers of people. It is the right
question to ask. However in personal affairs, involving only yourself
and perhaps others…egoism might be the right tool. Granted you can
apply egoism to the Presidency and utilitarianism to individual ethics
consistently and come to basically the same conclusions (if you are clever and
have done your job right), but different starting points make things
simpler. It’s a matter of figuring out what the best tool for the job
is.I always ask, “What is the situation? What else
could I reference to make the best decision (as many perspectives as there are
and as much related info can be gathered)?” And I apply every principle I am
aware of rigorously until I chisel out the end result and can go no further. If
you want to label that for me, I’d be much obliged. But it is for me an
objective a-centric pragmatic process. Its like Wikipedia’s NPOV (no point of
view)…that becomes my point of view. After you survey all the material you can
as unbiasedly as possible, that in itself becomes the bias…perpetually learning
and discerning your way into objective truth.
And general human happiness and emotional
edification are the appropriate goal for the human species. And if
those aren’t your goals…then no system of ethics is for you. Nothing
I can tell you can make those your goals and you are free to do whatever you
want regardless of whether I like it or not. Threatening you with
dubious metaphysical propositions that I can't prove seems rather
impotent. One simply has to deal with it…and grow up as a
result.10. Why do you think atheistic
morality is more objective than theistic morality?
It is much easier for a sound moral principle to stick
when you aren't trying to convince them of a host of dubious metaphysical
propositions to do it. You give them justified rational reality based
reasons to be moral and they don’t have to struggle with their arbitrary level
of suspension of disbelief, and I would argue it becomes a much more integrated
situation in their mind as a result. It avoids unnecessary extremes
often told of such as the roller-coasters of faith, doubt, the threat of hell,
etc…as well as all the arbitrary interpretations of the moral extremophilia of
the Bible. It’s simple and efficient and basically unavoidable
whereas a person might be more constrained to abandon the faith based baby with
the bathwater and react dramatically with a sinful irrational binge that hurts
their long term situation and displaces ethics as a result. Further
they don’t have to become an expert on thousands of years of Biblical history
to squeeze the truth from an ambiguous culturally obstructed
text.11. Are you saying that atheists
have the right to impose their ethics on other people?
I’m advocating that morality
is an objective category of discourse that can be discussed and thought through
in the open. It is mutually beneficial for everyone to put all their
cards on the table since we all have common ground to work with.
Obviously no one has to listen to me anymore than they have to listen to you
about God. It’s amazing how many theists never seem to be able to see where
they themselves are coming from…it’s all divinely mandated pretension with a
side of bigotry (and sometimes the reverse, haha).
12. You know, an atheist can’t convince anyone to
put someone else first, right?You
merely lack imagination. It is reciprocally beneficial to say always put your
wife ahead of your own desires to the extent you don’t even have to bother
hounding the return. You can merely lose touch with your own “selfish”
interests and be at peace with that. There is no reason an atheist can not see
the merit in that from a purely logical standpoint. Nobody technically has to
do anything but die, but it can be presented as a desirable option that can
better their life. It is normative to desire to have an enjoyable marriage and
you don’t necessarily have to have the most ideal level of relationship, but if
you are looking for a better path, I’ll bet I can convince someone much simpler
than you can because I don’t have to resort to dubious unsubstantiated
propositions to pull it off (as covered in 10).13. You are saying that you could
suggest to a person (let's say a Hutu with a machine gun in front of a crowd of
cowering Tutsis in 1994, or a Islamic terrorist in process of hijacking an
airliner) that it "would not be in their own best interest" to follow
a certain course of action?
“But what if they tell you that they are perfectly willing to
die or be put in prison, as long as they can kill a few of these other people
they hate - and that this would 'fulfill' and 'satisfy' them? It becomes obvious
that you would merely be trying to impose what makes YOU happy upon someone
else, which might not be what makes THEM happy.”No, in that case, I kill them. I don’t recall advocating
the rejection of common sense and I’d like to hear what a Christian would say
in such an immanent crisis situation…only to inflame their hatred of infidels
who believe Jesus was divine… However when we aren’t on the spot there is no
reason we can’t discuss with them the implications of those kind of
actions…that they breed endless retaliatory violence and that their Muslim
message is not therefore spread since lots of people are dying and lots of
others are therefore not listening. Their happiness is short-sighted, at great
expense to others, and based on false beliefs. There is much to talk about then
since I’m sure they would agree it’s not right to be so extreme based on
something you don’t know to be true and perhaps Allah would be happier with
more productive behavior.As a Christian you are in no
better a position to correct a Muslim on their terms since you can’t absolutely
prove Muhammad was not Allah’s prophet, just as I am not in a position to
correct you on your dubious Christian terms since I can’t absolutely prove that
Jesus wasn’t god. You are faulting my ethical system on terms your system
cannot itself overcome. Further you don’t even have a Christian argument
against zealous Christians not killing homosexuals, unbelievers, abortion
doctors, etc. In fact they might have a better argument on that basis than you
do. That does not however mean that no religious extremist has ever been
convinced to put his religious insanity to rest and be a better person as a
result…and there are plenty of good reasons to do that and they
can be articulated in conversation.14. Isn’t it just based then on subjective
feelings?See
the problem with this is that feelings are objectively real. They have to be
considered. We can’t tear them out of our heads. They are interrelated and have
a logic unto themselves. They are certainly not random as they are constituted
specifically to yield certain types of behavior. Feeling management is
objective as a result. There are definitely things that make us happy and
things that do not. Granted there is subjectivity involved since people are
different, but I don’t think anyone can make the argument that the principles
of happiness are radically different in any member of our species and thus
general principles of morality hold true. Why would you think I’m
advocating something superficial as though morality should be defined by mood
swings? Doesn’t common
sense say that’s bullshit?
If so…why the hell do you think I’m advocating it? It’s just a modern myth that emotions and
morality are random principles of magic that can’t be objectively understood by
careful scientific analysis.It is not right to pretend
that the nature of feelings, emotions, desires, and ethical impulses is not
objectively discernible. And it is not coherent to say these things
only are objective if we find them in a great big mind in the sky when they are
there well enough in our small minds on earth. It’s the exact same “basis for
morality”…just one step removed. In theory all theism offers is the user manual
for what we can figure out for ourselves…which would be nice...in
theory. In practice it is no “manual” one should take seriously and
is as subjective as the interpretation.15. Would you also say that if God doesn't exist,
then morality can only be relative, and not
absolute?“For instance, in some parts of the
world it’s considered moral to circumcise little girls so that they are not
allowed to have pleasure, and in other parts it's moral to eat other humans. In
these and other instances such as what happened with Hitler, morality was
relative to what each person or group of people consider to be moral, not
absolute morality to all people that live on the earth.”Even groups of people can
be wrong (and you have to admit this on behalf of a number of groups that
believe in their god’s absolutes)…I don’t think I pointed to the infallibility
of the human species anywhere in my writings…there are still obvious problems
and detriments to classic “us vs. them” societies…that pivot like
that. If you kill a member of a neighboring tribe to eat them and
take their life force as your own, they’ll likely retaliate. And a
precious member of your “in crowd” may be the next victim of this cycle…perhaps
this fact gets lost in the passion of tribalism…but that doesn’t mean we can’t
ask them to take a step back and realize the overall adverse behavioral
pattern. Plus, diplomatic relations with your neighbors is generally
more profitable in more subtle ways as well. Hitler…another prime
example…got his ass stomped by the rest of the world. He had lots of
issues. Genocide is a short-term, short-sighted gain and if you never
learn to acclimate to those that disagree with you or who are different than
you…you’ll end up having to kill just about everybody. Conquering the
world isn’t exactly a tried and true way of life. It’s simply not a
stable way to ensure your power and dominion as it must be supposed.
One is much better off finding alternatives. Someone that has to
resort to genocide obviously has much deeper control issues than just this one
matter and are probably stifling human happiness across the board.
And if you can’t figure out that having a woman enjoy her sexuality
is a good thing…you obviously got problems. Any gay infidel can
figure that much out...why can't Islam?
Morality is an imperfect learning process but that
doesn’t mean we stop the questioning at ancient dogma just because in theory it
would be nice if our ethics were handed to us in pristine form. So
I’m not going to be able to answer your question on your terms…relative vs.
absolute. I think morality is objective enough to criticize the ethics
of others successfully while never really attaining 1000% absolute
certainty…something you can’t find anywhere, to my knowledge. Surely
you must realize there is a spectrum of what constitutes objective morality
even in Christianity. Having to count your own understanding as an
authority is unavoidable. And perhaps it could even be argued that
there is more than one way to skin a cat in terms of diverse cultural
application of the same ethical principles…to a degree. But we can
still objectively gauge the success and the ethical principles in a particular
situation ought to be the same since we are all running the same basic
evolutionary hardware. The human species simply isn’t diverse enough
to justify radically different moral principles guiding our general
happiness.
Ultimately if you think that God knows what he’s
doing, there should be no reason you can’t reverse engineer everything it says
in the bible from the ground up to heaven. If you actually think
homosexuality, for instance, is wrong…there should be evidence of that….unless
you really think biblical morality is just about the random whims of your god
that have no bearing on human happiness. Anything you think is
objective or absolute about that…ought to transfer over…and if it doesn’t…if
you believe in checks and balances…you have to question the nature and wisdom
of your god…or that it actually came from a god in the first place. Surely
there must be some objectively discernable reason God tells us not to murder
and eat people…not to mutilate our women… and not mass exterminate them,
right? So what is it? I think you should be able to answer
your own question on any other example you can think of to bring up.
The distinction being made by the theist isn’t
relevant…for even divine command theory is still moral relativism…morality
relative to God’s supposed opinion or rather your opinion about what God’s
supposed opinion is…who may or not be a master of it…that too is just your
opinion. Personally I would never ever say, “That’s just your opinion” because
I believe anything can be discussed and objectively evaluated. Saying “it’s
just your opinion” is the equivalent of saying, “those are words coming out of
your mouth.” It is cheap philosophy and pointless. And most Christians end up
having to tell the Bible what to say anyhow since its morality isn’t exactly
face value worthy. So I just don’t see a meaningful divide between what you
would call “objective morality” and “relative morality.” And this breaks down
even further in Paul’s moral relativism where morality
depends on your measure of faith and what may be right for one believer isn’t
necessarily right for another believer. No matter where you stand, you
ultimately have to make up your own mind and no amount of special philosophical
pleading is going to change that. That doesn’t mean ethical behavior is
absolutely arbitrary or that we can’t objectively criticize the ethics of
others.Much like Paul, I also think morality is relatively
relative…but that each person’s measure and path can be objectively
discerned…and just because someone may believe they are doing the right thing
doesn’t mean it is and it doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to call their
version of morality immoral. People can be wrong. Whether God exists or not has
nothing to do with it.I want to emphasize that
this is the same level of relativity that I do accept and I agree it is not
relevant to the discussion…pretty much nothing a theist brings up is relevant
to the discussion of ethics…and that’s what the majority of this post is
about…over-stating the obvious against a slew of theistic propositions
that don’t mean anything.I believe there is no
difference between having a perfect moral manual from the sky that we can’t
directly interface with or vindicate…and using logic to reverse engineer how
best our moral drives work.
We can even from an atheistic point of view use what the Bible
says to start this process…because obviously it came from people that were at
least concerned about morality…even if they got things way wrong.
Surely we can find everything the Bible has to say about morality in
non-Biblical works that weren’t influenced by it. People are
competent enough to come up with such supreme wisdom on their own.
Non-theistic morality is as objective and as relative as anything theism has to
offer. And we can just as easily asymptotically approach the abstract
idea of ideal morality on its own terms without it being imbedded in a super mind.
Not every conceptual extrapolation yields an actual prototype.
A theist cannot rise above
relativism by their own definitions since their point of view is only absolute
in theory…but as subjective and opinionated as any other in practice. Point to
your imaginary friend all you want, but I can just as subjectively point to the
abstract ideal and concept of objective morality…and probably pull it off
better.16. So the majority is always right?
My point is we can correct people
when they are mistaken about how to go about getting their happiness in the
best possible way…this isn’t simply an unqualified popularity vote in the
absence of deity…though obviously the whole world isn't trying to be objective
about it. It is not as though when the majority speaks erroneously we
are somehow obligated to keep silent. We have to use the same human wisdom and
moral intuitions (as an atheist or a theist) to correct our brethren in the
majority who may be in the wrong. It is an inescapable
measure of checks and balances that we must struggle to apply from any
philosophical outlook. If you review the top ten reasons I gave for why an atheist should be
moral, such obligations should be no surprise to those ends.
No
system is perfect…all systems have to struggle to maintain their integrity.
Surely you must know this even in the Christian view of salvation. I’m not
advocating a straight popularity vote in determining what is moral and what
isn’t…but since humans are the only source of morality we can poll…we should
find some basic consistency…and in fact there is…and this has to be at least
one source of input that we should consider when making better and better moral
pronouncements…we shouldn’t interview rocks, should we?
It is certainly a measure of
morality, correct? You would have to agree that probably God sided with the
world against Hitler, right? So everyone doesn’t have to be wrong all the time.
You can’t completely dismiss it as having zero weight as that devastates your
own Biblical case that says the law is written on people's hearts and that
"gentiles" will be judged via their own consciences
(Romans
2:15).
17. Why do you
borrow terms and concepts from the Bible?
Doesn’t that mean your worldview is deficient in some
way?For one, because though I
don’t believe the Bible is of divine origin, there are still valuable things in
it. It’s not a total loss. As a mere human, I am free to
take concepts and references from any worldview or philosophy that I think has
validity. The Bible is no exception. Two, for the sake of
reader familiarity so I don’t have to reinvent certain wheels…not to mention I
grew up as a Christian so these concepts are readily available in my mental
archives. Three, as Christian you believe the concepts
identified in scripture are accurate descriptions of the world. Thus
if I say that I can tell this is true as well from my own point of view, we
have common ground. How does it not make sense to facilitate
conversation? And…I should note that the NT itself uses many Greek
ideas and terminology in its own way and for its own ends. I don’t
think you would insist the Bible is deficient in its philosophy or that it is
validating the Greek Pantheon, do you? I don’t mean to be rude, but
it is out-right superficial to knock my arguments for using Biblical concepts
on occasion when they happen to apply. The “all or nothing” attitude
is a product of your own bigotry. Adults take the good and leave the
bad. Thus anyone taking this criticism seriously is using the
argument of a child. What’s up with that? Is there something deficient with
your view?
Of course not…thus, let’s move on to other things.
18. What
happens in the off chance that we do meet aliens that aren’t “system
compatible?”Good question. Too bad no one has asked
it… Three basic options. They may very well be morally
compatible via convergent evolution. There seems to be a decent enough
chance of this since the principles that maintain the species are as good for
the goose as they are for the gander. Two, they aren’t system
compatible but we can live “altogether separately”…you never know. Or
three, they are truly monsters and we are forced to wage war with
them. If it comes down to the third, then morality is reduced to its
most barbaric component…might makes right. Obviously we have as much
right as they do to exist and we have the right to defend ourselves from
invasion or whatever evil they may have cooked up for us. If they
happen to be more powerful…well then I would think no amount of religion or
wishful thinking about golden standards in the sky are going to keep us from
being annihilated.
19. If we are the by-product of
evolution, isn’t life meaningless?You
are taking what is impersonal personally. And that is the error. There is no
macro purpose to life, but that doesn’t mean there is no local purpose to life
that is satisfying. These are two different levels and if you are asking
questions about the universe at large and the process of evolution…I fail to
see why those things ought to be expected to relate to the personal “basis of
morality.” Thou shall genetically drift? Thou shall mutate? As individuals we
are hardly involved in the process. It really isn’t our business necessarily
and evolution has never depended on it being so. Our purpose, our meaning, our
lives are about our family and friends…our loved ones…our hobbies and various
activities. Just because they have no cosmic significance doesn’t mean they
aren’t meaningful on our level. Food for the stomach and stomach for the food.
And if religion hadn’t convinced you otherwise, you’d probably see nothing
wrong with that measure and many non-religious people attest to its
satisfactoriness.20. How can we trust
evolution to give us logic, reason, and
ethics?
First of all, if evolution
is true, it has already established in you the desire to find a trustworthy
place to ground your ethics…shouldn’t that indicate that maybe it can do the
rest of the job as well…or rather that the rest of the job can be
done? It is often asserted that if we are the products of time and
chance…mere chemical reactions, how can we trust the thoughts of our own
brains? But of course this presupposes that we can or else we couldn’t
ask the question. And we have to do this even to come to the
conclusion that god made us this way.But all we really need is a
plausible reason to justify what we already know…that we can
trust our own minds. And this means God could have done it…but did he
have to make our minds trustworthy? I could ask the question, how can
we trust a god that doesn’t even show up to resolve critical issues pertaining
to him? He could have wired your brain however he wants…and he’s no
stranger to sending people strong delusions.2 Thessalonians
2:11
“For this reason God sends them a powerful
delusion so that they will believe the lie”So all you are really
saying is that you already know your mind is trustworthy and that you need a plausible
anthropic reason for that to be the case. Why wouldn’t evolution use
truth and logic as the path of least resistance? Why would it bother
with exorbitant lies? Although you could possibly argue there are a
number of emotional “lies” that do contribute to productive behavior.
But that is another topic. Surely it is much more efficient to
generally
guarantee accuracy of our faculties for its evolutionary
by-products? Is it really rocket science to suppose that monkeys that
thought bananas only grow on the moon and that killing and suicide were the
highest moral ideals probably wouldn't make the evolutionary cut?
When is common sense allowed to be at the disposal of the atheist worldview
from a theist's "unbiased" perspective?Not to mention...not
everyone can trust their mental faculties. How exactly does theism
guarantee you won’t be born a mentally handicapped or insane person as though
we can turn away from my line of argument and find perfect rational thought
going on in our heads 24-7?
Last time I checked those people show up on earth from any world
view and we have plenty of research attesting to human error. Surely
the average reader is even a bit cynical about their own error as it
is.Though I must concede theists are correct 99.999999%
of the time. The overwhelming majority of space/time does not think rationally
as far as we know...but then again it hasn't been constrained by natural
selection for millions of years either. We are not “just chemicals”
according to evolution…we are chemicals that have been highly refined through
millions of years of trial and error at getting whatever it is we do basically
right. Thus, there is no reason,
theoretically, that evolutoin can't account for reason, morality, and the
general accuracy of our senses that we all already agree on and know to be
valid.21. Can’t morality evolve then?
Genetic change takes
time. The system is relatively the same as our ape counter parts and
even other mammalian species that exhibit moral empathy and
attachment. Chimps have been known to willingly suffer electric
shocks in order that their cage mate gets equal shares of food.
Various species mate monogamously. It’s not going to be radically
different tomorrow and it wasn’t radically different 10,000years ago.
So pretty much my whole life and human history is fair game and that’s much
more than I need for my life and this discussion, and various debates on
ethical topics. One is not going to wake up tomorrow and find things
radically different.I don’t think you can say that evolution means
anything goes…there are principles it can’t maintain because it’s not fruitful
for the genes. For instance if we become so highly oversensitive to
any moral infraction (like the Christian God)…our species will completely
annihilate itself. Islam for example. Way oversensitive to
western culture and is out to convert or destroy us. Think of that
religiously induced moral error…but genetically wired into everyone
emotionally…not very profitable for the selfish gene in the long run.
Moral moderation is overall most beneficial for the species and will continue
to be until perhaps World War 3.
22. If evolution is how we got here,
then isn’t what Hitler did the right thing in principle?And I agree, in principle what Hitler was up to was
fine. However in practice, he went about it the wrong way.
I have a better way outlined here and involves exterminating no one and
only voluntary participation. If you pay close attention you will see
I've circumvented the classic problems and created no new ones.
Arguably our gene pool is stagnating since we do keep the genetically weak
among us just as alive as the strong. And there is no ethical way to
make any significant changes. New technology may hold the answer in
the future. We can kill bad genes…not people and still insure
variety.23. If ethics are based on survival, why is it not
ethical to rape someone since that could ensure that you reproduce?
You are making an extreme
local argument and dismissing the millions of years of careful refinement
*overall.* Our system is
constituted *statistically* for success and bringing up exceptions means
nothing. Group ethics work better than lone wolves that abuse and
leave their females behind. The advantages to families in the long
term should be obvious.The point is there is
always a reason why whatever you think is "absolutely wrong" actually
is the way it is from an evolutionary standpoint. Whatever you think
God put into designing our moral character is basically the same things that
evolution is going to sustain best overall...if this weren't
the case, why would God makes us the way you think we are? And if God
can see the value in that, why can't evolution potentially find that path,
too? They are practically interchangeable. We may never
have direct empirical evidence of the selective pressures that gave way to
morality any more than we will ever have direct evidence of God snapping his
fingers to make it so…I am not trying to formulate a proof for evolution
here...I'm only defending plausibility since that is normally
what is being attacked. "How could evolution do
this?" "How could evolution do
that?" I already gave links to information
defending macroevolution itself at the end of question two. I won't go into
that here.In
my previous paragraph I never once said evolution “looks ahead.”
Theists apparently can't help but read what I'm not saying. I speak
of a statistical mean of survival…not prophecy, for crying out loud.
In other words the exception to the rule…the rapist that might pass on his
genes is statistically out bred by populations that maintain healthy social
norms. Therefore the individuals in family populations will be the
author of the gene pool for future generations…that might every once in a while
turn out more exceptions like the rapist. Thus this is the path that
evolution is likely to find...not that it has the eyes of an oracle...remember,
magic is the theist's
explanation.
24. Shouldn’t we take, “survival of
the fittest” seriously in terms of ethics?"Survival of the
fittest" is an*evolutionary* principle...merely a part of an impersonal
explanation of how we came to be the way we are...that does not however make it
a *moral* principle for someone that is an incidental by-product of that
process...in fact that process often *depends* on us *not* acting like it
does. A tad of common sense
says that moral people should not learn moral lessons from the amoral
impersonal world. That doesn't mean an amoral process didn't cultivate moral
evolutures. It would be like insisting that you should play the lottery instead
of getting a job because that's how baby steps in macroevolution happen. Sure
one out of a million people will win via this financial methodology, but it
doesn't really do much for evolution if you starve to death waiting for random
chance to feed you as an individual, now does it? Therefore the lesson is,
"Do as evolution 'says,' not as evolution
does." Call it a hypocrite all you want...its not
listening. The ethical principles cultivated in
us over millions of years of refinement are not the same kind of principles of
the process that brought them into being and there is no reason to expect them
to be. One does not hold
the amoral world to the same standard as that of a person. Just
because in your worldview how we got here dictates what morality ought to be,
doesn't mean that necessarily crosses worldview boundaries intact. Evolution is not god though god
suspiciously has the "ethics" of amoral evolution.
25. Isn’t helping others contradictory to the
“ethics” of the survival of an individual?Yes we do have a natural inclination towards self
preservation, but there is also a thick seam of mutual cooperation which is
also part of survival and this has inherited guidelines. We often do
better in groups and thus those moral principles have been cultivated in us as
well. The point is these two traits are only contradictory
superficially and work together to bring balance to the whole of the individual
and the community. Surely evolution is not guilty of some
philosophical crime for making evolutures that are capable of both sleeping and
being awake? Eating…and crapping… Sitting and standing…
Which is it, right? It can't be both? Your straw man of
evolution is a one note musician, right? Thus self-preservation and
mutual cooperation (and therefore group preservation) coexist though they
probably developed at different times. Self preservation would
probably have its foundations ever since the first single celled organism…and
group cooperation would have been added later to that initial deposit in higher
up branches in various ways as it became possible.
26. Yeah, but how can evolution
possibly explain moral action that is not tightly connected to immediate
preservation of life and reproduction?
Well perhaps the problem is
more about your lack of imagination than it is about how reliably evolution can
explain all human behaviors. I don't doubt a god could explain all
our behaviors...though that doesn't make it true. Evolution could be
a perfectly viable explanation of the world and incidentally a god made it
instead...while biogenesis just so happened to be going on in a pond outside
the Garden of Eden...only to be crushed by god's designs already in progress.
There’s
no reason to think that an evolutionary pathway that specifically cultivates a
type of behavior wouldn’t yield such by-products… you could call it “run
off.” General good will is the key that has an obvious social
advantage…and that basic behavioral pattern gives us extremes such as altruistic
sacrifice as well as little things like helping old ladies across the
street. There doesn’t have to be a direct selective pressure for
every little iteration…these are spill over behaviors from the central axis of
our moral buoyancy.Though perhaps evolution
didn’t teach monkeys how to use a computer, it did “teach” them to hunt with
tools and reason abstractly to get to their desired goal…which happens to bring
them into an extremely versatile world that incidentally makes many other
behaviors possible. There would have to be another selective pressure
to keep such traits from being applicable for other things. It is
very easy to simply look at a modern behavior in and of itself and not be able
to make the connection that there are multiple generic principles that under
gird its obscurity from the path of evolution.
“Niceness” is merely one
ingredient to our constitution being discussed. All complicated
things are really just a number of simple things drawn to
conclusion.27. How can evolution explain altruistic
behavior?In addition to what you may
already be familiar with, there is also a plausible selective pressure that can
be called "survival of the fittest group." Perhaps AIG failed to
mention that. A system that is occasionally good at procuring
self-sacrifice is good for the genes of the rest of the population that are at
the same level (as opposed to populations that aren’t). As long as
it’s not called upon every day, altruistic genes are passed on
overall and that neurological bed of “good-will” helps out
overall. Self-sacrifice is just one facet of the
whole. In other words, you share enough of the genes with someone
that gave up their life for you…and thus their genes were basically passed
on…whereas another group of “monkeys” were all selfish individuals and died off
as a result of whatever that pressure was…perhaps distracting the tiger while
everyone else ran away as opposed to the tiger rampaging through the entire
group. Of course, this works co-optively with old fashioned survival
of the fittest with individuals within the group as well weeding out the chaff
of the most successful group that happens to be beating out the other
groups.Another level of natural
selection that creationist organizations seem not to be too keen on expounding
upon...is known as the "trade-off." In this case, one may
note that we seem to be overly attached to fellow human beings who may die
within the course of our life and that there is no real practical survival
advantage to this local phenomenon. However, something that seemingly
over does it in one area, may be just right in another area...and we may assume
that our level of attachment with one another is set as it is for more
important purposes earlier in life in terms of mating and raising a family and
being a stable member of your tribe or society. Even though
death takes its toll...obviously it is not damning enough to make a realistic
difference to what our original emotional attachments were "meant"
for and thus evolution can and does explain such seemingly counter-intuitive
aspects of life as well.
28. What about Darwinists that try
to extract morality from evolution?Well folks who think that
they are a participant in this amoral process are…confused. It’s like
trying to watch a football game…but the field is really, really big…and you
might not see a player for a few hundred thousand years…let alone a touch down.
Evolution
explains where morality came from...it does not lead by example. I don't think you'll hear a
humanist say, "Be perfect therefore as evolution is perfect."
It is not a role
model...its just an explanation that produced supposed role models like Jesus.
One learns morality from
the by-products...not the amoral process itself. Again evolution is a non-person
and acts like a non-person and should be treated like a non-person. That doesn't make it untrue any
more than proving God is evil makes him non-existent.29. If humans are just evolved animals, why is
morality any more binding on us than it is on other
animals?We
are more responsible than animals just as adults are more responsible than
children. We occupy an intellectual realm where we can see the
consequences of our actions long ahead of time and it was probably only natural
that a receptive feeling of responsibility crept into the mix along with it to
stabilize that outlook on life amongst other evolutures.
30. If we are just chemical reactions, then how can
we hold each other accountable if we could not help but do what we do (aka
determinism)?The particles we call “people” were destined to do
whatever they are destined to do via laws of nature…and incidentally if you dig
a slight level into that…and *unpack* that deterministic destiny, you’ll find
that justice (for instance) is one of those things that we are biochemically
destined to accomplish. Thus to deny justice in its right order is to deny your
deterministic programming. Likely you’ll try to say something like, “well can’t
we use that as an argument for justifying anything?” And at that point you’ve
lost the debate as counter intuitive as that may sound…since incidentally that
allows us to justify a holistic system of ethics and justice as well that
supersedes weaker justifications…justifications that don’t uphold our system
equally well on its own terms…ie the particularities of the personal sphere do
not allow for just any justification.Notice if you carry the argument across the board,
you are just as determined to stop a criminal as a criminal is to commit a
crime. The error is applying impersonal definitions of reality into
the personal sphere of ethics. As long as you go into extreme detail
describing actions and mental states via determinism unilaterally…it all
cancels out basically…however the short hand rule is just not to apply rigid
determinism to ethics. However I should say we can apply “loose”
determinism to some ethical scenarios since it isn’t ethical to punish people
for the aspects of their life they couldn’t help…for instance an extreme
example would be torturing the mentally handicapped who committed
crimes. We may still punish them or at least quarantine them, but to a
different degree than someone who had everything going for them and decided to
be evil regardless. When they say, “I’m a deterministic machine,” you
say, “So am I,” and dish out the determined punishment.
31.
What exactly is it that you think evolution made us good at, WOE?We are free to do whatever
we want and incidentally what you happen to want to do is be a stable copy
machine amongst other stable copy machines (aka a productive member of society,
family and all). You will likely find the most satisfaction in life
if you achieve this status and it doesn’t require you to think it through at
all as your feelings as your guide, you will likely naturally stumble into
it…or you can recognize what’s going on and be a willing administrative
participant…either works.Ask yourself how you please the big copying machine in the sky? Probably
by doing exactly what I've described. Humiliating? Or
accurate? Don’t shoot the messenger. Believe whatever myth
you like...the selfish gene will be pleased it just so happens to point you
towards it's service.32. So you are saying we
are just chemicals right? Refined by evolution or not?
I’m pointing out that we
are chemicals arranged in a particular way that makes us value similar
archetypes and not merely our components on their own. Saying we are “only
chemicals” translates into emotional-ease as treat other people like you would
treat chemicals in a vat…and who cares about that? But we are not
arranged like chemicals in a vat…we are arranged the way we are…and that begets
a system that values what it does, thus excluding what is not system
compatible…i.e. “just chemicals.” It is a limited self-justifying system…but
that’s all it needs to be to connect to our personhood. If I tell my wife she
is the loveliest batch of evolved chemicals on the planet…should she be
offended? I think not…unless she wants to offend my chemicals and go find
delusional chemicals instead.33.
Why should I accept evolution since it doesn’t boost my self esteem?
I'd
rather be a highly developed biped than eternal hell fodder...or an eternal ass
kisser. Which is better, being a by-product of evolution, or being the
collateral damage of some kind of divine gambling debt God owes Satan? Or
inheriting a cracked-divine image/sinful nature just for being born? Being
stuck in the coercion of heaven and hell with the odds overwhelming against
your success?Neither particularly boosts my self esteem.
At least evolution has an excuse.
Not quite feeling like an
Olympic saint today? Not so keen
on 9 out of 10 people you know being royally
screwed over for all eternity (or having to watch)? Wondering why you have to play such a dangerous game
without your consent that you didn't start? Second guessing how
meaningful it is to have God's grace "on your team" when it's still
dependent on you? An objective view of
Christianity is more nihilistic in this life in my opinion than atheism could
ever be.34. WOE, do you believe
that morality is strictly an evolutionary construct? What about
social influences?If our biological
constitution is an evolutionary construct…that includes the emotional predisposition
to moral behavior and the mental facilities to formulate the abstract concepts
that make up moral theories...as well as our propensity for psychological
ingratiation into society (and all that entails).
If you say, “society influences my moral
constructs”…all I have to say is, “duh.” Even within Christian
subculture with their supposed “absolutes” they are still influencing each
other on that subjective level on their moral judgments. That’s just
not my primary concern when grounding base ethical principles. If we
really want to digest all the ingredients to any given operational moral
sphere, we have evolutionary, biological, personal, social, and logic to deal
with. But in terms of my unapologetic aim one primary deals with
where morality could have come from: evolution...how the brain works...and what
logically makes sense in the realm of abstract moral concepts…since people who
are members of society are in the process of assembling how best to suit those
needs…thus they secondary to the discussion and not the focus.
35. How
could evolution explain the desire for social acceptance?If an evoluture wants social acceptance he will be
more likely to participate in the mutual rewards and cooperation of the group
as a whole thereby giving them that much more of a competitive edge and
preserving that gene pool ahead of the other groups that do not exhibit this
behavior…it is just one piece to the puzzle of our psychological
profile.36. Doesn’t this
conveniently make evolution unfalsifiable since it seems to be able to explain
just about anything? . "Whatever" you
happen to see around you is exactly what evolution would have produced.
Therefore
evolution must be true?I never once formulated any
of my “just so” stories in terms of a proof for evolution. We may
never have direct empirical evidence of the selective pressures that gave way
to morality any more than we will ever have direct evidence of God snapping his
fingers to make it so…I'm only defending plausibility since
that is normally what is being attacked. "How could evolution do
this?" "How could evolution do
that?" I already gave links to information
defending macroevolution itself at the end of question two. I won't go into
that here.What exactly could a magic man in the sky not
explain? Ultimately according to the anthropic principle, obviously
we have to explain everything coming to be just as it is.
Evolutionism has to do that. Creationism has to do that.
Should we really depend on the theist’s lack of imagination and
misunderstanding of the process of evolution to decide what evolution can and
can’t do? I remember when I was a creationist and struggled to
formulate a reason why I knew that evolution could not account for changing one
body plan into another. One can find plenty of validation in all
sorts of examples…in fact 99.99% of what you may consider conceptually is
perfectly consistent with macroevolution not happening. But here in
lies the problem. Evolution, by definition is counting on that .01%
baby step of improbability to incrementally make it up some passable side of
the so called, “Mt. Improbable.” Can you be absolutely sure that this
.01% can’t happen? I know I can’t. Hell, God could have
created everything 10,000 years ago and there’s still no reason in theory to
think this can’t happen.A physics teacher told me
about this back in high school. He said that someone in college ate a
jeep in its entirety. One might imagine this person to be a
giant. But where does one hide a giant these days? A
proportional humanoid that could fit a whole jeep in his mouth would have to be
at least a dozen stories tall if not more. You’d think we’d find some
seriously big foot prints. However, in absence of such evidence one
might consider an alternative approach to explain this entry into
Guinness. What if I told you that this person took a whole year to
eat the jeep by carefully filing down little bits of it into cups of
water? Eventually, day after day, this method adds up…and we are
short one jeep. It is hard to imagine anyone actually
eating an entire jeep with knee jerk sensibilities…but if you consider those
little details…it does actually work out. And I think that in some
ways characterizes people’s knee jerk attachment to God vs. their ability to
appreciate the explanatory power of evolution.
When all the “just so-ing” is said and done,
obviously one has not proven anything other than there’s no prior reason conceptually to think macroevolution can’t work
(and that’s been the main thrust here). Thus from there, an honest
person would simply be an agnostic with one less creationist ax to grind and
take a look at the evidence we do have with mature eyes.
I should point out there seems to be no particular
reason why God should be absent today…or why we even reproduce…or why all we
all share common DNA with everything…or why our bodies are contingent on
anything lesser than ourselves. Video game characters can’t explain
their design with anything less than fiat…stuff just happens at a complicated
level for absolutely no reducible reason. But we
have a horrendous system of contingency all the way down to the sub-atomic
level…and perhaps even beyond. I’m not saying that theism can’t
accommodate these things…but you should note that evolution depends on
them and is thus a more intimate fit with the circumstantial
facts.I’ll add one last
thought…if the common designer hypothesis is true, there could easily be
examples of God copying and pasting chunks of DNA code,
verbatim from one far away branch of the animal kingdom to
the other. For instance if a duck’s bill and the bill of a
duck-billed platypus just so happened to have the exact same coding for their
convergent trait…that would discredit evolution. We would at least
have to say aliens intervened at some point. And I’m sure other
examples could be found as well. However if this is never the
case…that sure convergent evolution happens, but it isn’t the same coding for
the same trait…this is a very good fit for evolution…but not so good for a
creator. Sure a creator could explain this…but evolution explanation
depends on it being that
way.37.
Yeah…I get all that. But how can an atheist say rape is objectively
wrong?The only reason a theist asks
such an inane question is because they don’t want to have to answer for the
obvious moral evils of their god. “Morality equals God.” “If God doesn’t exist
then morality isn’t objective and you can’t question his evils.” After this
feat of fallacy is accomplished they no longer have any responsibility and no
checks and balances on their worldview are possible. The Bible could literally
be filled with absolute evil and there’d be no way to address it. But the bible
itself claims that God wrote the law in our hearts and that the gentile will be
judged by it…therefore objective morality has to be independently observable
and affirmable by everyone. Atheists are people last time I checked and
therefore if an atheist can’t affirm objective morality independently the bible
is false. This is common
ground that can’t be set aside intelligibly for the sake of this
apologetic…since one cannot possibly become a Christian if you already know the
Bible is false.What is a theist really doing when they
ask such a question? They are trying to pull all of the givens of the discussion
off the table so that “rape” is as meaningful as it is to a rock. If a theist
who hasn’t been scamboozled by apologetic contrivances asks me why rape is
wrong just because they are curious, I can appeal the system they are already
participating in to ask the question. They are human…they are logical…they are
asking a moral question that presupposes the moral sphere…they want to know
what is best for themselves and the people around them…and it is obvious that
rape is wrong from that basis. In this artificial apologetic context
there is no reason to actually give a descriptive moral answer to why rape is
wrong...it’s the exact same descriptive answer that God would give for why rape
is wrong. Surely God must have some sensibility behind his command, right? What
is it? That's my answer, too. Why would it be different? All you have to do is
admit we have common ground as I stated in my first paragraph (you basically
have to or you compromise the bible)...and that answer follows directly from
that basis. And any honest person should accept the answer without
going to absurd lengths of denial as AFTR and others have been conditioned to
do.Right and wrong are conceptually based on the unspoken
goals of humanity and are at their root neurologically rigged as psychological
tautologies and yin yang relationships. Not being ontological
absolutes doesn’t disqualify their absolute validity in the human system in the
practical sense of the word absolute. Are you really going to lose any
sleep over a .0001% difference in validity? Atheists can round up via
good will. No matter what you believe about morality…that doesn’t
mean other people are going to agree with you so I don't see how any worldview
can be criticized for this shortcoming.
If
your goal is to be a good person, live fruitfully in society, to respect other
people and be respected in return etc….things that shouldn’t be in doubt for
everyone who isn’t a sociopath…“right and wrong” naturally follow.
And that's what most people want regardless of whatever is true in metaphysics.
This is the general answer…obviously one has to deal with personal
subjectivity…when society at large is mistaken…what the facts of the matter
really are…etc. We are only human. But there’s no reason you can’t have an
objective conversation about it that goes well beyond so-called moral
relativism. Objective doesn't mean "perfect." It
just means we are able to determine when some answers are better than
others.Of course theists already know that rape
is wrong. But they want you to define for them from here to the ends of the
Allverse in absolute terms or else they
are going to go with, “Magic man done it.” They might as well disbelieve in the
physical nature of the computer if they fail to understand a huge technical
manual. All they have to do is be ignorant of some aspect of it and
make endless arguments from incredulity and they rate themselves as being in
the right. Perhaps materialistic explanations are lacking...but you
are in no position to know that...nor assert that you know better.
The only thing in dispute is where morality came from…where any psychological
aspect of our humanity came from…and thus this is just a creation and evolution
debate with a philosophical disguise...and a bad one at that. We may never have
direct empirical evidence of the selective pressures that gave way to morality
any more than we will ever have direct evidence of God snapping his fingers to
make it so…be an agnostic for all I care…but don’t tell me that you know only
God could make morality work. Prove that rape is wrong? Prove to me only God could make
morality. Prove to me that God exists. Prove to me that
your God is moral. Prove to me that your god isn’t lying about being
moral. Prove to me that your god hasn't sent you a delusion that
makes you think that he is the only way that morality can be objective. Prove that morality has to be in
the grind of the extremes of heaven and hell to be legitimate. I
think an atheist is on much firmer ground affirming that morality is not purely
subjective regardless of its origin than a theist is to answer any of those
questions objectively.But for the record, in case
anyone was curious, this is basically what I'd say
specifically:I have no
advice for a psychopath as they would be incapable of listening
regardless. And I have no need to preach to people who are on the
other side of the spectrum. There may only be a few people that for
whatever reason are so emotionally incompetent that they need me to tell them
they're eyes are open and they are reading this web page. I suppose I
should pretend I'm talking to an alien.
Rape is such an extreme
moral wrong because it is basically the pinnacle intimate violation of another
person’s autonomy forcing the person to experience traumatically what they most
would like to experience in a context they absolutely don’t want to experience it
in…leaving deep emotional scars that are not easy to overcome. Women
spend years overcompensating in their relationships after having been
raped…distrusting men…fearing sex…etc. Some even go gay.
That wouldn’t be such a bad thing if they were stable in it. But this
kind of gay doesn’t appear to yield stability (as far as I know)…its
overcompensation and denial as they struggle to get away from the gratuitous
pain and unbalance.Any human being asking
moral questions for the sake of getting moral answers should see how this
obviously plugs into those intuitions. You would not want this done
to you…therefore don’t do it to others. Denial does not mean anything
to the universal law of reciprocation. You will only find you’ve hurt
your victim irrevocably and that it probably matters to you in hindsight if you
didn't already see that coming…you’ve likely hurt yourself if you’re not
already off the deep end, and there’s a chance someone is going to make it
their business to be sure you pay dearly for your crime. You may not
think you care about anyone, but other people are not so delusional.
Living at peace with everyone is to your advantage, joining in the mutual
obligation to protect each other is empowering in positive ways, and acquiring
sex from a willing participant whom you are perhaps even mutually in love with
is potentially one of the most rewarding aspects of this life. If this
doesn’t appeal to you not only are you crazy… If you are so crazy and
keep up the habit, you may get away with it once…but odds are you will get
caught. The entire world isn't going to just sit back and ignore the
plight of its women. You’ve already proven how incompetent (or
perhaps insane) you are by being a rapist. Things aren’t going to get
better. This is nothing but destructive behavior all the way
around…for an extremely short-sighted goal to say the least.
Oh…yeah. And God says absolutely not to
rape anyone unless he tells you to. And even if you
manage to never rape anyone despite really wanting to, you're likely going to
go to hell for all eternity anyway since few will be saved...so you might as well
rape and pillage at your "discretion." And…if you happen to
be an ancient Jew, you have a free pass to marrying any girl you want
merely by raping her (think Borat going after Pamela
Anderson). And she’ll be yours to abuse forever.
Its okay, her father just wants to make sure she’s gotten rid of…who wants
these damaged goods to be just lying around the house? Hurray for
absolutes that transcend our weak wittle subjective relativistic
minds! Apparently McGod has been selling small, medium, and large
McHoliness throughout the ages (that's why Yahweh's McEthics eventually got
better in the McBible).38.
But what if I think morality ought to have cosmic
significance?This is like Paris Hilton
asking, “What if I want the world to revolve around me?” The obvious
answer is tough oats.I think you
are asking too much in terms of legitimateness. The whole universe
does not have to agree with you for you to value what you do value.
It is a limited self-justifying system. You need to live in the
microcosm of what people are used to in order to reap significant emotional and
moral rewards. Your cells and the ends of the universe are not a part
of this picture any more than they are for a
bobcat.
I think you need to ask
yourself if you are asking the right questions or have the wrong preconceived
notions about what the basis of objective morality “ought” to be.
Because you might find it’s because religion has convinced you that you need
things you don’t actually need…and that it protects your emotional investments
in ways it doesn’t actually come through on in any realistic way...not to
mention its promising you things you probably aren't going to get.
39.
But isn't Christian morality the most absolute and objective?
We can’t prove God even exists, let alone that there
is a true religion. The Bible is no more objective because we can’t
verify it’s from god, it contains highly questionable ethics, we can’t be sure
of various interpretations, denominations hold completely different views all
quoting different conflicting proof texts, and it is arbitrary to say how to
apply ancient ethical norms to a modern setting and we can’t get any feedback
on our success…for we may be living well, but God might be royally pissed
anyhow in all his silence. He’s no stranger to letting people to their
own devices even though the consequences are eternally dire. If your
religion is true...most of the world must be on that track already.
Why not a slightly greater percentage? After all this…it’s fair to
say there is a great measure of practical subjectivity to God’s “objective”
morality. Biblical morality is just baggage that needs to be dropped
in favor of reason and epistemic accountability in the here and now.
It is much easier to determine what we want as moral evolutures than what a
divine super being wants who operates on a whole nother level of ethics
supposedly and doesn't care to stop by and clarify…“our ways are not his
ways”…gee thanks, god.
40. Doesn’t objective
morality prove God exists?-If there is no God, then
there is no objective morality.-There is objective
morality.-Therefore, there is a God.
The only meaningful way to say this is:
-If there is a god, he could have designed
morality.-Morality exists.
-Therefore morality could
have been designed by a god.-Or
it could have come from some other source.Conversely
I’m sure we might find one or two sociopaths that simply aren’t geared for
moral behavior innately…is this an argument against the existence of
God? Does God not exist just for them?
Going beyond that is
intellectually dishonest and you could replace anything in nature with the term
morality. We have some kind of cultural myth that says yeah maybe a
liver can evolve, but a moral drive can’t…its too “precious.” They
are all just human systems…including the self-defense behavior of the brain
that allows theists to protect their emotional investments in
fantasy. But the proof is not a proof…its just a possibility…like
gnomes created everything as is yesterday…and we could all be wired into the
Matrix and not know it. Possibility is not probability and if we are
wise we should probably go with probability.
41. But isn’t everything the Biblical God does,
good by definition?You know you can’t just
proclaim every supposed act of God good because by definition everything God
does is good…one would hope that there would be a system of checks and
balances in your paradigm so that one premise is accountable to other
independent conclusions and vise versa. [GASP!] Of
course the problem is that if you have to judge God’s character apart from his
“license to sin”:Rule
#1: God is good.Rule
#2: If God does something clearly wrong, refer back to rule #1.
…then
the underwhelming case for his innocence doesn’t hold up to any bit of rational
scrutiny as I have clearly demonstrated here and elsewhere on my xanga ad nauseum. Hypothetically can you
really tell me you are willing to take a mega-list of everyone’s sins ever
committed…erase their names from the sentences describing their crime and put
God’s name in there instead(and let’s suppose he actually did all these
things)…and proclaim him innocent because of those two dubious Biblical axioms?
Would you accept such blind faith from a Muslim pertaining to Allah?
All you’ve done is retreated to an entirely
unfalsifiable position that is completely disconnected from the particulars of
the discussion. What you say could be used to defend absolutely anything under
the sun…the entire content of the Bible could be literally anything and your
arguments would “work” just as “well.” Where you step away from that uncritical
security blanket...you will find you are met with almost immediate
failure.
And
of course the obvious candidate for the pressure behind not even being able to
think outside the "license to sin" box is that you intuitively
"know" you have absolutely no clue how to make sure God is who he
says he is...because faith (or should we say, credulity) in
this case is such a vacuous epistemology and God doesn't dare show up at family
picnics to clear things up...not being able to depart from the "license to
sin" clause serves as confirmation that it "must" be
"that" valid...since one can not question the
initial premise. But who gives a shit about knowing God is actually
good? He’s only the most important figure in your emotional
life…trust should be a prerequisite. Who says interpersonal standards are important? Honestly…
[rolls eyes]42.
Why should God listen to an atheist?I
know you’ll find this hard to understand, but I think God ought to actually
care about people if he actually wants to be called a lover of humanity. I
personally…I guess this is only my “opinion,” don’t see the merit of simply
defining everything God does into good-ville by fiat without any critical
thinking being applied. If you give it any thought, you’ll find that
there isn’t wiggle room…we do actually have more than enough info to come to a
conclusion on God’s ethical character. Certainly you aren’t
advocating agnosticism on the doctrine of God’s goodness are you? The
Bible is his resume…it’s meant to be that. We are supposed to know
who God is and what he’s about via it. It can’t just be a great big
misunderstanding as that has ethical implications in and of itself.
Yahweh has a long history being "misunderstood" in this way (aka the
gnostics and even references IN THE BIBLE) and communication is
generally considered the number one most important criteria in a real
relationship. And especially given the details…there just isn’t any
room for the benefit of the doubt. If there was…I’d accept that and on occasion
when things are ambiguous, I do. But I have a conclusive argument in general on
God’s character and I can’t simply pretend like I don’t just because you still
believe in your religion.Let's pretend for instance
that the theistic bigots who say atheists have no
basis for morality are correct and thus atheists have no way to objectively
judge God...okay...but what if I am an atheist and I want to become a
Christian? And the first doctrine I accept is that God has placed the
law in my heart? I then have a valid means of saying, "The
punishment should fit the crime" because my innate God given ethical
standards are basically trustworthy and should be paid attention to...but low
and behold this God doesn't follow his own rules (like eternal damnation) and
in proportion is thereby judged to be demented and sadistic. What
should I do? Dislocate my moral jaw like a python and swallow it all
whole?My point is that we are supposed to learn what God
is about from Scripture and generally Christians try to play dumb like we can’t
draw any conclusions about his actions from this material. It really
doesn’t even matter if the story does work out in some ethical way…it doesn’t
make it true. But incidentally there are also powerful arguments against God’s
supposed character especially from the Bible…and I think the explanation of
that is one…poorly thought out ideas…and two especially that theists over the
ages have been working with an non-theistic world and trying to shove their
loving god into that necessarily amoral mold with ill
success.Actually, if he’s an ethical person, he is
omni-responsible for us, given his traits. With great power comes
great responsibility…but with absolute power comes no responsibility?
Wow, comic books have better ethics than your god. That’s
amazing.That is why I boil God's character profile down to
just "glory-mongering" at any expense. Ill-gotten glory...etc. This
is no different than war-profiteering...waging war for the sake of your
pocketbook all the while professing virtuous intentions. God's glory is more
important at every turn than being humane. Granted...an omnipotent being can do
whatever he wants...but if he also wants us to use our free will and rational
and ethical minds to appraise the situation in his ethical favor...he needs to
be constrained by compassion more often than not. True self-sacrifice means not
getting exactly what you want in life to the extent you want it and
compromising for the goals of those around you whom you profess to love…not
screwing them over so you can infinitely jerk off in all its
glory.43. How can we judge God by human
standards?
Since
humanity supposedly reflects the image of god…it makes perfect sense that the
best of human moral standards ought to confirm God’s moral character in a
checks and balances sort of way...to make sure we haven't gotten something wrong
somewhere. Thus internal
consistency is at stake as well as the obvious implications of not measuring up
to normative standards regardless of how slightly imperfect they may
be. Let's pretend that we are only
dealing with my invalid relative opinion that has no regard for any
objectivity...I'm not impressed. Sorry.
Christians sometimes claim they are
not moral judges and in humility let God do that job. However I
question the sanity of not evaluating the ethics of the religion for quality
before swallowing it wholesale. Such lack of discernment could make
even the likes of Tom Cruise blush. Christians generally have no
problem criticizing other gods without resorting to such contrivances…its not
like we are on firm ground with the existence of any deity. If moral
law was really given to humanity then we should be able to recognize it in the
true god…and if we can’t, then we have to find some other
god.If God is not bound by
ethics, why don't you rewrite all that scripture and all those hymns that call
him good? Why not call him amoral instead? If our ethics
are truly a reflection of God's "good nature" then it should be
obvious there should be no reason God should not heed his own nature.
And if God is only “good” like the earth is “good,” why do theists protest when
I walk all over him? Lol, j/k.You have to be asserting that God is amoral since no
moral construct can be applied to him… Have you thought of the implications of
an amoral entity? That makes him an impersonal force…and an impersonal force is
by definition not a person…and therefore not a god…and thus by taking God out
of the moral sphere you have defined him out of existence.
Congratulations. Whatever
you think you are calling god has now no reason to effectuate any form of
soteriology or reward in the afterlife.If you are going to call
your god a good person, he has to be subject to “good person” ethics.
Think of what this apologetic excuse means when applied back into
scripture:Be perfect, therefore, as
your heavenly Father is perfect.And that means not being bound by
ethics? Excellent! We have a license to sin now,
too! Thus the theist has a much better case for not having any basis
in morality than the atheist who has no such outlandish excuse. God doesn't
have to be ethical and you have to be like
God...therefore...anarchy.
44. But aren’t ethics also
about doing what God wants?Well
morality is just a game you play with a bigger mind instead of a game you play
with lesser minds. The basic rules are pretty much the same. I’m arguing that
with or without God, morality is as objective (or conversely as subjective).
One simply has to replace the absolute of God with the absolute of a conceptual
ideal. We all have the same operating system and therefore the same beneficial
treatment of that system can be objectively discerned independently. Not
everyone gets it right, but that doesn’t mean we can’t facilitate conversations
that work towards that end. There is no foundational logic behind one having to
be trapped in such an extreme coercive situation (between heaven and hell) for
morality to have an appropriate amount of merit in
life.If
God doesn’t exist, then who cares? One less relationship…
And by this logic God can make anything “moral” including slavery, genocide,
rape, and sacrificing your son on an alter. For a god who is supposed
to be all about us helping our neighbor so that he may be appeased by association…surely
he “ought” to be content with humanistic ethics…though arguably this god isn’t
happy with anything.
45. What about the soul
and free will?We apparently have the
ability to choose and that is all I call free will. I see no merit to thinking
free will means something beyond that...and it doesn't need to. We do
not and cannot have true ontological free will that is not determined by
anything. That’s an effect with no cause. What you call you is the
determining factor…it is not as though determinism happens to you…you are part
of the determination.Do you really imagine
consciousness or the soul to really be some magic black box that avoids falling
prey to the very same reductionistic/deterministic definitions of the material
world? How do you know the soul isn't just made up of spiritual
chemicals? Just what is your “rational” alternative? A convenient
mystery? If so, that sounds to me like you just want to hide some emotional
fallacies under the carpet for their safety from critical evaluation you may
not be prepared to deal with.46. You realize that the Bible
doesn’t teach divine command theory or Euthyphro’s dilemma,
right?I don’t believe I said it did. But many
theists seem to think it does. I’m confronting their arguments for
the most part, not the Bible. Further, I don’t see where the bible
teaches that morality is only ontologically dependent on God’s nature…that it
can’t exist otherwise on its own independent of the divine mind. The Bible is
rarely so philosophically specific. However theists when they are
feeling agnostic about other issues, believe it anyway as insurance against
seeing nothing wrong with atheism.47. But in Christianity aren’t we absolutely
bound by an obligation to goodness so that we have no excuse
whatsoever? Can’t an atheist make as many excuses as he
likes?For the record, anyone can
make as many excuses as they like. The only difference is the
likelihood of punishment and the severity…in theory. There is no
prior fundamental reason why moral obligation has to be absolute in order for
morality to have merit or to be objectively discernible. If anything,
it’s simply a philosophical luxury…one no Christian is actually enjoying in any
practical way…the difference between having a user manual sent with your DVD
player and just figuring out how it works on your own…it will be the exception
to the rule that uses it as a door stop on both counts. Of course you
can do literally anything with your DVD player…what does having a manual
change? Or even what does the designer’s intent even
change? Anyone can do anything they want…that’s free will,
remember? However, atheists that use careful observation and logic
can just as easily figure out what evolution “intended” objectively in terms of
what will be the most rewarding positive experience in this life. And
if they get it wrong…surely Christians get things wrong, too, right?
Oh, no wait. They have tech support, right? In the form of
the Holy Spirit…the one that tells evangelicals speaking in tongues is the only
way to heaven and the same one that tells Mormons that the Book of Mormon
really is the Newer New Testament of Jesus Christ? I digress…
What good is an absolute obligation if you don’t
even know the obligator exists? Or what religion he communicates
through? Or what the best translation is of that religion’s
manual? Or what interpretation of that translation is
correct? Or whether you should read God’s goodness in between the
lines of evil passages if you aren’t a moral judge? Or how to
translate that bit from that cultural context to this one? Or what
exactly God wants of you specifically? I’m sorry; I believe strongly
that idealism has to be the bitch of practicality…for not being successful is
certainly not ideal. After you’ve cleared all these scamtastic
hurdles, you may notice the lifestyle of an atheist not differing much from
that of a theist. Don’t we all generally date, get married, have kids,
have a job, do well to others…etc.? Theists try to pretend like this
is rocket science that only God can figure out. Somehow we all manage
to end up on earth doing approximately the same thing…I wonder why that
is. Either A: Atheists are secretly serving God and don’t
want to tell anyone. Or B: Theists are taking the scenic
route to what is perfectly obvious to any rational human being.
And after celebrating your 10 pt landing for your
philosophy, perhaps you should consider that you've swung too far in a worse
direction...absolute coercion is certainly not a moral axiom. And neither are
punishments that don't fit the crime (like hell). Many Christians are
keen to “love it by letting it go”…but of course God knows no such virtue…the
whole motif gets ruined when you threaten whatever it is with eternal
retribution if it doesn’t fall in line how you like. There are
definitely benefits to a completely voluntary obligation system.
Perhaps Hitler doesn't pay for his crimes...but then again neither do 9 out of
10 people you know and love. Life didn't start out fair...made no
promises to fairness...and ends unfair as well. Seems more consistent
even than the love of God. Those that participate in the natural
obligations of life are doing it because they think it is right in and of
itself. Once social connections are established obligations follow
suit from the conditions of the relationship. Anyone that lives like
this will tell you the glory and simplicity of simply getting what you put out
without being plugged into a stark raving mad lunatic in the sky’s
glory-mongering whimsies who may or may not be royally pissed at you for any and
every reason.It’s not a competition to
please God. It’s not about eternal rewards. It’s not about
the threat of hell. It’s because atheists choose to be good people
for very modest reasons. One isn’t able to start from
scratch. By the time you can consider it you are already a human
being with a hearty introduction to what being human is all about.
All you got to do is pay close attention and work it out. The theist’s
blunder here basically amounts to saying, "If it’s only a bullet
and not a nuclear bomb...there's no reason to jump out of the
way." But
when a nuclear bomb hits...you can't jump out of the way. Thus you scoff at
what is not an error (jumping out of the way of the bullet of this life) and
stumble into a much more grievous one (senseless moral extremophilia)...all the
while forgetting entirely what morality is for in the first place. If
you really think morality’s purpose is to celebrate the destruction of those
imperfect people that didn’t find Jesus in this life for all eternity (almost
everyone apparently), then you are truly letting a demon make your moral discernments.
In short, there is nothing
logically necessary about morality in the Christian worldview and there is
nothing wrong with morality in the atheist’s worldview. The theist’s
world is convoluted and extreme as hell (literally), and the atheist’s world is
par for the course, more objective, and more trustworthy as it submits
whole-heartedly to the truth from top to bottom. I can personally
attest to the fact I feel about 10times more confident of my moral decisions
than I ever did as a theist...and this is mainly because I don't have to work
around God's communication and people skills (or lack
thereof).48. But isn’t theistic morality at least coherent
(aka nice in theory)?The only part that is coherent is the idea that it
would be nice in theory to have a super-mind work out what the best ethics
are…but that’s not even what theists are claiming.They say that if this
super-mind does not exist then morality does not exist in an ontologically
absolute sense. That’s how they pretend to dominate the philosophical
discussion on God’s evils with this self-serving priorism. Further,
its not coherent for God to be called an ethical being when in fact he is above
ethics…its not coherent to call him a person if he isn’t a moral being…its not
coherent to define God as good and then accept that he does things that are not
good (like eternal punishments for finite crimes)…its not coherent to claim
your moral absolutes come from God for by the time God’s inerrant message has
gotten to you it has passed through half a dozen extremely subjective filters
(which god, which religion, which sect, which interpretation, how do these
ancient generalities apply to you in this culture…etc.)…that inevitably leave
you making the judgment for yourself…it is not coherent to claim that God gave
early man (you know those people who had just been created with a pristine
genome) primitive ethics because they weren’t ready for better ones (all the
while maintaining the pretense of a holy nation)and still maintain that
Biblical ethics are supreme…its not coherent to claim that rape is absolutely
wrong, except when God says its okay…etc. So no, theistic ethics are
a far cry from coherent.If theists stopped short at only saying they are
being influenced by a master of ethical behavior that is more likely to be
correct in his assessments…and every indication bares this out…that would be
coherent. But theists don’t and can’t do
that.49. Surely you’ve found some
loopholes in the theistic arguments, right WOE?Yes…here’s a nice one: If
putting someone in prison for life is analogous to eternal torture in hell (as
many theists have tried to argue: GGP, LSP1, and ethan)…and if eternal torture in hell is
the only natural consequent to having absolute obligations to be good (a la
AFTR)…then it follows that apart from
theism there must be absolute obligations or else putting someone in prison
would not be analogous to eternal torture in hell… And since absolute
obligation seems to be the defining standard for objective morality (in
theism)…it follows there must be objective morality apart from
theism. Of course, all you have to do is give up the analogy…but then
you dovetail into the mal-ethics of hell.
The other one I’ve noticed
which I’ve pointed out repeatedly (and no one has addressed) is that the bible
claims that objective morality is observable by anyone (Romans 2:15)
so if the atheists don’t have that stand
alone connection as they claim they do, then the Bible is wrong and objective
morality doesn’t exist even for theists according to their own
logic.
And if the bible isn’t correct here then
it would appear that heaven won’t be so unpopulated after all since God won’t
have a basis for judging the majority of humanity (the so called “gentiles”)
that didn’t have a connection with God’s revelated morality. And that
makes Jesus in the wrong for saying otherwise…and if Jesus is in the wrong…or
being misquoted…or whatever…even people that think the Bible is generally
trustworthy (but not inerrant) are in for a bumpy
ride.50. You use the phrase,
“moral extremophilia.” What does it mean?
The basic idea is that
anything in excess is probably wrong…hence even morality counter-intuitively
enough in excess therefore becomes immoral. So whenever I see the
bible going to all sorts of ridiculous lengths to control our behavior,
peppered by all sorts of genocides and impotent shepherding, I think I have
every right to call that for what it is…moral extremophilia. If you
feel extremely certain I am mistaken, that you can never be too moral, consider
the following chain of reasoning:
-Theistic belief systems compel participants into a
greater amount of moral thinking beyond that of an average non-believer.
-Since a member is at any given time “viewable” from
a divine perspective, their entire guilt management system is subject to an
increase in the acquisition of innocence above and beyond an average
“non-believer.”-a non-believer is defined
as someone who does not allow for divine viewing of their guilt management
system in any habitual way.-to my knowledge, the Holy
Spirit (real or fake)does not regulate the extent or the rate at which this God
viewing of the conscience is active. An individual is free to feel it
and go with it as much or as little as they are naturally compelled.
In other words, the belief that they are morally culpable affects everyone
differently in an unmitigated way.-Be it the threat of hell or the threat of not
feeling a close connection to an all-seeing deity, there is much drive for
extreme moralistic judgments that defy average sensibilities on the same
issues.-people are prone to excess of that which makes them
feel good.-Christians are people.
-The conscience is one of many human systems capable
of being abused in a variety of ways.-The Holy Spirit does not
seem to keep Christians from an excess or lack of abuse of other aspects of
their mind or activities.-An abuse of the human
conscience in an excess of moral activity is possible.
-The natural by-product of this particular abuse of
this particular system is feeling justified in the excess.
-If the human conscience
were abused or compelled into a hyper-active amount of moral activity, it would
be exceedingly more difficult to convince them that this was the case as they
would feel an excess of justification for it given the very system being
abused…more so than telling someone they cuss or swear too much. They
might actually agree with you but keep on doing it. A Christian
won’t.-Regardless of whether this identifiable behavioral
pattern has the divine seal of approval on it, an unbiased observer can see the
effects in a wide range of believers in theism. From perfectionists,
to legalists, to fundamentalists, to extremists and zealots…there is a spectrum
of effects this behavioral feedback loop is objectively identifiable in.
-I
am an individual who can pick out this behavior in debate and see why someone
would tend to argue for one point over another despite evidence or logic or
experience of success with moral moderation.Moral extremophilia is an
addictive and excessive abuse of the evolved human conscience. It is
the reason why such unethical ideas like a tyrannical, genocidal god and the
eternal damnation of most of the human race in the religions “of Abraham” get
over-looked by the faithful…these people’s consciences are cracked
out on their meta-scam…they are high.
And they are petrified of going sober.Why do girls date assholes one after the
other? They say their poor character makes “the tender intimate
moments[i.e. the lulls] that much more sweet”…even though they know they are
going to be hurt again and again and again…they can’t break the cycle…they are
addicted to the emotional high and won’t objectively criticize that which is
obviously hurting them overall. They are willing to sacrifice a
sensible balanced stable long term relationship based on truth, love, and trust
for that which takes them on a short-sighted amusing roller coaster of
intensified feelings they can't get anywhere else. And faith is often
such a drug. And with this drug, it is absolutely taboo to call its
merit into question and you have a divine mandate to take it, the ill consequences
in the lives of other people are always accepted as justified, and it’s always
somehow your fault if something is wrong with it…never the
dealer.
Outro:I actually wrote very
little for this post…I just went around collecting the best of all my previous
comments in order to put them in one concise place for future
reference. If anyone thinks I have not answered these questions
sufficiently or think that there are questions I need to answer in reference to
atheism and morality, by all means, submit feedback. It pretty much
comes down to no matter how good of answers I give, theists always find some
way to deny the plain fact that atheists have just as much entitlement to an
ethical basis as anyone else…and in fact a better one since it is subject to
updatable epistemic accountability and doesn’t have to be dragged down by
ancient barbaric dogma.I can personally attest to
the fact that since my deconversion from Christianity, the fog has cleared and
ethics make so much more sense (not to mention everything else does, too)…it’s
simple, obvious, and objective. As opposed to being ubiquitous,
extreme, and basically ridiculous…a ripe recipe for disaster…the Bible is
extremely easy to misinterpret even where it doesn’t error, and provides very
little clarification on numerous issues. You pretty much have to read
the immorality out of it and read your own ethics into it in a number of
places. All the significant historical problems of my life relate
directly to all the problems I’ve pointed out here regarding Christian
ethics. My criticism is first hand…I’m not making up imaginary
obstacles. I have no idea how to be a stable human being and take the
bible seriously. If you do, congratulations on what I have trouble
not calling intellectual dishonesty.And yes, if after all this
you still manage to maintain that atheism has no basis for morality I do think
you are an ignorant bigot...especially since this isn’t even a critical matter
and I’ve given you every opportunity to understand here. On the
flipside, the Bible could very well provide good ethics and maybe that’s all
you see there…that wouldn’t make the important metaphysical propositions
true. Incidentally it contains a wide range of ethics…good and
bad. I would give up my arguments against the mal-ethics of the God
character in the Bible if I could even be remotely fought to a standstill in
terms of plausibility. But there are just too many clean
busts. For instance: hell…eternal punishment for finite
crimes. No matter how you cut that cake, it's still wrong.
It is petty…all it does is make theists feel like
they have an infallible reason to reject atheism…since obviously one has to be
moral and theism is the “only” provider. It is false
security. You’ll just have to settle for winning the debate some place
else.Good luck with that.
Ben
Comments (70)
[After all this…it’s fair to say there is a great measure of practical subjectivity to God’s “objective” morality]
Would you also say that if God doesn't exist, then morality can only be relative, and not absolute? For instance, in some parts of the world it's considered moral to circumcise little girls so that they are not allowed to have pleasure, and in other parts it's moral to eat other humans. In these and other instances such as what happened with Hitler, morality was relative to what each person or group of people consider to be moral, not absolute morality to all people that live on the earth.
Thanks for the question. I added it as #33.
ARU
[Hitler…another prime example…got his ass stomped by the rest of the world.
But that doesn't prove that Hitler was not moral and the rest of the world was moral.
[But we can still objectively gauge the success and the ethical principles in a particular situation ought to be the same since we are all running the same basic evolutionary hardware.]
So, the majority determines truth? Why has the majority evolved to believe in God? It should be the opposite.
[if you believe in checks and balances…you have to question the nature and wisdom of your god…]
No I don't. This is one of your main points that you like to bring up a lot. As an atheist, I understand your reasoning, but it doesn't work that way for a Christian. Granted, there are many things that God allows to happen that I don't understand, and as a Christian, by faith, I accept that I as a finite being with limited understanding, do not have the knowledge to judge God, who is an infinite, all knowing being. And being infinite and all knowing in wisdom, and making the decision to create us, He has the right to declare Himself righteous. I understand that as an atheist, you do not accept this. But as a Christian, it would make no sense for me not to accept that God is righteous. You feel that God's righteousness is dependant upon whether or not you, as a finite being with limited knowledge and understanding, judge Him to be righteous, and whether or not you can understand His infinite purposes. Obviously, as a Christian, I don't agree with that assessment, just as a 2 year old is not capable of understanding all the decisions that an adult makes.
You feel that God needs to explain all His decisions to us. I don't. I've heard your reasons for believing what you do, and as an atheist, that's what you should believe. But to me as a Christian, just because you don't understand why God allows and does certain things, does not prove that He is not righteous, and His righteousness is not dependant upon whether or not you claim He is righteous. In my opinion, your arguments only make sense under the premise that you are an atheist that doesn't accept that God is incomprehensibly wiser than you could even begin to imagine or that you yourself are an infinite, all knowing, and wise being, who is capable of judging the purposes of God.
If you're interested in reading another post on morality, go to: http://www.xanga.com/Alex_Number_One
I suggested for him to come and read your post also.
LSP1,
Thanks for the link. He seems fairly interesting and even somewhat reasonable.
In terms of bringing about human happiness which is the only fair judge of what is moral, Hitler obviously failed miserably and the world’s reaction was merely an obvious symptom of that ethical error. And since the Bible blames the Jews for Christ’s death and expects punishment to be dished out on them till kingdom come, you might have a little trouble putting Hitler totally in the wrong via the Bible…especially since it condones massive genocides of ethically inferior races in its own pages.
My point was that we are all running the same mental hardware and one cannot simply make a case for the principles of happiness being vastly different which would lend to true moral relativism. The majority can still be led astray by various errors in logic and can culturally inherit all sorts of absurdities that have to be corrected...that is our modern age. Metaphysics isn’t exactly our playground.
Well to use your own analogy, kids do tend to reach the age where the can tell that their parents are in fact crazy and that the initial credibility given to them as authorities on everything was unwarranted. I can understand your argument...and it would be a good rule of thumb if you knew you were in fact working with a trustworthy deity who may very well have things going on that you don't need to understand fully. I get the idea…its not some in-house Christian idea that only makes sense to Christians. But that's not the world we live in and you don't have to be an infinitely wise super-mind to figure that out. I don’t see a way to legitimately retreat back to a position of ignorance.
I've never once said God needs to give me absolutely every detail...its not about having too little information...it’s about having too much information...to the extent there isn't anything even remotely plausible that could be added to the big picture of Scripture to make God a good guy. If there was even a decent shot at a blank that could be filled in...I'd let it go. "God works in mysterious ways..." sure I can buy that...but not when I know the body count at the end of the line. If few are going to be saved...most are going to burn. It’s not all going to counter-intuitively work out for the better as you would like to imagine. God has already told us this, and you still manage to be blind to the fact and bring up other references that can’t possibly outweigh Jesus’ own testimony on the matter…a direct answer to a direct question. Further even without knowing the output at the end, it is easy to see from a mature outlook on life that not all the trials and tribulations of life can possibly be character building as they would basically have to be for providence to be even a plausible theory. I just don’t see any boundaries whatsoever to the illicit abuse of mankind by every evil under the sun. The only thing an infinitely wise deity can salvage from this is to snap his fingers and make it all not so at some later date. And of course...we know good and well he's going to do no such thing.
And to make use of your analogy of kids and parents again…it is common sense that such unmitigated ambiguity and abuse of humanity is not going to turn out well. You don’t deliberately give children bad childhoods in order to make them better people. Maybe you are the demographic of moderate tribulation that allows you to impart divine wisdom to random chance…I’m not arguing that. I’m looking at the big picture at our various neighbors and various instances and calling our parent in the sky crazy. You can make your “I’m too humble to judge god” argument all day long and it works in a limited sense…there are certainly people you can trust even if things maybe look wrong from your limited perspective…but there has to be a line…there has to be the possibility of deal-breaking tension or you’ve given your god an immutable license to sin and you just don’t live in the real world.
You can’t boil all this down to, “well it makes sense for an atheist to think he’s smarter than god,” since surely you know Christians recognize this as well…and many of us atheists are former Christians because we got old enough to see the error of our divine parent’s ways. I don’t have to get into nitty gritty details telling god exactly what he should have done to recognize the big picture trends…that infallible apologetic loopholes just don’t handle in honest terms. How can you possibly justify absolutely handing all intellectual honesty and wisdom over to an axiom that could allow for absolutely any evil under the sun to be the case? How can you maintain any pretense to a real relationship with this person in that event? God has literally no "wedding vows" to fulfill. You *are* an authority on being human…*you* are an authority on human happiness…*you* are an authority on parenting…*you* know too much to not make a viable estimation at the state of affairs of the world at large in terms of a loving God.
Nothing guarantees we’ll be born under a good god any more than anything guarantees we’ll be born with sane parents. And your methodology *absolutely* excludes before *any* evidence is considered even the *possibility* of coming to the conclusion that God might not be good. My “atheistic” methodology certainly doesn’t exclude the possibility of a god being good…but low and behold with the world the way it is and the scriptural givens (except the license to sin of course) taken into consideration I simply can’t come to any other conclusion other than either god isn’t good…or he doesn’t exist. And I truly hope for humanity's sake it is the latter.
ARU
“evoluture” instead of the term “creature”
I've never thought about the root of the word "creature" before
brilliant post!
[In terms of bringing about human happiness which is the only fair judge of what is moral]
I would agree with that if God doesn't exist, although the majority then gets to decide that their happiness is more moral than the happiness of the minority. And how are we to know that just because they declare it to be, it is correct? It is correct to them, so because they are the majority, they get to be right. What if the majority believed as Hitler did? Then it would be moral.
On the other hand, if God exists, morality is not defined by what makes us happy. Rather by what God declares as being just, and what makes Him happy.
[The majority can still be led astray by various errors in logic and can culturally inherit all sorts of absurdities that have to be corrected..]
[It’s not all going to counter-intuitively work out for the better as you would like to imagine.]
I never said it would, at least not for those in hell. I do believe for those in heaven though, it will.
[but there has to be a line…there has to be the possibility of deal-breaking tension or you’ve given your god an immutable license to sin and you just don’t live in the real world]
You're calling it sin because you don't understand God's purposes, and being an atheist, i understand your reasoning. But in my opinion, it's based on partial information. Let's say that you heard that I killed someone. You would say that it's morally wrong. But you would be making that judgement with partial information. You weren't aware that the person broke into my house and had a knife and was going towards one of my children, and I shot and killed him. In my opinion, we don't have the full information of God's wisdom and understanding to make judgements against Him and accuse Him of sin.
[How can you possibly justify absolutely handing all intellectual honesty and wisdom over to an axiom that could allow for absolutely any evil under the sun to be the case? How can you maintain any pretense to a real relationship with this person in that event?]
Because of all the answers I've given. Do I expect you to accept that? No, you've reasoned out in your mind why it can't be so.
[And your methodology *absolutely* excludes before *any* evidence is considered even the *possibility* of coming to the conclusion that God might not be good.]
Not true. As I've said, I've heard your arguments, and they are reasonable from your viewpoint. I understand your reasoning, just as you say that you understand mine. I appreciate your responses.
If they can be led astray in logic, then how can we absolutely accept that what they declare to be moral, is really mora
[Well to use your own analogy, kids do tend to reach the age where the can tell that their parents are in fact crazy and that the initial credibility given to them as authorities on everything was unwarranted.]
That wasn't my analogy. Yes, you can reason it out that way, but the analogy was the knowledge and wisdom that a 2 yr. old has, not the knowledge that they will have when they become an adult. To use the analogy the way you are using it, I would then say that, after death on Judgement Day, we will then see and know that God is real.
[I don’t see a way to legitimately retreat back to a position of ignorance.]
And I also understand your reasoning for that. I have chosen and accepted that we are not as smart as we think we are, and that God is far superior to us. I accept a position of ignorance when I compare myself to God.
[I've never once said God needs to give me absolutely every detail...its not about having too little information...it’s about having too much information...to the extent there isn't anything even remotely plausible that could be added to the big picture of Scripture to make God a good guy.]
Yes, because you don't have the information that God has for His own purposes.
[If few are going to be saved...most are going to burn.]
I acknowledge that this is hard to answer. Although, a few could still be over a billion people. Revelation 7:9 19:1 say that much people without number of all nations and people, will be in heaven. I don't have the mind of God, so I cannot explain why more people will be in hell. It would appear that to God, it is worth being able to have eternal fellowship with those that have chosen to love Him, even though there are many that will suffer eternal punishment. As a Christian of course, I believe God is just in all His judgements and that I will have a better understanding of this when I will be with Him.
* - I also want to throw out something else to consider about eternal punishment. If we have eternal life, then we don't know if time will exist anymore. The bible says that there will be no sun or moon to give light, for the glory of God shall give light. Therefore, if time doesn't exist, then there cannot be a period of time for punishment that would end. Either it's eternal, or eternal annihilation. God has determined that annihilation would not be just. Do I understand eternal punishment? No, but that doesn't make it untrue because I don't understand it.
Also, we have eternal punishment as far as life here on earth is concerned. We sentence a murderer to life in prison here on earth as long as they will remain alive, and most people have no problem with that. Is that not a possible analogy of eternal punishment? Something that we will understand to be just on judgement Day?
[The majority can still be led astray by various errors in logic and can culturally inherit all sorts of absurdities that have to be corrected..]
(My answer to this was messed up in my other comment)
If they are led astray in their logic, then how can we logically allow them to determine what is moral for everyone else?
I laughed and laughed and laughed when you linked "Theistic bigots" to AFTR. Another AMAZING post, my good man.
Good stuff.
Although I must admit, I'm not a big fan of your whole "use whatever ethical philosophy works in any given situation" philosophy. The problem with it is that there is no standard that determines which philosophy should be followed and why at any given time. If you want to have consistent and noncontradictory ethics, then you need to accept a single philosophy that can be referred to as a guide for any given situation. There might be different aspects of that philosophy but it still must all be part of the algorithm of that one philosophy.
I like what you have to say about determinism. Would you consider yourself a compatibilist?
I found myself nodding to a lot of this. I think you bring forward many of the same points that Sam Harris presents as his core beliefs and you both make very solid arguments that should be added into the calculus...
I do not believe morality is hard-wired into us, though I do believe there are hard-wired elements within most of us (the instinct for empathy, for example) that coincide with or can be exploited in aid of a moral sense. I believe morality is an invented thing premised on the assumption that it matters what happens to and is experienced by others. This is sometimes consistent with evolutionary "fitness," but is sometimes not. Sometimes, moral behavior goes against our own genetic self-interest.
LSP1,
“I would agree with that if God doesn't exist, although the majority then gets to decide that their happiness is more moral than the happiness of the minority. And how are we to know that just because they declare it to be, it is correct? It is correct to them, so because they are the majority, they get to be right. What if the majority believed as Hitler did? Then it would be moral. On the other hand, if God exists, morality is not defined by what makes us happy. Rather by what God declares as being just, and what makes Him happy.”
My point is we can correct people when they are mistaken about how to go about getting their happiness in the best possible way…this isn’t simply an unqualified popularity vote in the absence of deity…though practically I suppose it is. But that’s not what I’m advocating as the long term ideal as though when the majority speaks erroneously we keep silent. We have to use the same human wisdom and moral intuitions as an atheist or a theist to correct our brethren in the majority who may be in the wrong. It is an inescapable measure of checks and balances that we must struggle to apply from any philosophical outlook.
Instead of trying to undermine the credibility of secular ethics, you should instead rejoice that when you make an objective argument for a moral imperative that withstands scrutiny, I will agree with you and fight toward the same end for everyone. And naturally since God is infinitely wise and he actually cares about our well-being, there should be no reason his ethics should not hold up to criticism.
“I never said it would, at least not for those in hell. I do believe for those in heaven though, it will.”
I find it hard to believe God has never heard of Utilitarianism.
“You're calling it sin because you don't understand God's purposes, and being an atheist, i understand your reasoning. But in my opinion, it's based on partial information. Let's say that you heard that I killed someone. You would say that it's morally wrong. But you would be making that judgement with partial information. You weren't aware that the person broke into my house and had a knife and was going towards one of my children, and I shot and killed him. In my opinion, we don't have the full information of God's wisdom and understanding to make judgements against Him and accuse Him of sin.”
The thing is that’s the exact example I use to refute your position…because I understand the possibility of having incomplete information…and if that were not excluded by the information we do know, I would let the point go…but it is. For those of us who are plainly horrified at so many people being collateral damage…that is the “happy” ending. That’s where this “mysterious” travesty is going. Sure, God can dope the saved up so that they are no longer in touch with their humanity and compassion (and this is exactly what the early Church fathers said), but that’s an ad hoc fix…that doesn’t justify trusting this deity to not just cull even more of the weak on a whim because he can zap whomever’s left behind into happiness no matter what. That’s not wisdom…that’s having a “make anything good” button.
You are literally supposed to think this is a good deal as is…that God’s judgment is right and that most everyone else that doesn’t get with the perfect belief program does in fact deserve to suffer eternally for that error of theirs. There’s no way around it. That much is clear from scripture…you are supposed to think 1+1=3 and that there aren’t other relevant variables involved. There isn’t a case to be made for supposed missing information in macro critical matters. You can’t justify screwing almost everyone over for anything…it doesn’t fly. If I could come up with a handful of possible alternatives that didn’t contradict something else in the Bible, I’d buy your argument…but nothing works and that’s why I don’t let the point go. I guess we can just wait *another* 2,000 years to see if anyone comes up with a bright idea, but I’m quite confident that won’t ever happen. If there is a Judgment Day, I fully expect all my worst fears to be confirmed.
“If they can be led astray in logic, then how can we absolutely accept that what they declare to be moral, is really moral.”
No system is perfect…all systems have to struggle to maintain their integrity. Surely you must know this even in the Christian view of salvation. I’m not advocating a straight popularity vote in determining what is moral and what isn’t…but since humans are the only source of morality we can poll…we should find some basic consistency…and in fact there is…and this has to be at least one source of input that we should consider when making better and better moral pronouncements…we shouldn’t interview rocks, should we? It is certainly *a* measure of morality, correct? You would have to agree that probably God sided with the world against Hitler, right? So everyone doesn’t have to be wrong all the time. You can’t completely dismiss it as having zero weight as that devastates your own Biblical case that says the law is written on people's hearts and that "gentiles" will be judged via their own consciences.
“That wasn't my analogy. Yes, you can reason it out that way, but the analogy was the knowledge and wisdom that a 2 yr. old has, not the knowledge that they will have when they become an adult. To use the analogy the way you are using it, I would then say that, after death on Judgement Day, we will then see and know that God is real.”
I’m sorry, I should have said, “to use the components of your analogy.” And your example only serves to fuel my point…we already know how it’s going to turn out on Judgment day…zillions of goats…a handful of sheep (proportionally). Why do we have to wait to call God crazy? In ANY OTHER ASPECT OF LIFE, we would come to that conclusion…a teacher that fails the majority of her class regularly…a shepherd that brings back 10 out of the hundred sheep he was tending…and when we start getting into seemingly relevant examples like a general who brings back 10 percent of the army…we would call him a hero for having at least won the war…but if this general is incidentally omnipotent and in complete control of all the resources ON BOTH SIDES…we’d call him a sadist.
What in the world do you think I’m going to see on Judgment Day other than a clever bending of space/time to flatten the earth so that everyone can see God coming at the same time?
“[I don’t see a way to legitimately retreat back to a position of ignorance.]”
“And I also understand your reasoning for that. I have chosen and accepted that we are not as smart as we think we are, and that God is far superior to us. I accept a position of ignorance when I compare myself to God.”
That works in theory…I just can’t get there with you (or any Christian apologist).
“[If few are going to be saved...most are going to burn.]”
“I acknowledge that this is hard to answer. Although, a few could still be over a billion people.”
I accept that a few could mean proportionally a lot of people still…that’s fine.
“Revelation 7:9 19:1 say that much people without number of all nations and people, will be in heaven. I don't have the mind of God, so I cannot explain why more people will be in hell.”
Is it so presumptuous of me to venture a guess? How about acting like a real loving father figure that patiently explains the situation to each and every one of us directly and gives us objective information to work with? Instead of being an intermittent genocidal tyrant who admits to shafting people who knew could have been saved otherwise had he acted differently? Is this really that ultra-atheistic of me to say? C’mon! Give me omnipotence and omniscience and I’ll save *everyone* whether they like it or not. I guarantee no one will complain.
“It would appear that to God, it is worth being able to have eternal fellowship with those that have chosen to love Him, even though there are many that will suffer eternal punishment. As a Christian of course, I believe God is just in all His judgments and that I will have a better understanding of this when I will be with Him.”
The early church Fathers said the damned will serve to make the righteous feel better about themselves and vice versa…the damned will feel more punished…and that God artificially suspends you in agreement with him. Everyone will be standing around together basking in God’s “love” that brings the righteous joy and the wicked torment (heaven and hell respectively). This is all great and fine…*if* you make the cut of super saint. I just don’t see how even this is consoling that God forces you to be inhuman along with him in order to make this work. If he is willing to settle for such horrendous amounts of collateral damage…what keeps him from getting bored with the crop of saints he has and throwing another wrench into their compliance (like the tree and the snake)? There is a reason why trust is built and why trust is lost. It is the predictability of behavior in the future. And a god who allows such senselessness in this life and the next is capable of anything. I find no comfort in the “God can zap our brains into agreement” explanation as a result. Why can’t he just zap everyone into agreement to save everyone? No *other* moral qualm was too grievous.
“* - I also want to throw out something else to consider about eternal punishment. If we have eternal life, then we don't know if time will exist anymore. The bible says that there will be no sun or moon to give light, for the glory of God shall give light. Therefore, if time doesn't exist, then there cannot be a period of time for punishment that would end. Either it's eternal, or eternal annihilation. God has determined that annihilation would not be just. Do I understand eternal punishment? No, but that doesn't make it untrue because I don't understand it.”
But that same argument undercuts hope in heaven. If hell isn’t so bad because eternity is “different”…then why should we expect heaven to be so good? We are going to be given resurrected bodies, correct? What good are they in the new heavens and the new earth if we can’t walk around and use them temporally? There is no scriptural basis for saying time stops. Having a changing of the heavenly bodies doesn’t mean anything other than what you can look at in the sky.
“Also, we have eternal punishment as far as life here on earth is concerned. We sentence a murderer to life in prison here on earth as long as they will remain alive, and most people have no problem with that. Is that not a possible analogy of eternal punishment? Something that we will understand to be just on judgement Day?”
We also don’t torture people in prison…and we also don’t have every means available of rehabilitating them. Our options are limited…we can’t just let anyone out. At the very least they have to be quarantined. God however is not bound by those constraints and chooses something worse *anyway*. If people were going to live literally forever in human prisons, that would *change* things…we may very well give them the option of being “put to sleep” as knowing you will never get out of confinement eternally could very well drive you mad… As is, I’m sure death at the end of the line could be considered quite merciful. Or we could dish out back to back “life” sentences that merely mean a hundred years each depending on their crimes. So the analogy doesn’t transfer for a number of critical reasons.
“If they are led astray in their logic, then how can we logically allow them to determine what is moral for everyone else?”
I said they “can” be led astray. I didn’t say they can’t get it right.
ARU
Thank you DrinkMaster and Biblelies!
Rusty,
“Although I must admit, I'm not a big fan of your whole "use whatever ethical philosophy works in any given situation" philosophy.”
But as I said, all ethical philosophies are simply arbitrary starting points for any given situation. There is simply no reason to subscribe to one since it isn’t always going to be the simplest route to the correct answer.
“The problem with it is that there is no standard that determines which philosophy should be followed and why at any given time. If you want to have consistent and non-contradictory ethics, then you need to accept a single philosophy that can be referred to as a guide for any given situation. There might be different aspects of that philosophy but it still must all be part of the algorithm of that one philosophy.”
I always ask, “What is the situation? What else could I reference to make the best decision (as many perspectives as there are and as much related info can be gathered)?” And I apply every principle I am aware of rigorously until I chisel out the end result and can go no further. If you want to label that for me, I’d be much obliged. But it is for me an objective a-centric pragmatic process. Its like Wikipedia’s NPOV (no point of view)…that becomes my point of view. After you survey all the material you can as unbiasedly as possible, that in itself becomes the bias.
“I like what you have to say about determinism. Would you consider yourself a compatibilist?”
Yeah, that fits the best. Hume and I seem to be on the same page in that regard.
Leonidas,
“I found myself nodding to a lot of this. I think you bring forward many of the same points that Sam Harris presents as his core beliefs and you both make very solid arguments that should be added into the calculus...”
Sam Harris is right on target in basically exactly where the macro discussion of philosophy and ethics needs to be. I’m just bringing up the rear.
Rohirok,
“I do not believe morality is hard-wired into us, though I do believe there are hard-wired elements within most of us (the instinct for empathy, for example) that coincide with or can be exploited in aid of a moral sense. I believe morality is an invented thing premised on the assumption that it matters what happens to and is experienced by others. This is sometimes consistent with evolutionary "fitness," but is sometimes not. Sometimes, moral behavior goes against our own genetic self-interest.”
I didn’t mean to imply moral *concepts* are hard-wired into us…but the neurological foundation for morality is…how we articulate it in the abstract is arbitrary (religion...social contract theory, etc). And I would wager the monkeys that demonstrate moral behavioral patterns probably don’t diverge from that neurological basis much and likely have near identical emotional experiences. I don’t know if there is any evidence that indicates we’ve actually evolved away emotionally from our nearest relatives. They merely don’t have the logic to take dealing with their feelings to the next level. The basic point is that morality isn’t some random game of behavior we play that can literally be anything if the magic man in the sky keeps silent. Our feelings constrain the spectrum to be generally what it is. Evolution cannot afford fundamental moral anarchy for obvious reasons.
ARU
Rohirok, my answers to 11, 12, 14, and 15 address your concerns further.
ARU
We learn from society what is right and wrong. We learn from our parents what is perceived to be 'moral' which relies heavily on one's conscious. To live a Christian life is to live by western ideals of not stealing, not being adulterous, loving thy neighbour, do not judge another etc etc. I do not believe in a God as such, however i try to live by so-called Christian values and Budhist and so on... I believe we should not rape and pillage the Mother Earth, that we reap what we sow and in Natural selection. So what does that make me? A human being. Who cares what or if I believe in a particular religion or not. As it happens I do not. However I am neither an Atheist nor a Believer of a God. I live my life as best I can and when I die and my body has expired and my spirit, my 'being' or whatever you like to call it, will leave and go elsewhere. My life, as me, will expire but my sell by date will not!
Right, humans learn from the external world around them (this could even include a deity) as well as inner reflection how best to apply morality objectively. Not much else (some kind of transcendental magic ideal?) is required. In short, apart from the background of evolution, that's really all I'm saying in this post...how to be merely human. But theology manages to complicate things beyond measure and forces endless exposition to defend the obvious from people that are willing to leap passed the stars without a critical thought, but feel massively troubled for some reason taking a single step into their back yard.
ARU
"I always ask, “What is the situation? What else could I reference to make the best decision (as many perspectives as there are and as much related info can be gathered)?” And I apply every principle I am aware of rigorously until I chisel out the end result and can go no further."
But what exactly is it that determines the "best" decision? Utilitarianism always tells you what the "best" decision is for any given situation. Egoism always tells you what the "best" decision is for any given situation. The Divine Command Theory always tells you what the "best" decision is for any given situation. These and a number of other ethical philosophies tell you what to do (i.e. how to follow their doctrine). But they rarely agree with each other. So how do you decide which one gives you the "best" answer in any particular situation when ethical philosophies contradict each other? What is the criteria or standard of evaluation for determining what to do or which philosophy to follow? The only think I can think of as a possibility is to say that you do whatever you want to do, leaving it up to your own desires and wishes and emotions and not being consistent with any ethical philosophy or relying on any standard of ethical reasoning.
[this isn’t simply an unqualified popularity vote in the absence of deity…though practically I suppose it is.]
Exactly.
[But that’s not what I’m advocating as the long term ideal as though when the majority speaks erroneously we keep silent.]
Which again goes back to relative morality.
[Instead of trying to undermine the credibility of secular ethics, you should instead rejoice that when you make an objective argument for a moral imperative that withstands scrutiny, I will agree with you and fight toward the same end for everyone.]
I'm not trying to undermine it. I was just asking you if you thought that morality was relative and not absolute.
[I find it hard to believe God has never heard of Utilitarianism.]
I'm sure He has, but according to His wisdom, that is not just.
[The thing is that’s the exact example I use to refute your position…because I understand the possibility of having incomplete information…and if that were not excluded by the information we do know, I would let the point go…but it is.]
That doesn't change what i was saying. You still don't have the full information and wisdom that God has. You're making judgements according to what you do know, which is incomplete information.
[For those of us who are plainly horrified at so many people being collateral damage…that is the “happy” ending. That’s where this “mysterious” travesty is going. Sure, God can dope the saved up so that they are no longer in touch with their humanity and compassion (and this is exactly what the early Church fathers said), but that’s an ad hoc fix…that doesn’t justify trusting this deity to not just cull even more of the weak on a whim because he can zap whomever’s left behind into happiness no matter what. That’s not wisdom…that’s having a “make anything good” button.]
You're certainly entitled to that opinion and coming from an atheist, it makes sense. I still would choose eternity in heaven than hell.
[You are literally supposed to think this is a good deal as is…that God’s judgment is right and that most everyone else that doesn’t get with the perfect belief program does in fact deserve to suffer eternally for that error of theirs. There’s no way around it.]
Absolutely. God loved me enough to be crucified for my sins. That's a fantastic deal.
[If there is a Judgment Day, I fully expect all my worst fears to be confirmed.]
Well, that's when we will find out if you are right or I am right.
[and this has to be at least one source of input that we should consider when making better and better moral pronouncements…we shouldn’t interview rocks, should we? It is certainly *a* measure of morality, correct?]
Yes, I've been saying that it is a form of morality. Relative, not absolute.
[How about acting like a real loving father figure that patiently explains the situation to each and every one of us directly and gives us objective information to work with? Instead of being an intermittent genocidal tyrant who admits to shafting people who knew could have been saved otherwise had he acted differently? Is this really that ultra-atheistic of me to say? C’mon! Give me omnipotence and omniscience and I’ll save *everyone* whether they like it or not. I guarantee no one will complain.]
No, it's not ultra-atheistic. Believe me, I understand your passion. All I can tell you Ben, is what I've been saying. I'm not God and I don't have the wisdom and knowledge of God, and it doesn't make sense for me as a sinful being with limited knowledge, should try to understand and judge what God does. I know you don't accept that.
[The early church Fathers said the damned will serve to make the righteous feel better about themselves and vice versa…the damned will feel more punished…and that God artificially suspends you in agreement with him.]
The writings of the Fathers was not accepted as part of the canon of scripture, and even though there are some things to be learned by what they wrote, I don't accept them as authority, as I do the canon.
[We also don’t torture people in prison]
I have a nephew who is in prison right now, and I just read a letter from him going into detail how "hellish" and emotionally torturous it is in prison. Physically too. He tells of the daily beatings that go on amongst the prisoners that don't like someone else.
Cool post. Thanks for stopping by my xanga.
I'm curious, what is your educational background?
Rusty,
You are correct, I don’t start off with a guideline…I have a process. I don’t presume to know exactly what infallible moral principle will work out best before I begin. I leave that for the end. It’s an ever improving organic process and regardless of whether I start out with Utilitarianism, egoism, or even divine command theory…I come to the same conclusions. I guess I must be getting something wrong, eh? No matter what you can always assign anything I output as “just my opinion” so I fail to see how I lose out here in the realm of philosophy. Every situation is different and the data you have to work with may cater better to different philosophical starting points…and thus you end up with end decisions that seem to be in one category more than another…and I think things become deficient if you over-depend on any one measure…and the resulting meta-measure doesn’t necessary end up being contradictory. Correct application of divine command theory basically means to me, “What would an ideal moral person want me to do with my life?”…and this yields the same results as, “What would I want to do with my life (all things considered like wise long term decisions and not just immediate wants)?” That’d be egoism. And egoism and utilitarianism yield the same results because what is good for me is what is good for everyone since I know that I will reap what I sow and I will not be as well off if I have screwed over other people. And conversely if I start out with what is best for everyone, I am also a perquisite part of that equation. I have to take care of myself as well. So all these are interchangeable to me…they are merely different starting points and each may make things simpler depending on the given situation. Ultimately morality is a tool to be used…I don’t think it is an end in and of itself and certainly we don’t live to be moral…we are moral so that we may live.
ARU
LSP1,
[this isn’t simply an unqualified popularity vote in the absence of deity…though practically I suppose it is.]
“Exactly.”
You say that (I assume) like this means something from worldview to worldview (whereas I was even including those that think there is a deity…in the absence of one)…people can do whatever they want regardless of what’s true. It’s just the practical state of affairs…and that’s all I was alluding to. That doesn’t mean morality can’t be objectively discerned through careful analysis.
[But that’s not what I’m advocating as the long term ideal as though when the majority speaks erroneously we keep silent.]
“Which again goes back to relative morality.”
But the distinction you are making isn’t relevant…for even divine command theory is still moral relativism…morality relative to God’s supposed opinion or rather your opinion about what God’s supposed opinion is…who may or not be a master of it…that too is just your opinion. Personally I would never ever say, “That’s just your opinion” because I believe anything can be discussed and objectively evaluated. Saying “it’s just your opinion” is the equivalent of saying, “those are words coming out of your mouth.” It’s cheap philosophy and pointless. And most Christians end up having to tell the Bible what to say anyhow since its morality isn’t exactly face value worthy. So I just don’t see a meaningful divide between what you would call “objective morality” and “relative morality.” And this breaks down even further in Paul’s moral relativism where morality depends on your measure of faith and what may be right for one believer isn’t necessarily right for another believer. No matter where you stand, you ultimately have to make up your own mind and no amount of special philosophical pleading is going to change that. That doesn’t mean ethical behavior is absolutely arbitrary or that we can’t objectively criticize the ethics of others.
[Instead of trying to undermine the credibility of secular ethics, you should instead rejoice that when you make an objective argument for a moral imperative that withstands scrutiny, I will agree with you and fight toward the same end for everyone.]
“I'm not trying to undermine it. I was just asking you if you thought that morality was relative and not absolute.”
Much like Paul, I also think morality is relatively relative…but that each person’s measure and path can be objectively discerned…and just because someone may believe they are doing the right thing doesn’t mean it is and it doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to call their version of morality immoral. People can be wrong. Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with it. You are going to have to peg down exactly what you mean by “relative” and “absolute” because no matter how I answer this question, you are going to switch the definitions around on me.
[I find it hard to believe God has never heard of Utilitarianism.]
“I'm sure He has, but according to His wisdom, that is not just.”
Well in his infinite wisdom he should have also figured out that over-capitalizing on just one ethical principle ruins the principle.
[The thing is that’s the exact example I use to refute your position…because I understand the possibility of having incomplete information…and if that were not excluded by the information we do know, I would let the point go…but it is.]
“That doesn't change what i was saying. You still don't have the full information and wisdom that God has. You're making judgments according to what you do know, which is incomplete information.”
Ultimately it seems I have to answer the question, “Why do I think I know enough to make a judgment call that trumps an infinitely wise deity that allowed original sin, the problem of evil, and eternal damnation?” My reasons (mainly in reference to hell) are as follows:
-the Bible is specifically filled with deliberate morality tales…in other ambiguous situations with limited information we do not know the crux of the morality of the situation directly. However, these key line items are front and center. Significant missing pieces that drastically alter the outcome should be entirely unexpected and in basically all cases excluded by Scripture itself. We know what the moral principle was supposed to be and we have a complete enough picture based on that “moral” axis.
-the Bible was spawned in the midst of honor/shame societies and reflects that moral extremophilia. For instance we could imagine that the soldier that killed himself when he saw his King, Saul dead (apparently) on the battle field died for merely the ideal of honor…we are in no position to make it sound like perhaps he had no wife or kids, or that the battle was over and he wasn’t needed or that he couldn’t possibly serve to rebuild Israel after the ravages of war…it was completely and totally for honor…we know such a person would reason to themselves, “I cannot dishonor my family by living while our King has died.” However should we give the seal of approval just because this was the cultural? No. In comparison to a different brand of soldier that chose to live to further the actual interests of his king instead…his family may not have such an extreme noble idea…but they have an actual father and an actual husband to love. Surely that ideal means very little to a fatherless child and a widow and to a society with one less good citizen. Instead of correcting these ethical failures…this addiction to honor at the expense of love…we find God swimming in it…just like we would expect if he were solely a product of the times…and not a transcendent perfect being. The Biblical god is consistently morally obtuse and untactful with a large wake of failure and disaster behind his activities in history. It can’t all be a big misunderstanding.
-it is not as though we know for certain god even exists or that he isn’t a sub par deity that could be lying or perhaps misrepresented by his followers. We have no other solid epistemology to be loyal to. It is wrong to portray this as an episode of Jeopardy where ARU is facing off against God, the Father in a battle of wits…no doubt we all know who would win (though sometimes I wonder). There is an exceedingly high probability the moral scenarios are simply made up. The naturalistic worldview accounts for these same facts of evil and death in the world and meta-scams…in a very simple way that needs no special pleading and has no personal ethical standards to uphold on behalf of an amoral world. Even if there were a measure of uncertainty it is still an argument to the better explanation that the Biblical God is probably an unethical by-product of the time and in fact fictitious.
-we have had thousands of years to come up with hypothetical scenarios to resolve these problems: Jesus could be lying about few being saved to encourage more to try…however that makes God a liar…perhaps he meant “too few” would be saved…meaning most will but any loss is horrible…but that’s altering the context of the whole passage…perhaps Jesus was only talking about a select few of the human race to begin with and that only a few of them who could be accountable would be saved…but that makes the majority who suffer without cause as a senseless backdrop…and God is still doing as well as random chance…perhaps there is a third option besides heaven and hell that isn’t mentioned…but the Bible seems pretty clear that there is a narrow way to salvation and a wide path of destruction…sheep and goats…the right and the left…and regardless it is still wrong to torment people with such harsh extremes if in fact there is a moderate middle ground… All of these solutions aren’t remotely probable and create more problems.
-these problems are embraced whole-heartedly by biblical writers and by the early church followers who chose what went in the canon of scripture and would be most able to culturally understand what was meant. Modern apologists defend it in its unethical form without any indication that you aren’t supposed to think 1+1=3 (eternal punishment for finite crimes is just).
-the escape hatch for God is making him amoral (and therefore not a person and not a god and non-existence in the Christian sense), and could literally account for absolutely anything no matter how obviously and irreconcilably evil. Or no matter what he is just so wise that we simply can’t see it for what it is. But that is admittance that our current picture is evil…that the innate picture created by a full appraisal of the Bible is wrong as is…that the Bible is leaving out some significant issues that complete the basic picture…and I find that to be an entirely extraordinary claim.
-there are specific passages in scripture that seem to indicate in fact God doesn’t give miracles to nations whom he knew would have repented because of them and that he gives miracles to those he knows won’t repent…and that very action on God’s part is in fact what specifically damned them. And I could make a whole list of people I know that would subscribe to Christianity if only they could know it was actually true.
-Further, if God is capable of staying his hand from the “bring immediate world peace” button that has been on his desk since before the foundations of the world…there is no reason to think he is so compassionate to warrant thinking there really is something greater going on that we don’t know about.
-God is doing as well as random chance if few are going to be saved. In a world without God, do you not suppose a few people would incidentally qualify for heaven? The Bible even says God is a “hard man harvesting where [he has]* not* sown and gathering where [he has]* not* scattered seed.”
-This divine wisdom does in fact overlap our area of knowledge…we know what good outcomes are for humanity. If not, why when we watch dystopian movies do we not search for the supreme wisdom behind the way that world is? We can see a rocket scientist at work…we don’t understand what he’s doing…but we get that the end result is good. There is no reason to think that eternal bliss has to be dependant on most of humanity suffering forever along with us.
- if a God is willing to do all that this god has done in this life…even if he presses the magic “make it right” button in the end…this god simply can’t be trusted as his actions and inactions have clearly demonstrated. It is as though it is okay to sexually molest his children since he can simply mind-wipe them in the end. There’s a good chance everyone reading this comment Christian and non-Christian alike will all end up in hell if in fact the Christian version of it exists…and if you happen to be one of the lucky few that do make it…it may only be a prelude to future disaster. It is certainly the lesser of two evils to make it to heaven, but the way things are should impact your assessment of what God thinks of in terms of heaven.
-finally, given your worldview, that “anything God does is good,” why do you expect there to be more of the picture? Why does there need to be? Wouldn’t you accept it if via your own criteria (if you even have criteria) you knew you did have all the relevant facts? Wouldn’t you still label whatever the situation is good? Why does God have to do things in a way that is good for humanity? Isn’t he above it all? What if he really did just leave everyone to their own devices and expect to merely reap whatever was left over even if he knew full and well he could have stayed and patiently brought most everyone into salvation. Who are you to talk back to God?
So to wrap up, I have like a dozen good fully articulate reasons to think God is evil on just this one line item. And all you can resort to is… “There’s an extremely improbable chance there’s something you don’t know.” If that’s all I had to say in the wake of all the evidence for the existence of God or the merit of faith in the unknowable, would you respect that? How is that not scraping the extreme bottom of the barrel in terms of solid epistemology and good decision making? Where else in our natural lives do we put our lives on the line for the extremely improbable? How can we maintain this standard consistently?
“You're certainly entitled to that opinion and coming from an atheist, it makes sense. I still would choose eternity in heaven than hell.”
Right, I’d choose joining the mafia over having my family killed, too…I'm sure there are benefits...but that doesn’t make the problem go away.
“Absolutely. God loved me enough to be crucified for my sins. That's a fantastic deal.”
Yeah, paying the mafia protection money so they don’t destroy your place of business is a fantastic deal.
[If there is a Judgment Day, I fully expect all my worst fears to be confirmed.]
“Well, that's when we will find out if you are right or I am right.”
To me, your religion has deadened you to your loyalty to your own species. This is a common ethical error in religion.
[and this has to be at least one source of input that we should consider when making better and better moral pronouncements…we shouldn’t interview rocks, should we? It is certainly *a* measure of morality, correct?]
“Yes, I've been saying that it is a form of morality. Relative, not absolute.”
The point I was trying to make is that it is one measure among many…it has to have its status…and that consulting more than one source can yield better and better results. Your disregard for objectivity without God is the same disregard I can have for God’s objective absolutes. If we can assemble all the moral axioms from sources outside the bible that were uninfluenced by it, surely it is no stretch of the imagination to think people can in fact do just as well with God according to just their relative opinions. All you need is a plausible reason to think there is objective truth to which conversations about morality can be a part.
[How about acting like a real loving father figure that patiently explains the situation to each and every one of us directly and gives us objective information to work with? Instead of being an intermittent genocidal tyrant who admits to shafting people who knew could have been saved otherwise had he acted differently? Is this really that ultra-atheistic of me to say? C’mon! Give me omnipotence and omniscience and I’ll save *everyone* whether they like it or not. I guarantee no one will complain.]
“No, it's not ultra-atheistic. Believe me, I understand your passion. All I can tell you Ben, is what I've been saying. I'm not God and I don't have the wisdom and knowledge of God, and it doesn't make sense for me as a sinful being with limited knowledge, should try to understand and judge what God does. I know you don't accept that.”
Yeah, I don’t. It’s a catch all answer that really doesn’t address the point.
[The early church Fathers said the damned will serve to make the righteous feel better about themselves and vice versa…the damned will feel more punished…and that God artificially suspends you in agreement with him.]
“The writings of the Fathers was not accepted as part of the canon of scripture, and even though there are some things to be learned by what they wrote, I don't accept them as authority, as I do the canon.”
Of course…they are the ones that chose what went in the canon. And they considered themselves guided by the Holy Spirit not only to assemble it…but also to interpret it correctly. And you are trusting their judgment either way. Why would God tell them the truth about which books to canonize but lie to them about their ability to interpret it properly? [this is the Eastern Orthodox in me talking]
[We also don’t torture people in prison]
“I have a nephew who is in prison right now, and I just read a letter from him going into detail how "hellish" and emotionally torturous it is in prison. Physically too. He tells of the daily beatings that go on amongst the prisoners that don't like someone else.”
I’m sure its no walk in the park, but we don’t go out of our way to make it torturous (at least not to my knowledge) but no matter what it ends much sooner than eternity…and nothing trumps that point.
ARU
Alex,
“Cool post. Thanks for stopping by my xanga.”
Thanks and your welcome. I plan to continue visiting.
“I'm curious, what is your educational background?”
I have two degrees in computer animation (an associates and a bachelor’s degree)…completely unrelated to unapologetics. I can draw well, animate cartoons in 2D, do motion graphics, special effects, compositing, as well as build and animate 3D computer models.
ARU
[But the distinction you are making isn’t relevant…for even divine command theory is still moral relativism…]
I wasn't speaking about divine command theory. I just wanted to know if you believed that morality is relative or absolute according to your beliefs.
[Much like Paul, I also think morality is relatively relative…but that each person’s measure and path can be objectively discerned]
In a relative way.
[People can be wrong. Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with it.]
I didn't mention God in my question. Again, I just wanted to know what you believe.
[You are going to have to peg down exactly what you mean by “relative” and “absolute” because no matter how I answer this question, you are going to switch the definitions around on me.]
I'm not trying to trick you. You can use your own definitions if you like.
[I find it hard to believe God has never heard of Utilitarianism.]
"I'm sure He has, but according to His wisdom, that is not just.”
[Well in his infinite wisdom he should have also figured out that over-capitalizing on just one ethical principle ruins the principle.]
It's fine and dandy to say what we would do if we were God. I myself say that if I were God, that I'd do things differently. But I'm NOT God.
[The Biblical god is consistently morally obtuse and untactful with a large wake of failure and disaster behind his activities in history. It can’t all be a big misunderstanding.]
Of course it can. Very easily if God really is far superior in knowledge and wisdom to us.
Romans 11:33-34
33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgements, and His ways past finding out.
34
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor?
And Isaiah 55:8-9
8
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
[-Further, if God is capable of staying his hand from the “bring immediate world peace” button that has been on his desk since before the foundations of the world…there is no reason to think he is so compassionate to warrant thinking there really is something greater going on that we don’t know about.]
That's why you're not a Christian.
[The Bible even says God is a “hard man harvesting where [he has]* not* sown and gathering where [he has]* not* scattered seed.”]
Not everything in the bible is God's word. The bible contains the words of God, the words of man, and the words of satan. Just read Genesis where satan speaks to Eve. That's not God's words. It's satan"s. The verse that says God is a hard man was said by a rebellious man. God is not a hard man to those that repent. He gives them eternal life.
[It is certainly the lesser of two evils to make it to heaven]
That's nice that you are able to know the future and what heaven will be like.
[Who are you to talk back to God?]
That's pretty much the answer that God gave to Job. And after God said it to Job, Job realized how wrong he was and didn't say a word back to God.
[So to wrap up, I have like a dozen good fully articulate reasons to think God is evil on just this one line item. And all you can resort to is… “There’s an extremely improbable chance there’s something you don’t know.”]
No, I say that if God exists, there's an extremely probable (more than probable) chance that you don't know.
[If that’s all I had to say in the wake of all the evidence for the existence of God or the merit of faith in the unknowable, would you respect that?]
If I was an atheist, no.
[Where else in our natural lives do we put our lives on the line for the extremely improbable?]
You don't know that it's extremely improbable. You think it is. (That's your opinion. Oops, sorry about that. Slip of the tongue). It's extremely improbable in my opinion, that consciousness could have evolved from non-consciousness. Or that some inorganic chemicals could somehow evolve into all the life that we see today. Or that some multi-verse exists. Yet, atheists believe it, and you want me to believe all of that could happen.
“Absolutely. God loved me enough to be crucified for my sins. That's a fantastic deal.”
[Yeah, paying the mafia protection money so they don’t destroy your place of business is a fantastic deal.]
Wow, what an analogy.
[And they considered themselves guided by the Holy Spirit not only to assemble it…but also to interpret it correctly. And you are trusting their judgment either way.]
I'm trusting that God inspired which books should be in the canon, and the books of the Fathers were not chosen.
[Why would God tell them the truth about which books to canonize but lie to them about their ability to interpret it properly?]
It's more than interpretation. There's all kinds of things written that are not interpretation but things that the canon doesn't even mention.
[I’m sure its no walk in the park, but we don’t go out of our way to make it torturous (at least not to my knowledge)]
The prison guards are fully aware of what's going on, and do nothing to stop a lot of it.
LSP1,
[But the distinction you are making isn’t relevant…for even divine command theory is still moral relativism…]
“I wasn't speaking about divine command theory. I just wanted to know if you believed that morality is relative or absolute according to your beliefs.”
And what do you think my answer was in your terms?
[Well in his infinite wisdom he should have also figured out that over-capitalizing on just one ethical principle ruins the principle.]
“It's fine and dandy to say what we would do if we were God. I myself say that if I were God, that I'd do things differently. But I'm NOT God.”
Right, but this isn’t about picking out colors of drapes. This is more along the lines of “if you were Hitler” you would do things differently…like not murdering millions of Jews.
[The Biblical god is consistently morally obtuse and untactful with a large wake of failure and disaster behind his activities in history. It can’t all be a big misunderstanding.]
“Of course it can. Very easily if God really is far superior in knowledge and wisdom to us.”
That doesn’t even remotely address the point. All you are doing is pointing to the scriptural blinders you are wearing.
[-Further, if God is capable of staying his hand from the “bring immediate world peace” button that has been on his desk since before the foundations of the world…there is no reason to think he is so compassionate to warrant thinking there really is something greater going on that we don’t know about.]
“That's why you're not a Christian.”
That’s the reason I think God can deal with doing the wrong thing in terms of hell as well.
[The Bible even says God is a “hard man harvesting where [he has]* not* sown and gathering where [he has]* not* scattered seed.”]
“Not everything in the bible is God's word. The bible contains the words of God, the words of man, and the words of satan. Just read Genesis where satan speaks to Eve. That's not God's words. It's satan"s. The verse that says God is a hard man was said by a rebellious man. God is not a hard man to those that repent. He gives them eternal life.”
That’s a great argument…too bad the character representing God directly confirms the man’s words in the next verse:
Matthew 25:26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed?
[It is certainly the lesser of two evils to make it to heaven]
“That's nice that you are able to know the future and what heaven will be like.”
It is an inference based on God’s known character. If what is acceptable now is acceptable to God, then there is reason to doubt the nature of heaven. If an abusive boyfriend beats his girlfriend…things aren’t going to improve when they get married. All the sweet talking in the meantime doesn’t make that any different.
[Who are you to talk back to God?]
“That's pretty much the answer that God gave to Job. And after God said it to Job, Job realized how wrong he was and didn't say a word back to God.”
This is the testimony of a character whose factual status is not even remotely well attested. This is just another example of God being a jerk and demanding we say thank you when we are told to bend over and take it like a man.
[So to wrap up, I have like a dozen good fully articulate reasons to think God is evil on just this one line item. And all you can resort to is… “There’s an extremely improbable chance there’s something you don’t know.”]
“No, I say that if God exists, there's an extremely probable (more than probable) chance that you don't know.”
But you are basing that probability on another poorly supported and improbable proposition…the existence of God…and even the existence of God doesn’t make it probable that this god is good. It is circular reasoning, because when you say “if god exists” you mean, “If god exists who is by definition good…then everything he does is therefore good…even if it isn’t.” And the discussion has gotten no where.
[If that’s all I had to say in the wake of all the evidence for the existence of God or the merit of faith in the unknowable, would you respect that?]
“If I was an atheist, no.”
Does being a theist give someone the privilege of respecting bad arguments?
[Where else in our natural lives do we put our lives on the line for the extremely improbable?]
“You don't know that it's extremely improbable. You think it is. (That's your opinion. Oops, sorry about that. Slip of the tongue).”
These aren’t just knee jerk conjectures of an atheist. It is well supported that supernatural explanations have continually retreated from the sciences and that naturalistic explanations continue to hold up to scrutiny. The reasons I give only yield to unqualified blanket denial that could deny anything…there is no approaching the content of my argument on intimate terms.
“It's extremely improbable in my opinion, that consciousness could have evolved from non-consciousness. Or that some inorganic chemicals could somehow evolve into all the life that we see today. Or that some multi-verse exists. Yet, atheists believe it, and you want me to believe all of that could happen.”
I can build a probable case against God’s character from Scripture alone without resorting to atheism.
But for the sake of argument, perhaps you are correct. Maybe a God does exist and created us and that explains it all. Why is it therefore probable that he is good?
“Absolutely. God loved me enough to be crucified for my sins. That's a fantastic deal.”
[Yeah, paying the mafia protection money so they don’t destroy your place of business is a fantastic deal.]
“Wow, what an analogy.”
Well believing in Jesus certainly gets you out of hell, right? I don’t call any kind of interpersonal coercion a fantastic deal. Another iteration of “infinite wisdom.”
[And they considered themselves guided by the Holy Spirit not only to assemble it…but also to interpret it correctly. And you are trusting their judgment either way.]
“I'm trusting that God inspired which books should be in the canon, and the books of the Fathers were not chosen.”
But the same people who you think were inspired to assemble the canon correctly also thought they were inspired to interpret it correctly.
[Why would God tell them the truth about which books to canonize but lie to them about their ability to interpret it properly?]
“It's more than interpretation. There's all kinds of things written that are not interpretation but things that the canon doesn't even mention.”
So…that doesn’t mean the fantastic details in non-canonical legends are false. Does God only act when the canon is recording?
[I’m sure its no walk in the park, but we don’t go out of our way to make it torturous (at least not to my knowledge)]
“The prison guards are fully aware of what's going on, and do nothing to stop a lot of it.”
That reinforces the point about it being no walk in the park…but that doesn’t trump the most important point…that it does end and the analogy fails as a result.
ARU
[And what do you think my answer was in your terms?]
Relative, but if you think it isn't on your terms, that's ok. I wasn't asking to tell you that you're wrong, just asking to know what you believe.
[That doesn’t even remotely address the point. All you are doing is pointing to the scriptural blinders you are wearing.]
We disagree. I stand by what I've said. If God is superior to us and we are sinful beings with very limited knowledge compared to God, it makes no sense for us to judge Him.
[That’s a great argument…too bad the character representing God directly confirms the man’s words in the next verse:
Matthew 25:26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed?]
He's saying that the man knew, not that it was true. He was using the man's ignorance against him, and in the next verse (27) tells him what he should have done if he knew that. It would be like me saying that I know that you are a hypocryte. Just because I say that I know it, doesn't make it true.
[Does being a theist give someone the privilege of respecting bad arguments?]
It's only a bad argument if you're an atheist. It's not bad to Christians. To me, an atheists arguments are bad at trying to explain how all the complexity of life was not created by someone of intelligence.
[But for the sake of argument, perhaps you are correct. Maybe a God does exist and created us and that explains it all. Why is it therefore probable that he is good?]
Because He loved us enough to suffer and be crucified for our sins and He's made me a much happier person in the 30 years I've had as a Christian.
[But the same people who you think were inspired to assemble the canon correctly also thought they were inspired to interpret it correctly.]
I know what you're implying but I don't see the connection. God chose them to pick out the canon. That doesn't mean that they were perfect in their interpretation. Why weren't those books included in the canon? Why even have a canon if there's no difference in authority between the two?
[but that doesn’t trump the most important point…that it does end and the analogy fails as a result.]
I agree that it's not the same as eternal punishment. My point was in showing judgement against people for all the days of their life on earth, and that most people don't have a problem with that. And if we only know in part, then we will understand more fully on Judgement Day.
If every moral philosophy you know of results in the same conclusion, then you must be seriously tweaking these philosophies to cater to your own desires. If every one of your decisions about what is moral is consistent with any one of these moral philosophies, then you should really have no reason to ever think about or consider any alternative moral philosophies. If just one gives you all you need, then why include or consider any others?
For the beginning I do remember a Bible verse from the old testament that is something like "Stay away from those who try to bring you away from God, they are/do nothing but evil." Yatti yatta...
For the most part just wanted to drop in and say great post.
"Not having the ability to make bad choices doesn’t mean you can’t make good choices."
Your point then is that God could create moral agents that always freely chose the good, and so God could have allowed real moral goodness to come from his creatures without risking moral evil? That's a really interesting point. Do you know if Plantinga has responded to this objection anywhere?
Oh! Or is this the sort of objection that the concept of transworld depravity is supposed to address?
Hi ARU,
Very impressive article. Your reasoning, while sometimes self-contradictory, was at least quite comprehensive, and apparently quite sincere.
Here are some of the most interesting phrases I noticed, from your article:
"I just don’t see a meaningful divide between what you would call “objective morality” and “relative morality.”"
You alluded to divine-command theory and the Euthyphro dilemma. Actually, Biblical morality is not based on either of the two horns, at least in my understanding. See Aquinas and Frame (and a bit of modification by Swinburne) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma, and http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1993Euthyphro.htm, and maybe even http://christianskepticism.blogspot.com/2007/01/euthyphros-dilemma.html. For example, the Bible teaches that God "cannot lie", etc. His morality (which is normative for all) is not arbitrary, but is based on His own character, according to the Bible. This is what the Christian is referring to by "objective morality." It is also asymptotically approachable, thanks to the epistemic faculties that He has given us. As for your charge about Rom. 14, I suggest that that's a different type of "relativity" that is not relevant to the question of the basis for morality. The question of the subjugation of one ethical principle to another is secondary; the question of the basis or ground of all ethical principles in a particular system is primary.
"But that’s not what I’m advocating as the long term ideal as though when the majority speaks erroneously we are somehow obligated to keep silent."
From whence comes the "obligation" to "correct our brethren", on the atheistic system? I realize that in the above sentence you were using obligation in a different way. But you were claiming to be "advocating" something - namely (as I understand it) that we "ought" to impose our values and moral impulses upon others.
"Even groups of people can be wrong" and "My point is we can correct people when they are mistaken about how to go about getting their happiness in the best possible way" and "We have to use the same human wisdom and moral intuitions (as an atheist or a theist) to correct our brethren in the majority who may be in the wrong."
What do you mean by "wrong" and "best possible way"? If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that you could suggest to a person (let's say a Hutu with a machine gun in front of a crowd of cowering Tutsis in 1994, or a Islamic terrorist in process of hijacking an airliner) that it "would not be in their own best interest" to follow a certain course of action. But what if they tell you that they are perfectly willing to die or be put in prison, as long as they can kill a few of these other people they hate - and that this would 'fulfil' and 'satisfy' them? It becomes obvious that you would merely be trying to impose what makes YOU happy upon someone else, which might not be what makes THEM happy. An opposite problem would arise if you try to explain to people that they ought to love each other sacrificially. Your system thus seems to only be applicable to yourself, so that you really cannot "correct other people when they are mistaken" about morality as you claim.
By contrast, Christian morality deals with this quite powerfully - as a Christian I can say to someone that an action is actually/really/objectively "wrong", and present reasons for it based on what God (in whose character morality is based) has said (reasons that incidentally apply not only to this life).
"there is no necessary “ought” implied by the process. You are free to do what you want" and "…this isn’t simply an unqualified popularity vote in the absence of deity…though practically I suppose it is."
This exemplifies in my opinion your inability to provide a real system of morals... an objective morality which presents real, binding, "oughts" upon us humans. I know the original context of this particular quote was narrower, but I think the quote broadly sums your approach and the key problem with it. Not that I think your quote is inaccurate - I think you're correct in suggesting that atheistic/agnostic "systems of morality" can never rise above relativism.
"We are not “just chemicals” according to evolution…we are chemicals that have been highly refined through millions of years of trial and error at getting whatever it is we do basically right.
So according to your naturalistic beliefs, we are chemicals only; whether "refined chemicals" or "unrefined chemicals", chemicals is all we are. (In contrast, according to the Bible, we are not just chemicals - we also have a eternal soul/spirit which can make morally responsible choices, which will live forever, and which can relate to God and other souls/spirits).
You do claim that evolution has "refined us", however, and so apparently now we are really good at "whatever it is we do". What is this precisely? And more importantly, how does this "chemical refining" process produce any sort of "ought" - any morality? I'm not questioning the idea that evolution could produce chemical conglomerations that "tend to act in certain ways". Rather, I'm questioning the idea that evolution could have any bearing on the MORALITY of those "certain ways" in which the chemicals act... the "rightness" or "wrongness" of those certain activities.
Undoubtedly there could be semantic/societal games set in place which would arbitrarily/culturally call certain chemical activities "right" and certain ones "wrong". But this would be precisely moral relativism - nothing more, nothing less. You may have already read the discussion at (http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/537648500/item.html), but if not, it delves further into some of these points.
What I am arguing is that without God, 'morality' is arbitrary.
LSP1,
[And what do you think my answer was in your terms?]
“Relative, but if you think it isn't on your terms, that's ok. I wasn't asking to tell you that you're wrong, just asking to know what you believe.”
I believe there is no difference between having a perfect moral manual in the sky that we can’t directly interface with…and using logic to reverse engineer how best our moral drives work. We can even from an atheistic point of view use what the Bible says to start this process…because obviously it came from people that were at least concerned about morality…even if they got things way wrong. Non-theistic morality is as objective and as relative as anything theism has to offer.
[That doesn’t even remotely address the point. All you are doing is pointing to the scriptural blinders you are wearing.]
“We disagree. I stand by what I've said. If God is superior to us and we are sinful beings with very limited knowledge compared to God, it makes no sense for us to judge Him.”
But that’s an unsubstantiated conditional statement again…not a probability based on the internal facts of the matter. And I would agree *in theory*…however this god could be superior to us in many ways…but that doesn’t make him a good god…there may be other gods that are more moral. If we totally surrender critical thought in terms of the content of that god’s supposed actions…that’s just not right. Checks and balances are virtuous for a reason. And without them, we can lift your generic defense off of the Bible and plop it right down on the Koran or any other supposed deity’s resume no matter what it says, no matter how evil we know it is…and evil becomes good as a result. It makes sense to criticize because we should have nothing to fear from honest inquiry. We don’t know anything about this god other than from what we are told. We don’t even know if he exists. We should approach the issue as honestly as we can from all sides and let the evidence convince us of the propositions it purports without any special pleading or apologetic loopholes. A good god would commend us for this just as we would commend our children for holding us to our own standards and being critical of our parenting as that should be part of their development…now it may turn out that they are mistaken, but if all of the evidence they confront points to our parenting being evil…it is down right shameful to drop a “because I said so” answer on them continually no matter how mature they are without any indication there actually is a good reason for the evidence they have.
[That’s a great argument…too bad the character representing God directly confirms the man’s words in the next verse:
“Matthew 25:26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed?]”
“He's saying that the man knew, not that it was true. He was using the man's ignorance against him, and in the next verse (27) tells him what he should have done if he knew that. It would be like me saying that I know that you are a hypocryte. Just because I say that I know it, doesn't make it true.”
No, if he said, “So you thought that I do such and such?” then your argument works…as is, the master confirms it as though he himself believes it and in no way denies it…and other parables of Jesus that talk about the different soils the seed of the Kingdom of God fall on demonstrates pretty much the same point…that God isn’t really working the soil. He’s just throwing his message anywhere apathetically.
[Does being a theist give someone the privilege of respecting bad arguments?]
“It's only a bad argument if you're an atheist. It's not bad to Christians. To me, an atheists arguments are bad at trying to explain how all the complexity of life was not created by someone of intelligence.”
Okay, your logical relativism isn’t going to get very far. Logic is logic for all of us. Theists manage to swallow whole a divine super being by fiat, but not the most simple molecular self replicator accidentally coming together by chance from a backdrop of zillions of failures. Your constant argument to me is “there may be something you don’t know.” Well if you doubt evolution, “there may be something you don’t know.”
[But for the sake of argument, perhaps you are correct. Maybe a God does exist and created us and that explains it all. Why is it therefore probable that he is good?]
“Because He loved us enough to suffer and be crucified for our sins and He's made me a much happier person in the 30 years I've had as a Christian.”
If my biological father supposedly showed up one day when I was young and I don’t remember…and took a beating for me and then left again that same day…do you suppose it was because he loved me? Or because he felt guilty himself? God supposedly doing one act in history that you can freely associate with your situation or not…does not really equal, “God loves us.” Jesus may have been compassionate and healed the sick while he was there…but there are a lot more people that need it than those for 3 years in Palestine two thousand years ago. I don’t mean to put down your positive experiences as a Christian but there are others that were not so fortunate as to successfully string along a “God has my best interests in mind” delusion. I’m not denying your moderate demographic in fact exists…but I don’t think you should deny the “theism runs people over unsympathetically” demographic either.
[But the same people who you think were inspired to assemble the canon correctly also thought they were inspired to interpret it correctly.]
“I know what you're implying but I don't see the connection. God chose them to pick out the canon. That doesn't mean that they were perfect in their interpretation. Why weren't those books included in the canon? Why even have a canon if there's no difference in authority between the two?”
Well they would say, “100% of the church fathers were right 80% of the time.” More weight is granted to the canon. Of course they have to do this since so many write about the same topics and the contradictions become evident. However if we cherry picked their writings I’m sure we could come out with the same interpretive gloss that protects the Bible as well in terms of 100% accuracy. Regardless, the point really is that they were the initial audience…inspired to assemble a perfect canon, saturated by the culture the Bible came out of (at least more so than us), and to this end surely their opinions should count for something in terms of understanding what the Bible meant to say if you think God actually communicates accurately to anyone.
[but that doesn’t trump the most important point…that it does end and the analogy fails as a result.]
“I agree that it's not the same as eternal punishment. My point was in showing judgement against people for all the days of their life on earth, and that most people don't have a problem with that. And if we only know in part, then we will understand more fully on Judgement Day.”
It’s not about it being different in an arbitrary way…its different in a critical way. Most people don’t have a problem with prison because we don’t go out of our way to torture people and it doesn’t last forever. It’s not meant to be a great time, and I’m sure most people would probably not approve of the excesses (like guards looking the other way), but most people would consider it an appropriate punishment for the crime. If we did away with the “cruel and unusual” clause and made prisoners immortal, and found a way to convict 90% of the population of the United States of everlasting crimes…do you suppose public opinion might change a bit? Perhaps we could say the “president is just so much more infinitely wise than we…” and not judge.
ARU
Rusty,
Well we have a few options:
A. I’m not doing these moral philosophies justice and making sure my subjective desires are being fulfilled.
B. I have no obligation to use these philosophies as stated, and am actually being universally objective in my application…because I come to the same results regardless, which confirms it.
I’ve already addressed your second point. I consider different moral philosophies because they each have a different emphasis and can each shed light on a complex situation in their own way…it works as a checks and balances. Each can be made to address any problem, but they do not all equally do it as simply.
By analogy, I can define the physical universe as revolving around my left foot consistently, however making perhaps the earth…or the sun…or the galaxy…or perhaps the super cluster or whatever might be the right base to start with depending on the problem at hand. That doesn’t mean these are different and contradictory sets of physics being used.
ARU
Madpenguin,
“For the beginning I do remember a Bible verse from the old testament that is something like "Stay away from those who try to bring you away from God, they are/do nothing but evil." Yatti yatta...”
Who knows, perhaps all atheists in the ancient world had to be evil because that was the only viable motivation in a credulous world to not believe in god. But then again, Christians have never been quite accurate in their portrayal of their opposition, now have they?
“For the most part just wanted to drop in and say great post.”
Thanks.
ARU
Alex,
"Not having the ability to make bad choices doesn’t mean you can’t make good choices."
“Your point then is that God could create moral agents that always freely chose the good, and so God could have allowed real moral goodness to come from his creatures without risking moral evil?”
There’s nothing illogical about having all arbitrary good options to select from. When we create AI that can only do good and can in fact choose which good they will do, surely they will look down on our creator for not doing the same for us.
“That's a really interesting point. Do you know if Plantinga has responded to this objection anywhere? Oh! Or is this the sort of objection that the concept of transworld depravity is supposed to address?”
Right, this is where the theists create an artificial axiom to bolster the dubious deeds of their deity. Every step of the way “had” to be that way though none of these propositions stand on their own terms for any obvious logical reason. They are all conjectural excuses when better explanations are available.
ARU
Tim,
“Very impressive article. Your reasoning, while sometimes self-contradictory, was at least quite comprehensive, and apparently quite sincere.”
I’d be much obliged if you would point out my contradictions specifically so I could attempt to correct them. Though it seems much more likely that you are seeing contradictions that are not there.
“You alluded to divine-command theory and the Euthyphro dilemma. Actually, Biblical morality is not based on either of the two horns, at least in my understanding.”
I don’t believe I said they were. I don’t see where the bible teaches that morality is only ontologically dependent on God’s nature…that it can’t exist otherwise on its own independent of the divine mind. However theists when they are feeling agnostic about other issues, believe it anyway as insurance against seeing nothing wrong with atheism.
“For example, the Bible teaches that God "cannot lie", etc.”
But this is a philosophically unqualified possibly hyperbolic statement and means practically nothing since he can send lying spirits and strong delusion. George Washington, “couldn’t tell a lie,” that does not mean morality proceeds solely from him.
“His morality (which is normative for all) is not arbitrary, but is based on His own character, according to the Bible.”
But what makes his nature then not arbitrary? You’ve only pushed the problem back a step.
“This is what the Christian is referring to by "objective morality."”
And as I’ve shown, it means nothing any more objective than what we can find in our own nature.
“It is also asymptotically approachable, thanks to the epistemic faculties that He has given us.”
And in the same regard we can asymptotically approach the abstract idea on its own terms without it being imbedded in a super mind. Not every conceptual extrapolation yields an actual prototype.
“As for your charge about Rom. 14, I suggest that that's a different type of "relativity" that is not relevant to the question of the basis for morality.”
But that is the same level of relativity that I am advocating and I agree it is not relevant to the discussion…pretty much nothing a theist brings up is relevant to the discussion of ethics…and that’s what the majority of this post is about…over-stating the obvious against a slew of theistic propositions that don’t mean anything.
“The question of the subjugation of one ethical principle to another is secondary; the question of the basis or ground of all ethical principles in a particular system is primary.”
Well we wouldn’t think anything of morality if it were not primarily wired into our brains…and our brains are cut from the same cloth of the gene pool, and thus this is a question of what made our brains the way they are.
"But that’s not what I’m advocating as the long term ideal as though when the majority speaks erroneously we are somehow obligated to keep silent."
“From whence comes the "obligation" to "correct our brethren", on the atheistic system? I realize that in the above sentence you were using obligation in a different way. But you were claiming to be "advocating" something - namely (as I understand it) that we "ought" to impose our values and moral impulses upon others.”
I answered this in question 19 and number 7. I’m advocating that morality is an objective category of discourse that can be discussed and thought through and mutually beneficial for everyone to put all their cards on the table since we all have common ground to work with.
“What do you mean by "wrong" and "best possible way"? If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that you could suggest to a person (let's say a Hutu with a machine gun in front of a crowd of cowering Tutsis in 1994, or a Islamic terrorist in process of hijacking an airliner) that it "would not be in their own best interest" to follow a certain course of action. But what if they tell you that they are perfectly willing to die or be put in prison, as long as they can kill a few of these other people they hate - and that this would 'fulfil' and 'satisfy' them? It becomes obvious that you would merely be trying to impose what makes YOU happy upon someone else, which might not be what makes THEM happy.”
No, in that case, I kill them. I don’t recall advocating the rejection of common sense. However when we aren’t on the spot in a crisis situation there is no reason we can’t discuss with them the implications of those kind of actions…that they breed endless retaliatory violence and that their Muslim message is not therefore spread since lots of people are dying and lots of others are therefore not listening. Their happiness is short-sighted, at great expense to others, and based on false beliefs. There is much to talk about then since I’m sure they would agree it’s not right to be so extreme based on something you don’t know to be true and perhaps Allah would be happier with more productive behavior.
As a Christian you are in no better a position to correct a Muslim on their terms since you can’t absolutely prove Muhammad was not Allah’s prophet, just as I am not in a position to correct you on your dubious Christian terms since I can’t absolutely prove that Jesus wasn’t god. You are faulting my ethical system on terms your system cannot itself overcome. Further you don’t even have a Christian argument against zealous Christians not killing homosexuals, unbelievers, abortion doctors, etc. In fact they might have a better argument on that basis than you do. That does not however mean that no religious extremist has ever been convinced to put his religious insanity to rest and be a better person as a result…and there are plenty of good reasons to do that and they can be articulated in conversation.
“An opposite problem would arise if you try to explain to people that they ought to love each other sacrificially.”
You merely lack imagination. I assume you mean that in terms of “putting someone else first,” right? It is reciprocally beneficial to say always put your wife ahead of your own desires to the extent you don’t even have to bother hounding the return. You can merely lose touch with your own “selfish” interests and be at peace with that. There is no reason an atheist can not see the merit in that from a purely logical standpoint. Nobody technically has to do anything but die, but it can be presented as a desirable option that can better their life. It is normative to desire to have an enjoyable marriage and you don’t necessarily have to have the most ideal level of relationship, but if you are looking for a better path, I’ll bet I can convince someone much simpler than you can because I don’t have to resort to dubious unsubstantiated propositions to pull it off (as covered in 22).
“Your system thus seems to only be applicable to yourself, so that you really cannot "correct other people when they are mistaken" about morality as you claim.”
Obviously no one has to listen to me anymore than they have to listen to you about God. How can we objectively get over this hurdle and brainwash everyone?
“By contrast, Christian morality deals with this quite powerfully - as a Christian I can say to someone that an action is actually/really/objectively "wrong", and present reasons for it based on what God (in whose character morality is based) has said (reasons that incidentally apply not only to this life).”
But you can’t prove God exists, or that you have the correct religion, or that your interpretation of that religion is correct or that your god isn’t evil or what your god specifically desires of people in this given age or of them as individuals. Therefore your case rests on their arbitrary willingness to believe your version of things that are false with no evidence…and that is what makes it impotent and unstable. On the other hand the propositions I use are categorically on much firmer ground and can simply be reasoned there for anyone willing to listen.
“"there is no necessary “ought” implied by the process.”
The context was about “do what evolution says, not what evolution does” and the reasons why. That is about our relationship to evolution. Otherwise I said that “oughts” exist in accordance with stated personal goals. For instance if you love God then you ought to show it with your works. If you don’t, then there is no ought for you. You don’t have to do anything but die…and perhaps burn in hell for all eternity.
“You are free to do what you want"
That is just an observation that ought to fit into your theistic system of “free will” as well. You have all the freedom you think you have…and probably a bit more.
“and "…this isn’t simply an unqualified popularity vote in the absence of deity…though practically I suppose it is."”
Again, this isn’t my position…this is just an observation of the population at large no matter what you believe. Believing or disbelieving in theism doesn’t change that.
“This exemplifies in my opinion your inability to provide a real system of morals”
I agree…quoting me out of context in order to assemble what you want me to be saying does exemplify your opinion of my reasoning. I can only hope you grow out of it.
“... an objective morality which presents real, binding, "oughts" upon us humans.”
Why “ought” that exist? To suit your personal preferences?
“I know the original context of this particular quote was narrower, but I think the quote broadly sums your approach and the key problem with it.”
Right, you know you are misquoting me…but you can’t help it. It is too easy to agree with yourself and freely associate hot phrases of mine than to actually think outside the box and understand what I'm actually saying.
“Not that I think your quote is inaccurate - I think you're correct in suggesting that atheistic/agnostic "systems of morality" can never rise above relativism.”
I wasn’t suggesting that. One has to admit that people aren’t all being perfect or even trying to in the world. That doesn’t mean that their collective opinion doesn’t matter or that it’s not at least an indicator of what objective morality could be…or that we can’t continue the discussion all things considered of how to make the world a moral and therefore better place for everyone to live.
A theist cannot rise above relativism by their own definitions since their point of view is only absolute in theory…but as subjective and opinionated as any other in practice. Point to your imaginary friend all you want, but I can just as subjectively point to the abstract ideal and concept of objective morality…and probably pull it off better.
“So according to your naturalistic beliefs, we are chemicals only; whether "refined chemicals" or "unrefined chemicals", chemicals is all we are.”
I was of course pointing out that we are chemicals arranged in a particular way that makes us value similar archetypes and not merely our components on their own. Saying we are “only chemicals” translates into emotional-ease as treat other people like you would treat chemicals in a vat. But we are not arranged like chemicals in a vat…we are arranged the way we are…and that begets a system that values what it does, thus excluding what is not system compatible…i.e. “just chemicals.” It is a limited self-justifying system…but that’s all it needs to be to connect to our personhood. If I tell my wife she is the loveliest batch of evolved chemicals on the planet…should she be offended? I think not…unless she wants to offend my chemicals and go find some other ones.
“(In contrast, according to the Bible, we are not just chemicals - we also have a eternal soul/spirit which can make morally responsible choices,”
What is a soul made of? “Merely” spiritual chemicals?
“which will live forever, and which can relate to God and other souls/spirits).”
You make it sound so sweet…But according to the bible we are only God’s completely expendable property that have been born with the deck stacked against our success through no fault of our own and have an eternal destiny that is most likely going to entail suffering forever…and if we are the lucky few super saints…we get to look forward to kissing God’s ass instead for all eternity. Evolution is therefore a step up from that in my book in terms of self-esteem.
Not to mention you are appealing to a slew of unsubstantiated propositions…things that are only at best extensions of the merit and worth we have as atheists who tend to see their short life as therefore more meaningful because it’s all they have.
“You do claim that evolution has "refined us", however, and so apparently now we are really good at "whatever it is we do". What is this precisely?”
I answered this actually in the second half of a statement you mis-quoted me on earlier…here’s the second part:
“…and incidentally what you happen to want to do is be a stable copy machine amongst other stable copy machines (aka a productive member of society, family and all).”
Ask yourself how you please the big copying machine in the sky? Probably by doing exactly what I've described.
“And more importantly, how does this "chemical refining" process produce any sort of "ought" - any morality? I'm not questioning the idea that evolution could produce chemical conglomerations that "tend to act in certain ways". Rather, I'm questioning the idea that evolution could have any bearing on the MORALITY of those "certain ways" in which the chemicals act... the "rightness" or "wrongness" of those certain activities.”
You’re right. It doesn’t. The amoral, impersonal process of evolution is not a role model for moral person. I addressed this point several times in this post already. That does not however mean that evolution didn’t happen or that God has to exist anymore than it means that evolution did happen or that God can’t exist.
“Undoubtedly there could be semantic/societal games set in place which would arbitrarily/culturally call certain chemical activities "right" and certain ones "wrong". But this would be precisely moral relativism - nothing more, nothing less.
Well let's pretend for the sake of argument that you actually understand and apprecaite all that I'm advocating...if you want to call that "moral relativism", that's fine. Its just a term, but you haven't proven that my moral philosophy is missing anything it actually needs. At the end of the day there are atheists that are as moral as any theist, are successful and happy with their lives and know exactly why they do everything they do...without contradiction. Label it whatever your dubious belief system requires it to labeled.
"You may have already read the discussion at (http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/537648500/item.html), but if not, it delves further into some of these points.”
I’ve owned AFTR over and over again. He never admits to even the most obvious of errors even if the Bible contradicts him directly. "He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."
“What I am arguing is that without God, 'morality' is arbitrary.”
Well morality is just a game you play with a bigger mind instead of a game you play with lesser minds. The basic rules are pretty much the same. I’m arguing that with or without God, morality is as objective (or conversely as subjective). One simply has to replace the absolute of God with the absolute of a conceptual ideal. We all have the same operating system and therefore the same beneficial treatment of that system can be objectively discerned independently. Not everyone gets it right, but that doesn’t mean we can’t facilitate conversations that work towards that end. There is no foundational logic behind one having to be trapped in such an extreme coercive situation (between heaven and hell) for morality to have an appropriate amount of merit in life.
ARU
[Non-theistic morality is as objective and as relative as anything theism has to offer.]
But if God does exist, then it is not as absolute, since if He was the one who made the decision to create us, then He also has the right to declare absolute morality.
[And I would agree *in theory*…however this god could be superior to us in many ways…but that doesn’t make him a good god…there may be other gods that are more moral.]
I agree, but He may also be good and the only God that exists. All truths cannot always be proven. We have put a man on the moon, but if you would have told someone 1000 years ago that we could do that, you couldn't have proved it. There are some truths that we cannot prove right now but will be able to do so in the future.
[If we totally surrender critical thought in terms of the content of that god’s supposed actions…that’s just not right. Checks and balances are virtuous for a reason. It makes sense to criticize because we should have nothing to fear from honest inquiry.]
That does not operate under the premise I am speaking of. Just because you mock it and say it's not true, doesn't necessarily make it so. Honest inquiry is not the same as accusing God of sinning under the premise that He is righteous and we are not as wise as He is.
[We should approach the issue as honestly as we can from all sides and let the evidence convince us of the propositions it purports without any special pleading or apologetic loopholes.]
Just because you call it an apologetic loophole because it doesn't satisfy your own reasoning, doesn't make it any less valid.
[A good god would commend us for this just as we would commend our children for holding us to our own standards and being critical of our parenting as that should be part of their development…]
You can't compare our finite understanding of standards to what God does, under my premise. We cannot understand God's ways. I know you don't like to hear that, but that's the way it is.
[now it may turn out that they are mistaken, but if all of the evidence they confront points to our parenting being evil…]
It's not all the evidence. It's evidence in certain areas where you are relying on being as wise as God. Have you ever heard the saying - "Things aren't always as they appear to be"?
[it is down right shameful to drop a “because I said so” answer on them continually no matter how mature they are without any indication there actually is a good reason for the evidence they have.]
Christians do not feel that way. We look at all the good things in life that give us pleasure and attribute the ability that we have to experience happiness, to God. You can mock and say we're blind etc, - but that is the way we have chosen to live our lives.
“He's saying that the man knew, not that it was true. He was using the man's ignorance against him, and in the next verse (27) tells him what he should have done if he knew that. It would be like me saying that I know that you are a hypocryte. Just because I say that I know it, doesn't make it true.”
[No, if he said, “So you thought that I do such and such?” then your argument works…]
It doesn't have to be worded like that. It says that "The man" said that he knew God is a hard man. God gives further revelation on this in Romans 11:22, where He shows that He is not hard to every one as the man implies, but is hard towards some and good towards others.
[as is, the master confirms it as though he himself believes it and in no way denies it…and other parables of Jesus that talk about the different soils the seed of the Kingdom of God fall on demonstrates pretty much the same point…that God isn’t really working the soil. He’s just throwing his message anywhere apathetically.]
It always amazes me how atheists are bible scholars and have the correct interpretation.
[Okay, your logical relativism isn’t going to get very far. Logic is logic for all of us.]
Your logic doesn't necessarily correlate to truth.
[Your constant argument to me is “there may be something you don’t know.” Well if you doubt evolution, “there may be something you don’t know.” ]
True on both accounts.
[God supposedly doing one act in history that you can freely associate with your situation or not…does not really equal, “God loves us.”]
I sure believe that it does. Especially when I will have eternal life. He wouldn't have suffered that if He didn't love us. And you are not able to know the extent of what He suffered. The bible says that He was slain from the foundation of the world. Can I explain it? No, but it shows that the crucifixion of Jesus has eternal ramifications.
[but I don’t think you should deny the “theism runs people over unsympathetically” demographic either.]
I don't deny that people like yourself claim to have had very bad experiences with theism.
[and to this end surely their opinions (the church Fathers) should count for something in terms of understanding what the Bible meant to say if you think God actually communicates accurately to anyone.]
Yes they count, but I don't accept everything that they say as authoritive as the canon, and where their writings contradict the canon or add new things that the God didn't feel should be put in the canon, then I will side with what the canon says over their writings. The Roman Catholics were not the only Christians during that time. There were other Christians that didn't agree with their teachings such as infant baptism, and millions of them were killed by the Catholics for either not baptizing their infants or for re-baptizing themselves. If you're interested, you can read about this in a book called - The Trail Of Blood by J.M. Carroll.
[If we did away with the “cruel and unusual” clause and made prisoners immortal, and found a way to convict 90% of the population of the United States of everlasting crimes…do you suppose public opinion might change a bit?]
I think a person like Hitler or Manson would still be approved of eternal punishment for the evil that they did. But, I could be wrong. What matters under my premise is what God deems as just punishment.
LSP1,
“God gives further revelation on this in Romans 11:22, where He shows that He is not hard to every one as the man implies, but is hard towards some and good towards others.”
Elsewhere in Romans it says:
16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
Paul’s response is that God can do whatever the hell he wants. I’m not disagreeing that the Bible tries to have it both ways…but that it often has to resort to God is just apathetic and random and that’s just tough.
Other than that, I’ve already made all my points a couple times over. All you are doing is pulling rank with your unsubstantiated propositions no matter the content or power of my arguments to overcome those points. If you aren’t willing to entertain any kind of checks and balances on all available information, we have no further common ground to continue the discussion.
Any religious person can say their religion makes them happy, that they can’t question the ways of their god, and can just knee jerkingly distrust evolution. You are just a happy meta-scammer. Congratulations.
I do thank you though because you seem to actually care about the discussion, but all I would be doing is repeating myself to continue.
ARU
[I do thank you though because you seem to actually care about the discussion, but all I would be doing is repeating myself to continue]
Thanks and you're welcome. I agree. We are at an impasse. I've said what I want to say and I don't have anything more to add. I wish you well in your pursuit of morality in your life.
larry
Keep doing what you're doing, sir.
JT
Thanks JT, this is often a thankless job.
ARU
Just letting you know that I replied back on dark reign's site. Been out of town for a while now; sorry about the wait.
Wow, it keeps growing and growing. I'm loving this post ARU. You might be able to start using it like an online tech support site. Which, if you've encountered some like I have, they just direct you to the appropriate number. "The answer to your question is #31." I'm sure you'll be able to hit 50 questions!
I noticed your discussion with Rusty. I like your approach as it is similar to mine. However, you claim to approach every situation basically "re-inventing the wheel." Is that accurate and practical? I mean, that is how we develop our morality, but certainly after say 20 years of going through the repetition you begin to develop your own standards (piece-wise from many ethical philosophies no doubt). But do you just drop all that every encounter to analyze from scratch? That would border on complete impracticality to I would think it nonsense (for every ethical event we analyze anyway). No?
But I do agree we can easily take from many philosophies. I've come to find the philosophies I've developed (or used through practice) are largely virtue ethics (which are largely underrepresented and misunderstood), but this does not remove where it agrees with duty ethics or utilitarian ethics. Each doctrine alone might fail to address, or even apply to certain situations (for if I have one moral principle I have a duty to, and it says nothing about the event I'm involved it, I can't use duty ethics! Some people fail to realize that, and I don't know why). Like you, though, I do try to simply approach it from a practical and logical framework. I can also use different ethics in evaluating something and come to a similar or same conclusion (e.g., x is moral by both ethics A and B).
Rusty claims that we should follow one doctrine, basically "if it works." (which he is a utilitarian last I heard so it is, to him, the only one that does work, but I could be wrong). Well, if there was any one ethical philosophy that held all the answers, and with such certainty that we need not consider any other approach, then this philosophy should be brought up in a golden book to be presented to everyone as the teachings on how to live life, for I am pretty certain such a philosophy has not be laid out for us mortals! I jest, but if, for instance, Utilitarianism had all the answers, then it wouldn't have all the criticisms and inconsistencies that an introductory philosophy class would discuss on. It takes more than appealing to one doctrine, but the way of thinking itself and making rational appeals where they apply (for if, say, utilitarianism were inconsistent in this one moment of evaluation, then we would be forced to appeal to something else, or some other philosophy, to maintain rationality and consistency or soundness).
Anyway, awesome post.
DWoV,
“Wow, it keeps growing and growing. I'm loving this post ARU.”
Me, too.
“You might be able to start using it like an online tech support site. Which, if you've encountered some like I have, they just direct you to the appropriate number. "The answer to your question is #31." I'm sure you'll be able to hit 50 questions!”
By all means, link directly to answers.
“I noticed your discussion with Rusty. I like your approach as it is similar to mine. However, you claim to approach every situation basically "re-inventing the wheel." Is that accurate and practical?”
For me it is. It would actually be more trouble to take things for granted.
“I mean, that is how we develop our morality, but certainly after say 20 years of going through the repetition you begin to develop your own standards (piece-wise from many ethical philosophies no doubt).”
I’ve only been at this for a couple years…so perhaps I’ll settle in time…but no promises. I like the edge and I appreciate people that set their stack of epistemology on the table from the ground up every time. I think that’s just what the doctor ordered in this eclectic age.
“But do you just drop all that every encounter to analyze from scratch? That would border on complete impracticality to I would think it nonsense (for every ethical event we analyze anyway). No?”
For other people, I imagine so…but I enjoy it.
“But I do agree we can easily take from many philosophies. I've come to find the philosophies I've developed (or used through practice) are largely virtue ethics (which are largely underrepresented and misunderstood), but this does not remove where it agrees with duty ethics or utilitarian ethics.”
In my world, there’s no reason it isn’t virtuous to do your duties and in regards to what is best for most…or how doing your duty necessitates cultivating virtue and doing what is best for most…or how what is doing best for most doesn’t dovetail into cultivating virtue and doing your duty. All these are interrelated and when that balance is worked out…it’s simply a meta-theory of ethics. No matter where you start you should end up in the same place. And each start has a parsimonious advantage depending on the particular question being addressed. Honestly, who would want to go without each of these? Doing duties at the expense of virtue or the greater good? Contributing to the greater good at the expense of virtue and duty (just what would these duties be anyway if they cost people?)? Being virtuous somehow at the expense of duty and the greater good (sounds selfish and irresponsible…and how can that be virtuous)? And why wouldn’t a good god command us to do our duties, cultivate virtue, and work towards the greater good? But perhaps when we think of what God wants…we forget virtue…or we forget how we could best benefit other people…or we forget our duty…or any of these…they all serve as a checks and balances and make moral judgments that much more secure.
“Each doctrine alone might fail to address, or even apply to certain situations (for if I have one moral principle I have a duty to, and it says nothing about the event I'm involved it, I can't use duty ethics! Some people fail to realize that, and I don't know why). Like you, though, I do try to simply approach it from a practical and logical framework. I can also use different ethics in evaluating something and come to a similar or same conclusion (e.g., x is moral by both ethics A and B).”
I would certainly hope so.
“Rusty claims that we should follow one doctrine, basically "if it works." (which he is a utilitarian last I heard so it is, to him, the only one that does work, but I could be wrong).”
And maybe that is good…as things can get complicated. Not everyone is prolific at mental multi-tasking.
“Well, if there was any one ethical philosophy that held all the answers, and with such certainty that we need not consider any other approach, then this philosophy should be brought up in a golden book to be presented to everyone as the teachings on how to live life, for I am pretty certain such a philosophy has not be laid out for us mortals!”
I think that’s a definite mark against the Bible…it really isn’t a moral manual…it’s not a rigorously defensible moral grid to follow…it’s just a mish mash of stunted and sporadic culturally laden crap…way obtuse on things that don’t matter…and way short on the things that do…and it all gets strung together in various ways by different kinds of theologians.
“I jest, but if, for instance, Utilitarianism had all the answers, then it wouldn't have all the criticisms and inconsistencies that an introductory philosophy class would discuss on. It takes more than appealing to one doctrine, but the way of thinking itself and making rational appeals where they apply (for if, say, utilitarianism were inconsistent in this one moment of evaluation, then we would be forced to appeal to something else, or some other philosophy, to maintain rationality and consistency or soundness).”
I think I can defend Utilitarianism in its fullness across the board…and I have done so a bit on JB_Defensor’s essaydebate site (the debate on abortion). But it’s not my primary ethical philosophy nonetheless…its just people try to discredit it in dubious ways all the while buying into something worse.
“Anyway, awesome post.”
Thank you.
ARU
I think I can defend Utilitarianism in its fullness across the board
So you're saying utilitarianism has no moral conflicts (allows what might otherwise be an injustice, as being just), or produces no inconsistencies?
And maybe that is good…as things can get complicated. Not everyone is prolific at mental multi-tasking.
So is that like saying if they lack the ability to "mental multi-task", they should stick to what is convenient, or some convenient doctrine?
For me it is. It would actually be more trouble to take things for granted.
That assumes it is simply "taking it for granted." Basic inductive logic, if I encounter some events E(1), E(2), E(3), ..., E(n-1), and they all had similar circumstances, etc. Plus, my calculated reaction and ethical understanding were all the same or similar, it follows logically we can assume that when E(n) comes around, there is a high likelihood (as in science) that our habitual reaction (for the other events) will be effective and not taken for granted.
This is not to say that inductive reasoning can easily fail at that moment the event counters our conventional reasoning and we have to reassess. However, I don't think that warrants a requirement to drop everything and build from scratch. Instead, and I'm all for efficiency, we can simply reform and adjust our conventional reasoning to accommodate the new data. This is essentially how science operates. In general, your claim to "start fresh" is basically like saying we should reinvent our scientific knowledge for every problem, and that is what I was getting at with it being crazy to do such.
You mention the balance between the theories, to form a meta-theory that should be arrived at. I pretty much agree, but most doctrines as presented tend to say "this is the answer to the problem" instead of just being a tool to arrive at, in conjunction with others, the right (ethical) solution. The thing about virtue theory is that it doesn't formulate one single answer, since it appeals to virtuous characters who may very well disagree. Deontological is set on principles that are (generally) singular and unique (though I'm sure one could formulate principles that mesh with other principles to form a set of possible principles or solutions to appeal to). Utilitarianism presents the answer as being the one on top of a stack of possibilities where if we take the top option, we satisfy the most, and less so as we go down, and essentially we should be going with the top one. Each of them either point to a singular or a set of possibilities (while virtue theory presents the possible characteristics one should take in approaching the problem to find their answer). Do we find the value that fits amongst them all? Or are we deriving a new theory that stands above somehow?
DWoV,
“So you're saying utilitarianism has no moral conflicts (allows what might otherwise be an injustice, as being just), or produces no inconsistencies?”
Correct…at least, my version of it.
“So is that like saying if they lack the ability to "mental multi-task", they should stick to what is convenient, or some convenient doctrine?”
They should stick with what is simple. Life isn’t about perfect moral theory…it’s about getting through it. Not everyone has to be a master. Morality is for man, man is not for morality.
“Instead, and I'm all for efficiency, we can simply reform and adjust our conventional reasoning to accommodate the new data. This is essentially how science operates. In general, your claim to "start fresh" is basically like saying we should reinvent our scientific knowledge for every problem, and that is what I was getting at with it being crazy to do such.”
“Re-inventing the wheel” is just a metaphor for keeping in touch with your knowledge base. For instance if Nature and Nova constantly spelled out the case for the antiquity of the earth and why we know our just so stories about evolution are probably true…we’d probably have a much less pervasive creationist problem. But they don’t. They just take their firm scientific consensus for granted. And… “starting from scratch” allows to pick up on nuances that perhaps you’d miss if you just assume the situation is the same as before. Granted this may only afford a slight advantage, but if you are looking to crank it up a notch…it can work better.
“You mention the balance between the theories, to form a meta-theory that should be arrived at. I pretty much agree, but most doctrines as presented tend to say "this is the answer to the problem" instead of just being a tool to arrive at, in conjunction with others, the right (ethical) solution.”
Forgive me for not taking everything everyone says too seriously.
“Do we find the value that fits amongst them all? Or are we deriving a new theory that stands above somehow?”
Well I’m sure various key proponents of different ethical theories do have to logically come to different conclusions based on their givens...and I’m not going to apologize for them. However the core of each philosophy can simply be lifted from its exclusivist trappings and applied to a meta-theory that is a true holistic appraisal of human ethics. I'd hope they'd appreciate the intellectual charity.
It’s like the zillions of philosophical movements that are predominately just reactionism to the local givens of their day. And to an extent they are justified, but they are too overzealous for the centrality of their position and lack oversight. If it’s not the end all be all of everything…somehow they wouldn’t embrace it…and that’s just immature. It is a common trend to not be able to sit well with limited justification and it is too easy to extrapolate to the ends of the earth for the sake of emotional convenience at the expense of logical coherence and the ability to change gears administrativily (on purpose, expectedly) when the job is done (instead of "growing out of it" and entirely disowning a previously held philosophy in hindsight).
ARU
I just wanted to touch on a few things about God you mentioned.
God is love.
And God is just.
In God's justice, he does things that we dont concieve as loving.
In his justice, there is just anger. (example: Soddom and Gamorah, cursing the temple)
Sometimes we don't understand how his loving nature and his justice, which manifests in just anger, can coexist.
But they do coexist because we know both to be true.
I struggle with understanding the duel nature as well.
But as with the nature versus nurture, biology versus environment, predestination versus free will, all of these arguments I believe we will get to the jusgement throne and say to God "Which one is it?"
And he will answer "Yes."
Because it is both.
-X0
Correct…at least, my version of it.
and what is your version of utilitarianism, might I ask? In any short summary that does away with common "myths" as you might have them be (for I'm sure you have heard many of the criticisms brought upon the theory)
They should stick with what is simple. Life isn’t about perfect moral theory…it’s about getting through it. Not everyone has to be a master. Morality is for man, man is not for morality.
Who is "they" exactly? Those who cannot as fluent in moral theory as say, you and I? Is that not like saying someone who is not good in math should stick to arithmetic and basic algebra? Sure, it is a select few who are willing to struggle or have an ability born and nurtured in them that because mathematicians, or great mathematicians, but everyday folk, even those who despise math, still benefit from learning it and not simply sticking with what is simple. Is morality to be treated any different?
Granted this may only afford a slight advantage, but if you are looking to crank it up a notch…it can work better.
Don't get me wrong, starting from scratch or building up is required to "crank it up a notch" as you say. In my science analogy, that does happen, along side adjusting and critiquing of already preferred theories and thoughts. I mean, what we know of science is good, and it adapts, but we do re-invent or discovery new things to completely give it a new look (QM, Standard Theory, String Theory), but you speak of doing this for every instance. I can understand a continual process of it, but along side some already understood "principles" we formulate through our inductive reasoning I mentioned before, because it is only taking it for granted if such beliefs are stagnant, and that would not be suggested.
I would not take your claim about creationism as evident of this stagnation though. Maybe in popular media it is presented as taken for granted, but that is because if one is to learn the deeper aspects of the subject, it requires a much larger knowledge base to be known (such as years of biology study). The problem of creationism stems more from a lack of scientific understanding or way of thinking, because they're not even on the same pole, let alone care about its foundation!
Xobother,
I don't know who you are talking to, because I haven't made any of those arguments. The only thing close to what I've said is perhaps, that justice ceases to be justice when the punishment is disproportional to the crime. And when there is eternal punishment for finite crimes, that is unjust. No appeal to mercy or love is necessary as it is enough to say it simply is no longer justice, but instead sadism. It doesn't matter what else it isn't. You can attempt to pull rank with God's "infinite wisdom" all you want, but it isn't rocket science to note there is no salvaging the ethics of the doctrine of hell when people that could be only so bad are in fact being punished forever...no amount of external context could possibly change that core violation of common sense.
ARU
Looks like I spoke a moment to soon...
DWoV,
“and what is your version of utilitarianism, might I ask? In any short summary that does away with common "myths" as you might have them be (for I'm sure you have heard many of the criticisms brought upon the theory)”
Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility in making the world a better place for everyone in terms of holistic happiness for sentient beings. The mark here for happiness is of course a conceptual ideal that transcends sociopaths and people that can’t get passed short-term pleasures (to their own destruction) and refers to a general continuum of higher end edification. And of course…you can only do the best you can with what you got…thus you don’t have to be omniscient to utilize utilitarianism…though knowing as much as you can about a given situation is obviously also part of the deal. Obviously it comes down to what can one justify given the lack of information that may or may not be available at a given time when a decision must be made. Obviously utilitarianism is a guide and not a means of post hoc rationalization in the event an action meant to cause harm incidentally contributes to the greater good…that has nothing to do with utilitarianism. All sorts of ridiculous fantasies have to be invented to try to find some kind of loop hole in the ethics of utility. One could dismiss 99% of them simply because they can’t happen. Others are then narrow-minded utility arguments…which is contrary to the prime directive…to not be narrow-minded. Sacrificing one person for the marginal gain of many is A. fantasy and B. narrow-minded. For the expected marginal gain is cancelled out by the general guilt felt for that ill-gotten gain. And only in the “cheater’s paradise” mode can we expect to ever get away with hiding facts of the matter forever and thus it is always best in the real world that can’t be absolutely controlled to avoid cheating the system for what is almost always mere short term gain. And once we have absolute power…we’ll be absolutely corrupt like god anyway so why bother about morality we won’t care about? I’m actually assuming that most mature utilitarians understand most of this. I think my only contribution is really in what my definition of happiness actually entails.
“Who is "they" exactly? Those who cannot as fluent in moral theory as say, you and I? Is that not like saying someone who is not good in math should stick to arithmetic and basic algebra?”
Anyone that isn’t proficient in philosophical thought…thanks and no thanks to genetic drift. Not everyone has to have a physical theory of everything to be prosperous in life…they don’t have to know calculus…they should stick with what they do need to know. Though there are of course benefits to going much further, they are not for everyone.
“Sure, it is a select few who are willing to struggle or have an ability born and nurtured in them that because mathematicians, or great mathematicians, but everyday folk, even those who despise math, still benefit from learning it and not simply sticking with what is simple. Is morality to be treated any different?”
But somehow “not having to be perfect” translated into “not having to even be remotely good at it at all.” And that’s the error. Getting a 90% on the morality scale surely is success…but getting 99% has even greater advantages, no? And once we get the gist of the idea there is no reason to think I mean we are to be the epitome of evil in that other 10% or 1%...I’m only speaking of the beneficial efficiently of a moral judgment. .
“but you speak of doing this for every instance.”
Every instance of relative complication… One doesn’t have to write a philosophy book every time you need to let the dog out to go to the bathroom…though sometimes I do out of shear habit and boredom. Not everyone has to be like this and there is no need for them to be like this and in all likelihood very few people could even be like this even if they wanted to…though the world might be a better place if people in general were a bit more like this. I’ve taken the time to understand why I do absolutely everything I do and rigorously justifying that accordingly with everything I know. There’s very little to nothing I know of that goes on in me that I don’t understand. Every time I am tempted to say, “I don’t know why I did that…or thought that…or felt that…etc.,” I’m lying…or it’s just a prelude to figuring it out on second thought. And of course there’s a practical addendum to each such exhaustive thought…being able to drop it when necessary and function in normal mode. It’s only a problem when it’s a problem. Whatever problem this may seem to come to…I assure you, I’ve solved it. Everything is constrained through the grind of practicality and common sense…to where the entire intellectual construct is as light as a feather. One is not transmorgraphied into Robbie the robot merely by applying critical thought to everything. There are simple rules and guidelines to maintain personhood and spontaneity along side rigorous definitions of everything.
“I would not take your claim about creationism as evident of this stagnation though. Maybe in popular media it is presented as taken for granted, but that is because if one is to learn the deeper aspects of the subject, it requires a much larger knowledge base to be known (such as years of biology study). The problem of creationism stems more from a lack of scientific understanding or way of thinking, because they're not even on the same pole, let alone care about its foundation!”
If we truly want to solve our cultural management problem, we will hit the topic everywhere from the ground up…”just trust us” isn’t going to cut it. It is a failure to educate if you always have to appeal to years of study to be able to know evolution is true. Creationism will take every advantage of that and we fuel their fire by mass appeals to authority and by telling theory upon theory upon theory completely disassociated from the base. The scientific establishment can cry all they want about that not being fair, but that’s how it is. If you don’t attack the problem where it is and how it is no matter how outside the box it is (or how uncomfortable it makes you), the problem doesn’t get solved. I am an advocate of teaching both creation and evolution in our schools in our culture…for a decade. All this means to me is addressing the basic claims of creationism seriously in a set learning context and structuring the lecture on evolution in a polemical way as to trump anything creationist propaganda can churn out. We don’t have to teach it as though it’s really a competitive theory, but given our culture I think it is irresponsible to not tackle it in school…it gives too much room for the Creationist movement to frolic in.
I want unending public debates until the polls change. I want completely transparent oversight on the epistemology of evolution in every forum as though we do have to prove it to people. People have to relentlessly know why we know what we know on this topic or it will not end. And I expect this to happen entirely in the open with no pretension whatsoever…state it like that. “We have a cultural management problem. The scientific community firmly believes in the reliability of evolutionary theory to explain the data better than any other. All we are doing is making that as perfectly obvious as we can until public trust has been entirely regained. That is our job.” As long as the appearance of the clash is between the supreme authority of god versus the even lesser qualified “worldly knowledge” of men, and not the actual facts of the matter…it will not end.
It is the job of the scientific community to put this down and not belay to fallacious methodologies of the arrogant (like trying not to give them mystical credibility by not addressing the problem) that fail to get the job done. You oppose an underdog movement by giving it a public forum so that the truth may destroy it for all to see. You don’t ignore it and pretend it’ll go away…that is its *sustenance*… all the while you think you’ve accomplished something…but all you’ve really done is combated the emotionalism of credulity with the emotionalism of confidence…and side-stepped what is clearly most important…transparent epistemology…and such breeds endless mistrust when the facts and logic aren’t being hit up on a routine basis. If the scientific community is so confident in their understanding of the world, then they should have nothing to fear from laying all the cards on the table. Obviously you merely have to find the right kind of person to be able to do this for you if you just so happen to not be a qualified debater and/or public speaker.
ARU
ARU,
Are you atheist or agnostic?
Atheist. It says so in my profile and in my FAQ.
ARU
Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility...
Agreed, that's the basic utilitarian premises basically.
...in making the world a better place for everyone in terms of holistic happiness for sentient beings.
I also agree with your claim that this is "[your] only contribution" as your definition is unique to the classic doctrines of Utilitarianism. Your definition is also ambiguous I find in what words and theories one might derive from their connotation i.e., what does it mean to make the world a better place? For the people or the sentient beings (humans -- humanism)? Environmentally (naturalism)? And what is holistic happiness and how does one satisfy it and who actually knows how to satisfy it (holism)? Depending on the specifics, that broad definition can possibly entail a number of other philosophies to substantiate it.
The mark here for happiness is of course a conceptual ideal that transcends sociopaths and people that can’t get passed short-term pleasures (to their own destruction) and refers to a general continuum of higher end edification.
How does this holistic happiness transcend sociopaths? I'm still not sure what holistic happiness would be, as by definition it would essentially be happiness that is not derived by its components but happiness that is more than that. A sociopath cannot have a happiness that is more than those "short-term pleasures" that one might assume others would use as the reduction of one's happiness? And you note to their own destruction. So short-term pleasures that have no conflict with one's being (wont destroy them) are apart of holistic happiness? If that is so, then you claim it aims at "higher end edification" but can there not be short-term pleasures that have no determination or effect on that higher end? Essentially, short-term pleasures that add nothing to the holism (whole)?
thus you don’t have to be omniscient to utilize utilitarianism…though knowing as much as you can about a given situation is obviously also part of the deal.
Of course, information is one of the largest constraints in choice theories because we cannot ever assume an agent has absolute knowledge, but that they are limited, have misinformation and lack transparency in what they are investigating.
All sorts of ridiculous fantasies have to be invented to try to find some kind of loop hole in the ethics of utility. One could dismiss 99% of them simply because they can’t happen ... Sacrificing one person for the marginal gain of many is A. fantasy and B. narrow-minded.
To give an abstract example, you are saying it is purely fiction that the event where one person must be sacrificed so that other's may benefit (live) never occurs? Combat situations have occurred where the options are basically one person dies ad the rest escape, or they all stay and die, or maybe they all stay and live in a POW for some amount of time and possibly die. These are nothing but fantasy? How does utilitarian theory address them? Since Utilitarian theory, by definition, is about deciding which is the most beneficial to the whole and go from there. Whether qualitative or quantitative it should derive a decision that out of the choices {x,y,z} one of them is of the highest utility. How about a person who is under interrogation, torture, to give up a location of a convoy or troops, etc. Should he be tortured to death for the utility of protecting the greater good (depending on one's definition, not specifically yours)? Are these just narrow-minded fantasies that never occur in reality?
or the expected marginal gain is cancelled out by the general guilt felt for that ill-gotten gain.
Is that not really just a gross generalization? I mean, it's not a logical conclusion, that would need data to back it up that whenever the situation is that Group A sacrifices Person B for the marginal utility benefit of Group A, their benefit is equally reduced by Guilt. I mean, graphically that'd be a shift along one's utility curve that gets put back to its previous optimal point (or even some other point) because they felt guilt, yet is there even a way to quantify that to say it is canceled out?
And only in the “cheater’s paradise” mode can we expect to ever get away with hiding facts of the matter forever
So it can never occur with the facts known? That sounds like only through lack of transparency do immoral things occur under utilitarian theory, granted we already presume we have and work off of whatever level of information we are bestowed with. But you are saying within that level we have no problems?
and thus it is always best in the real world that can’t be absolutely controlled to avoid cheating the system for what is almost always mere short term gain.
Almost always? What about when it is not? You were the one that said Utilitarian theory stands up against any conflicts, we can't just do hand waving to remove possible conflicts. That comes off as another generalization, no?
Though there are of course benefits to going much further, they are not for everyone.
But then why are they "for" anyone? Where do we say it is for some and not for others in this quantification? For it is how we can discriminate these two groups that is of significance I find. It is like saying it is okay for some to lack moral vigor or rational thought and concern simply because they weren't gifted with the ability. Yet we can have people who are well off philosophically and not concern themselves with moral thought (just like someone who may have the ability to get great at math may choose to stop at some point they could very easily go much further e.g., Newton did so with leaving everything up to God). We can also have people who aren't very inclined toward something and still do quite well in that area. Just like someone may be predisposed to be athletic and someone not, specifically in maybe running (me being one of them). Yet they can still train and do well and run a marathon in an athletic class (me being one, sub-four hours, gonna try for 3:30 this year). It just sounds like you're saying intellectual ethical thought just isn't for some, but how is it "for" anyone in particular when those who it may not be "for" can very well get into it. Just like I can be a marathoner, but I wont ever be running at the Olympic class, just because it isn't "for" me, doesn't mean I shouldn't excel in it or ever let it be an excuse.
And once we get the gist of the idea there is no reason to think I mean we are to be the epitome of evil in that other 10% or 1%...I’m only speaking of the beneficial efficiently of a moral judgment. .
But you are saying that if someone is at 10% on this morality scale then that is okay, that is where they should be, it is what is "for" them. When is that ever sufficient? That's like saying what Hitler did and think, it was for him, he certainly wasn't going to be the next Ghandi! Well, that doesn't mean he, or anyone, should be fine with where they stand, for if we say this scale is that if someone is higher on it, they are more moral in the sense they don't fall into failure or mistakes in their ethical choices. Lets say the 90% person only mistakes in that 10% left over. Then a person at 5% mistakes 95% otherwise! It doesn't mean they are down right evil (granted, we're assuming some fictitious scale), but the point is that if everyone can work to get 5% more, then there is no excuse to just sit back where they're at. Hell, I'd go further and say there is no reason anyone should be below 20% or something. However, that would require an actual scale we don't have. Instead, I say in general there is no excuse not to "aim high" for if we don't, then we can very well fall into some lower level we have no reason or benefit from being in (actually I think above 50% would be better because then it would mean we make better moral choices more often than we don't).
Every instance of relative complication… One doesn’t have to write a philosophy book every time you need to let the dog out to go to the bathroom
But what is complicated is rarely known before hand. In fact, such an analysis really occurs more on a scale of duration. Acute things we can only rely on quick analysis and benefit from our knowledge base and habit. Only something that we can actually sit back, ponder over minutes, hours, day or weeks can we give the analysis more attention. Sure, some, given weeks, may still not even give it any more attention than a day's worth of contemplation, but in the case of the acute or the distant, we still rely on the same mechanisms for our analysis -- habit, knowledge base, rationality and belief(ethical theories). The more someone practices the analysis, the more their habit increases. The more one learns and improves their habits the more the other's go up as well. It is like training then, that the more we experience this moral contemplation the better we are at it, short or long-term. What makes the complicated task any different than a more acute? Because your claim that "there is no need for them to be like this", I don't agree with. If they have no need to be like that, then whether it is complicated or simple, they will lack proficiency either way. Again, back to athletic analogies, one may not train to run at all, but a couch potato is not going to do well whether running a block or several or a marathon. The trained, may not do well in a marathon, but does better overall. His sliding scale of proficiency is moved toward the better (more athletic in this case) direction.
t is a failure to educate if you always have to appeal to years of study to be able to know evolution is true.
But that is like saying we should be teaching elementary students Calculus, or advanced political theory. You can't just give them everyone in an hour block, so to speak. It is not that culture simply says "you're too stupid to understand so just believe us." It may be taken that way by those who are ignorant, but you can't also just say "here's everything!" or "We're going to talk about this, but let me explain years worth of supportive information and data first...". Granted, our education system in America sucks on the whole, but giving a bottom-up approach to explaining everything to make sure everyone is fully educated also isn't going to work. Some take self-initiative, and other's just take more education outside of the scope of what one is watching or learning. It is no different than reading an article, I can either accept it or not. I can look at the references and learn more through them and see if the article and theory is supported, etc. Yet, in all of that, I find the most important, and what is lacking from the creationist group altogether, is the tool set to do that. It is the foolish who simply pick up something, read it, and accept it because it sounded good, or the author (because the Bible makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside and God wrote it! For instance). It is this tool set they need.
On that note, have you seen the movie/documentary Jesus Camp? There's trailers that show the scene where this kid is being home schooled, and by the mother, who thinks that public schools will only teach the devil's stuff and sits there teaching the kid about global warming and why it's BS, yet she's not a scientist and doesn't appeal to any education, simply what the authors of the creationist books she was using say. The difference between this and real science is not so much "just trust us" but the tool set. This kid is growing up learning BS and just taking it on faith and what sounds good, and not on any kind of intellect and understanding and ability to learn more. A good student is one who can take what they hear or read or learn and expand on it and accurately at that. Which, hell, I've only recently myself fully began to do at any effective rate (getting ready for graduate school where you better be prolific at it!)
I want completely transparent oversight on the epistemology of evolution in every forum as though we do have to prove it to people.
But who is this "we"? Who is proving anything? The transparency is there! ANYONE can learn about evolution. The problem is it is not easy to understand. People have less problem with astro-physics and quantum mechanics, and in large part, because it doesn't offend their religion as much. However, I find those studies far more complicated and complex and harder to understand than evolution (and probably takes a larger curriculum too). Sure, you can learn stuff from popular press, media, etc. You can debate with people on it. You can get in touch with physicists or even teach yourself the stuff and the math involved. However, that requires that tool set I explained above. This is no different with evolution. It is not like the information is hidden or some conspiracy giving the details to the privileged. If someone wants to know it, they have to learn it. Evolution is hard, ask AFTL about that (or his recent post about it)
But you've been involved in these debates I'm sure. You can cram facts and data and resources to learn more and show support and teach evolution to a creationist. Does that make one bit of difference?! Many lack the mental faculties to grasp it. All are pretty much too narrow-minded to accept it. It's like trying to tell someone back in antiquity that the world isn't flat who fully heartedly believes it is (especially if they say God says so). You aren't going to do it. No amount of facts, etc will say otherwise. I say give it time. These people are like people from the Dark Ages. In time, they'll disappear (sure others will come forward in their place ... there's always conflict!)
It is the job of the scientific community to put this down and not belay to fallacious methodologies of the arrogant (like trying not to give them mystical credibility by not addressing the problem) that fail to get the job done.
I don't see the scientific community as making any fallacies. The scientific community just isn't in the business of being public speakers and debaters. This is obviously changing recently, and there are pushes for scientists to be more vocal, not just to the public but to governments, etc. I think what you are addressing here is the visible gap that the scientific community has given itself as it is separated from the general community. Does this give them some kind of "arrogant" or "mystical credibility"? In the eyes of some, yes. But that is no different than someone thinking a computer expert is somehow on a whole other level because he knows everything (and they usually think you know EVERYTHING) about the computers.
The scientific community, as a whole, does know "everything" because that's what they're studying, by and large. Of course we're going to have problems with that as we, the general public, are not apart of that community. However, as I mentioned above, that does not mean we can't learn of it or from it, but such an education requires a tool set many are lacking. The scientific community, as a whole, is made up of the highest of the educated. Those at the bottom failings of our education system completely lack the tool sets to get involved in that (and they have no place there, it's a scientific community for a reason). It also, this community, has direct influence on our lives and that is the greatest issue those who reject them have. They effect our governments, our way of life, our technology and ultimately our culture. The religious see them as a threat, and with good reason.
How are they (scientist) to respond? Is it even the scientific community's "job" to deal with this? I think there needs to be a middle mediator if anything. This is where those who are debaters and public speakers come in. Those, probably from or closely involved with, of the scientific community who can debate and speak publicly to persuade should fill that gap and act as the bridge. However, like I said, the emergence of this group is a new born thing and is growing (just look at the attention Dawkings get, and his following). This is where the battle really rages on. This is where the creationists are aiming their focus. If anything, I think this is good because it acts as almost a DMZ, that gives the scientific community buffer room. The other area of interest is the schools which is a conflict between the creationists and their ilk, and administration or government.
I think this is where that new group of speakers that fill the gap should begin extending their reach because the more they can influence, the more they can dispel and push away the religious hold on our otherwise intellectual and cultured society. In this way, as i said "in time" they will disappear. I don't advocate "do nothing" but I wouldn't say we need all the scientists getting out there learning how to become politicians to improve the image of science or something. Instead, we need a subgroup of sorts created for that, that will have a powerful and extensive reach. This, I believe, is happening and is a natural process. Above all though, it is the "tool set" i mentioned earlier that is missing and failing in our education system. If I were taught to be a student as I am now, then I would have been so much better so long ago. British school systems (at least the Ox-bridge one) was like that. Elitist? Sure, but damn good schooling! There's no reason we cannot have the benefits of a good education for everyone across the board and publicly financed.
“I think I can defend Utilitarianism in its fullness across the board…and I have done so a bit on JB_Defensor’s essaydebate site (the debate on abortion). But it’s not my primary ethical philosophy nonetheless…its just people try to discredit it in dubious ways all the while buying into something worse.”
People try to discredit it because they see no reason it should be called a philosophy in the first place. Sure it’s a good thing to do, like brush your teeth twice a day, or eat healthy, but you still can’t use it for anything very complex in ethics because you can’t know the outcome of anything you do until it’s done. In that sense it is mystical. It’s more of a proverb than anything else, but even then it prescribes no defined course of action other than ambiguous general advice. Of course you can say that about any ethical philosophy if you play with it’s focus enough, Utilitarianism just focus’ on striving for the general good, which is good but you still need some way of thinking that will get you to the good you’re striving for.
ARU, I've a question.
What say you of the proposition that humankind played the predominant role in the development of morality? I believe that evolution plays a role as well, but it seems clear to me that morality is more a social construct than a biological one. I say this because I feel that cognition is required in order for morals to be formulated. A being cannot, I submit, evolve a belief system--at least not entirely. I think that random mutations can generate a propensity to aspire for what we now refer to as a "moral lifestyle," but I don't think that evolution can get there on its own.
I'll repost something that I've written previously since I'm short on time:
"Here’s what I think: Over time, these humans would realize that they can enjoy more protection and a higher standard of living if they were to live together as a group. What is their motivation for doing so? (The survival instinct.) In doing so, they have formed an entity known as a society, and recognize that it is something that is desirable. The society provides the individual with shelter—both psychological and physical—and allows him or her to aspire for greater pleasures in life. This being so, it is in each individual’s interest to protect and support their society. And society is in need of protection, for as you are no doubt aware, humans are highly prone to engage in self-advantageous behavior at the expense of others. If such activities were socially permissible, the society would crumble into anarchy once more. Thus, rules are set out by these humans to control the instinctual and socially-threatening desires of the population. These rules are very likely to the tune of “Do not kill a fellow member of the tribe,” “Do not steal that which does not belong to you,” “Do not have sex with another man’s woman against his will,” etc. Those that broke these rules would be punished in some manner by society as a whole. This is the beginning of morality."
I feel that the creation and recreation of human minds via reproduction is only a fraction of the morality story; morals, rather, seem to be much better explained by what those human minds do while they are active and how they interact with other human minds. But more on this later; now I must fly!
DWoV,
“I also agree with your claim that this is "[your] only contribution" as your definition is unique to the classic doctrines of Utilitarianism. Your definition is also ambiguous I find in what words and theories one might derive from their connotation i.e.,what does it mean to make the world a better place?”
I didn’t realize you wanted me to write an entire book justifying my definition of “better place.” No matter how much I write, something is going to be ambiguous. One has to be allowed to not define absolutely everything up front. I don’t actually have a hard definition of utopia, but rather I know what ingredients utopia ought to be made of or rather put into the recipe for the future…and whatever cake that bakes is the “better place.” Progressive oversight comes with peeks of progress, naturally.
“For the people or the sentient beings (humans -- humanism)?”
I said sentient…I didn’t say humans and humanism because perhaps there will be non-human sentient beings…like aliens or AI…and maybe some animals. Though if we are just talking practically, then yes, humanism: love for yourself and your fellow humanity. Why not sentientism? Love of sentience…really all I mean is anything capable of intelligibly running the emotional system, because by definition those are the only things we can apply morality to…everything else is amoral. And this trickles down proportionally to many mammals as well. Granted these aren’t priorities because they don’t know what is going on to the extent a human would and there is less cost to deprioritizing them, but I don’t see why a future utopia wouldn’t have a place for everything and everything in its place. We should extend our benevolent rule as far as makes sense to go to the extent we can. We respect things like our system because that is what our system does…it’s circular but there’s no other intelligible way to define it. We don’t feel empathy for rocks…but we do for dogs because of how they are and how they respond. They are more system compatible. And when we can, we should withdrawal from harming any animals for any reason…like growing animal muscle tissue apart from the animal and harvesting our happy meals in that way…that bypasses the system. But one step at a time. The more we respect all facets of our emotional continuum the better off everyone will be.
“Environmentally (naturalism)?”
For instance…global warming. Regardless of whether global warming is significantly caused by human activities…I think is irrelevant. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that we aren’t doing the earth any favors and that we can and should take baby steps (because that’s all we can manage anyway) to becoming fully environmentally compatible regardless of alarmism. We should work toward making industries and all facets of life ecologically sound so that we can continue indefinitely just like the natural world. This extends well beyond merely green energy, but in terms of an inventory of all our products…and making sure everything has a place to go. The natural world gets its energy directly from the sun via plants…we should too…the natural world biodegrades and has a natural means of recycling everything back into the system without costing the environment…all our industrial products should as well. We should mimic sound ecosystems that maximize efficiency and get completely reused. Sort of like the stereotypical Native Americans that used all the parts of the buffalo for something…but as a technological and industrial age version of it. That should be our goal for like 500 years from now and every generation can do their small part to get there…and if we do this voluntarily we won’t have to even concern ourselves with global warming-esque scares. If the ball gets rolling in a holistic sense I can’t imagine anyone not pitching in as no one wants to see waste and recklessness…but they also don’t want to devote their entire lives to it…which is sensible…they only have one and they themselves did not cause the problem. However if the infrastructure is set up by environmental pioneers in entirely sensible ways that make moderate contributions to the overall cause simple…everyone benefits and everything gets better. Being at peace with your environment is obviously an inherited trait…and if we don’t honor that, there will be problems that can’t be solved.
“And what is holistic happiness and how does one satisfy it and who actually knows how to satisfy it (holism)?”
It points to a general category apart from mere short term gain…things that create stable emotional depth. One can simply brain storm all the things that bother you…and 10 other people can do the same…and there will be commonalities. Finding and implementing strong principles that serve those ends merely takes careful thought and organization. You can do this on a personal level as well. Christians for instance would add in some kind of spiritual happiness and I would agree. But unfortunately this has to be budgeted in regards to other needs…like epistemic accountability…knowing that what you are actually dealing with is real. Meta-scams have great strength in some areas, but are entirely weak in other important areas. And delusion creates imbalance and imbalance is itself a problem meta-scams cannot address since they are not fully accountable in all the ways they should be. Thus only generic “spiritual” needs can be satisfied. Being centered and “one” with it all through meditation…is a great means of emotional efficiency when you don’t have all sorts of contradictory emotional compartments that drag on the overall system.
Obviously solving all problems completely is the goal.
And this takes massive amounts of time if you want to do it all correctly and not jury rig it for the short term…and discerning between which are real problems and which are contrived…where the fundamental problems are…and the priority of which should be addressed first…and what measure should be taken on. And thus only a measure of holistic happiness can be attained by someone who isn’t already living in heaven. And you have to settle for your piece of the pie. But knowing you’ve done your share for the future obviously translates well into the “for the children” category. But not losing your individuality to do it satisfies the balance of egoism. Average people may have a limited sense of what I’m saying here, but if you “get it” it should be no stretch of the imagination that if all I advocate were a reality (a finished earthly product), it would be a hell of a lot easier to be happy. The problems of the world drag on everyone to some extent.
I’d have to make an exhaustive list of all the things that need to be in order for personal happiness, but having the external world in that order already makes that process simpler just like someone from a bad family can find happiness…but it is more difficult than someone that came out of a loving family. Normally having a stable family life, respectable and functional close personal relationships and the ability to entertain healthy new relationships…one needs to feel like they have a legitimate place in the world, that they are important, that what they do matters to others, etc. The whole picture of their life needs some kind of cohesion and completeness and connect effortlessly with everyone else…ideally.
“Depending on the specifics, that broad definition can possibly entail a number of other philosophies to substantiate it.”
There is only one philosophy and it’s not utilitarianism. However there’s no reason the road map of utilitarianism can’t be your guide to all of it…just like virtue ethics can be as well.
“How does this holistic happiness transcend sociopaths?”
Sociopaths are the dysfunctional sort…so I needed to clarify that not everyone’s demented version of innate zeal is what I was talking about. In other words, I point to a conceptual statistical ideal that entails all the parts of the brain to be in working order when deciding what direction to point our flag ship at. Obviously however everyone is different…so while we hold this ideal in one hand we hold the particular case in the other and we negotiate towards what we can get between the two. But you have to have a working model of generic ideal human happiness (based on the healthiest mind) in order to have a starting place for understanding people that might not fit that mold exactly. So of course this entails having a good idea of what constitutes human happiness in the generic sense and learning all the particularities of the people around you so that you have a complete model or goal to shoot for.
“I'm still not sure what holistic happiness would be, as by definition it would essentially be happiness that is not derived by its components but happiness that is more than that.”
I mean it in the fullest sense possible across the board. For instance if someone complains, “well that would make me happy in that way…but…” well that’s not what I’m talking about then. I’m talking about what would make you completely happy…a balanced and stable individual on all levels to whatever depth you can fathom. Not that anyone can necessarily attain this realistically, but why shouldn’t it be the continuing goal until death? Of course this gets a few addendums for the sake of practicality, but the main component ought to be there for the sake of intelligibility.
“A sociopath cannot have a happiness that is more than those "short-term pleasures" that one might assume others would use as the reduction of one's happiness? And you note to their own destruction. So short-term pleasures that have no conflict with one's being (wont destroy them) are apart of holistic happiness? If that is so, then you claim it aims at "higher end edification" but can there not be short-term pleasures that have no determination or effect on that higher end? Essentially, short-term pleasures that add nothing to the holism (whole)?”
Sure a balance of both. It’s just normally when someone tries to criticize utility in terms of the goal of happiness they immediately try to run it aground with short term happiness…and that isn’t the extent that utility means.
“To give an abstract example, you are saying it is purely fiction that the event where one person must be sacrificed so that other's may benefit (live) never occurs? Combat situations have occurred where the options are basically one person dies ad the rest escape, or they all stay and die, or maybe they all stay and live in a POW for some amount of time and possibly die. These are nothing but fantasy?”
Um…that’s not an example of that…that’s the gaining of their lives…not just a slight chuckle or something. It would be like justifying exterminating an innocent person on cable TV because people like gore…and therefore the mild entertainment so many people experience outweighs the loss of that individual…but of course this doesn’t happen because most people will feel guilty about it. So it’s just a contrived example to discredit an obviously sound moral tautology.
“How does utilitarian theory address them? Since Utilitarian theory, by definition, is about deciding which is the most beneficial to the whole and go from there. Whether qualitative or quantitative it should derive a decision that out of the choices {x,y,z} one of them is of the highest utility. How about a person who is under interrogation, torture, to give up a location of a convoy or troops, etc. Should he be tortured to death for the utility of protecting the greater good (depending on one's definition, not specifically yours)? Are these just narrow-minded fantasies that never occur in reality?”
Again, you are bringing up scenarios where there isn’t just mild gain at the expense of one person. Of course it is difficult to decide when such a thing is actually warranted and it probably shouldn’t be our first choice, but I wouldn’t rule it out by default either.
“Is that not really just a gross generalization? I mean, it's not a logical conclusion, that would need data to back it up that whenever the situation is that Group A sacrifices Person B for the marginal utility benefit of Group A, their benefit is equally reduced by Guilt. I mean, graphically that'd be a shift along one's utility curve that gets put back to its previous optimal point (or even some other point) because they felt guilt, yet is there even a way to quantify that to say it is canceled out?”
Well until we actually have guilt-o-meters we are going to have to go with our best inferences on the matter. And common sense says that most people aren’t going to feel good about collateral damage for trivial gain…no matter how many people gain it trivially.
“And only in the “cheater’s paradise” mode can we expect to ever get away with hiding facts of the matter forever”
“So it can never occur with the facts known?”
No, I just mean such things are few and far between to the extent it is almost always best to assume you are in error if you really do have a perfect cheating corridor…you could always be mistaken in your assessment or things could always change unexpectedly and since this happens rarely as it is, that window of opportunity that statistically ought to be there…isn’t worth looking for. One needs to live their life for the other 99.9% of the time where such a thing isn’t profitable.
“That sounds like only through lack of transparency do immoral things occur under utilitarian theory, granted we already presume we have and work off of whatever level of information we are bestowed with. But you are saying within that level we have no problems?”
Utilitarianism, to my knowledge doesn’t guarantee there will be no problems in life…you may very well be mistaken in your effort to understand the situation and in fact act wrongly…but that’s life. People make mistakes. It certainly shouldn’t disqualify utility any more than it should disqualify any other moral philosophy. It’s a guide, not a guarantee. Just like the scientific method is the best method for acquiring truth about reality, it’s still not perfect and free from error…but it is still the best.
“Almost always? What about when it is not? You were the one that said Utilitarian theory stands up against any conflicts, we can't just do hand waving to remove possible conflicts. That comes off as another generalization, no?”
Perhaps I should clarify; it stands up to any conflicts as well as any other moral philosophy does. There are even versions of theism (in Islam for example) that don’t even think God cares when you can totally get away with something. They think you are clever…not immoral. If there truly are no ill consequences to anyone to doing something supposedly immoral…haven’t’ you lost touch with what makes something immoral in the first place? And if there are only not ill consequences to you…one might remind you that that really can’t be entirely true…suspending your empathy for the plight of others is not beneficial to you and inevitably has negative reciprocal effects in your own system.
“But then why are they "for" anyone? Where do we say it is for some and not for others in this quantification? For it is how we can discriminate these two groups that is of significance I find. It is like saying it is okay for some to lack moral vigor or rational thought and concern simply because they weren't gifted with the ability.”
What do you recommend then for people that just aren’t capable? Perhaps we should torture them for not winning the genetic lottery? Or can we just cut them some slack?
“Yet we can have people who are well off philosophically and not concern themselves with moral thought (just like someone who may have the ability to get great at math may choose to stop at some point they could very easily go much further e.g., Newton did so with leaving everything up to God). We can also have people who aren't very inclined toward something and still do quite well in that area. Just like someone may be predisposed to be athletic and someone not, specifically in maybe running (me being one of them). Yet they can still train and do well and run a marathon in an athletic class (me being one, sub-four hours, gonna try for 3:30 this year). It just sounds like you're saying intellectual ethical thought just isn't for some, but how is it "for" anyone in particular when those who it may not be "for" can very well get into it. Just like I can be a marathoner, but I wont ever be running at the Olympic class, just because it isn't "for" me, doesn't mean I shouldn't excel in it or ever let it be an excuse.”
I’m sorry, there’s no need for everyone being moral fanatics. Moderation is completely acceptable. It should be voluntary to excel at anything. However when you do the reverse…like dip below average, then of course there will be consequences…like jail…or failed relationships. You are free to screw yourself over all you want…but the rest of us probably aren’t going to be along for the ride and may use our elective morality to punish you for it. Morality is voluntary and should be voluntary. And how far you go with it should also be voluntary.
“But you are saying that if someone is at 10% on this morality scale then that is okay, that is where they should be, it is what is "for" them. When is that ever sufficient?”
I don’t recall saying that was sufficient. 10% was that percentage of time out of the 90% referenced that I thought perhaps someone would jump on and say, so its okay to be absolutely evil as long as you only do it on Tuesdays!? But of course you jumped on it in a different way…[sigh] In reference to the grading scale, an average outcome of 70% or higher of good coming out of *each* moral decision is the extent to which I wouldn’t call you a bad person (or perhaps go out of my way to personally hold you accountable for something if you expect to continue in the social climate you are pretending to be in…but that’s really as far as one can go…one only has the leverage one has and if they don’t expect any positive social reciprocation…then so be it…they can be a recluse). Granted that’s on your own head…you reap what you sow in this life. And the higher up you climb the more rewarding things are in general.
“But what is complicated is rarely known before hand. In fact, such an analysis really occurs more on a scale of duration. Acute things we can only rely on quick analysis and benefit from our knowledge base and habit. Only something that we can actually sit back, ponder over minutes, hours, day or weeks can we give the analysis more attention. Sure, some, given weeks, may still not even give it any more attention than a day's worth of contemplation, but in the case of the acute or the distant, we still rely on the same mechanisms for our analysis -- habit, knowledge base, rationality and belief(ethical theories). The more someone practices the analysis, the more their habit increases. The more one learns and improves their habits the more the other's go up as well. “
One can only do what one can do. You do the best you can with the time available and of course there are ways of cutting the process down to fit the time constraints.
“It is like training then, that the more we experience this moral contemplation the better we are at it, short or long-term. What makes the complicated task any different than a more acute? Because your claim that "there is no need for them to be like this", I don't agree with. If they have no need to be like that, then whether it is complicated or simple, they will lack proficiency either way. Again, back to athletic analogies, one may not train to run at all, but a couch potato is not going to do well whether running a block or several or a marathon. The trained, may not do well in a marathon, but does better overall. His sliding scale of proficiency is moved toward the better (more athletic in this case) direction.”
Not everyone needs to be a Harlem Globe Trotter to enjoy playing basketball.
“But that is like saying we should be teaching elementary students Calculus, or advanced political theory. You can't just give them everyone in an hour block, so to speak. It is not that culture simply says "you're too stupid to understand so just believe us." It may be taken that way by those who are ignorant, but you can't also just say "here's everything!" or "We're going to talk about this, but let me explain years worth of supportive information and data first...".”
All I’m saying is we need to make sure we are connecting people directly to our knowledge base and not just teaching them the gist of it with an appeal to authority. We can’t expect them to cross that gap on their own with the pull religion has on humanity. Surely it is a failure to communicate to not be able to do that. I’m not advocating having grade schoolers read technical journals, but instead actually presenting a persuasive case in schools at age appropriate levels…in public debates that are televised…and on all those nature shows on television. Too much of it is effectively in the “secular mythology” land where the evidence and hard core epistemology seems to take a back seat, to sensationalism and categorical rejection of religion as not science. And these methods aren’t going to win the culture war. Epistemology first…and then we can laugh at religion and tell just so stories and appeal to authority. Again this is the emotionalism of confidence vs the emotionalism of credulity.
“Granted, our education system in America sucks on the whole, but giving a bottom-up approach to explaining everything to make sure everyone is fully educated also isn't going to work.”
I’m advocating a quality intensive approach that specifically caters to our cultural needs of today. I’m not saying every 4th grader needs to read 8,000 technical journals. We need to pretend like people don’t believe us…because they don’t.
“Some take self-initiative, and other's just take more education outside of the scope of what one is watching or learning. It is no different than reading an article, I can either accept it or not. I can look at the references and learn more through them and see if the article and theory is supported, etc. Yet, in all of that, I find the most important, and what is lacking from the creationist group altogether, is the tool set to do that. It is the foolish who simply pick up something, read it, and accept it because it sounded good, or the author (because the Bible makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside and God wrote it! For instance). It is this tool set they need.”
That’s great, but as is if you don’t lay the epistemology on the table strategically the overall summary of the average mind is going to be…God vs. fallible men. Because you want it to be instead…fallible fairy tales vs. facts.
“On that note, have you seen the movie/documentary Jesus Camp? There's trailers that show the scene where this kid is being home schooled, and by the mother, who thinks that public schools will only teach the devil's stuff and sits there teaching the kid about global warming and why it's BS, yet she's not a scientist and doesn't appeal to any education, simply what the authors of the creationist books she was using say. The difference between this and real science is not so much "just trust us" but the tool set. This kid is growing up learning BS and just taking it on faith and what sounds good, and not on any kind of intellect and understanding and ability to learn more. A good student is one who can take what they hear or read or learn and expand on it and accurately at that. Which, hell, I've only recently myself fully began to do at any effective rate (getting ready for graduate school where you better be prolific at it!)”
I’m just saying you nip this in the bud so that other students who might grow up to distrust the secular education have a much less chance of being able to think there is room for doubt in evolution.
“I want completely transparent oversight on the epistemology of evolution in every forum as though we do have to prove it to people.”
“But who is this "we"? Who is proving anything?”
The secular world…educators who believe evolution is true.
“The transparency is there! ANYONE can learn about evolution. The problem is it is not easy to understand. “
But not everyone should have to be a proficient researcher to have access to the epistemology. As educators we should bring that to the table so they don’t feel they have to go looking for it. And we need to work on the presentation of that data so that we can bridge the gap of understanding.
“People have less problem with astro-physics and quantum mechanics, and in large part, because it doesn't offend their religion as much. However, I find those studies far more complicated and complex and harder to understand than evolution (and probably takes a larger curriculum too). Sure, you can learn stuff from popular press, media, etc. You can debate with people on it. You can get in touch with physicists or even teach yourself the stuff and the math involved. However, that requires that tool set I explained above. This is no different with evolution. It is not like the information is hidden or some conspiracy giving the details to the privileged. If someone wants to know it, they have to learn it. Evolution is hard, ask AFTL about that (or his recent post about it)”
That’s just the wrong approach that won’t solve our cultural management problem. Religious people filtering in through the school system aren’t going to do that. All you are going to succeed in doing by letting this principle fly is polarizing groups of people…whereas instead we need to be homogenizing them with easy access to the facts.
“But you've been involved in these debates I'm sure. You can cram facts and data and resources to learn more and show support and teach evolution to a creationist. Does that make one bit of difference?!”
But you see, on xanga and the internet, you confront the extremes…people that are outspoken about their opinions and often have an axe to grind…and often have fuel for the fire from their mis-education…who only hear a better case for evolution well after they’ve been convinced otherwise.
“Many lack the mental faculties to grasp it. All are pretty much too narrow-minded to accept it. It's like trying to tell someone back in antiquity that the world isn't flat who fully heartedly believes it is (especially if they say God says so). You aren't going to do it. No amount of facts, etc will say otherwise. I say give it time. These people are like people from the Dark Ages. In time, they'll disappear (sure others will come forward in their place ... there's always conflict!)”
I just see opportunities to help that process along that are being ignored for bad reasons.
“It is the job of the scientific community to put this down and not belay to fallacious methodologies of the arrogant (like trying not to give them mystical credibility by not addressing the problem) that fail to get the job done.”
“I don't see the scientific community as making any fallacies.”
They have historically been about ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away for the sake of not “emboldening their enemies.” That is fallacious and they are only glumly realizing it.
“The scientific community just isn't in the business of being public speakers and debaters.”
That’s great. They need to hire people who are…who can understand the material and present it perfectly.
“This is obviously changing recently, and there are pushes for scientists to be more vocal, not just to the public but to governments, etc. I think what you are addressing here is the visible gap that the scientific community has given itself as it is separated from the general community. Does this give them some kind of "arrogant" or "mystical credibility"? In the eyes of some, yes. But that is no different than someone thinking a computer expert is somehow on a whole other level because he knows everything (and they usually think you know EVERYTHING) about the computers. “
I’m just saying there are obvious ways to bridge the gap between the scientific community and the public that are not being aggressively pursued.
“The scientific community, as a whole, does know "everything" because that's what they're studying, by and large. Of course we're going to have problems with that as we, the general public, are not apart of that community. However, as I mentioned above, that does not mean we can't learn of it or from it, but such an education requires a tool set many are lacking.”
We have to come to them…they aren’t going to come to us.
“How are they (scientist) to respond? Is it even the scientific community's "job" to deal with this?”
If they want public support and funding it is.
“I think there needs to be a middle mediator if anything. This is where those who are debaters and public speakers come in. Those, probably from or closely involved with, of the scientific community who can debate and speak publicly to persuade should fill that gap and act as the bridge. However, like I said, the emergence of this group is a new born thing and is growing (just look at the attention Dawkings get, and his following).”
Okay, that is exactly what I’ve been saying. But it seems as though no one is taking the bull by the horns as though they know what they are doing…they are still just reacting. What you say is true…obviously the theory of evolution will triumph eventually here or abroad…but what will do that is in 5 to 10 years when they come to the realization they have to do what I’m advocating now to solve the problem…and they could have gotten there sooner.
ARU
Sandy Shovel,
Number 35.
ARU
I just wanted to say that this site is a real credit to you. Probably the best site I've seen on Xanga. I hope to read more of the posts when I get the chance.
YEP...then it is a matter of thought..not just autopoetically caused thought but more the imposed thought originated generations ago and passed memetically in the codings of dna to the next generation and whether or not that also had the continuous reinforcement of expression within the lifespan of the next and succeeding generations to quite easily evolve the very psyche of the human being.
No one is a greater fiend in affecting newborn babies with "bow down" than Constantine, the greatest conqueror of all time to this very moment. Possibly it is even so foul as to say that most of our lives are self-fulfilling prophecies as those who do have religion imposed upon them have the idea that "we are born into sin" and we are all partly redemption seekers only because it has been taught and reinforced so powerfully in the human arena that it has become an inescapable pattern to follow. But then, it is a block to individual enthumesis, which I believe the people who wrote the "words of Christ" were hoping to contribute somehow just as the Greek Philosophers were as well and that is to liberate the human being to have their own "seed of origination" bloom within their lifetime...sadly, it has become the very nature of mankind to seek and destroy the germ of that seed in every other living human. Sadder still, this very action is given some "high position" or calling as if it were directed by some omnipotent creator that a select group seem to have some insight upon...but even the validation of that realization is more on the power of mystery than fact.
It is because we have a cerebellum that we are capable of damning ourselves...it is hard to find a self-depricating frog but not a depressed cow...the frog does not have an advanced limbic system...and along with the capacity to remember and learn...we also have the faculty to imagine and believe in the fluff of thought creation itself...which in no way actually has a grip on anyone until that little pill of belief and reinforcement shoves it down our throat and poisons us to be "subject to" things that did not originate within our own workings.
What would happen if the potential of a human being were not suppressed but rather, not even cared for to be measured and rather aimed to....there has to be something in the power of the capacity of an emotional being, and that is greatly due to the fact that we have a vagus nervous system outcropping from a higher brain.......
behold the pale unicorn..
the only emperor, it would seem
is the emperor of ice cream
if we let be be finale of seem
I think you could've made your point is quite a few less words. It makes me wonder if you needed to use so many words as as effort to more convince yourself than others. However, that's for a different discussion altogether.
Anyway, I will say that I do agree, somewhat, with your point. My opinion is that there is no "belief" that holds control over what is "morality". Regardless of whether your an atheist, or an agnostic, or a believer, morality is "right".
I can safely say I've met some very moral atheists who I admire for how they behave and I've also been detested by some of the most immoral believers and been quite embarrassed for them.
I'm just concerned about the tone of what you say. I'm hoping it's just because I'm reading your post through the eyes of my faith but I'm getting the tone that you think atheists, or agnostics, hold the corner on morals over religious people. If that is what you're saying then I'd have to disagree. Morality is just right REGARDLESS of your belief-system.
But, If you're NOT saying atheists are better with morality than others, then in the words of the great Roseanne Rosanna-Dana, "Nevermind!".
Regardless of your intent, thanks for the post. I both applaud and commend you for what you say and feel that anyone reading it should respect you for the person you are. You spoke up. Too many don't!
Well a few things: most of this was assembled from numerous other comments of mine on other people's xangas (as I said in the outro). I didn't sit here in one blurb and try to "convince myself." two, Christians keep squirming out of my answers to other questions and keep asking unending other questions because they don't want to get it...true, I've covered it already at heart, but I've gone out of my way to directly address each and every one of the millions of contentions...all hell bent on missing the point. Is that my fault? I could summarize in a few paragraphs with much shorter post...I didn't need this post at all...this is purely for the sake of owning the discussion from all sides in all ways so that no one has an excuse to think something hasn't been addressed...Four, this isn't meant to be read in one sitting...its meant to be linked to...its a resource, that actually repeats itself quite a bit so that people can get the full picture no matter what question they ask. So again, if I give a short answer, I'm avoiding the question, if I give a long answer...its too long to read...and if I give an overly thorough easy access answer to all possible questions...I'm just trying to convince myself. When do I get to be right?
I have no idea what the actual statistics are for the percentages of good atheists to good theists. I think the lack of epistemic accountability and the divine seal of approval on credulity (aka faith) is a serious immoral aspect of religion in general, anything that holds up the sciences without just cause, that inhibits education, etc. Any aspect of Christian meta-physics that leads people to ignore local sympathy for their fellow man...turning them into sociopaths of sorts because they are more concerned with their laundary list of dubious meta-scam propositions than they are about real people suffering in the real world. In that regard atheists are free to update their ethics with better information without being dragged down by ancient myths and prejudices and are generally allowed to recognize the situation as it is....without truth there can be no love, and without love, what good are ethics? So you could call that having the "corner" on ethics since truth in general is a foundation. I know secular countries have less crime and I know the Bible is a recipe for moral disaster if its paid attention to given its moral extremophilia...but ultimately I'm sure there are better Christians than me and better atheists than you.
ARU
No offense to anyone on this web page, but in my own opinion you must have more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian. Can one truly believe that all that we see today was caused by a mere accident resulting from some mysterious byproduct of forever-existent pocket of energy? Tell me, if the statement “from nothing comes nothing” is correct then one must agree that before anything was brought into existence their was something that existed before all else. This something had no creator, for in order for this universe to be conceived it had to have been created by something and consequently this something could not have been created itself for common sense tells you that their most be a master creator who came first before all. Now one may contend this something, which came before all was a pocket of energy, or one may say it was an all-powerful god. Both options have the same likelihood for without a creator the first product of existence has no boundaries. Now is it not much easier to believe that an all-powerful god created what we see today rather than a pocket of energy, which mysteriously expanded and in some odd chance of fate created what we see today. If you still believe in the second method of creation then you must agree with the fact that if the universe was created by mere accident and all that’s in existence is mere accidental then truly all ones thoughts are too accidental making the argument for the big bang seem silly. As c.s Lewis put it “ those who try to prove the big bang theory seems to compare with the dropping of a glass of milk, one would look at the spilled milk and expect it to give you a reason why the glass became agitated and spilled. I most also disagree with ANY atheist it says morality can go hand in hand with atheism for any atheist who says morality is important must either not truly be atheist or is quite dumb. For if ones life pertains only for the set amount of years such as lets say 70 why in the world would you waste it following rules of conduct? Everything you know all your friends all your family and all your actions will and always are coming to an end. If you our truly atheist you must understand every second of your life is progressing to an immediate end one of which allows eliminates you from all existence. Do be an atheist and to follow moral codes is complete and utter stupidity. If at the end nothing matters and once you die all thoughts and prior recognition of you blows away never to be seen again why would you waste your livelihood worrying about moral stability. And by the way the top ten reasons an atheist should be moral are all completely ludicrous the first one which states “You might have to live the rest of your life” allows you to believe that being moral may help you in the long run. But one forgets that if your being moral just for a reward can that really be called morality but rather an intelligent species straining for a way to live a more comfortable life. The second reason is “To avoid being punished by the authorities” this to makes the confusion of morality and instinct. By avoiding punishment by authority one is not being moral but rather avoiding complications. The third reason is given as such “To reap bad things in life less” now if I understand atheism correctly one forever ceases to exist once ones life has ended therefore one does not have to worry about reaping bad things in life if one is only focused on pleasing himself. The next reason which is given is this “To protect the good things in life more” this seems very silly for if you are truly atheist the good things in life seem to vary upon what pleases you. Being moral has no effect on the so called good things in life for again atheists should only be concerned with what provides them the mst enjoyment for is that not what really matters if you’re an atheist. The next argument is “You can’t escape hard-wiring in your head as a moral evulture”. What this seems to say is that its not up to atheists to be moral rather it’s the hard wiring in their head which programs them to be moral. This seems like an oftly good time to mention god now doesn’t it? Why in the world would a mere animal like us who by evolution standards are not much different than the ape be hardwired with a moral code? The next argument is this “To suffer as a martyr when bad things happen” What? If I am correctly summarizing this one is saying if an atheist were to live by moral standards then when bad things happen he will suffer in a more valiant way. If an atheist believes he will eventually cease to exist then why in the world would one care if he suffers in a more valiant matter when bad things happen. If you are atheist you believe that everything is caused by chance and there is no consequences for one own actions therefore if one suffers from bad things it should not matter if one has been a moral person or and complete scum bag for it makes no difference. The next argument is “To receive gifts as an innocent when good things happen” if you are an atheist than it should not matter if you receive gifts as an innocent or as a moral criminal. For if we are truly mere animals than the argument of receiving gifs as an innocent serves us no good. The next argument is “To be at peace with your fellow human beings”. This to me is again ridicules if you look at the atheist view of life. Again according to atheist were mere animals who will eventually in short time cease to exist. Why should one worry about other human beings if one will eventually never EVER see them nor remember them again likewise them to him. What atheist seem to forget is that they will not live forever and the bonds they share will not follow through after death. Pretty depressing isn’t it? “To make the world a better place for loved ones” this can mean two things either one is talking about current loved ones which makes for a poor solution considering ones own action can only go so far or it could man for loved ones ion the future which again serves no purpose if after death you cease to exist. And finally “To be at peace with yourself” can one truly be at peace with himself just because he’s moral? Would not an atheist be more at peace with himself if he was to provide the most enjoyment for himself day in and day out.
I wrote this short article to remind you atheist out their that you cannot have it both ways easier were mere animals who were created by accident therefore we should only worry about having as much enjoyment on earth as possible or we were created by an all powerful god who instilled in us a virtue of morality one of which becomes more complex as we get to know him. As you may know I am a Christian and I am very happy to listen to any questions regarding the above or Christianity as a whole. You can reach me at Crossforever316@yahoo.com
Thank you and GOD BLESS
Christianhelp101,
I answer the first chunk of objections I believe in my “Case for a Creator” rebuttal series (especially parts 5A and 5B)…though “who created god” pretty much destroys the force of all of your arguments. And for the record, I believe we live as part of the Allverse…nothing is accidentally or purposeful as neither term applies…it just is. Our universe is just one infinitesimal part of the existent whole. Perhaps you should check out that post as well, because I'm sure you aren't going to understand.
CH101: I most also disagree with ANY atheist it says morality can go hand in hand with atheism for any atheist who says morality is important must either not truly be atheist or is quite dumb.
Morality goes with being human regardless of whether you are a theist or not…just like eating food and having sex.
CH101: For if ones life pertains only for the set amount of years such as lets say 70 why in the world would you waste it following rules of conduct?
I've already explained...you've ignored. What more can I do?
CH101: Everything you know all your friends all your family and all your actions will and always are coming to an end.
But not immediately…and in all likelihood you are going to want to enjoy the benefits of morality in the meantime.
CH101: If you our truly atheist you must understand every second of your life is progressing to an immediate end one of which allows eliminates you from all existence. Do be an atheist and to follow moral codes is complete and utter stupidity.
It’s no more stupid than your bad grammar.
CH101: If at the end nothing matters and once you die all thoughts and prior recognition of you blows away never to be seen again why would you waste your livelihood worrying about moral stability.
Because obviously it’s not a waste to do so even on that limited scale. It’s like asking…why brush your teeth if they’re just going to get dirty in half an hour? Why take a bath? Why eat food if you are just going to be hungry? For much the same limited scope…atheists enjoy morality in order for the advantages it has in preserving what is cherished for the time it can be enjoyed for what it is.
CH101: And by the way the top ten reasons an atheist should be moral are all completely ludicrous the first one which states “You might have to live the rest of your life” allows you to believe that being moral may help you in the long run.
You are saying it won’t? Morality has no advantages in this life? Such the extraordinary claim...and so easily refuted by mere observation, too. Perhaps as a religious person you should stick to making claims that are not corroborable.
CH101: But one forgets that if your being moral just for a reward can that really be called morality but rather an intelligent species straining for a way to live a more comfortable life.
It’s a moral species engaging the appropriate way to live the edifying life that is presented in human experience. Your caricature of it is purely reactionary from your perspective of the fantasy of eternal life. People that aren’t brought up religious simply don’t experience the contrast…or shall we say…the withdrawal symptoms...thus they don't notice.
CH101: The second reason is “To avoid being punished by the authorities” this to makes the confusion of morality and instinct. By avoiding punishment by authority one is not being moral but rather avoiding complications.
But part of a positive reason is avoiding negativity in life…including complications. I’m not just explaining why we feel like being moral…I’m also listing a cognitive insensitive to be moral as well. And it’s only one reason…amongst the whole spectrum.
CH101: The third reason is given as such “To reap bad things in life less” now if I understand atheism correctly one forever ceases to exist once ones life has ended therefore one does not have to worry about reaping bad things in life if one is only focused on pleasing himself.
Are you implying the universal law of reciprocation is not in effect for atheists?
CH101: The next reason which is given is this “To protect the good things in life more” this seems very silly for if you are truly atheist the good things in life seem to vary upon what pleases you. Being moral has no effect on the so called good things in life for again atheists should only be concerned with what provides them the mst enjoyment for is that not what really matters if you’re an atheist.
So…an atheist cannot enjoy higher forms of edification? Is there some divine rule against this I should know about?
CH101: The next argument is “You can’t escape hard-wiring in your head as a moral evulture”. What this seems to say is that its not up to atheists to be moral rather it’s the hard wiring in their head which programs them to be moral.
It’s both…each of these reasons to be moral are meant to be taken in full context of one another. People who wage nihilistic wars against their consciences reap internally what they sow. This is a mere observation. A warning to the wise.
CH101: This seems like an oftly good time to mention god now doesn’t it? Why in the world would a mere animal like us who by evolution standards are not much different than the ape be hardwired with a moral code?
Because we are an animal like us…a moral animal. You are aware that apes have moral inclinations as well, aren’t you? They just lack the intellect to treat it abstractly. Apes in captivity will willingly starve themselves for several days if they see that taking food from a box gives their cage mate electric shocks. Did they learn that in Sunday school, do you suppose? Or is it more likely you are a bit pretentious with just how special you think you are?
CH101: The next argument is this “To suffer as a martyr when bad things happen” What? If I am correctly summarizing this one is saying if an atheist were to live by moral standards then when bad things happen he will suffer in a more valiant way.
Again…what divine law is there that says an atheist does not want to be a good person with dignity and self respect at all times? Is it valiant to do it because of the big security camera in the sky?
CH101: If an atheist believes he will eventually cease to exist then why in the world would one care if he suffers in a more valiant matter when bad things happen.
Because you have to experience yourself in the meantime…and incidentally humans care about that.
CH101: If you are atheist you believe that everything is caused by chance and there is no consequences for one own actions therefore if one suffers from bad things it should not matter if one has been a moral person or and complete scum bag for it makes no difference.
If it makes no difference…then why will so many atheists tell you it does? Why does God’s non-existence equal, “I want to be a scumbag.”? Doesn’t an atheist merely have to find some reason not to want to be a scumbag? How hard is that?
CH101: The next argument is “To receive gifts as an innocent when good things happen” if you are an atheist than it should not matter if you receive gifts as an innocent or as a moral criminal.
It does because of how it makes you feel about yourself at the level of self respect...
CH101: For if we are truly mere animals than the argument of receiving gifs as an innocent serves us no good.
It’s about enjoying the full edification of the system that evolution has cultivated in us.
CH101: The next argument is “To be at peace with your fellow human beings”. This to me is again ridicules if you look at the atheist view of life. Again according to atheist were mere animals who will eventually in short time cease to exist. Why should one worry about other human beings if one will eventually never EVER see them nor remember them again likewise them to him.
Again…why brush your teeth? Why maintain anything? Because you are going to want the benefits of that in the future. Taking morality as a given is no leap of faith. All it takes is a little common sense.
CH101: What atheist seem to forget is that they will not live forever and the bonds they share will not follow through after death. Pretty depressing isn’t it?
Not as depressing as the thought of most people I know burning in hell for all eternity. Pretty fucked up, isn’t it? Or am I to accept your excuse for that?
CH101: “To make the world a better place for loved ones” this can mean two things either one is talking about current loved ones which makes for a poor solution considering ones own action can only go so far or it could man for loved ones ion the future which again serves no purpose if after death you cease to exist.
While we aren’t planning for the afterlife…as an observation in the meantime we do experience our desire for our offspring to be successful after we die.
CH101: And finally “To be at peace with yourself” can one truly be at peace with himself just because he’s moral?
Being moral is one requirement. It is an observation that "there is no rest for the wicked." Surely you don’t suppose god has to be involved…the consciences we carry around will do.
CH101: Would not an atheist be more at peace with himself if he was to provide the most enjoyment for himself day in and day out.
Not according to Buddhists…they must be really dumb as well, eh?
CH101: I wrote this short article to remind you atheist out their that you cannot have it both ways easier were mere animals who were created by accident therefore we should only worry about having as much enjoyment on earth as possible
Perhaps you just don’t know what it means to be merely human. If god were proven not to exist to the evidential standards of your liking tomorrow…you might see things the way I do…and not find them at all ridiculous. Your main error is thinking of atheism and morality in contrast to theism...and not on its own terms.
CH101: or we were created by an all powerful god who instilled in us a virtue of morality one of which becomes more complex as we get to know him.
Tell me; is it love to threaten people with eternal hellfire? Isn’t coercion something we expect from a demon instead?
CH101: As you may know I am a Christian and I am very happy to listen to any questions regarding the above or Christianity as a whole.
Yes, in general only a theist would make such errors. You have my pity.
ARU
Dear Sir I would like to apologize for the way I presented my opinion in your article. I do feel I came off a bit insulting however you must understand I need to defend my position. The point I am trying to make is that though it is possible for an atheist to be voluntarily moral I feel the purpose of which would be a big waste of time. Could you please explain to me the benefits for an atheist to be moral? Again I must point out that if the only reason one is doing good acts is for a reward than could that truly be an act of morality or rather a selfish act of self-gratification. In your reply you also give a very good explanation of why one should be moral under such a short period of time you do this by giving the example of <TT><TT>“ <TT>obviously it’s not a waste to do so even on that limited scale. <TT>It’s like asking…why brush your teeth if they’re just going to get dirty in <TT>half an hour? Why take a bath? Why eat food if you are just going to be <TT>hungry? For much the same limited scope…atheists enjoy morality in order <TT>for the advantages it has in preserving what is cherished for the time it
<TT>can be enjoyed for what it is”
<TT>
<TT>What I disagree with this sir is that those examples if not done correctly will result in consequences that is the main reason you brush your teeth or eat when hungry is to prevent further discomfort. If you compare that with the act of being moral there is no consequences for sustaining from being moral in fact there is much more of a chance of staying happy if you follow your own rules than societies moral standards.
<TT>
<TT>
<TT>
<TT>
<TT>I am not merely saying all atheists are scumbags but what I am saying and maybe I have to be an atheist to understand this is if your truly going to cease to exist and all memories forever vanished why not live for today and make everyday better than the last by doing what pleases you not limiting oneself to moral standards.
I also believe sir that the one thing you and I disagree with most is whether or not it should be called moral if one does good things for his own benefit.
You seem like a very intelligent person and I am glad to converse with you on this subject, however I feel unless you become Christian or I become atheist we will not see eye to eye.
Thank you sir for your time and
GOD BLESS
Wow-- I am definitely going to have to revisit this and read it carefully.
My 2 cents-- We have to be good (or moral) for our own reasons, and our reasons should be based on something more than unexamined beliefs handed down to us. If we don't examine our beliefs and morality and adhere to them for personal reasons, then they have no meaning. They will not guide our behavior.
It is like an informed citizenry being necessary to uphold our republican form of government-- if we don't really believe in democracy in any examined way and don't act as citizens out of a true sense of conviction, then our citizenship becomes fairly meaningless. Sure we might vote, we might say the pledge of allegiance, but we don't really believe.
So the benefit of atheism or any other examined view of the world is that it is EXAMINED-- they thought it through, they really believe it, their convictions are behind it, and the knowledge really stuck.
I'll come back and finish this later. Impressive work.
@runaheadofme - The examined life, FTW!
Comments are closed.