A Mega-Argument from Evil
“By their fruit you will recognize them.” Matthew 7:16
"The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him." Proverbs 20:23
Prerequisite reading (and comprehension):
Abstract Entities and Atheism
Morality and Atheism: 50 Q and A’s
Intro:
The following is my inventory of arguments from evil against the existence of an omnipotent, ethical and personal god. Obviously none of these arguments here rule out an evil god or a god who isn’t all powerful. It is my contention that there is no respectable human standard of ethics that makes any sense out of the Biblical God’s supposed moral choices throughout Biblical history or the general history of the world. The only standard that "works" is the morally indefensible, "whatever God does" standard. However each of these line items makes the most sense if no deity of any kind is involved at all and thus we have an ethical disproof and an argument to the better explanation (BE:) in one neat package. At the very least we should be able to get the Christian worldview on false advertising. :p I’m going to avoid of course every instance that is debatable and stick to generalizations that I think hold most true and are most telling. If we are created in the image of God and that is where morality comes from then it follows we have an opportunity for “checks and balances” on the system. There is no way to undercut that basic point with any kind of philosophical speculation. Surely we know morality better than we know of anything transcendental. And further each of these line items is juxtaposed with Bible verses that condemn the principle in use. Thus, no appeal can be made to, "an atheist doesn't have a standard to condemn my God by" since I'm using the standard they use. If that's not good, then what is?
I should note that I am basing these contentions from an understanding of apologetic answers from Christian apologists and from the scriptures themselves. I’m not saying I have everything right here, but please consider I am not quibbling about the details of anyone’s life. I’m not whining that the drapes don’t match the carpet in heaven. I don’t hate a god that doesn’t exist. This is merely a full dispassionate onslaught of all the pivotal reasons it is probable that if the Biblical god exists, he is evil according to all the standards he himself lays out for an ethical person to follow. An amoral god that is dissassociated from all ethical concerns certainly isn’t a person and therefore not a god. He (or rather "it") is a thing. A god that follows the rules half the time and not the other half is a moral monster. Even if God is the definition of morality and we are sure that absolute morality exists in some non-squiter transcendent sense, we would for these reasons have to go looking for a different god that matches up. If every indication pointed to evil from any number of unpopular gods would you give each and every one of them as much the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to “divine wisdom?” Would you forever hold out on "we don't know the whole story?" Me thinks you would never. You're going to find that any excuse made compromises something else critical to a viable moral outlook. You can't flub on one thing without affecting the rest of a coherent ethical system.
Almost all of my points aren’t about complaining about human suffering or general arguments that ubiquitous evil exists in the world…though I think that basic point holds up anyway all things considered. Ultimately there’s no excuse for any evil especially from a god that demands not even a hint of it from us. I’ll accommodate the “Fall of man” apologetic into my argument and show that at each level no matter how much ground is given, the picture is still incoherent from a loving theistic perspective if you care to look directly at it. I focus virtually every argument on the incompetence of what the biblical God says is his reason for allowing evil in the first place…I argue about human suffering the context of saint cultivation (1 Timothy 2:4). Many apologists will try to get God off the hook with “honorable intentions” given the god of Abraham was born in an honor/shame society. Perhaps they are counting on you not knowing anything about it and therefore you’ll accept any “apparent” discrepancies in ethical standards…even if they go overboard and are irrational even in that system. I didn’t grow up in an honor/shame society, but if what this God has done is honorable…I’m glad I didn’t. You can get a guilt and innocence system wrong so I don’t see why the same wouldn’t hold true in any other system. How can even the "trials of life" be a test as other theologians would assert if most of us can’t even agree on what constitutes “home room?”
The overall point of this intro is, don’t insult my intelligence. I know what good and evil are and I certainly don’t need the help of the bible to figure it out. Try preaching the content of this post (assuming it is accurate) every Sunday and see how many Christians maintain their confidence in God’s goodness. Put your excuses where your mouth is and proclaim this list as the pinnacle of God’s goodness to all the nations! I dare you… The validity of moral objectivity in an atheist’s worldview is one thing…but theists still fail to make a coherent moral picture out of their own view. They must realize on some level that Yahweh isn’t bullet proof to any moral criticality and thus they attempt to sabotage the gun being fired. I don’t know who they think they are fooling.
If I’ve actually made some critical error in moral judgment here by some reasonable standard, of course I want to know. If there is some plausible reason to give a god the benefit of the doubt in any of these line items, I’m listening. If there is some bit of information I don’t seem to know about that makes the picture a little brighter…by all means clue me in. But if all you got is incoherent defensiveness that could literally smokescreen the actions of even the most heinous deity imaginable…just keep that to yourself.
If you are wondering if there is anything I would accept…I’m wondering what you wouldn’t accept. But since you asked, I have in fact thought out what an ideal version of a coherent relationship with an ethical God could be like. And…I’ve even taken the time to think of what a meaninglessly worse God might be like. Thus, I’ve finally covered my bases with this post.
So, here we go:
1. Inappropriate Choices.
"Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved." Romans 3:8
"Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." James 4:17
"And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" Matthew 22:39
Does God have evil options? No? Then why does he give his neighbor evil choices and put his eternal security on the line?
If God’s excuse for allowing evil is that he cares about free will…why does it have to include evil options? Why not a selection from all good options? When someone chooses not to love you…do they have to go off and be evil? Or can they simply love someone else instead? If you believe this is impossible for some reason, consider what heaven will be like. Isn’t that exactly going to be the case? And consider what we will do when we beget A.I. Will we not program them to be as human as possible…but yet exclude evil options? Will they not be better people than we are? Will we have robbed them of something worthwhile? I think not.
BE: The latitude of choices we have makes perfect sense in an amoral atheistic context.
2. Unmediated Reproduction.
Perhaps we can ignore the first level for some reason, but when we come to the next, there seems to be no reason why God would have to allow Adam and Eve to beget children. Why not make child-bearing conditional upon obedience? God has no problem closing wombs throughout the Bible (ex: Genesis 20:18). One might almost call it a hobby of his. Why not do this when it actually matters? Wouldn’t it make so much more sense to let individuals screw themselves over on equal opportunity starting conditions? Especially when so much is on the line? Isn’t this principle more in line with Ezekiel 18? God isn’t bound by the same rules as a human as some apologists say, but apparently he isn’t bound by the rules he’s bound by either.
BE: Ancient people needed a way to make everyone to blame even though they couldn’t possibly be to blame. And then when it came to practical matters later...they changed course.
3. Beyond Building Character and Virtue.
"Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4
Christians often say that evil exists in the world to build our character and make us better people as a result of learning from our mistakes. This presupposes we know that character can’t be built from all good options as elaborated on in number 1. And what good is this character if we aren’t going to need it in heaven? What good are all the lessons of hacking your way through the jungle of sin if there won’t be a jungle for the rest of eternity? We would be like the hardened soldier that knows how to kill you in 84 different ways, but is relegated to serving you tea instead long after the war. It’s effectively meaningless at great expense of the billions of damned 10 zillion years into paradise.
Christians say that just as a father might let his daughter see a little bit of blood while tending her wounds in order to solicit a healthy measure of fear…so God allows bad things in life to teach us important lessons. But an impartial inventory of the entire spectrum of evil yields much more than this providential demographic. It also includes letting your daughter’s arms be torn off and feeding them to her while shouting out the most belittling insults in addition to executing friends, pets, and other loved ones before her very eyes. I don’t think it’s a bad inference to say that people really do get entirely run over in life and they don’t have a chance to learn from it…or that the extremes of life are as likely to backfire as they are to solicit a positive response. Let us do evil that good may result?
If God allows for the creation of Christian homosexuals and nymphomaniacs, hermaphrodites, and everything in between, I just don’t see a valid reason to suppose someone somewhere isn’t drowning under impossible circumstances beyond their control internal, external, and both. God has bound us to disobedience (Romans 11:32) and yet Christians always have a way out (1 Corinthians 10:13)? Isn’t this like saying, “I’m going to attach this leg weight to you, but you’ll always be able to run at top speed?” It is an extraordinary claim to say that no Christian ever has been tempted beyond their measure to resist…not even just one wittle time… Oh wait…I know. You just define them as non-Christians right? [eye roll] Scamtastic!
4. Self-Refuting Biblical Excuses for Extreme Disasters.
Jesus says that the extremes of random evil happen not for a personal reason, but for a general reminder of the flames of hell (Luke 13:1-5). Hmm…interesting. Somehow I suspect people get the wrong message more often than not. This makes an awful lot of sense to an apocalyptic Jewish mind…but what about to a Native American animist? EVERYONE in between? Sorry, I can think of much more constructive ways to warn people about hell to where they are sure to get the message…like uh…lemme think: showing up and telling them? Jesus’ clarification is self-refuting. We should be telling the Bible this upon its silence…not the other way around. This just looks like a solipsistic 1st century Jewish excuse for random chance that’s more impotent in "message" than not.
BE: Ancient Jews noticed that bad things happened and tried to come up with a lame excuse and put it in Jesus’ mouth. Or...if this isn't supposed to be a universal explanation as some have pointed out, Jesus is just seizing the moment and being a cold-hearted opportunist for his sick doctrines.
5. Some People Obviously Aren’t Being Tested.
If life is really a test, then we mustn’t forget the extreme other end of the spectrum either…the select few that really had no troubles in life. Surely they exist. Was it their fault? Will they be held accountable for not going out to find trouble building character? What if there simply wasn’t any trouble to found 3,400 years ago in South Africa in one tranquil village? Is there any demographic that doesn’t exist in this unshepherded world? You’d be screwed…not because you did anything wrong, but because there wasn’t any evil to overcome. Perhaps it seems petty to bring up, but the emphasis here is trying to find a coherent picture and whether Christian salvation and apologetic rhetoric actually map onto the real world...or if its just narrow minded nonsense.
BE: A full spectrum of whatever makes perfect sense in an unmanaged non-theistic world.
6. Low Maintenance Relationships?
A magic book to be taken on faith or presupposition…mystical experiences that can’t be qualified against any others…prayer that is as effective as praying to a milk jug (aka: yes, no, or wait works with anything) as far as chance, self fulfilling prophecies, and confirmation bias will take you, prayer studies that turn up nil and sometimes detrimental effects, miraculous healings that are never as obvious as the healing of a severed limb for all to verify… and a whole world filled with other religions running the same feeling scams but based on different uncorroborated metaphysical propositions. Apparently all God is required to do is not destroy the world with water (Genesis 9:11, which leaves just about every other means available to an omnipotent deity for world destruction, like say fire…or even chocolate milk if he were so inclined), to allow religion to flourish in some form…even if it is in the most meager amounts possible (Isaiah 10:22 and the rest of the prophets seem all about “remnants”)…these are extremely low objective expectations of a so-called loving “personal” relationship with Jesus and virtually any context you can conceive of in history has all the latitude it'll ever need. You can ignore the plasticity of all this and say, “it could still be true,” but you miss my point that God basically doesn’t have to do anything in order to fulfill his end of the bargain. Why would he when apparently most Christians will accept it as is anyway? If your girlfriend would always interpret your apartment as being cleaned up despite all the evidence of junk laying around…would you bother being tidy? On the other hand, if a significant other purported to not be able to tell if you loved them or not…would you not be horrified? Are meaningful relationships always just a complete subjective matter of imposed interpretation that someone else might entirely miss even if they were right there next to you the whole time? Honestly what metaphysical interpretation of experience (fate, karma, providence, random chance, etc.) doesn’t work on these terms?
To compound the matter further, we have a god who doesn’t mind waiting thousands of years to act (2 Peter 3:8), 400 years to answer prayer (Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 3:7), who isn’t accountable to any complaint (Romans 9:20-22), who might be punishing you for what your great, great, grand father did (Exodus 20:5), or letting you know that your greatest grandparents sinned (Romans 5:12), or testing you via a wager with Satan over your ability to resist for no reason whatsoever (Job 1:6-12), etc. etc. In my opinion all of this conspires together to give you no basis for having any way of knowing what God really thinks of you in this life since establishing personal context is impossible. The spectrum of terms is way too obtuse for a real relationship. In all likelihood to make your religion work for you, you're just accepting something random when dozens of other interpretations apply. Anyone that notices this is completely SOL in terms of making Christianity work for them. Anything goes and God doesn’t have to clarify. With all of these Biblical scapegoats in the mix God’s love is as intimate and trustworthy as random chance. The effects of such disconfrontational amoral "relationshipping" are quite obvious.
What is the natural dividend of the imaginary friend niche? The abundance of false religions…even of atheists and agnostics…even believers in the correct religion that are that much less psychologically stable for lack of reality checks. The roller coaster of faith…where sometimes it’s really good…and sometimes really bad…and then back again. When the terms are not clear as crystal, people get things way wrong, they settle for less, they’re unstable, they achieve inappropriate levels of confidence (and all the bullshit that implies). Being something other than a dead-beat deity matters. Your excuses don't.
BE: God doesn’t exist and thus to run these scams the lowest possible interactive standards have been set.
7. Admitted Sins of Omission.
“If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”
And:
“If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.”
God really does hate fags (1 Corinthians 6:9)…the only thing missing from these people’s salvations were reality checks… Surely this lends credibility to the fact that when dozens of people you and I know say they would believe if they had reality checks…at least some of them actually mean it. Surely “doubting” Thomas was not the only person in history to need a little hands on evidence (John 20:29). The Gospel of Mark portrays the disciples as being complete idiots (Mark 6:30-38, 51-52, 7:18, 8:1-4, 15-21, 9:10)! I wouldn’t listen to these numskulls either if I were him…obviously for more reasons than one. Asking a seemingly dead-beat deity to be merely real is not the same as “an evil generation asking for a sign” (Matthew 12:39) or asking God to “jump through hoops.” One simply can’t have a relationship on the basis of agnosticism or confusion. I’m sure demons would know that God exists and shudder at the thought (James 2:19)…but could they even do that if they didn’t know he existed? What good is the fourth (?) hand testimony of yet another mythical creature?
BE: The gospels weren’t written by geniuses, but they were written by self righteous pricks who wanted to vicariously lord it over their neighbors who disagreed with their moral and religious choices through their imaginary figure head, Jesus. Hence the grandstanding speeches to towns who couldn't possibly be listening.
Note, I have an extension of this general category (sins of omission) on the post "Jephthah's Vow and Sacrifice of His Daughter."
8. Admitted Sins of Commission.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." Matthew 23:15
And the opposite, why does God confront people he knows he will damn more? God would never do that you say? You just read my last point…you know I know the Bible better than you do (John 15:24)…why not just give up while you are ahead? Lol
“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.”
“If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.”
What the hell is Jesus thinking? I have no idea what moral philosophy he is practicing…other than “do whatever the hell I feel like.” I guess the proverbial unconscientious atheist really is more Christ-like than the Christians! Who cares if Jesus says he came to save and not damn…we have a word for this kind of juxtaposition between words and deeds…it’s called hypocrite! (Romans 2:21-23) It follows also that lots of people could have been better off in the end without the aide of these religious "truths".
BE: Same as 7.
9. Evil Evangelism.
"The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light." Luke 16:8
This leads to our next point; Spreading the good news is really more about spreading the bad news. It is quite obvious that despite whatever good intentions an omniscient God has for the “good news” overall, not only is it the bad news for most people but it actually serves in sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way to make it worse for all the people that reject the message…and most people will. The link given lays out the full case. Obviously you aren’t responsible for how other people respond, but you are responsible for what you do and knowing that you are doing more harm than good even with the free will of others in the equation doesn’t absolve you from evil. What other context do you get off for good intentions despite your knowledge you are doing more harm than good? How is that not contradictory?
"Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?" Luke 19:23
Does counterproductivity sound good to Jesus? Christians know what common sense is except for when they think of their own ethical implications of their own beliefs. Even if atheists like Sam Harris happen to be hurting the situation by calling people to renounce irrationality in a context where Muslims will simply hate us more…nothing can possibly compare with the moral negligence of the Christian’s Not-So-Great Commission (Matthew 28:19).
BE: Religion is fake and thus doesn’t occupy the whole beliefscape…thus finding yourself in an extreme “us vs. them” mentality to the point where it makes sense that only your tiny cult will be saved makes "perfect sense." But on the flip side, you can’t hold back your desire to want everyone to believe as you do after all. Thus the collision of principles and the ridiculous output.
10. Big Biblical Shepherding Disasters:
"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me." Psalm 23:4
Apparently David didn't read the Bible. Here are some prime examples of Biblical mal-shepherding that do not seem malleable to the “benefit of the doubt.” You hear a story about someone you know who shot someone in a grocery store parking lot…obviously you don’t need to jump to the conclusion of murder, necessarily. There could be more to it, right? I don’t think these stories qualify in that regard. It seems we know too much:
A. Though at least two thirds of the angels decided to stay loyal to god (Revelation 12:4, not bad, eh?), one wonders if God was busy introducing himself on day four of creation (or whenever) when somewhere in the crowd of angels, Lucifer cries out, “God damn I’m so beautiful! So beautiful in fact, I can kick anyone’s ass! Who’s with me!?!” (Revelation 12:7) If only a few moments later…God could have introduced himself as the omnipotent creator of the universe and stopped Satan’s blatant insanity before it started. But apparently it only took five seconds for his perfect creation to have a mental spike of logic killing pride. Surely humanity hasn’t benefited from having the conspiring demonic plot element in the mix for its entire history.
BE: The Bible wasn’t written by believers who believed the same thing and thus God probably wasn’t an omnipotent anything originally, but just their most favorite and powerful tribal deity who had some then plausible "administration troubles" early on.
B. But the mismanagement doesn’t stop there, apparently (depending on your interpretation of Genesis 6), God allowed Satan and company to wreak genetic havoc on nearly the entire human race at the time (1 Peter 3:19-20). Even if the “sons of god” and the “daughters of men” meant something else other than fallen angels manifesting in human form (like good angels do elsewhere) in order to get it on with those hot human chicks…these are still horrible shepherding stats. It takes two to tango and whatever God did or didn’t do effectively screwed over everyone not in Noah’s family to the extent that God had to resort to the most drastic cataclysm of human history to correct the mistake…the global Flood (Genesis 7:20). Wow. I’m impressed. What are the odds out of 10 million people (as Creationists estimate) that only 8 individuals (all in the same family I might add) would be willing to get with the program? Is that even the least bit intelligible? I would think you could accidentally convert more than that. Even Tom Cruise can get more Scientologists under his wing. Sheesh. We could also mention that if the water didn’t kill everything on the planet…all that radioactive decay sure would have. I’m sure glad this negligent megalomaniac would be at the helm of my salvation. Yikes. I don’t know why God owes it to the demonic world to allow them to molest humanity at all. They must have signed some kind of immutable contract…but why does god get himself into these things in the first place? Why are we always the collateral damage of his honor and ego?
BE: Its just a narrow-minded "be a holy person, serve our god or else something bad is going to happen" morality tale that never happened but did make sense to credulites years later that didn’t directly experience the events to notice how idiotic they would really be if true.
C. Now it is said that God let Joseph be sold into slavery for the good of many (Genesis 50:20, but for all we know this is merely the mistaken interpretation of Joseph…didn’t he know about this “prophecy:” Genesis 15:13) and yet the famine itself (Genesis 41:54) that he was providentially storing up grain to prepare for in those seven years was caused by God (Genesis 41:25,32)…and as if that dysfunctional mechanism wasn’t bad enough…this inevitably dovetails into the Hebrews being enslaved in Egypt for 400 years…only to be exposed to all the abuse and illicit practices of the Egyptians which seems to have tainted them for the rest of the OT (see the endless bitching of the prophets). Having all sorts of expectations of them after you’ve neglected them for 4 centuries is a bit like expecting a crap cake to not stink when it comes out of the oven. Even animal caretakers know not to expect positive results from abused creatures. And yet the first thing God does is drop a zillion laws on them. Brilliant. And Moses resorts to murder basically the whole trip (Exodus 32: 27-28). I wonder why the “Prince of Egypt” didn’t end on this note?
"Deliver us"...to something just as bad! It was the next logical scene. What's wrong with giving a nod to theistic fascism?). Not to mention that those Hebrew slaves that came out of Egypt during the Exodus all got ran into the ground intentionally to the extent that only two (Numbers 14:30) of the original population of 3 million managed to “get it.” Notice that they finally get forgiven after they've all kicked the bucket because of God's tyranny. Wait...didn't I see that in Empire Strikes Back, too?
God has some fucked up people skills. Could you imagine letting anyone off the hook for such massive amounts of failure? Even Moses is a little self conscious of God’s destructive behavior (Exodus 32:12). If this isn’t the definition of a dysfunctional relationship…I’m not sure what would be. With the Exodus as its precedent (and all the things before it), from start to finish, the Bible is a shepherding disaster. It’s interesting to see the NT try to spin a moral to this story for us (1 Corinthians 10:6) when it’s pretty clear the only moral of the story is “what not to do” if you are a loving god. You don’t set this kind of stage and expect good results. Instead of trying to instill amorphous fear in our hearts with stories of questionable reality (Numbers 16:28-29)…how about showing us some respectable behavior? Is there something horrendously wrong about a resume that is actually full of success stories? And not back to back travesties because of how fundamentally incompatible you are with humanity and how inept you are at crossing that gap humanely?
BE: I’m not really sure on this one. Depending on if the Exodus even happened, it could be anywhere from this being a reflection of incidental events and Moses’ immaturity, or it might be the convoluted fear mongering of priests years later in order to solicit religious obedience...or a bit of both.
D. An evil precedent for history; Divinely approved ethnic cleansing.
Why did God give Joshua a permit for ethnic cleansing and genocide when he could have (for instance) supernaturally made Saudi Arabia a land “flowing with milk and honey” instead of giving every tyrant for the next 4,000 years a license to do as much evil with God's supposed seal of approval?
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there really was some ultra context-inherent reason why ethnic cleansing was absolutely necessary in just this one wittle case. Without some objectively stipulated means of discerning a good any religion abusing tyrant is going to be able to claim the exact same thing:
The only tool we have to combat this is war and logic…and you know how much emphasis God places on logic in the Bible (see here for Richard Carrier’s overview on NT mystical standards, and here and here for my rebuttals to Glenn Miller’s insistence that the Bible condones skepticism).
BE: Just like apologists will say now of evil people who take advantage of religion…that’s probably exactly what was going on back then either at the time, or years later for political control at that time.
E. This is a general line item I’d like to see a Jewish historian fill out. There are a number of abusive ingredients I think that were put into the mix in Jewish history and culture by their religion. Tracing out the naturally expected consequences could make quite an interesting study. Just the whole constant prophetic routine of Israel being punished for worshiping false gods could have been easily routed by merely God showing up and giving a power point presentation on the non-existence of any other god. How effing hard is that? And what idiot is going to hit up the block of wood or stone after such a reality check? Perhaps they won't all be perfect followers, but they sure wouldn't go back to the inanimate objects would they?
BE: It is no surprise the Jews continually turned to "false" gods because all gods are false and thus a matter of your mood swings and random inclinations towards credulous factors. Why show preferential treatment to one over the other? Thus the senseless ping pong we find almost constantly in the OT.
11. Beyond Human Measure.
There’s a concept I’d like to call attention to that points to the natural tolerance ranges of the human system. It is all well and good to say that there might be some other context you don’t know about that might put an apparent shepherding disaster in different light. I have an outrageous example to offer merely in order to call attention to the general category without someone apologizing for it long before they register the idea. Certainly we can crank it back and still find its merit in the world around us. Here goes:
It is rather like aliens coming upon us and threatening to make a thousand people suffer horrendously for a thousand years if you don’t rape a little girl just once. Let’s pretend like you happen to be certain that these psychotic aliens are well known for doing this…that they actually will torture people for a long time if you don’t comply and that they actually won’t do it if you do comply and that if you don’t comply they’ll make you watch the thousand people be tortured for the rest of your life. But the point is if you did have to rape a little girl even though there might be some “other context” that justifies this apparent evil situation…it doesn’t matter. As a human being…you aren’t capable of coping with having to rape any little girl for any reason EVER! The greater good might be being served but you yourself are entirely compromised as an individual. And we’re not even talking about the little girl’s world either. I’m not trying to justify utilitarianism here, I’m only pointing to the limits of human constitution and how everything under the sun seems to be fair game on God’s green earth. It would be no surprise to learn that despite whatever God’s mysterious “greater good” might be…human measure on the local scale is being compromised to an extent that no other context could possibly justify it. Just remember the idea of this little tolerance range next you try to objectively assess God’s providential care. When someone claims, “It was too much for me to handle,” they very well may have meant it. Obviously there are people in insane asylums with extreme theistically themed delusions, apostates that had horrible experiences, struggling believers that never seem to get off the launch pad, etc…are we to imagine there are no transitional forms? All I’m saying here is that despite the Bible’s wishful thinking (Romans 8:28 and 1 Corinthians 10:13), if you look for disconfirming evidence instead of defining these people out of the salvation paradigm (aka “once saved always saved”), you will find plenty of it.
BE: Everything goes under the sun unchecked by divine providence because God doesn’t exist.
12. Product Inconsistency.
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4
"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace." 1 Corinthians 14:33
Everyone knows we live in a world full of all sorts of mutually exclusive religions. And in each of those religions there are endless sects and denominations still… I’m sorry, even McDonald’s and Wal-Mart have better product consistency than this. And these are selfish human institutions. They know the obvious merit of being consistent…it completely suits their ends. And yet when it comes to God…God doesn’t seem to give a fuck. Perhaps he doesn’t have to set up shop in each and every country…perhaps it could be more like cell phone towers intermittently spaced amongst different clusters of countries…so that when history came to a climax instead of having dozens of cultures caught with their pants down harboring mutually exclusive metaphysical scams, we’d have half a dozen "Israel’s" across the world all preaching Jesus Christ independently. That’d be crazy, huh? We’d actually have an argument to the better explanation on behalf of a religion…but instead all we have are endless justifications for wars fought over imaginary plot devices…and even Christians have to accept there are honest people out there that believe whole-heartedly in what must be a lie. Surely we can’t unilaterally claim this is for the best. Assassinating a pope or two would cut out the Catholic and Protestant schisms…God is certainly willing to kill everyone else under the sun for little or no reason…why not when it counts? Why not actually have the Book of Mormon be true and make it seem like God knew about the Americas before the Spanish arrived?
BE: God doesn’t exist to run his salvation business appropriately.
13. God’s Shirking on General Middle Ground Responsibilities.
Let’s say we accept all this for whatever reason thus far…but we can still ask the question: why doesn’t God take care of his own responsibilities in personal affairs? Surely he can let man go against man for whatever contrived earthly reasons…but why doesn’t he step in and correct a ruler in front of everyone who claims to be waging a war on behalf of God…if in fact he is not? We can grant that evil has to exist for some reason or another but still presume that God should take care of his wedge of the pie when it comes to things concerning his own business…things that only he can do. Someone might get innocently sucked into a cult…why doesn’t Jesus send an angel to this person pointing to the nearest orthodox Christian church? They can still ignore the angel, right? Free will is still intact (not to mention respected). But at least God’s responsibilities are taken care of and we’d have no way to blame him. God should settle God-related disputes. And probably dozens of examples of this could be further provided…I hope you get the idea.
BE: The standards are set low because a non-existent God can’t accomplish even a minimum of responsibilities.
14. Bad Parenting in General.
"Start a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." Proverbs 22:6
Before I get to the most significant damning point of all, I should point out it is entirely common sense that good parenting requires certain obvious expectations be fulfilled…that no parent expects to fail utterly if they do all that they can to provide a good childhood for their offspring regardless of the free will variable of their kids. The Bible even testifies against God on this point in Proverbs 22:6. No one subjects their children to child abuse and sexual abuse hoping for some counter-intuitive perk 10 years later. Sure bad apples come from good households and good apples come from bad households, but the generality that most good people come from good households and most bad people come from bad households I would think still holds true. If not…then why give a shit about how you raise your children? This should be evidence at face value of divine negligence…the only thing God can do in this landslide is change the places of rocks when no one is looking…but overall the net damage is still going to be the same. People may find faith later in life after a horrific childhood, but the damage is still there at some level. They could have been mentally healthy people in a fuller sense, but they aren’t. They’ve been set back and may never get over it fully and are left with a life of damage control even if they can never admit it. The only thing this makes theists good at is pathological credulity and an unhealthy love affair with disaster. Even the most ighonest theolosopher can’t plead the fifth on this one. It is perfectly obvious you reap what you sow and thus God can’t get off the hook for not giving everyone the best opportunities possible.
BE: God doesn’t exist to look out for anyone. Some people have it good…others don’t.
15. The End Result.
"Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously." 2 Corinthians 9:6
I’m sure you were thinking all along…it just seems bad…but maybe it’ll all turn out right in the end? However at this critical juncture we come to the most damning point of God’s goodness of all…the outcome of all of this supposed counter-intuitive providence. Matthew 7:14 says that few will be saved.
I’m sorry…isn’t this the outcome we would expect from random chance alone? God must have done something wrong along the way. If I told you that I’m a transcendent basketball coach and that of the trillions of humans ever born only a few would qualify for a professional basketball team…would you suspect I had any part in making that happen? Most of Jesus’ parables about sowing the seed of the Kingdom of God seem to imply happenstance, not providence. The seed is spread out everywhere…who knows what will happen (Mark 4:1-8)? God commands the wind and the waves (Mark 4:41) and yet is powerless to stop his “enemy” or supernaturally zoink out of existence the “weeds” without affecting the “crop” (Matthew 13:24-29)? Puuleeeease! If this were a bad plot device in a movie…I’d let it slide, but I can’t just let this go when most people are damned to eternal suffering for the primary crime of being born. I don’t know what could be worse than that. We consider a shepherd negligent if he brings home only 10% of the flock. We consider a teacher incompetent at her job if she fails 90% of her class on a routine basis. We consider a general a sadist if he has omnipotent weapons and brings home only 10% of the army. And yet God is so good when most people will burn in hell for all eternity?
BE: Same as 9.
16. Infinite Punishment for Finite Crimes.
"eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot," Exodus 21:24
Even the barbaric OT is more humane! And it’s not just this monumental failure of providence to consider…God has to keep the damned around for all eternity like trophies of his own negligence…as though we will merely exist to suffer for whatever contrived reason. I’m sorry…Hitler was evil…but he doesn’t deserve eternal punishment…just a really long punishment. And presuming Hitler is the worst case scenario (which is probably false, but who knows?), what does that say about everyone else who will be right there with him? They may have been bad, but they don’t deserve this either. Even if you suppose damnation isn’t about a judgment of this life, but about sins people will continue to commit while in hell (in their spare time apparently, Mark 9:48), hasn’t God ever heard of a mercy kill? If souls can’t cease to exist…how about an induced experiential-less coma? Even if you believe in some kind of post Judgment Day universalism where all souls eventually find their way to God…which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the character of hell in Scripture (Matthew 25:10), why in the world did things start off on earth? If it’s just more of the same after death…the whole point of this testing ground just seems to fall flat and the entire charade is contrived. No matter how you cut this, its just plain sick and/or stupid.
BE: A non-existent deity has only so many notes to play. Thus trying to make you a deal that you can’t refuse and prey upon your fear and ignorance is no surprise…even to such infinite extents. People accept it because they don’t think they are going there even though the odds are against them.
17. God’s Love is Coercive.
"Jesus, the Godfather" wants to make you an offer you can't refuse:
"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Romans 11:32
Extortion anyone? Could it be anymore explicit? With hell on the table as the only alternative to heaven, free will isn’t being respected. In a coercive situation like “love me or burn,” normally we say something like “Well I guess I have no choice.” When someone has a gun to your head, we normally don’t consider them to be an avid advocate of free will. They are abusing choice. This is the kind of behavior we expect from the mafia…not from a good God. Someone once said to me, “Its not coercion if you accept Jesus as your Savior.” Yeah…just like there won’t be any of those “little accidents” if you pay the mafia protection money. Sorry folks…still extortion. Even the definition presented for what constitutes friendship with Jesus is...a bit scamtastic:
"You are my friends if you do what I command." John 15:14
For those of you that subscribe to the “being in the presence of God’s uncreated energies” theory where supposedly categorically there are only two options in the afterlife…either your heart reflects goodness or evil…and you enjoy or suffer as a result…the obvious problem is that God can create other options. We don’t have to be left naked to God’s innate presence. Exhibit A: Earth. It still boils down to the prophet professing that he didn’t rape the girl, but that she just happened to trip and land squarely on his dick. Not his fault, right? Dumb bitch should have looked where she was going…over…and over…and over…and over again...forever. That's much more humane than torturing her forever for being an unrepentent prostitute...that is if you are a moron.
BE: Desperate little holy men with a desire for the whole world to see things their way found themselves entertaining the utmost evil nonsense at their neighbor’s hypothetical expense.
And some managed to scamboozle themselves into a more sophisticated version of the same cruelty.
18. Unethical and Inhumane Laws.
Note, this is the only section I didn't do myself.
"You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good." Nehemiah 9:13
Even in the “Do as I say not as I do,” category, Yahweh still isn’t off the hook. For some general examples, Richard Carrier cites: “It was no surprise, then, to find that this same cruel God orders people to be stoned to death for picking up sticks on Saturday (Numbers 15:32-36), and commands that those who follow other religions be genocidally slaughtered (Deuteronomy 13:6-16). Indeed, genocide (Deuteronomy 2:31-34, 7:1-2, 20:10-15, and Joshua, e.g. 10:33) and fascism (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:13, 24:13-16, Numbers 15:32-6) were the very law and standard practice of God, right next to the Ten Commandments. Instead of condemning slavery, God condones it (Leviticus 25:44, cf. Deuteronomy 5:13-14, 21:10-13). And so on. Nothing could be more repugnant.”
“And the New Testament was only marginally better, though it too had its inexcusable features, from commands to hate (Luke 14:26) to arrogantly sexist teachings about women (1 Timothy 2:12), from Jesus saying he "came not to bring peace, but the sword," setting even families against each other (Matthew 10:34-36), to making blasphemy the worst possible crime, even worse than murder or child molesting (Matthew 12:31-32). It, too, supported slavery rather than condemning it (Luke 12:47, 1 Timothy 6:1-2).”
Any idea that God was slowly introducing humanity to better morality does away with any pretension to superior ethics (care to put a disclaimer on the 10 Commandments?), is indistinguishable from human error, leaves the “objective morality” Christians brag about undefined for our era, and makes no sense of the fact that the original humans (Adam and Eve) were supposedly more on the ball than us, given that we are the degraded copies.
Here's a word on the Bible's questionable outlook on sex borrowed from A Whore in the Temple of Reason:
19. Negligent Rhetoric of Jesus
"But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." Matthew 12:36
Even if it is conceded that Jesus didn’t really mean to cut off limbs, to hate your family, and that all sexual desire is wrong…the gospels hit a wide audience. It should be no stretch of the imagination to note that not everyone is going to understand the ANE norms of hyperbole. If I knew I were going to be on stage for a few millennia of readers (with about a 2 and a half hour speech on ethics and salvation in terms of those "red letters") who weren’t all going to have access to apologetic resources, I’d try to keep things as simple and unencumbered by cultural nuances as possible to avoid extreme misunderstandings and the like. People go crazy over this stuff…and Jesus doesn’t seem to show any forbearance in the matter. We need to be able to read the gospels and if someone gets the wrong idea, not be able to legitimately blame the gospels because of how well they align with the dysfunctional behavior. Of course no work can communicate perfectly to everyone, lest we set an impossible standard (of course this begs the whole “personal” relationship with Jesus question) but when we see that someone gets something drastically wrong…and then EASILY see why from the Biblical text…we can’t pass it off as mere subjectivity or an evil person reading a good book. Instead of this...why doesn’t Jesus come to each person and explain exactly what the situation is so that everyone knows what is up and what they can do about it in terms they can't get wrong?
BE: I’m going to have to appeal to that cultic tunnel vision again…so entrenched on wringing the good out of people at any expense; they expend the care it could have taken to make a truly humane piece of literature.
20. Catch All Omni-Forbearance.
If the theolosopher can concoct an improbable reason for each of these damning points, and for whatever reason there simply isn’t a humane destiny for humanity no matter what God (the “lover” of humanity) choose to create by speaking it into existence (Genesis 1:3)…why would a good god create anything at all? I guess God had to create the Theotokos (Jesus’ mother, Mary) in order for him to be told, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say [create] anything at all.” But by that time it was too late, eh?
BE: God doesn’t exist, but a big uncaring universe does…and it doesn’t give a shit about you or me just as you would expect from stark impersonal existence.
21. Making Credulity a Virtue.
"A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps." Proverbs 14:15
Man if only that previous verse was an actual pervasive theme in the Bible and not the exception to the rule...that the author probably never intended to be applied to belief in God...but only day to day worldly things.
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16
Apparently as long as you buy the scam, turning on your snake wisdom is kosher. But boy when it comes to buying the snake oil (believing your religion), its a whole different story:
"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
"'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' " Luke 16:27-31
"Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'" John 20:29
For the record, taking these verses seriously is about as profound as this:
What's the number one problem that religious folk can't face up to in this day and age that folks like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens endlessly harp on? Epistemic accountability. Prioritizing questionable beliefs over the real suffering of people in the here and now in matters of public policy in all of its ugly manifestations because Christians are under the distinct impression that they don't have to own up to reality in any objective way that the rest of us can validate for ourselves. Shouldn't knowing that the important personal things you believe are actually true and being able to reasonably prove it be fundamental to morality?
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD." Jeremiah 23:16
Epistemic accountability is ground zero for moral judgment. And that is the place where God drops the ball most. How many horrible things have gone on that even modern Christians will condemn, simply because some other Christian in some ignorant time period believed something that wasn't true? If witches, magic, and Satan are real...then the Dark Ages were mislabeled. Why couldn't God JUST TELL THEM!? What law of the universe does that violate? What deal with Satan did he sign? What excuse could there be? Communication is the number one fundamental thing of any serious relationship and thus this is probably the most grievous of God's sins...that is, after eternal hellfire of course. That one is hard to beat.
22. God is Not Love.
“Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1 John 4:8
“Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.” 1 Corinthians 13:4-8
Patient? Or negligent? Check those 400 years of the cruel slavery in Egypt. (Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 3:7)
Kind? Eternal hell? (Revelation 14:7-11) Is there something less kind than that?
Jealous? His NAME is Jealous…hello. If someone says their middle name is “Danger” we expect to be in an action movie…if a god says his FIRST NAME is jealous, we expect to be in a maltheistic holy book: “Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (and all the other times.) Exodus 34:14
Brag? Arrogant? Tell that to Job. (Job 38)
Unbecomingly? Um…genocide…(Deuteronomy 13:6-16, Deuteronomy 2:31-34, 7:1-2, 20:10-15, and Joshua, e.g. 10:33). Is that becoming of a loving deity?
Seek its own? God’s all about the personal glory-mongering.
Angered? Define “easily.” (I'm sure he took his time getting angry in each and every instance)
Record of wrongs? Hello! Judgment Day! “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.” Revelation 20:12
No rejoicing in unrighteousness? How about just redefining unrighteousness…(see apologetics in general).
Rejoices with the truth? lol, silly meta-scam.
Bears all things? Restraining yourself from pushing the big green “instant world peace” button sitting on your desk in heaven must be very tough work, I’ll admit. I couldn’t do it.
Never fails? God totally meant to fail miserably: Biggest OT precedent, Numbers 14:30 and the grand finale, Matthew 7:14.
BE: Um...a few thousand years and a few dozen authors had a tough time keeping their imaginary friend's character consistent.
Outro:
Hopefully you can all tell out there that I did pay attention in Sunday school. I know, I know...someone out there wants me to admit that maybe just maybe...its all a BIG misunderstanding and that despite all this good judgement, common sense, and careful reasoning, there's the slightest chance in hell that maybe God is more like Optimus Prime than Saddam Hussein (who apparently even had a lighter romantic side; think Song of Songs, lol).
It's true...I'm fallible. I admit it. It's soooooooooo hard to tell the difference in behavioral patterns from a true, good-willed hero archetype who has humanity's best interests always in mind to a Middle Eastern genocidal negligent tyrant and control freak. My species did evolve over billions of years...so who knows how valid my thoughts are, right? If that's what you need to hear to keep on meta-scamming, so be it.
However, for those of us that believe in objectivity and calling it like it is, clearly God’s priorities aren’t about love or even about salvation. If I had to guess at God’s motivation, I’d say it’s glory-profiteering at literally any expense via the least effort on his part. One wonders why it is not more to God’s glory to be considerate of humanity. It’s not even clear that God is doing anything for anyone other than "graciously" leaving them to their own theistically friendly delusions and confirmation bias. The outcome according to Jesus is horrific beyond imagination and there are dozens moral contingencies that have been entirely by-passed. The only ethical standard God seems capable of measuring up to is the “whatever God happens to do ‘standard.’” Fine…but why attempt to maintain the pretense to God’s goodness if it doesn’t actually mean anything objective? I simply can’t relate my “image of god” to this negligent deity in any way.
-Of course there’s always the “God had to be such a hard ass on camera” idea. I’m sorry. I don’t see any good precedent setters here. All I see is negligence then…now…and in the end. What in the world is under control? Believers don’t take these passages seriously…non-believers don’t think they even happened…and then there’s the people in between that either get tortured by their good will investment in Christianity and the atheists that will endlessly point these things out and be thoroughly disgusted by it. About five people are actually “warned” and inspired to good deeds. All it seems to cause on average are unnecessary convoluted extremes when a more moderate approach that was reality based and not fire and brimstone hearsay based would be more successful. I understand the whole, “Act like a mean teacher at first or they’ll walk all over you,” routine…but did it work? We expect the class to be well behaved and most students to get good grades at the end of the semester…but alas. Not so in God’s class.
It’s not like he even has to show up in his “Piss me off and die” form. Supposedly the direct presence of God solicits steeper rewards and punishments according to some apologists. Maybe that's true. Let's take two seconds to think of other options: There’s Jesus…angels…saints… God, the petulant Father can stay at home and let his more modest entourage do the “dirty work” of actually loving the world into salvation. All in all this explanation fails especially because the formula works much better in terms of religious authorities who want to attempt to over control the masses routine with extremist stories and unsubstantiated threats…because they don’t have a real god on hand to actually do something simple, humane, and effective.
-Calvinists will try to claim that “even an iota of mercy is more than God has to provide…” Okay…so instead of proclaiming you have a moral god…you just set the bar infinitely low? Riiiiiight… I think any god can meet this “standard” including a non-existent one. And this requires humanity to be wholly evil…which we aren’t. Thus one cannot grant that piece of the puzzle. I don’t know anyone that can be objectively said to be “totally depraved” and I certainly can’t say that everyone is that way. Any being that says otherwise is truly a bigot and that doesn’t help the matter…especially given that God let us be this way and we didn’t choose it. One wonders why even Calvinists think they are going to make it to heaven. Isn’t God still in the clear if the only means of salvation is happening upon a single and certain lucky pebble in your shoe like a raffle ticket? It would be the only one that exists in the universe (that incidentally might be found anywhere in the universe…). The coherence of your God’s ethics is still intact even in that event. Even long standing denominations like the Eastern Orthodox Church reject the doctrine of total depravity as a self abusive gross exaggeration that contradicts experience and common sense. They themselves will try to claim it’s all this “apparent” evil is a big “mystery.” The only mystery is how they can avoid coming to obvious conclusions when they are so sensible otherwise. It’s like Toto has pulled back the curtain but we are still required to believe we can’t see the wizard.
-Oh...and let's not forget the avid morons that say, "You can't use the Bible to refute the Bible," as though we are somehow obligated to accept their ridiculous axiomatic appraisal of its ontological status because they say so. Not to mention...I just did use the Bible to refute the Bible. Missing any major appendages, good sir knight? Asserting your conclusion without an argument doesn't hold up well there, buddy. Anyone that says crap like this is dropping the ball on a full system of checks and balances on the vitality of their paradigm. One tiny wittle questionable philosophical conjecture is wagging a HUGE ontological dog all the while circumventing all other means of epistemic accountability. Red flag, anyone? How likely is their worldview to be true? It should work both ways...axiomatically as well as in terms of internal consistency without special pleading and question begging. You can't use one to absolutely turn over the other...since you may well be wrong about it's axiomity. It is a significant part of your own worldview that you are a fallible being...maybe its not such a bad idea to, oh I don't know...double check your nonsense from a different perspective? Heresy, right? Lest you basically be stuck holding the "I didn't bother making sure my religion was ethical before I bought it hook, line, and sinker" bag.
The best explanation is that a supposedly good god has been badly jury-rigged into a non-theistic amoral world in various ways. It is the result of an unquestioning commitment to an idealistic and desirable but ultimately false idea. You want a good god, but one doesn’t exist and all you have is an amoral world? What you gonna do? See Bible. Whatever measure of moral competence can be found in the barbarism of the OT or the insanity of the NT is simply what we would expect to find of any human invention. There’s always some meager perk to any law or act done. That doesn’t make it ethically supreme. Of course apologists will settle for even the faintest of positive validation and claim ultimate moral victory.
Perhaps you can understand when my unapologetic reaction to Jesus’ crucifixion is, “Gee, that’s a good start.” We are in no position to say that “God so loves the world,” as such a claim is a complete farce and Jesus showing a bit of compassion to the sick and lame in the first century is a slap in the face to the rest of human history.
To close with, Richard Carrier writes:
“…wise men speak clearly, brilliantly, their ability at communication is measured by their success at making themselves readily understood.”
“Though called a wise father, there is not a single example in the Old Testament of God sitting down and kindly teaching anyone…”
“It does no good to try in desperation to make excuses for it. A good and wise man's message would not need excuses. It follows that the Bible was written neither by the wise nor the good.”
Ben
I will get back to your shortly.
Dan,
I do appreciate all of the careful padding you do to your statements. I’ve been quite conversationally abused of late and it is refreshing.
I don’t really have a lot to disagree with for the first half of your comment. It could be a viable description of something good if given an appropriate (though missing) context. I have about five basic things to *add* however to it that drastically effect the coherency of the Calvinist definition of God.
-Even if coherent, does this system exist? I don’t see why “the best of beings” has any inherent ontological pull. Its just an idea. An idea is just as good regardless of whether or not it has literal representation in reality.
-Is the definition of “greatest and best of beings” too anthropocentric? Why are consciousness and many (no matter how generic) human qualities relevant to the definition?
-If the above two contentions are conceded, is Edward’s definition of the best of beings actually the correct definition? We seem to be inescapably in a relationship with this being whom we may or may not know even exists. Now, in my world, not everyone is subject to paying homage to my status, no matter how significant or insignificant I may think I am. They can merely be apathetic and somewhere else and that isn’t a sin against my ego. I don’t consider it a step up no matter how awesome or good I could possibly become to start expecting otherwise. We don’t seem to be being treated as autonomous individuals, we seem to be being treated as though we are neurons in God’s brain that have to get with the program or else. As I mentioned in my previous comment, not only is this petty, but seems to contradict some of the more “live and let live” parables like the prodigal son which would take on serious ethical problems if we actually insert Edwards definition into it. “If you love it let it go” seems entirely foreign to this God and yet we would consider such a thing to have the utmost respect for interpersonal autonomy. Somehow at the end of this definition most people are burning in hell for all eternity and that’s very close to the worst thing I can imagine and I don‘t think *anyone* deserves it. One would think that would clue us in to perhaps having gotten something grossly wrong along the way. As I said in the post, giving a choice (believe or burn) is not the same thing as respecting free will.
-Even given the Edwards definition, it is still subject in action to virtually all of the points I’ve brought up in this post as it is clear we are not at the mercy of what we would expect from the “best of beings.” I’ve done my best to compare to what I think is a robust definition of the “best possible moral behavior” and clearly I’m not talking past such a definition as given. Valuing oneself even infinitely does not mean we or even our own way should not be valued appropriately. God seems to have the egoism down, but what is missing is sufficient empathy for others no matter how minute that might actually end up being in comparison to him. Given that, selfishness still isn’t off the table. You may say that our happiness and God’s glory are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but its pretty clear most of the time they are and not for good reasons.
-Our status in the system is labeled “vanity” and yet somehow our trifledge factors into something meaningful on behalf of this “best of beings?” We’re not even lint in God’s pocket and somehow we have a seemingly serious relationship. Although that might explain why the human race is treated like such shit. Though again, I would think the “best of beings” would be able to do a lot better for the human race than getting executed 2000 years ago and saving only a few of us from eternal damnation by some spiritual act of free association. Perhaps there is an answer to this, but how can we as finite beings hypothetically give God the infinite honor he supposedly deserves?
Now, to answer your questions:
1. I would say there is hope for man to get better. There is also grounds for suspecting things could get very messed up…even irrevocably so. Will science one day solve all our problems and bring us into that Star Trekish utopian age? I don’t know. Will Islam conquer the world by out breeding everyone long before that happens? I don’t know. Will some major natural disaster befall us? I don’t know. There is hope and danger and how that will play out only time will tell. I personally only hope to leave the world better than I found it and I hope to see at least history going off in the right direction. I don’t have some ideological predisposition that overrules common sense and ignorance. In terms of evolution, my initial impression is I don’t see enough competition for our evolution towards improvement to not stagnate. The reproduction is there, the genetic drift is there…but the competition is lacking for technological and humanitarian reasons. I’ve read articles that seem to think otherwise. I could be wrong or just partially right. Though scientists can be quite narrow-minded non-philosophers and come to some pretty ridiculous conclusions at times. This isn’t an argument for fascism or genocide of inferior gene carriers, but it is incentive to step up to the plate and become good stewards of our gene pool is clever and humane ways.
2. The mind creates beauty as a filter from what the universe has to offer though given its utility in terms of mental efficiency, I would not be surprised if it were more universal than the confines of our species. I’m sure many other mammals have a very similar experience though we can’t ask them and I’m sure alien races may very well stumble upon beauty via convergent evolution. You still seem to be locked into your false dichotomies and I think I have already answered this question. In all probability that didn’t register since I answered on my terms and not yours. The normal course of this it seems for the theistic mind is to say that if it isn’t universal in an absolute transcendent ontological sense, it doesn’t mean anything. And yet it obviously does mean something to everyone and they take that as evidence that a physicalist definition of beauty must be wrong. And the only problem here is that they shipwrecked their objectivity with absolute terms. “Things that are meaningful have to have an absolute ontological status or else,” is just a subjective emotionally immature and unnecessary unspoken premise and overreaction, in my opinion. Beauty’s ontological status is as deep and meaningful as we need it to be.
3. I would disagree with your statement concerning the immoral status of the majority of people. My moral system recognizes the limited viability of every moral system to whatever degree. I would consider everyone *morally inefficient* including myself, but not immoral in a harsh black and white sense. From my perspective such a dichotomy of immoral vs. moral is immature and dangerous. This naturally leaves room for adjustment and improvement. I don’t know what world you live in but not everyone is that fucked up. Even the most devious people I’ve met are capable and do engage in moral behavior. And if you are tactful you can cultivate more of it in them. There are many fucked up things about the world and people are imperfect and stupid to varying degrees, but I certainly don’t consider everyone to be seriously fucked up as Calvinism would seem to require (I‘m still not quite sure on your version of total depravity). We don’t all need a savior though sometimes one would be nice. You seem to have an overly generalized “news-eye view” that conforms to your Christian sensibilities. I think the phrase for that is “confirmation bias.” Perhaps there is more depth to your understanding than that which is represented here, however it seems a little too convenient to deep six all of humanity (just because of absolutist categorical distinctions) for the sake of the dangling carrot of God‘s goodness that is outside of the system entirely. With slightly less tone deaf distinctions, the world looks a lot better and you can see the good despite the bad. A lot of good goes on in the world that has very little to do with Jesus and Calvinists routinely use their definitions to merely define out the competition. I would hope you would be more sensible than your brethren.
In regards to the second part of this question, chance has unequally distributed the basis for my moral paradigm which would be natural interests, empathy, and intellect. The actual articulation of it in abstract terms is my own design though of course I press for the utmost of dispassionate objectivity. Thus the ingredients are evolution, the end result is from me. The distinction does have limited significance, but perhaps you didn‘t mean much by implying evolution created the abstract of my moral system. Of course, if I’ve done my job correctly, I should be merely reflecting the obvious in generic universal terms without any contrived ideological hang-ups. I should be merely saying, “Hey, this is the best way to ratify the deal evolution gave us.“ Talent is unevenly distributed and many many things get in the way of the obvious. Such oversight can be very difficult and simply isn‘t necessary enough to expect to surface in everyone though it is obviously not impossible either. Hopefully my moral paradigm works with what is already present in each individual instead of merely trying to absolutely override it and thus I do consider a viable percentage of it to exist in everyone whether they understand or appreciate it or not. When you drop all pretensions to the cosmic scale moral paradigms of religion, such important distinctions become quite obvious and the atheist view is infinitely more sensible. In order to overcome all the impending disasters of such mutually exclusive dogmas of the world colliding there will be more and more a need to get the facts *completely* straight and those few like-minded secularists may find their voice being heard to a greater and greater degree. Only time will tell.
Hey, sorry that I still haven't responded. I'm fairly swamped right now. Just a quick question. Could you recommend a book that isn't agenda driven (it can have some agenda, of course, but just not agenda driven) that will explain the currently accepted evolutionary theory in detail? If you could recommend such a book, I'd really appreciated it.
Oh, and I found a book that you might be interested in. It's called "Habits of the High Tech Heart" by Quentin Schultze. It's basically talking about morality in a technological age. It's written from a Christian perspective, and so I'm sure that there's a lot that you will disagree with, but its base issue is morality, and it's standards of morality that we both agree with. He raises a lot of good points. Anyways, as a blogger and an internet conversationalist I think that you would really enjoy it.
~dan
Wow, ARU's still at it!
Comments (22)
How does Atheism account for evil?
What does the atheist have to say about evil in the world? Evil is a given reality in the world for atheist and theist alike. How does the atheist account for the reality of evil?
Atheist assumes that the world came about by an unintelligent and unintentional random explosion of matter, that some how (and they don’t know HOW) produced the germinal beginnings of life. Darwinian evolution by natural selection assumes the struggle for human survival and the death of all those who do not survive.
I think that is a right representation of the atheist worldview (the system by which one views everything).
Atheism and Moral Evils
Given the naturalistic assumptions of the atheist, there is no justified account of why should “moral evil” be considered morally “bad.” Where does this ability to recognize moral evil as “evil” come from?
To judge evil as “evil,” the person must have a standard by which the “evil” has fallen short of. As CS Lewis put it, “..if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” Atheists are not able to define or account for the existence of evil without appealing to or presupposing an ultimate stand of goodness.
Atheist’s Explanation of Evil
The more learned atheist, claims that society living gives them the standard to judge evil as “evil.” Acts that are “evil” are acts that are unlawfully inhibiting the happiness of another. The atheistic claim is that acts are morally neutral, unless the act(s) impeach on the happiness of another.
That stance further introduces two new words that need to be accounted for—law and happiness.
Where does this “law” come from? They will answer that “laws are social conventions” for living in a community.
What if there was a community that had dictated the killing of one large group of people within that community? Take for example, the society under Hitler was given their order to kill Jews. Was that right for the community to do so? According to atheistic the worldview and according to that community at the time, who made up the law, made it lawful to exterminate one group of people.
But where those solders doing acts that were “good” and “right”? I don’t know of any atheist who would argue for that, and other communities/nations at the time don’t think it was right. After the war, solders who follow the laws of their own community where judge by other communities as doing acts that there “against humanity.”
How could one community ever be judged by another community as doing “acts against humanity.” If, according to atheism, a nation’s laws are arbitrarily created for that one community, then what right does one nation have to judge another nation? If laws are conventions, then laws are not “laws” that make demands on all of humanity. To say that one nation does not conform to the convention of another nation, is no more than to say that you don’t like the color green and that makes you morally “bad” and thus I like the color green and that makes me morally “good.” Goodness and badness looses its value when it is arbitrarily applied.
How does the atheist account for “happiness”? Is it right or wrong, according to atheism, for a rapist in gratifying his own happiness? I think they would answer it is wrong to inhibit the happiness of another. But what about the happiness of the rapist? It is possible to think that the rapist takes happiness in raping, and may even think to himself that he is making the person he rapes happy. In making the individual the arbiter of right and wrong, atheism is unable to make any claims of absolutes and universal good or ills.
If the standard to judge that the acts of person “A” is wrong because it inhibits the happiness of person “B,” then person “A” must [by “law”] stop the action, yet person “B” is also inhibiting the happiness of person “A” by stopping action, and person “B” must [by “law”] permit the action. I think you could see the circle that is being formed. In other words, to judge one person’s acts by the happiness or unhappiness of another person is self refuting, and thus is pedantic to make that a standard of law.
Not that individual atheist are evil, rapist, or non-law abiding citizens; they maybe better people of society, and enjoyable to be around than some Christians. The issue is that given the atheist worldview, there is no way to account for moral laws, or social laws. They may individually live out what they individually consider to be right and wrong, but are not able to account for why they should live that way, or why anyone else should live that way. Even what they consider to be right and wrong are arbitrary. No atheist has ever, that I know of, been able to answer this question: How does one know what is morally right and wrong in a materialist worldview?
The atheist may rightly (according to the Christian worldview) state that one action is “good” and the other is “evil,” but they have no way to account for why they claim one or the other (according to their own naturalistic worldview). No atheist has ever tasted, touched, smelled, heard, or seem “goodness,” “evilness,” “happiness,” or “laws.” These are non-physical, and the naturalistic worldview of atheism is not able to account for the reality of such non-physical realities.
Not being able to account for the reality of evil, the atheist must barrow from the Christian worldview even to claim that evil is “evil.” I think this shows that the atheist worldview is not a valid starting point to answer or even to question the issue of evil in the world.
__________________
Hi guys,
I think that the point of my post and claim is missed.
The_Astrocreep wrote: “I don't understand how you're religion is all that can make saying "right" or "wrong" possible. We could all decide what is right and wrong without use of the Bible or the belief in God.”
The challenged to the atheist worldview that I put forth is that the atheist’s worldview is not able to account for moral laws of right and wrong. Again, the charge is that in a “universe without gods” [in your words], or as I would put it, in a universe without the true God, there is no accounting for absolutes universal laws. Please do consider this point.
The golden rule is Christian, as the very foundation assumes that one “should” live in a moral way. The term itself is derived from the words of Jesus. That is a matter of the historical records, but I will not mind anyone who would try to take the words of Jesus to live on. It maybe true that you personally decide “right” and “wrong” but what does that mean to an atheist? Let me try to make the point more clear, I am not claiming that the atheist does not live morally. The question is two fold: (1.) How does an atheist account for moral absolutes; and (2.) why he/she and others SHOULD live morally?
mu_jjang wrote: “I am quite sure I know that lying, murdering, stealing, raping, etc. are wrong without the Bible's help.”
It is good that you know that, but how do you know? By what do you judge “lying, murdering, stealing, raping, etc.” as bad? Are they? If they are, then how do you know, given an atheist world-view? On what bases or standard does one make such a judgment? Where does that standard come from?
I would submit to you that moral judgments of right and wrong are only meaningful in a God centered world-view. For the Christian world-view, there is the absolute standard given by God. God created humanity in such a way that humanity reflects the nature of the Creator. God is holy, righteous and good. Moral standards for right and wrong makes sense in a Christian world-view.
My point is that the atheist world-view is not able to account for morality at all. To answer that it is just so, or that people have done so for a long time, is merely begging the question. (1.) Where does this idea of good and bad come from?
mu_jjang wrote: "Ultimately" perhaps they have no quality of wrongness in an an atheist worldview, but they are obvious things to refrain from morally anyway.”
I would agree with you, I don’t see how the atheist world-view is able to make any kind of value judgment at all. Then that means that “lying, murdering, stealing, raping, etc.” that you claim to know that are “wrong” are not “wrong.” The atheist world-view is not able to say that murder is wrong. Isn’t there just something wrong with atheism for not calling out the evil of murder as the evil it is?
And if, given the atheist world-view, there is no absolute standard, (2.) why SHOULD anyone live according an “arbitrary morality,” given the atheistic world-view?
Why SHOULD anyone live out the golden rule? What obligates that one should not live THEIR OWN “golden rule” — “those who have the gold makes the rules”; or “those who have the guns call the shots”;.. and again, given the atheist world-view, there is no absolute moral rule that makes demands on humanity. Others, who will not go along with your moral conventions, are thus free to formulate their own conventions which would include “lying, murdering, stealing, raping, etc.” even if that means to walk around shooting students on an open campus. Is that “right” or “wrong” for that student to do so? On what bases could an atheist make such a moral judgment? What right does one human have to make standards of morals to demand another human to follow?
“Morality” is just as arbitrary to the atheist world-view as to say that one likes the color “blue,” as appose to those who do not like the color “blue.” If morality is arbitrary and not absolute, then one guy likes “lying, murdering, stealing, raping, etc.” and the other guy does not. Such admittedly, immoral acts are trivialized to a matter of preference.
If the atheist disagrees, all the atheist has to do is to prove, given their world-view, that morality is NOT ARBITRARY. Again, IF morality is not arbitrary, then where does this absolute law of morality come from?
In order for the atheist to claim that an act such as the Holocaust, or September 11, or Virginia Tech shooting is “wrong”; the atheist must barrow from the God centered world-view in order to make such a moral value judgments.
Pychen: I don't know if you have ever read this, but I wrote this in the past pointing out that an Atheist does not have any grounds to even raise the objection of evil.
Perhaps you did not even read (or understand?) my intro to this post. I’ll give you some pertinent quotes that already bypass your objection:
“If we are created in the image of God and that is where morality comes from then it follows we have an opportunity for “checks and balances” on the system. Our very best ethical standards ought to apply. If they don’t…then how can God be said to be a moral example to us? How can we “be perfect like our heavenly father is perfect” if all that means is not being bound by any rules? How does it follow that our morality is a coherent reflection of his character and “essence” if no human standard of ethics applies? In a tautological sense, if God professes to be a good person…he ought to fit the profile…just like if he wants to be called a triangle…he ought to have three sides.”
“The validity of moral objectivity in an atheist’s worldview is one thing…but theists still fail to make a coherent moral picture out of their own view. They must realize on some level that Yahweh isn’t bullet proof to any moral criticality and thus they attempt to sabotage the gun being fired. I don’t know who they think they are fooling.”
“Even if God is the definition of morality and we are sure that absolute morality exists in some non-sequiter transcendent sense, we would for these reasons have to go looking for a different god that matches up.”
You believe in absolute moral accountability, but instead of your god being morally accountable or instead of you critically evaluating your religion’s morality objectively, you drop the ball in favor of what? Not having to subject your religion to objective internal truth tests?
ARU
How does an atheist account for morality or why they are acting as moral people. I did real what you wrote and it does not answer the question of how is naturalist able to call anything as moraly good or evil. On what bases can there be a standered for morality in an atheist worldview?
If you think you answered it and thus I missed it again, please do put it in simple words for a simple person like myself.
The answer is an atheist is a human and humans are moral beings just like everyone else. It doesn't matter where it came from or how it got there. You have to accept this to justify your own epistemology. If atheists aren't innately capable of making moral assessments, then your Bible is mistaken to say the "law" is written on everyone's heart and you are unable to make your claim that the consistency of moral intuitions points to a divine standard (a la CS Lewis). You can't have it both ways. Innate ethics regardless of origin is where atheists are coming from. They don't start from the netherworld, they start from observation. And your belief system affirms that common ground observation between the worldviews and you saw off the branch you are sitting on to deny it. However your criticism is starting from a strawman version of a theoretical chaotic worldview and asking how any order can exist or how evolution can manage to account for an objective moral standard that each of us finds within. I've answered both of these criticisms at length else where. And your criticism is basically a giant argument from incredulity that isn't convincing to me because I do understand what my worldview entails.
Now, given you are a bit polemically challenged, I'll try to patiently point out the above quote of myself points to two common ground normative observations that are within both our areas of expertise. The contrast is between innate ethics and the demonstrated God ethics found in the Biblical stories and observations about how the world is in general. We may not be able to settle complicated philosophical issues or vast evidential conspiracy theories, but we can compare and contrast these two things that are easily within our grasp (as I hope I have demonstrated) to test the theist's claims for internal ethical coherence. Thus if you fail to make a plausible (and *probable*) case for God's goodness on grounds we are familiar with, how much less so can you expect to succeed in territory that is so foreign to "simple people" such as ourselves? I.E. Relatively speaking, I'm pointing to our proverbial backyard for a disproof of Christian theism and you are pointing to the ends of the universe for your disproof of atheism. Obviously one of us is off course.
You are normally the one that accuses me of being off topic, and the internal consistency and coherence of Christian ethics doesn't have enough to do with the basis of atheistic ethics to continue on this point. Thus you are taking us off topic, in my opinion.
ARU
You assume to know what "good" is. By what basis? Here I am pointing out that you do not have any means to judge God or anyone, because you don't even have the grounds to claim good as good and evil as evil. If you claim to, then on what basis. If not, then your worldview is invalid to make anymorel objections.
The above is what I wrote to your comment on my blog, I did not know that you wrote another comment here. I will answer this one in a few hours. later
Here is again, the question to you, on what basis are you able to make any moral judgments at all? I am asking about the foundation or why you are 'right' in claiming a thing is good or evil. How would you know? On what basis?
I don't know if you do not understand the issue raise or I am not explaining it well. It does not matter to me why, but I just hope that we are communicating more clearly.
As it is, I don't think you are answering the question above. 1. To merely claim that somethings is, is not an explanation nor to account for how that could be so in a naturalistic worldview.
2. The issue is NOT that atheist do not make moral judgments, they do; the issue is on what BASIS are they able to make moral judgments?
3. You are right, the teaching of the Bible is that even those who are non-believers in God also make moral judgments and it is because the law is written in the human heart by God, that is why people are moral IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. BUT that is the Christian worldview NOT the atheist worldview. You, as an atheist, reject that, so you must account for morality without God, as your worldview demands of you to do.
IT is YOU who can't have it both ways. You are not able to explain your worldview, so you barrow from mine to claim that atheist are moral, when your naturalistic worldview does not account for morality. [It may help you to read CS Lewis, if you have not.]
4. How would you account for "innate ethics"? Are you claiming that ethics came from matter in motion.. from non-ethics? Running from answering the question does not mean that the question is not important as if it is not important where morality comes from. You might as well, say that it does not matter where life comes from, or that the naturalistic worldview is shallow and unable to answer the most vital issues of life, and If you don't think the grounds of morality is important, then you must live under a rock. I think you would hold that morality is very important. If so, then how would you account for it?
5. "regardless of origin"? How is that kind of statement based on "observation" or is that based on your "netherworld thinking"? Again, running from the question is not an answer.
6. What are you talking about "And your belief system affirms that common ground observation between the worldviews and you saw off the branch you are sitting on to deny it." I got no idea what you are talking about.
7. What I have done, was to ask you simple questions of a thing you take for granted--moral value judgments. I got no idea what you claim as strawman, or chaotic worldview. Yes, I do think that the naturalistic worldview is chaotic, and not worthy of people to live with it. But I don't think that is what you are talking about.
8. From your word, you are not able to account for why anyone should be moral, but just that it is so, demonstrate to me that your evolution is not able to account for morality. But again, I don't know if this is what you are wanting to say.
9. You have not demonstrated that I made a strawman or making an argument from incredulity, just by stating it does not mean there is any grounds for that kind of charge. IF you think there is, don't just say it, demonstrate it! {that is why I don't like to use big words, people get hanged up on throwing words around without grounds; if that is what is meant by "polemically challenged", then I thank you.}
10. I don't know if you have read my last blog, where I cover the issue of comment ground. You will find there that I have wrote that the atheist and the theist do not have fundamentally common grounds. What we each have is a worldview. In my worldview, morality is accounted for; however, I don't think the naturalistic worldview is able to account for morality. You sure have not done so, any where that I have read.
11. So you can't account for morality, and you think why calling it "innate" is an answer? Again, are you claiming that ethics is "innate" to matter in motion--that morality came from non-morality? "Atheistic ethics"? What is that?
But PLEASE don't take that as a slander on your self, you are trying the impossible, and with no help from other atheist, because they have also not been able to do so from the naturalistic worldview. Thus, I say that the naturalist worldview is not worthy of intelligent people (as I think many atheist are) to hold to.
Pychen: I don't know if you have ever read this, but I wrote this in the past pointing out that an Atheist does not have any grounds to even raise the objection of evil.
We have the same grounds you do. So unless you are insulting our intelligence or our innate moral acuity or are in denial that there are in fact “inconsistent” moral atheists, the question is what morality really is and where morality came from. A theist can watch an entire generation of atheists in a secular country live, love, be excellent to one another and die peacefully based entirely on explicitly stated coherent reasons and their innate sense of goodness…and theolosophers will still manage to say something was missing from their moral paradigm. Whatever imaginary variable you think is missing, I’m sure I’ve covered it in my “abstract entities and atheism” post as well as my “atheism and morality” post exhaustively. You have not even begun to show the competence of those terms in a way that I could respect your opinion on whether it stands or falls. You are still tripping up on the most basic aspects. I would LOVE to be challenged on my own terms…but you don’t seem to be the person to do it. Perhaps we should stick to more basic things.
Pychen: How does Atheism account for evil?
What does the atheist have to say about evil in the world? Evil is a given reality in the world for atheist and theist alike. How does the atheist account for the reality of evil?
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.
Let’s see what you are attempting to mean:
A. You don’t think evolution can produce anything at all. Care to explain to me how some whales have vestigial hind legs complete with feet and toes? Not to mention all of their deep underwater complex adaptations in hearing and sight that would have to have evolved along with the loss of the legs in general?
B. You don’t think evolution can produce a viable “yin yang” neurological relationship based on what is incidentally holistically profitable for our species? You don’t think morality is definable like a computer program?
C. You don’t believe that “survival of the fittest” also can apply to “survival of the fittest group” and output altruistic tendencies because perhaps you have very stunted expectations of all that evolution entails?
D. You don’t think that altruistic behavior in other animals is “real” even though animals seem to demonstrate a full emotional spectrum and laboratory experiments prove they will “senselessly” help others. Or you think morality is too “special” to have evolved. Or (A) again. Is the evolution of the pancreas okay with you? Why is morality singled out?
E. Or you don’t think that there is enough evidence for this one line item on the massive tree of the theory of evolution and that we’re all going on faith here? In other words your God doesn’t have to even show up to have a personal relationship, but you expect there to be a mountain of evidence on every single one of a billion evolved features even though no one was there to take careful notes?
F. You are importing an absolutist sense into the equation that requires evolved feelings to have some kind of cosmic significance…in other words you are secretly inserting your theistic expectations into the equation and not allowing morality to be a “universal” as in for our species but limited in the sense that it only applies to those running the same kind of system.
G. You don’t think atheists are as capable of processing moral judgment as your imaginary friend?
H. You are going to pretend like there’s some other mysterious variable x that you’ll never get around to defining that is “missing” from the atheist worldview and you will blame it all on me and claim I am running from it and this vicious cycle of poor communication can continue forever.
If it is as you say that “you don’t know when God created everything,” would you care to explain why Jesus says Adam and Eve were created in the “beginning” or how the Flood of Noah could have covered the mountains of Ararat without covering pretty much the entire earth. Or why Moses says that all things were created in six days? Or how you can get away with your doctrines of the Fall of Man stumbling over the death of animals for billions of years previous to the actual fall…or how you can explain carnivorous activity in the fossil record even though these would have been vegetarians? Do you need all of the verses that prove that Young Earth Creationism is explicitly taught in the Bible or not? See Pychen. You aren’t being straight with atheism or your God on a lot of levels. You have no basis for criticizing me.
Pychen: To judge evil as “evil,” the person must have a standard by which the “evil” has fallen short of.
And now atheists are inhuman monsters with no internal moral compass?
Pychen: Atheists are not able to define or account for the existence of evil without appealing to or presupposing an ultimate stand of goodness.
Atheists are presupposing that their inherited sense of goodness is common ground with the rest of the species. A simple conversation will confirm that.
Pychen: What if there was a community that had dictated the killing of one large group of people within that community? Take for example, the society under Hitler was given their order to kill Jews. Was that right for the community to do so?
Are you trying to say that atheists think that every law ever made is ethical?
Pychen: According to atheistic the worldview and according to that community at the time, who made up the law, made it lawful to exterminate one group of people.
Are you trying to say that atheists think everyone is infallible?
Pychen: But where those solders doing acts that were “good” and “right”? I don’t know of any atheist who would argue for that, and other communities/nations at the time don’t think it was right. After the war, solders who follow the laws of their own community where judge by other communities as doing acts that there “against humanity.”
And yet when your God does and commands these very same things, you’ll look the other way. It is the atheist who is being consistent, sir. Not the theist.
Pychen: How could one community ever be judged by another community as doing “acts against humanity.” If, according to atheism, a nation’s laws are arbitrarily created for that one community, then what right does one nation have to judge another nation?
So atheists are now saying that all chips are stacked on their particular nations’ laws?
Pychen: If laws are conventions, then laws are not “laws” that make demands on all of humanity.
Laws are just the symptoms of being moral and intellectual evolutures. The “demands” are merely the universal “law” of reciprocation in action. One does not commit atrocities in a vacuum…one does it amongst moral neighbors. Since there are no absolute rules, there is no rule against your neighbors taking matters into their own hands to achieve the moral equilibrium again. It is the theist who is being inconsistent and presupposing some absolute law that says it is “wrong” to do this.
Pychen: To say that one nation does not conform to the convention of another nation, is no more than to say that you don’t like the color green and that makes you morally “bad” and thus I like the color green and that makes me morally “good.” Goodness and badness looses its value when it is arbitrarily applied.
It is you who is putting it in such superficial terms. Of course, as far as rocks or the stars are concerned (which is the level you are appealing to) morality is at the level of mere preference. But as far as other moral evolutures are concerned…morality and good will are not flakey concepts and there is no logical reason to expect them to be from our perspective as atheists. Again you are constantly trying to sneak in your galactic standard that has no place.
Pychen: Is it right or wrong, according to atheism, for a rapist in gratifying his own happiness?
I think a child can figure out what happiness means without instantaneously running the concept into the ground of short-sighted imbalanced and destructive versions of it. So, should my intelligence be insulted again? Are atheists too stupid to figure out what a good definition of happiness is?
Pychen: I think they would answer it is wrong to inhibit the happiness of another. But what about the happiness of the rapist?
What can I say? It makes me happy to thwart the rapist’s happiness. ;) He should have known better than to explicitly be hindering someone else’s happiness who wasn’t about inhibiting someone else’s happiness. How else can happiness be respected unless we reject the dysfunctional versions of it?
Pychen: It is possible to think that the rapist takes happiness in raping, and may even think to himself that he is making the person he rapes happy.
So…atheists believe rapists’ opinions are inerrant? You really have to be giving atheism zero credit here not to be able to shortstop these nonsensical claims before they are typed.
Pychen: In making the individual the arbiter of right and wrong, atheism is unable to make any claims of absolutes and universal good or ills.
So…your theory is we should spin the wheel of fidelity and put our finger randomly down on some ancient holy book uncritically from a moral perspective?
Pychen: They may individually live out what they individually consider to be right and wrong, but are not able to account for why they should live that way,
Perhaps they don’t need their feelings to have cosmic significance to be valid enough to live on.
Pychen: or why anyone else should live that way.
Or even to be able to appeal to others who have the very same common ground solidarity.
Pychen: The atheist may rightly (according to the Christian worldview) state that one action is “good” and the other is “evil,” but they have no way to account for why they claim one or the other (according to their own naturalistic worldview).
And can simply be turned back on you: How do you know that your God’s essence is not perverted? Especially when you apparently refuse to be critical of his moral endeavors? How do you know that what he says is good is really good? Or what he says is bad is really bad? If you cannot answer this question, then this is not a dealbreaker with your average atheist’s possible agnosticism on this one line item. You are lying if you were really trying to “tie” in explanatory power with mutual agnosticism. You think you know something that is damning to atheism, but you can’t back that up.
Pychen: The term itself is derived from the words of Jesus. That is a matter of the historical records, but I will not mind anyone who would try to take the words of Jesus to live on. It maybe true that you personally decide “right” and “wrong” but what does that mean to an atheist? Let me try to make the point more clear, I am not claiming that the atheist does not live morally. The question is two fold: (1.) How does an atheist account for moral absolutes; and (2.) why he/she and others SHOULD live morally?
(1) We’re all the same species and have a common system inherited from our evolutionary past. (2)“Should’s” are conditional statements predicated on the acceptance of common solidarity. They are in fact optional, however *if* you want to be at peace with yourself and others, then you *should* act morally as that is the only viable means of acquiring that goal. You think there’s something missing…but there isn’t. Believing in theism doesn’t give you any more control over the situation than what I’ve stated here.
Pychen: To answer that it is just so, or that people have done so for a long time, is merely begging the question. (1.) Where does this idea of good and bad come from?
But pushing it one uncritical step back with God isn’t begging the question?
Pychen: Isn’t there just something wrong with atheism for not calling out the evil of murder as the evil it is?
And yet you appeal to those same innate moral sensibilities to judge it…the very one’s atheists saying they use and the very ones they are applying to god.
Pychen: Why SHOULD anyone live out the golden rule? What obligates that one should not live THEIR OWN “golden rule” — “those who have the gold makes the rules”;
People are free to make up their own rules, but incidentally not just any rule works as well with our inherited system. If you have intellectual faculties you should be able to understand this. It works in a certain way and demands certain kinds of attention. I would tell people to depart from that at their own risk.
Pychen: I am asking about the foundation or why you are 'right' in claiming a thing is good or evil.
What are you saying? That my brain doesn’t have the ability to process objectivity? Why do I need this extra special “right?” Is this some kind of permission slip from God? Why can’t I just talk and get away with it because there’s nothing to stop me? And if I’ve done my job people will listen. And if I haven’t…they won’t. End of story.
Pychen: 3. You are right, the teaching of the Bible is that even those who are non-believers in God also make moral judgments and it is because the law is written in the human heart by God, that is why people are moral IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. BUT that is the Christian worldview NOT the atheist worldview. You, as an atheist, reject that, so you must account for morality without God, as your worldview demands of you to do.
See…I’m not pointing at the “why.” I’m pointing at the “that.” Evolution accounts for the nature of morality just fine.
Pychen: IT is YOU who can't have it both ways. You are not able to explain your worldview, so you barrow from mine to claim that atheist are moral, when your naturalistic worldview does not account for morality.
I can claim the opposite, that morality has been cultivated by the process of evolution, our moral buoyancy is therefore innate…and religion borrowed from that context and perverted it as you can see demonstrated in this post.
Pychen: 4. How would you account for "innate ethics"? Are you claiming that ethics came from matter in motion.. from non-ethics?
Yes. Molecular motion is nothing but a system of contingency and our moral programming is merely a cultivated complex system of that same contingency. You are granting the mere terms too great an ontological status. Evolutures have gone from what we would call non morality, to proto morality to full fledged morality. Again…you see something wrong with that…I don’t. You need to explicitly explain exactly what it is that you disagree with. Because as I see it, at least atheistic morality is predicated on reliable physical laws (which are really just a non-special iteration of all possible “laws” found in the Allverse) and its been tried and tested in the field for millions of years…whereas your God’s morality isn’t predicated on anything at all. It could literally be anything and is based on nothing.
Pychen: My point is that the atheist world-view is not able to account for morality at all.
You’ve claimed that over a dozen times in this comment alone…perhaps you need to say it about 800 more times and that’ll make it true.
ARU
Oh, and as far as length goes...on comprehensive posts like this...I don't expect people to read the whole thing. Its broken up into sections which makes it easy to skim and digest at your leisure. Its mainly for reference so I have easy access to all my arguments...and God's got a lot of junk in his closet...and believers have a lot of excuses that have to be confronted...and I have to be as explicit as possible and avoid not making my case...and I have to hit topics to the depth I see them...and its nice to be able to show that I'm not messing around and making stuff up as I go...I actually think long and hard about this and mean to show it.
ARU
ARU
I generally try to avoid online discussions, as, more often than not, they dissolve into flame wars, which leave bitter tastes and are fairly unconstructive. I'm not entirely sure why I am attempting to begin one now, but it probably has something to do with the fact that you write prolifically, you seem intelligent, and you've written about three areas that interest me considerably - the problem of evil, the meaning of life, and atheist ethics. This being said, I have a couple of questions that I would appreciate answered, if you have the time.
I was thinking about being ginger in my language, trying hard to underhand pitch some objections, but I don't really feel like it at the moment, so I wont. I hope you don't mind. Even so, apologies beforehand, if I am overly blunt.
First, a question. Epistemologically, do you believe that absolute knowledge can be obtained (i.e. "this is right/true/real with out any doubt")? It would seem in both your discussion about ethics and the meaning of life that you seem to take something of a relativist (although certainly not pluralist) stance. Meaning and ethics seem to be fairly contextualized for you. Would this be a correct assessment of your views?
Another question. What would you say concerning the value of human life? You discuss the value of human fitness as a species. You also talk about how one insane or crazy person should be killed if he or she is threatening the common good. But how about an old person (and I have had at least three encounters with elderly people almost hitting me because they were traveling in the wrong direction on a road)? Or someone that is mentally handicapped? If I understand you correctly, you would say that through evolution, we have developed mental blocks that would cause internal problems with such killing. This may be the case for the aforementioned examples, although I am skeptical, but how about slavery? The western world, for a time, saw the black individual as sub-human. Such individuals would have about as much of an ethical dilemma killing a black person as they would a cow. And this slavery was not exactly bad for humanity as a species. The cheap cotton helped not only the American economy, but the international economy. Would you say that this was contextual morality?
I realize everyone of these questions is multiple questions, but the numbering system keeps things organized. So, a "third" question. In reading your section on the meaning of life, if I had to style your outlook on life, it would be something along the lines of an "intellectual hedonist." "Eat, drink, and read books, lest tomorrow we die." Am I over simplifying your outlook? Do you have any other reason behind your "leveling up," such as concreting yourself in the annals of history or advancing humanity?
If your wish is for the advancement of the human species, might I ask why (the why also applies to historical glory, or any other reason you might have for leveling up). Quite honestly, if this earth and this life is all that there is, and after I die, my consciousness ceases and my body becomes worm food, I could care less if all humanity perishes in a nuclear war the moment I cease to be alive. Or if they want to slander my name, or piss on my decaying body, I don't care at all. Why should I? I'm dead. Do you have a different outlook on humanity after your death? If so, then why?
A fourth question. Would you agree with Nietzsche in his being completely anti-metaphysical? Or do you believe in metaphysics to some degree. I guess that some Christian apologists would call time and logic metaphysical, but I wouldn't say that that is necessarily the case. However, what would keep something like, say, cause and effect from being a meta-scam? NB I certainly don't think that cause and effect is a meta-scam, but David Hume did. What proves him wrong?
A fifth question. This one might seem kind of weird to you, but it is of significant interest to me. What would you say makes something beautiful? I think most would say that it is an attraction of some sort. If you agree with that, then what attracts us to beautiful things?
That's all of the questions that I can think of off the top of my head. I also have a few objections to some of the things you have written in the above post. However, I am certainly not expecting to win an argument, as, for these objections, my primary basis is Scripture which, apparently, you and I regard with different levels of respect. Regardless, it might help you in constructing better arguments.
The first section of this post seemed to me to be missing the point. For many Christians, Hell is giving sinful man what he wants - complete freedom from God. However, since God is the source of all good things, then complete freedom from God results in no more good things. So those aspects of God's character, love, beauty, peace, logic (order), are withdrawn with his presence. It is then logically impossible for God to create options that are outside of himself that are still good, since those that do not love him hate him and want nothing to do with him. You know your Bible well enough to know that there is no sanction given to indifference.
Secondly, I wished to object to the assertion that God entered into a low maintenance relationship. Of course, again, this is based on Scriptures being true. I think that the Bible makes it clear that Christ suffered a lot for our sins. I don't really have a lot of respect for Lee Strobel, but in his "The Case for Christ" he describes the biology of crucifixion. Not only does the person being crucified have nails driven through their wrists, where it can rub up against the main nerve there, but one must pull oneself up by the wrists to breathe. And every time one does that, one's back, if it had been whipped, rubbed up against the wood of the cross. This is pretty miserable, and he did it to save people (Isa 53:5). Of course, lots of people were crucified back then. However, not only was Christ (according to the Bible) innocent, the cross itself was merely a symbol of what was happening to him spiritually, as God's wrath for every person saved was poured out on him. This was his son, with whom he had had perfect fellowship with up to this point for all eternity. I feel like this is doing a lot to start a relationship with people who hate you. In other words, it would appear Biblically that God had to take the first step in this "low maintenance relationship"(1 John 4:19)and it appears to be a fairly significant step. Even if you don't buy the whole crucifixion story, just the fact that God made himself a man says a lot (Phi 2:6-8). All in all, it just seems like an odd thing to say. The Bible seems to paint said relationship as very high maintenance on his part. Then again, if you don't believe the Bible is true, then you can say whatever you want, but then why make that point at all?
Thirdly, I just wanted to say a quick word (which very easily might turn into a long word), about total depravity. I'm a Calvinist, so I'm fairly used to being attacked by people. Mainstream evangelical Arminians hate Calvinists because of the whole predestination thing, and non-Christians hate Calvinists because they're Christian. And you know, Calvinists do have something of a deserved reputation for being pricks. Still, I think that the doctrine makes a lot of sense - at least a lot more sense than Arminian doctrine. I don't want to go through all five points of Calvinism, or even get that in depth into total depravity. I just want to note that total depravity doesn't mean that all humanity has to be totally evil. I'm not sure if you read the wiki article, but it notes that "Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition." This is a decent explanation. There is a lot of doctrine behind this, but right now it would probably suffice to say that total depravity dictates that all men are sinful (fall short of the bar set by God) in everything they do. This doesn't imply that when a non-Christian drinks his orange juice in the morning that he is guilty of genocide, but merely that there is no way he can earn his own salvation, for the wages of sin are death (Rom 6:23). The conclusion to this doctrine is that all people who are saved are saved by grace alone (this relates to the "low maintenance" point), as even our good deeds are like rags in the eyes of God (Isa 64:6).
Finally, I just wanted to note that I was somewhat disappointed in your meaning of life section. What I got out of it was "keep yourself busy, and don't think about ultimate meaning because there is none." This is worrisome to me because of the sociological crises of Suburbia. It would seem that something strange is happening in the suburbs of America. Divorce rates, suicide rates, depression and crack addiction are rising significantly. The disturbing thing is that these are people who are well off. In general we are talking about nice houses, nice incomes, 2 cars (at least), plenty of food, AC, playing golf, etc. Indeed, these are people that are living the American dream. This is a state that I like to call "pragmatic nihilism." Basically, you keep yourself busy, so that you don't realize that everything you do has no meaning. The problem is when people take a moment to reflect on what they have done with their life. After they die, what does it matter? It doesn't really. In the face of such a bleak outlook, things seem to fall apart. Somehow, I don't think that reading an interesting book or doing something that you're good it is going to cut it. To quote Ecclesiastes:
"I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind./What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is lacking cannot be counted. I said to myself, "Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge." And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain."
What do you think? Is all vanity?
Anyways, I've stayed up way to late writing this thing. Again, I am not trying to destroy you with my incredible arguments. I feel that most of my objections are poorly articulated, and I am sure that if you wanted to, it would not be hard to pick them apart. I just wanted to lay a few things on the table and get your response, to make sure I am reading you fairly, and, perhaps, to contribute something to your thinking through these issues.
Dan
Thanks for all of the thoughtful questions. I hope you are receptive enough to my answers. You do seem somewhat reasonable from the get go.
Dan: First, a question. Epistemologically, do you believe that absolute knowledge can be obtained (i.e. "this is right/true/real with out any doubt")?
I grade on the curve. Whatever I am most certain of is whatever I am most certain of and it goes out and down from there. Concerning oneself with absolute absolute absolutes is a pointless exercise in futility as we can only approach certainty but never arrive…at least I think that’s probably true. ;) Of course, we’re talking about mere percentage points of inaccuracy here that are hardly worth mentioning in general. Granted one could make the measure of absolute certainty a neurological function…in other words certainty probably has a measurable status in the brain…a *finite* measurable status that could plausibly be reached on its own terms. However, it could also be a matter of false confidence.
Dan: It would seem in both your discussion about ethics and the meaning of life that you seem to take something of a relativist (although certainly not pluralist) stance. Meaning and ethics seem to be fairly contextualized for you. Would this be a correct assessment of your views?
Meaning is of course context dependent. Even Paul has a touch of moral relativism (such as differing levels of faith in disputable matters) and Biblicists have to make the morality of ancient Israel contextual for them...as different rules apply to us. I don’t mean to attack instead of answer, but theists more often than not get the wrong idea when you say morality is contextual…but that doesn’t make it not-objective…in fact discontextual ethics are unobjective as they are merely imposed on foreign contexts uncritically. What unites moral conversations (in terms of my moral paradigm) is the mutual solidarity of our species that we’ve all inherited. Who can really argue, “Those morals don’t apply to me…because I’m that different at a fundamental level”? Would they not be lying? Understanding morality is simply not rocket science and there are any number of moral authorities on the matter throughout history to help out in the struggle for objectivity on the matter.
When I say, “meaning in life is contextual” I also mean, such meaning is conditional on being a human like we are. I don’t pull any punches or artificially suspend variables for the sake of my convenience. And theists get the wrong idea and get afraid that they are going to lose something they didn’t already not have by simply being straight forward with the timid truth of our situation…whatever that may be.
Dan: Another question. What would you say concerning the value of human life?
What kind of answer are you looking for? As emotional evolutures we have to value something. What else other than human life is there to value that is going to be most tautologically compatible with our innate human loving system? Thus it is no surprise that humans value humans and since I too am human, I also find it most promising to value human life to whatever degree is sensible.
Dan: You discuss the value of human fitness as a species.
That is merely the most plausible origin of why we value what we do.
Dan: You also talk about how one insane or crazy person should be killed if he or she is threatening the common good.
I’m assuming you are referring to the one line item objection about what to do with a killer on an immanent rampage…have a humanist tea party or take action and obviously I would hope you would agree the time for diplomacy has passed. Thus, it is not a unilateral pronouncement for the execution of the insane when there are other humane and palatable options.
Dan: But how about an old person (and I have had at least three encounters with elderly people almost hitting me because they were traveling in the wrong direction on a road)?
Is taking away their drivers licenses not on the table for atheists? Perhaps you think common sense and decency are not part of the natural world of humans? Atheists only have the most extreme of extreme options at their disposal? Or is that God?
Dan: Or someone that is mentally handicapped? If I understand you correctly, you would say that through evolution, we have developed mental blocks that would cause internal problems with such killing. This may be the case for the aforementioned examples, although I am skeptical, but how about slavery? The western world, for a time, saw the black individual as sub-human. Such individuals would have about as much of an ethical dilemma killing a black person as they would a cow.
I have a big problem when theists (or anyone for that matter) think that something that is obviously unethical is simply indefinable and indefensible in terms of reason. Rule of thumb: If it’s *truly* unethical…then by definition it can be accurately described (though you may be too dull to do it) as an objective moral proposition. If it can’t be objectively described in terms of ill consequence and general mental unhealthiness and inefficiency and lop-sided reaction-prone mal-happiness…then perhaps it isn’t as unethical as you assumed. To continue on in ethics detached from legitimate consequence is to lose touch with your humanity and the entire point of ethics in the first place. It in effect makes morality an idol that turns humanity into mere fodder for senseless ideals.
You’re average person is in touch with the immorality of racism and slavery…however they aren’t as in touch with the intellectual faculties to define it in terms of a coherent moral system and thus tend to assume that without a god (who condones both, incidentally) we are lost in subjectivity…when really it’s a matter of ignorance and stupidity. Do you honestly think there is no objective sociological dysfunction that can be measured in terms of the consequences of dehumanizing an entire ethnic group for entirely hairsplitting reasons? For starters and at the most brute prima facie level, when has such an era not ended in disaster for those who thought they could get away with it? Our actions do not exist in a vacuum and pretending as though your neighbor can eternally cock-block his innate sympathy for humanity is delusional.
The Southern states…Hitler…these people got what they had coming to them as a result. Of course getting caught is just the first wave…we can get more and more intimate with the objective consequences of racism…how it puts unnecessary rifts into cultures, leaves lasting scars that your ancestors of your ancestors will have to deal with…inspires illogical hatred that have reciprocal dysfunctional consequences in the racist themselves that they have to ignore. Naturally repressing a people makes for a volatile atmosphere in and of itself that has to be “managed.” Not to mention it’s never a perfect get-away as we have lots of examples in the South expressing regret and cognitive dissonance at the institution of slavery as “necessary evil.” Thus the natural moral buoyancy of our species and the universal law of reciprocation express themselves in many definable ways. Granted…people may still not listen to you’re plea for moral sanity…but that’s not any more different than it would be as a theist.
Dan: And this slavery was not exactly bad for humanity as a species. The cheap cotton helped not only the American economy, but the international economy. Would you say that this was contextual morality?
You are only using one narrow measure of “good.” *Contextually* human happiness requires more than mere selfish gain at the expense of others. Of course you already knew that as it was the unspoken basis/agenda of your question, but somehow managed to suspend this aspect of moral wisdom for the sake of criticizing atheism? Are atheists incompetent? Inhuman? If you prick us…do we not bleed? Etc.
Dan: I realize everyone of these questions is multiple questions, but the numbering system keeps things organized. So, a "third" question. In reading your section on the meaning of life, if I had to style your outlook on life, it would be something along the lines of an "intellectual hedonist." "Eat, drink, and read books, lest tomorrow we die." Am I over simplifying your outlook?
I don’t recall disowning the full spectrum of emotional edification that goes along with being a human being… Atheism is theism, minus one fictional relationship. Somehow the baby of our humanity gets thrown out with the bathwater of myth when a theist attempts to “understand” non-theism.
Dan: Do you have any other reason behind your "leveling up," such as concreting yourself in the annals of history or advancing humanity?
I think the term humanism denotes a general affinity for the mutual interests of humanity and ingratiating yourself into that network of love and appreciation is the most rewarding thing there is in life. Is that not good enough? If I live my life for these ends and tell you I’m satisfied on my death bed and that it was all worth it even though I’m just going to die…will you still disbelieve me? Why is it then that you believe heavenly things but not mundane earthly things like this?
Dan: If your wish is for the advancement of the human species, might I ask why (the why also applies to historical glory, or any other reason you might have for leveling up). Quite honestly, if this earth and this life is all that there is, and after I die, my consciousness ceases and my body becomes worm food, I could care less if all humanity perishes in a nuclear war the moment I cease to be alive.
I'm afraid it boils down to that you think atheists are “ice cubes” swimming in the “pool” of innate meaning because you've just gotten out of the “hot tub” of divine promises of eternal life (that you’ve spent your life acclimating to)...even though you can attest that atheists clearly are not frozen solid (aka they act “inconsistently”), you react solely to your initial touch of the "freezing cold" water that is in reality actually room temperature (aka normal and innate). Humanist motivations are misunderstood because your familiarity with your worldview clouds your ability to see non-theistic meaning in life on its own terms, in my opinion.
Being “demoted” from eternal life to next to nothing must come as a real shock, but accepting that this life is all you got and that you can make the most of it is in fact quite satisfactory from an atheistic perspective. Millions of atheists, agnostics, and Buddhists will attest to this…but instead you’ll believe ancient hearsay about magic and the supernatural instead. Naturally I can’t guarantee that you personally will find it suitable…everyone is different, but neither can you guarantee that I’ll find the prospect of worshiping your god for all eternity suitable either (see above post for why).
Dan: Or if they want to slander my name, or piss on my decaying body, I don't care at all. Why should I? I'm dead. Do you have a different outlook on humanity after your death? If so, then why?
Naturally a degree of apathy is warranted…but it is only natural to look after the interests of your offspring at the very least. Who wants to spend their final days making an ass of themselves?
Dan: A fourth question. Would you agree with Nietzsche in his being completely anti-metaphysical?
No. I don’t think metaphysics have any emotional significance other than being at general peace with existentialism and the great unknown. I think the most depth of meaning comes from the relationships we form on the human level.
Dan: Or do you believe in metaphysics to some degree.
I will defend my Allverse philosophical hypothesis. But admittedly it leaves infinite blanks to be filled in by exploration and observation.
Dan: I guess that some Christian apologists would call time and logic metaphysical, but I wouldn't say that that is necessarily the case. However, what would keep something like, say, cause and effect from being a meta-scam? NB I certainly don't think that cause and effect is a meta-scam, but David Hume did. What proves him wrong?
According to how I’ve defined a meta-scam elsewhere on this xanga, mere illusion is not the only requirement. The proposition of cause/effect does not demand significant emotional cost at a normative level…in fact quite the opposite. There are no arbitrarily closed doors that ought to be opened. It is not a personal proposition…its just an innate aspect of impersonal reality…I guess you could say it piggybacks on appearances…but that’s only one criteria. Cause and effect do seem to be a necessary explanation at least in a limited sense, but according to my Allverse hypothesis, these are mere incidence of our quadrant of the infinite set of all possibilities (like static fallen dominoes)…and thus are basically illusionary from a greater reference frame than our normative vantage point. It is like the difference between geocentricism and heliocentrism. The simplest vantage point is that the earth moves around the sun, but our practical vantage point says otherwise and the same is true I think of cause and effect vs. the greater nature of all of existence. Hope that all made sense…if not, ask more questions. You can’t just slap the term meta-scam on anything. It has a very specific meaning and criteria that have to be fulfilled.
Dan: A fifth question. This one might seem kind of weird to you, but it is of significant interest to me. What would you say makes something beautiful? I think most would say that it is an attraction of some sort. If you agree with that, then what attracts us to beautiful things?
The best inference given the theory of evolution is that beauty is an inherited systemic tautology. Our brains are adjusted as yins to the yangs of external experience. We are “in love” with our living space and that should be no surprise. Evolutures who weren’t were less prone to get along with their environment and each other. And ultimately the foundations to which we are adapted in terms of beauty translate across space and time to even distant galaxies of beauty…since the laws of physics and the rhyme and reason of the universe exists there as well as here.
Dan: That's all of the questions that I can think of off the top of my head. I also have a few objections to some of the things you have written in the above post. However, I am certainly not expecting to win an argument, as, for these objections, my primary basis is Scripture which, apparently, you and I regard with different levels of respect. Regardless, it might help you in constructing better arguments.
I thank you for that. In regards to level, respect is earned. And I simply expect “holy” scripture to *earn* it and not require me to artificially presume evil out of it.
Dan: The first section of this post seemed to me to be missing the point. For many Christians, Hell is giving sinful man what he wants - complete freedom from God.
Section one was not about hell, but for the sake of discussion, is it not a bit bigoted to define what “sinful man’s” wants are? Why does the Bible have the privilege of defining that for us…against the grain of mere observation? I’m assuming you have to define the world we now live in as having some measure of God already…why can’t “sinful man” desire simply more of that? If atheists hate god, and hell is ONLY about being away from god…gee, doesn’t that sound nice? Are there no neutral things? Is God too spiteful and jealous that he can’t stand not to be loved? I think Christians miss the point that these are not honorable desires on His part.
Dan: However, since God is the source of all good things, then complete freedom from God results in no more good things.
Um…since Calvinists seem to define existing itself as inherently good, then wouldn’t that mean hell would be annihilationism?
Dan: So those aspects of God's character, love, beauty, peace, logic (order), are withdrawn with his presence.
But those things are also inherent in our being…taking them away is de-constituting us. The Bible is not allowed to undefined what clearly is on its own terms.
Dan: It is then logically impossible for God to create options that are outside of himself that are still good, since those that do not love him hate him and want nothing to do with him. You know your Bible well enough to know that there is no sanction given to indifference.
But that doesn’t explain why there can’t be indifference. “That’s just the way god is” doesn’t make him a fundamentally good person. It makes him a jealous finicky psychopath. I don’t think that’s what you are shooting for.
Dan: Secondly, I wished to object to the assertion that God entered into a low maintenance relationship.
I think I explained why that was the case. Showing up once in history doesn’t constitute “high maintenance” or even moderate maintenance…even if true.
Dan: Of course, again, this is based on Scriptures being true. I think that the Bible makes it clear that Christ suffered a lot for our sins.
I’m sorry, nothing can compare with the full spectrum of suffering in all sorts of long term depraved psychologically mal-adjusted contexts that have existed throughout history. I’m sure somewhere at some time there was some young girl that was kidnapped from her family, raped for weeks on end and finally released after being brutally beaten and near dead…only to struggle for many years to come to recover from the horror of such an event…in her relative innocence, insecurity, powerlessness, and every other disadvantage that Jesus knew nothing of. And how many times over has this happened to someone else and Jesus did nothing even though no good could possibly come from it and he had the power to do it? This is covered in my “beyond human measure” section.
Dan: I don't really have a lot of respect for Lee Strobel, but in his "The Case for Christ" he describes the biology of crucifixion. Not only does the person being crucified have nails driven through their wrists, where it can rub up against the main nerve there, but one must pull oneself up by the wrists to breathe. And every time one does that, one's back, if it had been whipped, rubbed up against the wood of the cross. This is pretty miserable, and he did it to save people (Isa 53:5).
That’s bad…but it lasted a day…and he was ALL better. Boo who.
Dan: Of course, lots of people were crucified back then. However, not only was Christ (according to the Bible) innocent, the cross itself was merely a symbol of what was happening to him spiritually, as God's wrath for every person saved was poured out on him. This was his son, with whom he had had perfect fellowship with up to this point for all eternity.
Five minutes on the hot seat resulting in ultimate failure from mal-shepherding as covered in various other parts of my post.
Dan: I feel like this is doing a lot to start a relationship with people who hate you.
I think merely showing up would be a much more effective start for most reasonable people.
Dan: In other words, it would appear Biblically that God had to take the first step in this "low maintenance relationship"(1 John 4:19)and it appears to be a fairly significant step. Even if you don't buy the whole crucifixion story, just the fact that God made himself a man says a lot (Phi 2:6-8).
Cuz he had to peal himself out of the luxuries of heaven to mingle with our sinful filth? I’m heart broken.
Dan: All in all, it just seems like an odd thing to say. The Bible seems to paint said relationship as very high maintenance on his part. Then again, if you don't believe the Bible is true, then you can say whatever you want, but then why make that point at all?
Do you not think that people need objective love and counseling in the here and now more than they need Jesus to be killed two thousand years ago? Who cares what that meant in heaven…God’s solving a god-centric problem that has very little to do with human affairs and psychological needs that require legitimate attention for the sake of cultivating healthy, happy people that are ready for a meaningful eternity. Just having the hearsay opportunity to associate yourself with some supposed event from millennia ago is not a very intimate high maintenance relationship. Perhaps you could even say that Jesus as high heavenly priest is performing all sorts of rituals in the heavenly tabernacle or even carefully crafting ornate mansions for heaven…but, uh…that’s great and all…but what about us now, when it matters? Bottom line is most people go to hell and if the basics of what the Bible says are true, its God’s negligence that’s primarily at fault.
Dan: Thirdly, I just wanted to say a quick word (which very easily might turn into a long word), about total depravity. I'm a Calvinist, so I'm fairly used to being attacked by people. Mainstream evangelical Arminians hate Calvinists because of the whole predestination thing, and non-Christians hate Calvinists because they're Christian. And you know, Calvinists do have something of a deserved reputation for being pricks. Still, I think that the doctrine makes a lot of sense - at least a lot more sense than Arminian doctrine. I don't want to go through all five points of Calvinism, or even get that in depth into total depravity. I just want to note that total depravity doesn't mean that all humanity has to be totally evil.
Well I was only addressing the versions of Calvinism that do assert that as just cause for our infinite dismissal into eternal punishment by default.
Dan: I'm not sure if you read the wiki article, but it notes that "Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition." This is a decent explanation. There is a lot of doctrine behind this, but right now it would probably suffice to say that total depravity dictates that all men are sinful (fall short of the bar set by God) in everything they do.
Mere offness…come now. That doesn’t quite continue the full charade of your dysfunctional doctrines, does it? Is God really justified by our mere imperfection to sentence us to eternal damnation…or does it need to be a little more bigoted and insidious a claim than what you let on?
Dan: This doesn't imply that when a non-Christian drinks his orange juice in the morning that he is guilty of genocide, but merely that there is no way he can earn his own salvation, for the wages of sin are death (Rom 6:23). The conclusion to this doctrine is that all people who are saved are saved by grace alone (this relates to the "low maintenance" point),
Yeah, but grace alone translates into a full lifetime commitment to overcoming your evil, running your race with the utmost of proficiency, etc and beating out billions of others to be a part of the few that will be saved. You can’t ignore all of the difficulty rhetoric…the works…the working out your salvation with fear and trembling and trump it all with flat out grace. You’ll be sure to burn in hell for not taking up your own cross.
Dan: as even our good deeds are like rags in the eyes of God (Isa 64:6).
You are attempting to pull a doctrinal punch, but by the end of your clarification it seems you’ve merely reasserted it full force. God literally thinks that our best actions that are only slightly off…are despicable…and that’s bigotry. Sorry. God doesn’t get to define our terms for us. When I get to a higher level, I do not expect to look down on those behind me in complete disgust. Somehow thinking enlightenment entails that is just plain silly. It’s just plain disrespectful without cause.
Dan: Finally, I just wanted to note that I was somewhat disappointed in your meaning of life section. What I got out of it was "keep yourself busy, and don't think about ultimate meaning because there is none."
The point of that statement wasn’t to be trite, but instead to focus your energies on things that do matter instead of pretending your feelings have cosmic significance when they don’t. It is entirely healthy advice to displace unjustified concern and worry with moderate activities.
Dan: This is worrisome to me because of the sociological crises of Suburbia. It would seem that something strange is happening in the suburbs of America. Divorce rates, suicide rates, depression and crack addiction are rising significantly. The disturbing thing is that these are people who are well off. In general we are talking about nice houses, nice incomes, 2 cars (at least), plenty of food, AC, playing golf, etc. Indeed, these are people that are living the American dream. This is a state that I like to call "pragmatic nihilism." Basically, you keep yourself busy, so that you don't realize that everything you do has no meaning.
Ah, ah ah… See, you’ve changed terms. I said, “no *ultimate* meaning.” I didn’t say “no meaning.” The point is there is a drop-off to what is meaningful to us as there should be. Reality is impersonal…so getting too invested in it personally is going to hurt you or at least facilitate unhealthy thinking habits about random chance.
Dan: The problem is when people take a moment to reflect on what they have done with their life. After they die, what does it matter? It doesn't really. In the face of such a bleak outlook, things seem to fall apart. Somehow, I don't think that reading an interesting book or doing something that you're good it is going to cut it.
If you are insisting that an atheist can not look back on a life of accomplishment with satisfaction in their final moments or be glad that their legacy will live on in their children after their passing…you are simply mistaken and over-reacting from over-sensitization in terms of your own worldview.
Dan: What do you think? Is all vanity?
Only your arguments. Do you expect me to take the Bible’s word for it that Solomon was really the most wise the human race has to offer?
Dan: Anyways, I've stayed up way to late writing this thing. Again, I am not trying to destroy you with my incredible arguments. I feel that most of my objections are poorly articulated, and I am sure that if you wanted to, it would not be hard to pick them apart.
I see you agree to some extent. Lol :p
Dan: I just wanted to lay a few things on the table and get your response, to make sure I am reading you fairly, and, perhaps, to contribute something to your thinking through these issues.
No offense taken. I appreciate the excursion through your points. I may slightly alter some of my discussion on depravity and Calvinism…but as you surely know, if I change it to suit your version, I lose other Calvinists…and whatever. But you just kind of want it both ways…and that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Oh well, I’ll take another look and see if I can adjust it to be more accurate. There’s always someone that can say I’m misrepresenting “real” Christianity in the same breath they denounce my appraisal that God lacks communication skills, lol. What's an unapologist to do?
ARU
That was a very fast response. I am impressed, and I appreciate it. Let us continue.
ARU: I grade on the curve. Whatever I am most certain of is whatever I am most certain of and it goes out and down from there.
- Interesting. This sounds somewhat Cartesian. From cogito ergo sum, to clear and distinct ideas, to existence things outside of one’s self, then to God, and finally to reason and sense perception. But of course, even though your system starts out the same way, it most certainly does not end with God validating reason and sense perception. From what I can tell, the difference is that you have chosen to allow “absolute absolute absolutes” to slide out of your system, something the Descartes would have balked at, which results being able to circumvent God, and a recognition that certainty is not 100% foolproof (although, likely 99.9999999...%).
This does seem to add more flexibility to your system, but perhaps I’ll return to this later.
ARU: Meaning is of course context dependent. Even Paul has a touch of moral relativism (such as differing levels of faith in disputable matters) and Biblicists have to make the morality of ancient Israel contextual for them...as different rules apply to us.
-Here are you equating meaning and morality? Your wording would seem to indicate that you are (“even”), but I get the sense that you are not.
-Actually, I agree with you quite a bit here . I am very much a moral relativist. This doesn’t mean that I am a pluralist (different morality in different contexts vs any morality in any context). I get the sense that many evangelical Christians have applied modernist standards to Christian behavior, producing an extremely judgmental, self-righteous code of conduct that is ridiculously black and white, and have lost the idea of “freedom” and “liberty” (that’s rather redundant I guess) that is an essential part of Christianity. Why? 1. It’s a lot easier to manage people if there are black and white categories that they can easily put them in (it also makes “us” and “them” distinctions extremely easy). 2. It gives the institution (the church) a lot of power, because they essentially get to call the shots in place of God. In reality, I would argue that Biblical morality tends to be much more dependent on motivation than on action, which makes a lot of things a lot grayer.
ARU: What kind of answer are you looking for? As emotional evolutures we have to value something. What else other than human life is there to value that is going to be most tautologically compatible with our innate human loving system? Thus it is no surprise that humans value humans and since I too am human, I also find it most promising to value human life to whatever degree is sensible.
-Makes sense to me. I think.
ARU: Is taking away their drivers licenses not on the table for atheists? Perhaps you think common sense and decency are not part of the natural world of humans? Atheists only have the most extreme of extreme options at their disposal? Or is that God?
- Haha, steady there. I am certainly not accusing you, or atheists in general, of anything at this point. The purpose of this extreme scenario and the historical examples that follow is merely to help me understand your position better. It’s somewhat akin to a “if you had a gun to your head...” questions. While I’m here, I am going to go ahead and address the following paragraphs that you wrote relating to my questions regarding morality. I am still trying to get a handle on your basic moral foundation. How bout this: “what is moral is that which produces the highest degree of happiness for the most people over the longest period of time.” Tell me if that’s closer. I really don’t want to fall prey to reductionism, but if you could tell me in a “what is moral is...” format, that would be helpful. If not, don’t worry about it. Oh, and this paragraph:
ARU: I have a big problem when theists (or anyone for that matter) think that something that is obviously unethical is simply indefinable and indefensible in terms of reason. Rule of thumb: If it’s *truly* unethical…then by definition it can be accurately described (though you may be too dull to do it) as an objective moral proposition. If it can’t be objectively described in terms of ill consequence and general mental unhealthiness and inefficiency and lop-sided reaction-prone mal-happiness…then perhaps it isn’t as unethical as you assumed. To continue on in ethics detached from legitimate consequence is to lose touch with your humanity and the entire point of ethics in the first place. It in effect makes morality an idol that turns humanity into mere fodder for senseless ideals.
-Honestly, I just don’t understand it. Could you restate it?
ARU: I don’t recall disowning the full spectrum of emotional edification that goes along with being a human being… Atheism is theism, minus one fictional relationship. Somehow the baby of our humanity gets thrown out with the bathwater of myth when a theist attempts to “understand” non-theism.
-Hmm, it would appear that I was too simplistic in my summarization of your view, as I certainly wouldn’t think that your desire to “merely” live and learn would negate your humanity. I think that you have mentioned the “de-humanization” of atheists three times at this point. The thing is that I would argue that most of us are inescapably human. I think what our principle disagreement is not so much which of us are less human, but what makes us so essentially human. Of course, reciprocally, the answer to the latter question does have some bearing on the former, but I would doubt to the point of declaring either party “inhuman” (unless the examination was of suicide bombers, Josef Mengele, or Westboro Baptist Church members, and the like).
ARU: I think the term humanism denotes a general affinity for the mutual interests of humanity and ingratiating yourself into that network of love and appreciation is the most rewarding thing there is in life. Is that not good enough? If I live my life for these ends and tell you I’m satisfied on my death bed and that it was all worth it even though I’m just going to die…will you still disbelieve me? Why is it then that you believe heavenly things but not mundane earthly things like this?
- Very well answered. Reminds me something of Nietzsche and the Ubermensch, but a bit more altruistic.
Dan: Quite honestly, if this earth and this life is all that there is, and after I die, my consciousness ceases and my body becomes worm food, I could care less if all humanity perishes in a nuclear war the moment I cease to be alive.
- Actually, at this point, I have to categorically disagree with myself. I need to add something to this assertion. If this earth and this life is all there is, and after I die, my consciousness ceases and my body becomes worm food, and there is no Christian God, I could care less if all humanity perishes in a nuclear war the moment I cease to be alive. Oddly enough, my desire to be Christian is not extremely dependant on my desire to go to Heaven. If everything about Christianity was true, except there was no afterlife, I would most likely still be Christian (I’m sorry to say that if there was an afterlife, but everybody went to Hell, I’d probably not be a Christian, due to my own selfishness). The reason is that say (i.e. assume for the sake of argument) that God does exist, and that God did create everything (ex nihilo or through some sort of theistic evolution). Assume that he really is perfectly just, loving, knowledgeable, powerful, etc. Assume that he is perfect. If all these things are true, then he deserves my praise and adoration if only for his own excellence and to me, “ingratiating yourself into that network of love and appreciation is the most rewarding thing there is in life.” Ok, I completely recognize that this is practically a magnet for verbal abuse. I also recognize that this isn’t an argument, and so will most likely not convince you about everything. That’s all right for right now. To truly argue for this, you and I would have to reach some common ground that has not yet been reached. Maybe later.
ARU: I'm afraid it boils down
-That, right there, is very dangerous wording. You realize that you are now saying that this following metaphor explains the very source, the exclusive source, of all the disagreements we have had in the preceding arguments. I hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds. I, however, will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are using it in the “whatever happens, don’t...” (seriously, whatever happens?) context.
ARU: to that you think atheists are “ice cubes” swimming in the “pool” of innate meaning because you've just gotten out of the “hot tub” of divine promises of eternal life (that you’ve spent your life acclimating to)...even though you can attest that atheists clearly are not frozen solid (aka they act “inconsistently”), you react solely to your initial touch of the "freezing cold" water that is in reality actually room temperature (aka normal and innate). Humanist motivations are misunderstood because your familiarity with your worldview clouds your ability to see non-theistic meaning in life on its own terms, in my opinion.
-Cute metaphor. I noticed that you used this same metaphor in response to Pychen. There was another place that you addressed us using the same phrasing. I hope that you are not just assuming that we are coming from the exact same place just because we’re both “Christians.”
Naturally a degree of apathy is warranted…but it is only natural to look after the interests of your offspring at the very least. Who wants to spend their final days making an ass of themselves?
-Evolutionary psychology. Makes sense.
No. I don’t think metaphysics have any emotional significance other than being at general peace with existentialism and the great unknown. I think the most depth of meaning comes from the relationships we form on the human level.
-I’m not sure if you’re saying you do believe in metaphysics, or that you don’t.
-Here’s a bit of an aside. Interestingly enough, your relational meaning is of great interest to me right now. It would seem that the Cartesian system on which much of our Western world was built, is falling apart. More and more, biologists, sociologists, psychologists, and a plethora of other disciplines are discovering that humans really do not exist as individuals, but as relational beings, even to the point that if humans are withheld from having relationships, they do not properly develop self-awareness (I guess there were several notable experiments in the Soviet Union. It would appear that few other place seemed ok with placing a person in solitary confinement for the first 10 or so years of their life). In this way, the argument could (and has) been made that, in some strange way, they do no exist. Calvin discussed at length the idea of reciprocal knowledge of self and of God. Several contemporary theologians are discussing the idea of one’s existence only in the context of having some relationship with God, acknowledged or not. I don’t know. Something to consider. Regardless, I feel your draw to relationships.
ARU: According to how I’ve defined a meta-scam elsewhere on this xanga, mere illusion is not the only requirement. The proposition of cause/effect does not demand significant emotional cost at a normative level…in fact quite the opposite. There are no arbitrarily closed doors that ought to be opened. It is not a personal proposition…its just an innate aspect of impersonal reality…I guess you could say it piggybacks on appearances…but that’s only one criteria. Cause and effect do seem to be a necessary explanation at least in a limited sense, but according to my Allverse hypothesis, these are mere incidence of our quadrant of the infinite set of all possibilities (like static fallen dominoes)…and thus are basically illusionary from a greater reference frame than our normative vantage point. It is like the difference between geocentricism and heliocentrism. The simplest vantage point is that the earth moves around the sun, but our practical vantage point says otherwise and the same is true I think of cause and effect vs. the greater nature of all of existence. Hope that all made sense…if not, ask more questions. You can’t just slap the term meta-scam on anything. It has a very specific meaning and criteria that have to be fulfilled.
-Admittedly, I am not extremely clear on the idea you are positing. However, just my initial impression is that what you are saying echoes very much the arguments of Nietzsche against the metaphysical (he said that Christianity was very much a ploy by the “priest class” to keep people under their power). However, you and he do not end up in the same place (well, you both believe in contextual meaning). Anyways. Interesting.
ARU: The best inference given the theory of evolution is that beauty is an inherited systemic tautology. Our brains are adjusted as yins to the yangs of external experience. We are “in love” with our living space and that should be no surprise. Evolutures who weren’t were less prone to get along with their environment and each other. And ultimately the foundations to which we are adapted in terms of beauty translate across space and time to even distant galaxies of beauty…since the laws of physics and the rhyme and reason of the universe exists there as well as here.
-Would you say then that beauty is objective?
Section one was not about hell, but for the sake of discussion, is it not a bit bigoted to define what “sinful man’s” wants are? Why does the Bible have the privilege of defining that for us…against the grain of mere observation? I’m assuming you have to define the world we now live in as having some measure of God already…why can’t “sinful man” desire simply more of that? If atheists hate god, and hell is ONLY about being away from god…gee, doesn’t that sound nice? Are there no neutral things? Is God too spiteful and jealous that he can’t stand not to be loved? I think Christians miss the point that these are not honorable desires on His part.
-Sooo.... I read that section over after I had written it, and realized just how many assumptions I had made in its composition. I should have gone back and defined things better, using less ambiguous language. What I was getting at in my objection is actually rather complicated, and it was rather stupid of me to try and summarize it in such short form. At some point in our conversation, I might articulate the argument in depth (it comes from Jonathan Edwards), but it’s long, and I don’t really have time.
Dan: However, since God is the source of all good things, then complete freedom from God results in no more good things.
-Again, assuming the definition of good. Stupid of me.
ARU: Um…since Calvinists seem to define existing itself as inherently good, then wouldn’t that mean hell would be annihilationism?
-Hmm, I’ll have to think about this some.
ARU: But those things are also inherent in our being…taking them away is de-constituting us. The Bible is not allowed to undefined what clearly is on its own terms.
-Calvinists would say that some relationship with God is also inherent in our being.
ARU: But that doesn’t explain why there can’t be indifference. “That’s just the way god is” doesn’t make him a fundamentally good person. It makes him a jealous finicky psychopath. I don’t think that’s what you are shooting for.
- God’s inability to sanction indifference rests in his being perfectly just. To allow neutral ground would be inconsistent with his being. Ha, this is not going to convince you at all. I’ll expound sometime later.
-I’m going to skip the next two objections. I don’t think my responses to them would be at all helpful at this point.
ARU: Ah, ah ah… See, you’ve changed terms. I said, “no *ultimate* meaning.” I didn’t say “no meaning.” The point is there is a drop-off to what is meaningful to us as there should be. Reality is impersonal…so getting too invested in it personally is going to hurt you or at least facilitate unhealthy thinking habits about random chance.
-Huh. I did change terms on you. Bit of a logical fallacy there. Oops.
Dan: What do you think? Is all vanity?
Only your arguments. Do you expect me to take the Bible’s word for it that Solomon was really the most wise the human race has to offer?
-Hmm. That’s not really the reason I quoted the passage. The point was that Solomon chased various things that many modern day Americans chase, and felt that these things were ultimately vain.
ARU: The point of that statement wasn’t to be trite, but instead to focus your energies on things that do matter instead of pretending your feelings have cosmic significance when they don’t. It is entirely healthy advice to displace unjustified concern and worry with moderate activities.
-I have a question. Ok, so far as I can tell, your advice is just ignore the desire to think about ultimate meanings of life, because there are none. Instead, we should focus on more pragmatic, contextualized meaning. My question is, how does that fit in with evolution? To the best of our knowledge, we are the only organisms that think about “ultimate meaning” at all. Insects, birds, reptiles certainly don’t. Even smarter animals such as chimps, dolphins, dogs, etc, don’t seem to have any concern about “why are we here,” “what is my purpose in life” and the like. It would seem then, that in our evolution, we have this added part of consciousness that asks and seeks to answer “ultimate questions.” However, it would seem that this only leads to existential crisis, depression, and dysfunction. So then why would we even develop such a neural function? Dolphins and chimps seem to have some code of ethics, community love and integration, emotions, survival skills, etc, etc. It doesn’t make sense to me why we developed this function in the first place.
Anyways, again it has been a pleasure. Thanks for the conversation.
Dan
Dan: That was a very fast response. I am impressed, and I appreciate it. Let us continue.
Lol, I must have needed a desperate break from Pychen. Or I'm just proficient in my understanding of what I believe and can belt it out like there's no tomorrow. haha I'm glad its appreciated and I mutually appreciate your participation. I especially like your ability to take into consideration the nuances of my arguments that matter.
ARU: I grade on the curve. Whatever I am most certain of is whatever I am most certain of and it goes out and down from there.
Dan: - Interesting. This sounds somewhat Cartesian. From cogito ergo sum, to clear and distinct ideas, to existence things outside of one’s self, then to God, and finally to reason and sense perception. But of course, even though your system starts out the same way, it most certainly does not end with God validating reason and sense perception. From what I can tell, the difference is that you have chosen to allow “absolute absolute absolutes” to slide out of your system, something the Descartes would have balked at, which results being able to circumvent God, and a recognition that certainty is not 100% foolproof (although, likely 99.9999999...%).
Dan: This does seem to add more flexibility to your system, but perhaps I’ll return to this later.
Well Descartes simply wants more certainty than reality affords. Its kind of a sleight of hand trick there at the end as though God validating anything can possibly supersede your own fallible ability to validate his absolute validation on the original terms stated…thus he’s gotten no farther than I have…with the exception I’m one delusion short. Call it practicality…I just call it intellectual honesty. And that’s all it is to me. I’m just modestly identifying…not trying to prove anything extraordinary about anything one way or the other.
ARU: Meaning is of course context dependent. Even Paul has a touch of moral relativism (such as differing levels of faith in disputable matters) and Biblicists have to make the morality of ancient Israel contextual for them...as different rules apply to us.
Dan: -Here are you equating meaning and morality? Your wording would seem to indicate that you are (“even”), but I get the sense that you are not.
I was only referring to where meaning in life and morality overlap.
Dan: -Actually, I agree with you quite a bit here . I am very much a moral relativist. This doesn’t mean that I am a pluralist (different morality in different contexts vs any morality in any context). I get the sense that many evangelical Christians have applied modernist standards to Christian behavior, producing an extremely judgmental, self-righteous code of conduct that is ridiculously black and white, and have lost the idea of “freedom” and “liberty” (that’s rather redundant I guess) that is an essential part of Christianity. Why?
It does seem like Paul’s words are scarce to be found and when found more of an after thought.
Dan: 1. It’s a lot easier to manage people if there are black and white categories that they can easily put them in (it also makes “us” and “them” distinctions extremely easy). Dan: 2. It gives the institution (the church) a lot of power, because they essentially get to call the shots in place of God. In reality, I would argue that Biblical morality tends to be much more dependent on motivation than on action, which makes a lot of things a lot grayer.
That seems to be the only way to justify a lot of Biblical…uh…crap. Like when Jesus tells us that if he hadn’t talked to certain Pharisees, they wouldn’t be guilty of sin…but since he did, they are. And naturally the only way to get him off the hook is to say he had “good intentions.” How you can have good intentions despite the fact you know the consequences explicitly eludes me. Consequentialism seems very foreign to the Bible. As far as my moral theory goes, I try to manage a healthy balance of both positive intentions and probable consequence. I don’t know why anyone would want to leave anything out (duty, utility, ego, virtue, consequence, intention, etc) lest their moral paradigm be lop-sided.
Dan: - Haha, steady there. I am certainly not accusing you, or atheists in general, of anything at this point. The purpose of this extreme scenario and the historical examples that follow is merely to help me understand your position better. It’s somewhat akin to a “if you had a gun to your head...” questions. While I’m here, I am going to go ahead and address the following paragraphs that you wrote relating to my questions regarding morality. I am still trying to get a handle on your basic moral foundation. How bout this: “what is moral is that which produces the highest degree of happiness for the most people over the longest period of time.” Tell me if that’s closer. I really don’t want to fall prey to reductionism, but if you could tell me in a “what is moral is...” format, that would be helpful. If not, don’t worry about it.
Um…something like that, but I would have to temper it with a bit (not too much) of egoism as perfectly living for the greater good is simply not reasonable. There has to be a cut off where all the world’s problems are not your own. As an individual you simply can’t really function at that level and it would be wrong to try or to expect anyone else to either for the same reasons. Of course there are other subtle adjustments and modest parameters that have to be considered…like defining happiness apart from dysfunctional versions of it…which could already be a part of your stated definition as “functional” happiness would likely be that which would last the longest for the most people…but possible not in a shorter term exceptionally evil age. Really the rule of thumb is common sense and considering everything that’s reasonable to consider from any direction. Thus searching for something particularly obtuse or unjustified should prove fruitless.
Dan: Oh, and this paragraph:
ARU: I have a big problem when theists (or anyone for that matter) think that something that is obviously unethical is simply indefinable and indefensible in terms of reason. Rule of thumb: If it’s *truly* unethical…then by definition it can be accurately described (though you may be too dull to do it) as an objective moral proposition. If it can’t be objectively described in terms of ill consequence and general mental unhealthiness and inefficiency and lop-sided reaction-prone mal-happiness…then perhaps it isn’t as unethical as you assumed. To continue on in ethics detached from legitimate consequence is to lose touch with your humanity and the entire point of ethics in the first place. It in effect makes morality an idol that turns humanity into mere fodder for senseless ideals.
Dan: -Honestly, I just don’t understand it. Could you restate it?
Perhaps I misunderstood where you were coming from and thus didn’t connect. Regardless what I was trying to say was that moral matters that seem hard to have a good reason to objectively reject in normal terms…or theists feel themselves seeming powerless in the face of it if god isn’t there to back up their claim …like in terms of confronting racists or slavers or people who sacrifice virgins to their pagan god, i.e. people with some dysfunctional version of happiness that is an intricate part of their established culture…. And a divine reason really is just a placebo that doesn’t do anything that a humanist isn’t capable of. These people likely aren’t going to listen to you whether you believe in god or not. That doesn’t mean what they are doing is good for themselves or who they are doing it to or that they couldn’t plausibly be convinced by a good moral argument based on whatever common ground is there.
And if you truly believe such “arbitrary” things are wrong…there should be *specific* worldly reasons and consequences for why that is so. If not…it must just be a preference and nothing immoral is going on. However an average person’s lack of ability to define the specific pros and cons (that may require higher conceptual thinking skills and great oversight) for something like slavery (that could prove convincing in modern humanist terms to a slaver) seems to be the main reason why such a senseless and impotent divine route is taken and why the atheistic route is prematurely rejected. Bottom line is: I can define these more difficult matters and make as good of a tactful and convincing case against it on common ground without appeal to divine mandates. I’ve always believed even as a Christian that you should be able to reverse engineer divine laws and find that they make worldly sense and atheists have all the tools coming from the other direction to build an objective moral paradigm from the ground up of typical human givens.
ARU: I don’t recall disowning the full spectrum of emotional edification that goes along with being a human being… Atheism is theism, minus one fictional relationship. Somehow the baby of our humanity gets thrown out with the bathwater of myth when a theist attempts to “understand” non-theism.
Dan: -Hmm, it would appear that I was too simplistic in my summarization of your view, as I certainly wouldn’t think that your desire to “merely” live and learn would negate your humanity. I think that you have mentioned the “de-humanization” of atheists three times at this point.
It seems inadvertent on the part of theists…but that is what it practically means. It’s really a reflection of the dim-wittedness (no offense, you don’t seem to be that way) of theism’s appraisal of atheism. They manage to suspend all sorts of mundane human things and pretend like they aren’t or can’t be part of an atheist’s worldview. Atheism is supposedly based on observation and a human is a human. So when theists say atheists are inconsistent to not act like animals…they’d really be inconsistent to not act like the humans they are. Very simple point…very obvious…but almost never applied by theists looking for insecure reasons to keep atheism off the table of viable options when things get rough in their worldview.
Dan: The thing is that I would argue that most of us are inescapably human. I think what our principle disagreement is not so much which of us are less human, but what makes us so essentially human.
Well and I don’t really think a conversation about what makes us human really has anything to do with atheism or theism necessarily. Of course theism tries to claim patents on various aspects but at best its just unprovable speculation. And if it’s so disconfrontational as to avoid proof, having a serious conversation about what makes a human a human isn’t impaired by suspending it pending further information (that albeit probably won’t ever come). One can define the function of the “soul” without having to identify it ontologically. How does the core of our being relate to the rest of the system? These are questions easily addressed with common sense.
Dan: - Actually, at this point, I have to categorically disagree with myself. I need to add something to this assertion. If this earth and this life is all there is, and after I die, my consciousness ceases and my body becomes worm food, and there is no Christian God, I could care less if all humanity perishes in a nuclear war the moment I cease to be alive.
Perhaps you need to re-word again, since given “after I die”…caring or not has no meaning.
Dan: Oddly enough, my desire to be Christian is not extremely dependant on my desire to go to Heaven.
I understand different people attach themselves to their worldview from their own perspective. Though the NT does seem to be quite “heavenly treasure” centric. Perhaps you are off base?
Dan: If everything about Christianity was true, except there was no afterlife, I would most likely still be Christian (I’m sorry to say that if there was an afterlife, but everybody went to Hell, I’d probably not be a Christian, due to my own selfishness).
Why would you call that selfishness? Why would it be selfish to not want to have a relationship with an evil god? I don’t follow. It just sounds like Christianity has crossed your wires.
Dan: The reason is that say (i.e. assume for the sake of argument) that God does exist, and that God did create everything (ex nihilo or through some sort of theistic evolution). Assume that he really is perfectly just, loving, knowledgeable, powerful, etc. Assume that he is perfect. If all these things are true, then he deserves my praise and adoration if only for his own excellence
I would hope such things would occur spontaneously and naturally and not be coerced or expected or demanded. It sounds more like a doctrinal push rather than an innate desire or what you would happen to want to do if you had never heard of a divine supermind responsible for the creation of the world and accidentally bumped into him at a bar. (lol)
Dan: and to me, “ingratiating yourself into that network of love and appreciation is the most rewarding thing there is in life.” Ok, I completely recognize that this is practically a magnet for verbal abuse.
I don’t follow. Did I misspeak?
ARU: I'm afraid it boils down
Dan: -That, right there, is very dangerous wording.
I think you are over-reacting.
Dan: You realize that you are now saying that this following metaphor explains the very source, the exclusive source, of all the disagreements we have had in the preceding arguments. I hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds.
No, I checked the context. It’s exactly what I wanted to say.
Dan: I, however, will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are using it in the “whatever happens, don’t...” (seriously, whatever happens?) context.
I’m trying to point out the unrecognized pretension of theistic appraisals of atheism and their motivational source. I don’t think you are doing it consciously…that’s the point…to point out an unconscious misconception. Most theistic arguments in a round about way merely reflect the contrast *between* the worldviews. If it were truly optional…of course, who wouldn’t choose eternal bliss over just dying in a few years of struggle? But that’s not how it is in atheism. Heaven isn’t an option because it’s deemed fictional and when that happens the “contrast” between the worldviews doesn’t mean anything. I guess it seems inane to point out but it’s only a reflection of how inane the original criticism of atheism is to begin with.
Dan: -Cute metaphor. I noticed that you used this same metaphor in response to Pychen. There was another place that you addressed us using the same phrasing. I hope that you are not just assuming that we are coming from the exact same place just because we’re both “Christians.”
I didn’t see a reason to reinvent the wheel. The pathology is very common. You aren’t the same (actually you are Richard Dawkins compared to Pychen) but the theme of many of your criticisms of atheism is virtually identical…that all the luster, vitality, reason to be good, and meaning in life seems to vanish if God doesn’t exist. And yet many atheists don’t act like that’s true. What’s your explanation? I think the metaphor explains the intellectualization of these emotional “facts” succinctly. There may be some independent intellectual merit to some of the criticisms because of, well… lack of imagination I guess, but its hard to explain why theists are so damn hard to correct in general and why they aren’t likely to come to these answers on their own if its merely an intellectual exercise.
Dan: -I’m not sure if you’re saying you do believe in metaphysics, or that you don’t.
I do believe in a greater nature to reality than meets the eye (see Allverse), but I don’t see how it can be important with virtually no reliable information about it. China isn’t that important to me and it’s much more real.
Dan: -Here’s a bit of an aside. Interestingly enough, your relational meaning is of great interest to me right now. It would seem that the Cartesian system on which much of our Western world was built, is falling apart. More and more, biologists, sociologists, psychologists, and a plethora of other disciplines are discovering that humans really do not exist as individuals, but as relational beings, even to the point that if humans are withheld from having relationships, they do not properly develop self-awareness (I guess there were several notable experiments in the Soviet Union. It would appear that few other place seemed ok with placing a person in solitary confinement for the first 10 or so years of their life). In this way, the argument could (and has) been made that, in some strange way, they do no exist.
That’s very interesting and not unexpected. That corresponds very well to evolutionary thinking as virtually nothing about us could have evolved in a vacuum. We are irrevocably social evolutures with very few exceptions. In fact that is exactly how I define the origin of the illusion of self…purely as a pragmatic evolutionary approach to distinguishing between yourself and others.
You are aware that Buddhists for instance will spend a great deal of time disconnecting themselves from their own sense of “self” to be pure experiencers? Some claim to be able to maintain this frame of mind permanently. It seems to entirely bypass selfish reciprocation as there the internal “collection basket” has been deactivated. I hope to one day experiment with some of this stuff. I’ve had some interesting psychological experiences in the past, so it seems I have something to work with.
Dan: Calvin discussed at length the idea of reciprocal knowledge of self and of God. Several contemporary theologians are discussing the idea of one’s existence only in the context of having some relationship with God, acknowledged or not. I don’t know. Something to consider. Regardless, I feel your draw to relationships.
That would actually be a primary argument against God because his invisibility and mysteriousness is antithetical to the evolutionary need of close relationship bonds to be stable. I’ve experienced quite a bit of psychological abuse trying to suck validation from god out of thin air as a Christian. Naturally such unavoidable imbalance manifests in various ways in various people…for some it’s a roller coaster of faith and doubt…for others its an inappropriate amount of forced confidence…for others its their dehumanization in terms of depth and over enthused coerced attitude for loving god and evangelism…for others its overcompensation by trying to be more intimidating and pretentious to others…for others its an endlessly minimized watershed of ubiquitous meaning…for others its inappropriate self deprecation and personal blame for everything and icky subservience to whatever seems “god”…for others (like me) it was obsessions with coincidences and numerology to suck divine meaning out nowhere…for others its apostasy…for others its insanity. Its no wonder only a few will be saved, eh? It is not hard to see how a personal relationship on normative terms (like Jesus showing up at family picnics occasionally to settle disputes) would greatly clean up much of this dysfunction because evolutures weren’t meant to have relationships like this.
Dan: -Admittedly, I am not extremely clear on the idea you are positing. However, just my initial impression is that what you are saying echoes very much the arguments of Nietzsche against the metaphysical (he said that Christianity was very much a ploy by the “priest class” to keep people under their power). However, you and he do not end up in the same place (well, you both believe in contextual meaning). Anyways. Interesting.
A metaphysical scam is a confrontational idea. It is identified by the “shape” the validation takes overall. It has less to do with the people presenting it or their motivations as it does the actual presentation of the idea itself and the probability of being false given the contrast of terms. It is a personal offer (evangelism) from the realm of metaphysics (god, heaven, hell, etc) that demands a great deal of emotional cost (believe or burn) and circumvents reality checks arbitrarily as a rule (100 good apologetic reasons why god and company don’t have to cross the threshold into objective inquiry is at least 20 too many). The best explanation for such a thing in terms of healthy personal standards is that the proposition or belief system is false. Hence, a metaphysical scam robs you of your emotional investment in reality. The various accessories and augmentations of deceit that have been around in the priestly class are superfluous to the foundational definition.
ARU: The best inference given the theory of evolution is that beauty is an inherited systemic tautology. Our brains are adjusted as yins to the yangs of external experience. We are “in love” with our living space and that should be no surprise. Evolutures who weren’t were less prone to get along with their environment and each other. And ultimately the foundations to which we are adapted in terms of beauty translate across space and time to even distant galaxies of beauty…since the laws of physics and the rhyme and reason of the universe exists there as well as here.
Dan: -Would you say then that beauty is objective?
It falls prey to the same parameters as morality: basically reliable in our species (and likely others, including ET’s, as affinity for the natural world is a good candidate for convergent evolution) but not absolute as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” has limited merit. Its interesting to note that studies on the beauty of the female face found a strong convergent archetypal face (like a Monica Belluci) that spans across all cultures despite there not being good candidates for someone that looks like that in a given ethnicity. Truly we are all deep down running about the same neurological hardware with mere cultural and personal software differences. Honestly asking me “is beauty objective?” has very little meaning to me. Please don’t take that the wrong way. It’s only something theists seem to obsess about. It just is what it is, in the way it is, to the extent it is, for the reason it is, until it isn’t. Strict black and white categories really debilitate the topic and add nothing to it but pretentious delusion and wishful thinking.
ARU: But those things are also inherent in our being…taking them away is de-constituting us. The Bible is not allowed to undefined what clearly is on its own terms.
Dan: -Calvinists would say that some relationship with God is also inherent in our being.
Touché. You got me there. I wish I could give you a dollar. However I would ask you consider hypothetically that there are atheists that according to Calvinism (+ honest observation) have successfully circumvented the part of them that needs God and have found happiness and contentment in this world. It would follow that if this is so, there’s simply no excuse that God could defer to as being logically impossible according to the way divine things ontologically are that he can’t provide a middle ground afterlife solution for people that simply want their own space (i.e. not hell or heaven). An omnipotent God would have nothing to lose by providing it…even for eternity. It can’t be a logical impossibility if we can see it going on right now on earth. Of course, your average Calvinist will simply define these people out of existence to maintain the pretenses of Scripture.
ARU: But that doesn’t explain why there can’t be indifference. “That’s just the way god is” doesn’t make him a fundamentally good person. It makes him a jealous finicky psychopath. I don’t think that’s what you are shooting for.
Dan: - God’s inability to sanction indifference rests in his being perfectly just. To allow neutral ground would be inconsistent with his being. Ha, this is not going to convince you at all. I’ll expound sometime later.
You don’t think it’s a character flaw to not be able to live and let live? Doesn’t sound “most excellent” to me. If God is love he should have no trouble letting go indefinitely if he really respects free will. What happened to the prodigal son motif? Is it not possible that he simply could have been successful and never returned? Would the parable have taken a sharp turn if he never did come back and dovetailed into a man hunt to bring that down to his knees artificially? Lol, I wonder why that parable didn’t get published. Haha You end up portraying him like a selfish automaton that can’t handle a deal breaker that doesn’t result in eternal retribution for the other party. Lots of people feel like God doesn’t care about them right now one way or the other. I don’t understand why that “policy” couldn’t continue indefinitely.
Dan: -Hmm. That’s not really the reason I quoted the passage. The point was that Solomon chased various things that many modern day Americans chase, and felt that these things were ultimately vain.
It was a sarcastic “no” if you set your measure of meaning appropriately as I tried to hammer out in my “meaning of life” post. To say that life is ultimately vanity is to try and fill up an ever retreating bucket. Even stroking god’s ego for all eternity could be considered vanity as that context can be displaced nihilistically with the same reasoning. Couldn’t you imagine getting to heaven and wondering, “What the hell is the point of this?” I know I could.
ARU: The point of that statement wasn’t to be trite, but instead to focus your energies on things that do matter instead of pretending your feelings have cosmic significance when they don’t. It is entirely healthy advice to displace unjustified concern and worry with moderate activities.
Dan: -I have a question. Ok, so far as I can tell, your advice is just ignore the desire to think about ultimate meanings of life, because there are none. Instead, we should focus on more pragmatic, contextualized meaning.
I would adjust that only slightly to include that the greater interests of humanity itself are sufficient macro meaning to fill your cup, so to speak. It’s not all head in the sand close interpersonal relationships and hobbies. Obviously community, nationalism, philanthropy, world peace, exploration and colonization of new worlds, etc. are all included in that “limited” context.
Dan: My question is, how does that fit in with evolution? To the best of our knowledge, we are the only organisms that think about “ultimate meaning” at all. Insects, birds, reptiles certainly don’t. Even smarter animals such as chimps, dolphins, dogs, etc, don’t seem to have any concern about “why are we here,” “what is my purpose in life” and the like. It would seem then, that in our evolution, we have this added part of consciousness that asks and seeks to answer “ultimate questions.”
The most plausible answer is that it is a by-product of our intellectual adaptations that were based on something else. Once a certain level of versatility sets in, there’s nothing to stop the same mental faculties from asking beyond immediate questions. Honestly, in my opinion, the great majority of people’s understanding of the greater questions is especially shallow and fallacious and has very little meaning in their normal life aside from distraction and/or a means of simply reinforcing the mundane terms of living. “I get it…God wants me to reproduce…” That’s not much to work with as a proof that “it must mean something.” Even the people who represent more depth are more quantity over quality as there is nothing for them to really work with but their own arbitrary delusions.
Dan: However, it would seem that this only leads to existential crisis, depression, and dysfunction.
No one said evolution was perfect. Our intellect is a relatively recent addition to the tree of life. Given time, religion will kill itself off with enough faith based atrocities and people will start finding that acclimating to the real world on realistic terms isn’t so bad after all. Those that aren’t able to adapt sufficiently will go extinct. Though personally I think the majority of the population can handle it despite their current protests. I call these people the uncritical optimists that when presented with the vague perks of religion assimilate it like a sponge…but if it wasn’t there they probably wouldn’t miss it and would simply assimilate any other source of plausible hope with equal uncriticality. These are the majority of folks that have to be continually reminded every Sunday morning by the limited population of die-hards (that probably *couldn’t* ever do without it) to “act like its true.”
Dan: So then why would we even develop such a neural function? Dolphins and chimps seem to have some code of ethics, community love and integration, emotions, survival skills, etc, etc. It doesn’t make sense to me why we developed this function in the first place.
Attaining a mastery of basic logic and conceptual thinking that would profit in the arena of survival translates into being able to apply those same skills elsewhere…and such dysfunction hasn’t been enough to cripple our species into out breeding it or extinction. It’s a “just so” story, but it fits much better than a loving God putting us up against senseless existential crisis with little or no information only to have us burn in hell for all eternity for being born and being misinformed and imperfect.
Dan: Anyways, again it has been a pleasure. Thanks for the conversation.
I’ve been quite surprised by you, your ability to comprehend with oversight, adjust arguments, and respond tactfully. My words aren’t unequivocally and unilaterally rejected outright as is the case most of the time. It has been a pleasure. This doesn’t happen every day here. Actually as far as Christians go, I don't think its ever happened. Sad, eh? lol
ARU (Ben)
Sorry that it has taken me a bit longer to respond. I’ve been kind of busy, and I wanted to reread part of a book that I summarized below. I’m not responding to your response here, not because I don’t intend to at some point, just because I don’t intend to here and now. It would seem that a good deal hangs on our view of who God is. You find him petty and vengeful, and I find him just and merciful (and good, and worthy of worship).
ARU: However, for those of us that believe in objectivity and calling it like it is, clearly God’s priorities aren’t about love or even about salvation. If I had to guess at God’s motivation, I’d say it’s glory-profiteering at literally any expense via the least effort on his part. One wonders why it is not more to God’s glory to be considerate of humanity. It’s not even clear that God is doing anything for anyone other than "graciously" leaving them to their own theistically friendly delusions and confirmation bias. The outcome according to Jesus is horrific beyond imagination and there are dozens moral contingencies that have been entirely by-passed. The only ethical standard God seems capable of measuring up to is the “whatever God happens to do ‘standard.’” Fine…but why attempt to maintain the pretense to God’s goodness if it doesn’t actually mean anything objective? I simply can’t relate my “image of god” to this negligent deity in any way.
This is what I’m responding to. However, instead of responding to it directly, I think that, in the long run, it would be treated more thoroughly if I recapitulated an argument made by Jonathan Edwards. This is from his work “The End For Which God Created The World.” Again, I am not thinking that in one brilliant rhetorical move, I will sweep from under you all your arguments, forcing you to concede all points argued. I just think that it will help you understand better where I’m coming from. Oh, and it’s sort of long, so sorry about that.
Before I begin, I would just like to note the first question and answer in the Westminister Shorter Catechism. “What is the chief end of man?” “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” This is just to point out that God’s “glory-profiteering” is not a foreign concept to many in the church (although we would choose less harsh language).
Let’s begin. Edwards starts his work by defining some important terms and conditions of argumentation.
1. A chief end and an ultimate end are not the same thing. While a chief end is always an ultimate end, not every ultimate end is a chief end. A chief end is the opposite of an inferior end. An ultimate end is the opposite to a subordinate end.
2. “A subordinate end is what an agent aims at, not at all upon its own account, but wholly on the account of a further end of which it is considered as a means.” Edwards uses the example of a man going on a journey to find medicine to restore his health. The medicine is a subordinate end to the restoration of his health. The medicine, if it were not to restore his health, would not be sought after at all.
3. “An ultimate end is that which the agent seeks, in what he does, for its own sake; what he loves, values, and takes pleasure in on its own account, and not merely as a means of a further end.” Example: if a man loves the taste of some fruit, then his ultimate end is not the fruit, but the pleasure that the fruit gives him.
4. Some ends are subordinate ends to other subordinate ends.
5. The last end that is met is the ultimate end. Sometimes an end may be both his ultimate end and his immediate end (i.e. no subordinate ends).
6. “A thing sought may have the nature of an ultimate, and also of a subordinate end; as it may be sought partly on its own account, and partly for the sake of a further end.” Example: a man might love a particular person on that person’s own account, while also hoping to receive fiscal benefit through the relationship.
7. Among ultimate ends, the chief or highest end is the one most valued. So a man may travel to get married and also to look at some new scientific invention. One end is not subordinate to the other, so both are properly ultimate ends, but since the bride is valued higher than the scientific invention, the bride is the chief end.
Edwards continues to make some distinctions. First, “a subordinate end is never valued (as a chief end) above its own ultimate end.” Pretty straightforward I hope. If a man wishes to have money to satisfy, say, his hunger, it would be ridiculous for the money to be the chief end over and against the man’s hunger.
Secondly, a subordinate end may be valued equally (not more) with an ultimate end, if it is necessary and sufficient to the ultimate end. Edwards uses the example of the pregnant woman with a craving. If she craves a particular fruit, in obtaining that fruit, her ultimate end is satisfying her craving; the subordinate end is obtaining the fruit. If not for the particular fruit, the ultimate end could not be obtained, and the obtaining of the fruit satisfies the ultimate end sufficiently. Hence, they may be valued equally. If, however, either of these conditions fail (i.e. multiple types of fruit or insufficient satisfaction) then the subordinate “fruit” end and the ultimate “craving” end will not be valued equally.
Thirdly, when there is only one ultimate end, it is chief among all other ends. This only makes sense, because, if there is only one ultimate end, all other ends are subordinate to it.
Fourthly, what we seek for its own sake is our ultimate end. So if something is agreeable in and of it self, and not merely for obtaining some other end, then it must be an ultimate end.
Fifthly, there is only one ultimate end when only one thing is sought for its own sake, because, somewhat obviously, if something is not sought for its own sake then it is a subordinate end. Here Edwards goes on a bit of a tangent, distinguishing that which is found agreeable for its own sake absolutely, antecedent to and independent of all external conditions, and that which is agreeable hypothetically and conditionally. He uses the example of a man who loves society. In this loving of society, this man decides to start a family, and find a secure job. As time passes, he comes to love his family and his job for their own sake, and thus, they become the ultimate ends of much of what he does. However, they cannot rightly be said to be his original end.
In the same way, “that perfection of God which we call his faithfulness or his inclination to fulfill his promises to his creatures could not properly be what moved him to create the world.” The comparison here is between an independent ultimate end and a dependent ultimate end. The end for which God created the world is a question that examines original intent, absolutely agreeable and unconditional.
Here Edwards notes that “We may suppose that, to a righteous Being, doing justice between two parties with whom he is concerned is agreeable in itself and not merely for the sake of some other end. Yet we may suppose that a desire of doing justice between two parties may be consequential on the being of those parties and the occasion given”
Moving one, sixthly, “the one ‘original’ ultimate end of all creation governs all God’s works.” The independent end alone induces God to give occasion for consequential ends. Therefore:
Seventhly, “In the ‘highest sense’ of God’s ultimate end in creation, this end is also the end of all his works of providence.” This merely flows from the previous point.
And conversely, eighthly, “the ultimate end of providence in general is the ultimate end in creation.”
Finally, to apply directly to God an earlier logical distinction, if there is only one end agreeable, in itself, absolutely and independently, then there is only one ultimate, and chief, end of creation.
I hope that this all makes sense up to this point. Again, you will most likely disagree with much of this, but this should promote mutual understanding. The next section is titled “Wherein is considered what reason teaches concerning this affair.” Edwards starts with six “dictates of reason”
1. God’s acting for the sake of his ultimate end implies no insufficiency in himself. To say that something is added to God from a creation that derives its substance from God simply doesn’t make sense.
2. God’s existence precedes his action and so can’t be the end of God’s action. While God’s existence is valuable in and of itself, it is not attainable through creation. The end of creation must be something that can be attained through the action.
3. Therefore, what is in itself most valuable and attainable by creation is God’s ultimate end in creation.
4. This is kind of a crux of the argument. “That if God himself be, in any respect, properly capable of being his own end in the creation of the world, then it is reasonable to suppose that he had respect to himself, as his last and highest end, in this work; because he is worthy in himself to be so, being infinitely the greatest and best of beings. All things else, with regard to worthiness, importance, and excellence, are perfectly as nothing in comparison of him. And therefore, if God has respect to things according to their nature and proportions, he must necessarily have the greatest respect to himself. It would be against the perfection of his nature, his wisdom, holiess, and perfect rectitude, whereby he is disposed to do everything that is fit to be done, to suppose otherwise.”
“The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is , to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. And therefore it must chiefly consist in giving due respect to that Being to whom most is due; fo God is infinitely the most worthy of regard [...] Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consists in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness and suitableness requires, fitness requires infinitely the greatest regard t be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. Hence it will follow, that the moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God CHIEFLY consists in a regard to HIMSELF, infinitely above his regard to all other beings.”
It only makes sense then that, in what he says and does, that he shows what he values most, namely, himself.
Edwards continues to say “it may help us judge with greater ease and satisfaction to consider what we can suppose would be determined by some third being of perfect wisdom and rectitude that should be perfectly indifferent and disinterested.” In other words, what would happen if an arbiter were to measure the worth of creation against the worth of God? First, the degree of worth deserved should be in proportion to the proportion of existence and excellence, and the degree of greatness and goodness.
If such an arbiter were to look at “created intelligent beings” by themselves, he would judge that “the system in general, consisting of many millions, was of greater importance, and worthy of a greater share of regard, than only one individual.”
However, if God and creation were to be put on the same scale, “the whole system of created beings, in comparison of the Creator, would be found as the light dust of the balance, or even as nothing and vanity; so the arbiter must determine accordingly with respect to the degree in which God should be regarded, by all intelligent existence, in all actions and proceedings, determinations and effects whatever, whether creating, preserving, using, disposing, changing, or destroying. And as the Creator is infinite, and has all possible existence, perfection, and excellence, so he must have all possible regard.”
Of course, Edwards concludes this dictate, there is no such disinterested third party. However, God, being perfect as he is, is perfectly fit to act as judge, and determine what is to be given highest regard, namely himself.
5. I feel like this dictate rather restates that which is earlier stated. Actually, reading it again, I guess it is a combination of previous statements, or perhaps a “therefore.” Basically, what God valued for its own sake in creation is his ultimate end in creation.
6. Finally, what God attained in creating the world, he aimed at, and what he aimed at is his end.
Edwards moves on to several suppositions, which are always good to note. His first is that “if God is sufficient for great effects, it is fitting that he effect them in creation.” In other words, if God can do great things, it is only fitting that he do do great things. Of course, this in no way implies that God was forced to do such things, or that creation was the extent of his ability.
His second supposition is that it makes sense that other beings exist to know of God’s greatness. Basically, knowledge of that which is excellent is a good thing, so it is appropriate that there be beings that can have such a knowledge of said excellence.
Supposition three is that it is fitting for God’s glory to be delighted in as well as known. It makes sense that if God is really as infinitely more worthy of glory, than the worshiping of God would bring delight to those worshiping (like marveling over great work of art, or a great public figure, but times infinity).
Supposition four compares God to an overflowing fountain. Hence the excellent qualities of God overflow from him and into creation.
I’m going to skip the next part, in which Edwards goes through with more specific examples and shows how various acts of creation did, in fact, have the end of God’s glory.
The last section that I would like to mention briefly is the section in which several objections are raised and answered. The first objection discusses God’s creating making him dependant on that which he created. Here it is interesting to note that Edward’s argument in denial of such a notion basically says that “no, all the joy God gets out of creation is that which in some way glorifies himself.”
Objection two is more pertinent to our conversation. “Some may object that to suppose God makes himself his highest and last end is dishonorable to him, as it in effect supposes that God does everything from a selfish spirit.” If selfishness is despised even in man, then how does one deal with apparent selfishness in God? Honestly, I am getting tired, but I feel like I have taken too long to respond as it is, so I am going to just summarize his answer in brief. If you want to examine it closer, I would highly recommend finding this work, or I could deal with it closer at another time.
1. If God is supremely valuable, he should value himself supremely. In other words, selfishness is an inordinate valuing of oneself. God’s valuing of himself is not inordinate.
2. God’s esteeming himself supremely is not contrary to his esteeming human happiness, since he is that happiness.
3. Nothing is more loving than for God to exalt himself for the enjoyment of man.
Objection three is “is it not contemptible for God to do his works for the praise and applause of men?” Objection four is “Creatures are less obliged to be thankful to God for what he does for his own sake.” Both of these objections are answered basically by referring back to God’s rightness in valuing himself, and the fact that God’s glory and man’s happiness are not at odds.
Man, that was long. I have a few other things that I wanted to mention.
1. I was wondering about your teleological ideology. Is man getting better? Are we headed to a culmination of history, or some amazing shift in evolution? Are we headed anywhere? Or are we just kind of stuck on a rock, floating around in space?
The thing is, and you mentioned this concerning my thoughts concerning heaven, Christianity, for me at least, has several teleologies. The first is a relational teleology. The second is a physical teleology. The third is an essence teleology.
First, man’s broken relationship with God will be perfectly fixed. Secondly, this world will be restored to a unbroken state (see As Far As The Curse Is Found). In other words, everything that makes this planet shitty will be removed. The same goes for art, culture, society, etc. Third, man will be a better creature than he was at the beginning of the world. Now, this is a lot of my own thoughts. I haven’t read or heard anyone saying the same thing, so... take it as you will, but this is how I see things. In Genesis, when Adam and Eve ate the fruit in the Garden and dammed most of mankind, the fruit they ate was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It’s noted in the Bible that without the law, there is no condemnation. It would seem then that the only thing that kept Adam and Eve right with God is their relationship with him. On the breaking of his command, they also broke the relationship, and gained a knowledge of good and evil, or a knowledge of the law. Now they were separated from God, but bound by the standard of the law. After it’s all said in done, Christians will be people who have fully awakened good and evil discrepancy who have, in God’s grace, allied them self with God. Therefore, God is glorified more by more intelligent beings, and man is a better creature.
Anyways, I’m interested in your ideas on human teleology.
2. You mentioned beauty being evolutionary? Is beauty, then, universal or subjective. This seems to be something that aesthetic philosophers have struggled with for centuries, probably most notably Kant in his Critique of Judgement.
3. This is my final question. I’ve been thinking about your atheist system of morality, and I have a couple of questions. My first question is, would you agree with the statement “A majority of people, according to your system, are immoral.” I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth. That’s just the way it seems to me. For example, I just read “When Smoke Fell Like Rain,” which is an environmental book. It would seem that large parts of American business are so concerned with profits, that they don’t care if they’re killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process. Or just look at types of economic models. Capitalism - rampant human abuse. Communism - rampant human abuse. Socialism - rampant human abuse. We also have rising abortion, divorce, sexual abuse, and the like. I’m not concerned right now about discussing the morality of such things in a Christian context, but it does seem that these things create significant psychological stress on those involved in the activities, especially, in many cases, children. Not only that, but our culture is becoming more and more plagued by narcissism (see The Culture of Narcissism by Christopher Lasch). Maybe you don’t see an immoral society. I don’t know. It seems to me that large amounts of people do not quite promote the values (which, I might note, are great values) that you do. In fact, I would say, that as a whole, people are fucked up (of course, as a Calvinist, this doesn’t really surprise me at all).
My second question then is along the lines of “why?” Your ethical system makes a lot of sense. It does seem to give a good basis for an atheist having an ethical system. But most of the secular world (and sadly, much of the religious world) does not seem to ascribe to this system. It seems to me that if such a system really is a result of evolution, then it would be a bit more hardwired into our systems. It would seem that the immorality would be the exception, the deviance, not the norm. What are your thoughts on this?
Um... I think that’s all I’ve got right now. Again, this probably isn’t going to convince you of anything, but hopefully you understand more where I’m coming from. Also, I’m sorry if the writing was sloppy. I’m tired. Good talking to you.
Dan
P.S. “Actually as far as Christians go, I don't think its ever happened. Sad, eh? lol” Actually, that’s really depressing. And entirely unsurprising. To quote Noll “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”
I will get back to your shortly.
Dan,
I do appreciate all of the careful padding you do to your statements. I’ve been quite conversationally abused of late and it is refreshing.
I don’t really have a lot to disagree with for the first half of your comment. It could be a viable description of something good if given an appropriate (though missing) context. I have about five basic things to *add* however to it that drastically effect the coherency of the Calvinist definition of God.
-Even if coherent, does this system exist? I don’t see why “the best of beings” has any inherent ontological pull. Its just an idea. An idea is just as good regardless of whether or not it has literal representation in reality.
-Is the definition of “greatest and best of beings” too anthropocentric? Why are consciousness and many (no matter how generic) human qualities relevant to the definition?
-If the above two contentions are conceded, is Edward’s definition of the best of beings actually the correct definition? We seem to be inescapably in a relationship with this being whom we may or may not know even exists. Now, in my world, not everyone is subject to paying homage to my status, no matter how significant or insignificant I may think I am. They can merely be apathetic and somewhere else and that isn’t a sin against my ego. I don’t consider it a step up no matter how awesome or good I could possibly become to start expecting otherwise. We don’t seem to be being treated as autonomous individuals, we seem to be being treated as though we are neurons in God’s brain that have to get with the program or else. As I mentioned in my previous comment, not only is this petty, but seems to contradict some of the more “live and let live” parables like the prodigal son which would take on serious ethical problems if we actually insert Edwards definition into it. “If you love it let it go” seems entirely foreign to this God and yet we would consider such a thing to have the utmost respect for interpersonal autonomy. Somehow at the end of this definition most people are burning in hell for all eternity and that’s very close to the worst thing I can imagine and I don‘t think *anyone* deserves it. One would think that would clue us in to perhaps having gotten something grossly wrong along the way. As I said in the post, giving a choice (believe or burn) is not the same thing as respecting free will.
-Even given the Edwards definition, it is still subject in action to virtually all of the points I’ve brought up in this post as it is clear we are not at the mercy of what we would expect from the “best of beings.” I’ve done my best to compare to what I think is a robust definition of the “best possible moral behavior” and clearly I’m not talking past such a definition as given. Valuing oneself even infinitely does not mean we or even our own way should not be valued appropriately. God seems to have the egoism down, but what is missing is sufficient empathy for others no matter how minute that might actually end up being in comparison to him. Given that, selfishness still isn’t off the table. You may say that our happiness and God’s glory are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but its pretty clear most of the time they are and not for good reasons.
-Our status in the system is labeled “vanity” and yet somehow our trifledge factors into something meaningful on behalf of this “best of beings?” We’re not even lint in God’s pocket and somehow we have a seemingly serious relationship. Although that might explain why the human race is treated like such shit. Though again, I would think the “best of beings” would be able to do a lot better for the human race than getting executed 2000 years ago and saving only a few of us from eternal damnation by some spiritual act of free association. Perhaps there is an answer to this, but how can we as finite beings hypothetically give God the infinite honor he supposedly deserves?
Now, to answer your questions:
1. I would say there is hope for man to get better. There is also grounds for suspecting things could get very messed up…even irrevocably so. Will science one day solve all our problems and bring us into that Star Trekish utopian age? I don’t know. Will Islam conquer the world by out breeding everyone long before that happens? I don’t know. Will some major natural disaster befall us? I don’t know. There is hope and danger and how that will play out only time will tell. I personally only hope to leave the world better than I found it and I hope to see at least history going off in the right direction. I don’t have some ideological predisposition that overrules common sense and ignorance. In terms of evolution, my initial impression is I don’t see enough competition for our evolution towards improvement to not stagnate. The reproduction is there, the genetic drift is there…but the competition is lacking for technological and humanitarian reasons. I’ve read articles that seem to think otherwise. I could be wrong or just partially right. Though scientists can be quite narrow-minded non-philosophers and come to some pretty ridiculous conclusions at times. This isn’t an argument for fascism or genocide of inferior gene carriers, but it is incentive to step up to the plate and become good stewards of our gene pool is clever and humane ways.
2. The mind creates beauty as a filter from what the universe has to offer though given its utility in terms of mental efficiency, I would not be surprised if it were more universal than the confines of our species. I’m sure many other mammals have a very similar experience though we can’t ask them and I’m sure alien races may very well stumble upon beauty via convergent evolution. You still seem to be locked into your false dichotomies and I think I have already answered this question. In all probability that didn’t register since I answered on my terms and not yours. The normal course of this it seems for the theistic mind is to say that if it isn’t universal in an absolute transcendent ontological sense, it doesn’t mean anything. And yet it obviously does mean something to everyone and they take that as evidence that a physicalist definition of beauty must be wrong. And the only problem here is that they shipwrecked their objectivity with absolute terms. “Things that are meaningful have to have an absolute ontological status or else,” is just a subjective emotionally immature and unnecessary unspoken premise and overreaction, in my opinion. Beauty’s ontological status is as deep and meaningful as we need it to be.
3. I would disagree with your statement concerning the immoral status of the majority of people. My moral system recognizes the limited viability of every moral system to whatever degree. I would consider everyone *morally inefficient* including myself, but not immoral in a harsh black and white sense. From my perspective such a dichotomy of immoral vs. moral is immature and dangerous. This naturally leaves room for adjustment and improvement. I don’t know what world you live in but not everyone is that fucked up. Even the most devious people I’ve met are capable and do engage in moral behavior. And if you are tactful you can cultivate more of it in them. There are many fucked up things about the world and people are imperfect and stupid to varying degrees, but I certainly don’t consider everyone to be seriously fucked up as Calvinism would seem to require (I‘m still not quite sure on your version of total depravity). We don’t all need a savior though sometimes one would be nice. You seem to have an overly generalized “news-eye view” that conforms to your Christian sensibilities. I think the phrase for that is “confirmation bias.” Perhaps there is more depth to your understanding than that which is represented here, however it seems a little too convenient to deep six all of humanity (just because of absolutist categorical distinctions) for the sake of the dangling carrot of God‘s goodness that is outside of the system entirely. With slightly less tone deaf distinctions, the world looks a lot better and you can see the good despite the bad. A lot of good goes on in the world that has very little to do with Jesus and Calvinists routinely use their definitions to merely define out the competition. I would hope you would be more sensible than your brethren.
In regards to the second part of this question, chance has unequally distributed the basis for my moral paradigm which would be natural interests, empathy, and intellect. The actual articulation of it in abstract terms is my own design though of course I press for the utmost of dispassionate objectivity. Thus the ingredients are evolution, the end result is from me. The distinction does have limited significance, but perhaps you didn‘t mean much by implying evolution created the abstract of my moral system. Of course, if I’ve done my job correctly, I should be merely reflecting the obvious in generic universal terms without any contrived ideological hang-ups. I should be merely saying, “Hey, this is the best way to ratify the deal evolution gave us.“ Talent is unevenly distributed and many many things get in the way of the obvious. Such oversight can be very difficult and simply isn‘t necessary enough to expect to surface in everyone though it is obviously not impossible either. Hopefully my moral paradigm works with what is already present in each individual instead of merely trying to absolutely override it and thus I do consider a viable percentage of it to exist in everyone whether they understand or appreciate it or not. When you drop all pretensions to the cosmic scale moral paradigms of religion, such important distinctions become quite obvious and the atheist view is infinitely more sensible. In order to overcome all the impending disasters of such mutually exclusive dogmas of the world colliding there will be more and more a need to get the facts *completely* straight and those few like-minded secularists may find their voice being heard to a greater and greater degree. Only time will tell.
Ben
Hey, sorry that I still haven't responded. I'm fairly swamped right now. Just a quick question. Could you recommend a book that isn't agenda driven (it can have some agenda, of course, but just not agenda driven) that will explain the currently accepted evolutionary theory in detail? If you could recommend such a book, I'd really appreciated it.
Oh, and I found a book that you might be interested in. It's called "Habits of the High Tech Heart" by Quentin Schultze. It's basically talking about morality in a technological age. It's written from a Christian perspective, and so I'm sure that there's a lot that you will disagree with, but its base issue is morality, and it's standards of morality that we both agree with. He raises a lot of good points. Anyways, as a blogger and an internet conversationalist I think that you would really enjoy it.
~dan
So, I found myself with some time on my hands, and thought that I should respond to you. However, this conversation is a bit cold (which is entirely my fault), and so I thought that maybe it would just be better if I shared some thoughts that I’ve had concerning God and evolution and morality and the like.
As of late, I’ve been wrestling with the idea of evolution. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this or not, but I’m not really a scientist, and so don’t really have the empirical data to make an informed decision concerning the validity of the theory one way or another. And the thing is, I could easily swing either way on the creation debate, without having to radically change my worldview. But, for me, right now, from a philosophical perspective, evolution is not making a lot of sense, outside of a theistic framework. Allow me to explain.
If my memory serves me, you have stated that our morality is an evolutionary function, which helps us to survive. When posed with the objection that morality does not promote survival of the fittest individual, you responded by arguing the survival of the fittest groups. While, in my limited reading, I haven’t found any real support for this idea, it makes decent enough sense (even though, at some level, evolution seems to require some of a group to do better than others of a group, for any real progress to be made, unless everyone in the group evolved at a fairly uniform rate. But whatever, I don’t know).
Here’s my problem. My problem is that evolutionary morality seems ambiguous to the point of being completely unhelpful from a pragmatic point of view. This is because, it would seem that end of moral actions is “whatever helps us evolve as a species.” At first, this may seem workable, because it would promote things such as helping others who are less fortunate, a sincere study of the sciences to bring about technological progress, social and mental health, and the like. However, in reality, we have no idea what helps us to survive as a species. There is a homosexual evolutionary argument that says homosexuality is evolution’s of addressing overpopulation. If that’s the case, then who’s to say that individuals who are born with predispositions to genocide aren’t there for the same reason? Who’s to say that religion isn’t a biological function to help deal with social stress? Who’s to say that rape isn’t a way to establish dominant class? I know that this sounds kind of silly, but I can’t find any way around it, unless if you were to change the moral end. But this proves just about as unhelpful.
Is the end of morality the most happiness for the most amount of people? That’s so open to interpretation that it’s ridiculous. How about “the greater good.” Fine, but who determines the greater good? A democracy? A dictator? Or here’s a good one. How about truth? What is true shall be a moral action, and once we all know the truth, we shall all be enlightened and moral. As much as the objectivist scientist might cringe (is this fair of me? I’m sorry if it isn’t), truth is pretty open to interpretation. And secondly, who says that truth is what’s good for the human race? A lot of people seem better off without “truth.” Ignorance is bliss. Perhaps you can provide me with a better moral end.
It doesn’t stop here though. The whole issue, for me, is further complicated by the fallible nature of evolution. You say somewhere above that “evolution isn’t perfect.” If this is the case, then perhaps moral actions will or won’t help us to evolve. Just because a biological impulse to survive as a group is planted in us by evolutionary process, is no guarantee that following that impulse will actually promote the survival of the species. So, there is no way of knowing whether or not following evolutionary impulses is moral or not.
It get’s even more complicated, because of human free will. I assume that you believe humans have free will. If you don’t, then the whole conversation becomes a conversation concerning fatalism, which is just as hard to defend from a moral standpoint. However, assuming you believe in free will, let’s continue. Free will means that we have a freedom to choose whether or not we wish to evolve.
We are getting to a point in scientific advancement, that we could speed up or slow down the evolution process. Gene research, selective breeding, etc, can give us different biological outcomes. However, we don’t know if we should be trying to evolve, or trying not to evolve. It’s not written anywhere “man must evolve.” Besides, evolution isn’t perfect. How about if the human mind is better than evolution? How about if we can think up better solutions than random mutations? The funny thing is, we can’t know. We can’t know if we are doing something different than evolution would have us do, because we can’t tell what is evolution and what isn’t. Perhaps evolution dictates us to defying evolution with science, and thus, in the very act of defiance, evolving the way we were supposed to.
Do you see where this leaves me, in respect to morality in a godless, evolutionary world? There might be an ultimate system of morality. However, we can’t ever hope of knowing it. We can’t know what’s going to help us evolve or not help us evolve. We can’t know if evolution is helpful or not. We can’t know whether the social deviants are supposed to be there or are supposed to be dealt with. We can’t really do anything except just kind of do whatever, and hope that it works out in the end.
We also can’t really condemn or condone any action. Maybe Hitler, screwed up with his free choice, and hurt the human chances of survival, and is thus immoral. Maybe Hitler just followed biological impulses, and helped confront overpopulation issues, and thus helped the human chances of survival, and is thus moral. Perhaps, he did the latter, but evolution, being imperfect, made a mistake, and so well it was part of evolution for him to do what he did, he hurt the human chances of survival, and is thus, again, immoral. We can’t really know. It’s like we’re walking around in the dark, just hoping that things kind of work out.
To finish, just a quick note, in response to your response to Edwards. This isn’t just a rebuffing of the arguments you made in the original post. It’s a paradigm shift. Morality ceases to be individual actions. Edwards would also say that the most moral action is loving God. Of course, as humans, we require some manner of guidelines, so that we know when we are loving God and when we are not loving God. But, the Bible states that there are no intrinsically moral or immoral actions, it’s all about our relationship to God. For instance sex can be moral or immoral. Killing can be moral or immoral (the same, of course, doesn’t go for murder or adultery, in the Christian worldview, because both of those words carry moral context).
This being said, anything that God does, is assumed moral, because everything that he does is done for his own glory. For some reason, in your post, you seem to think that God’s ultimate end is to save as many people as is possible. Biblically, God is seeking to forge for himself a people. The imagery of the impurities being pounded out of gold is used at one point.
Just some things to think about.
~dan
P.S. You objected earlier to Solomon being the wisest man alive, in reference to the writing of Ecclesiastes. Just so you are aware, a majority of scholars don’t think that Solomon was the author of the book. Textual dating of the book puts it at about 400 BC, well after Solomon was dead.
Wow, ARU's still at it!