* eSkeptic on why women have sex. It's the usual plausible yet untestable concoction of evolutionary psychological just-so stories.
* Christians complaining about other Christians' infringement on their freedom of speech. How amusing.
* On the epistemic limits of evolutionary biology, and how sometimes even philosophers of science can be surprised.
* School officials pull the Merriam Webster's dictionary because one parent complains: it contains the term "oral sex."
* What's the ontology of numbers?
* Dozens end up in the hospital: "holy water" poisoning...
* Finally, a sane discussion of the hoopla about the "Altenberg 16" meeting that I organzied two years ago, and an expose` of pseudo-journalist Suzan Mazur.
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteThe article announcing your “kick butt” triumph read, “Pigliucci presented an argument against objective morality centering on a Socratic dialogue referred to as “Euthyphro's dilemma”: is something moral because God says so, or does God approve of something because it is moral?”
You invoke Euthyphro in hope of proving God irrelevant. However, the solution is really very easy – both are true! Morality is arises both from the nature and the will of God. Therefore, morality is neither arbitrary (just an act of will) nor independent of God (He embodies morality)!
However, Euthyphro “kicks butt” on the atheist. You deny an ontological and rational right and wrong and are left with only arbitrary biological and pragmatic considerations.
Massimo: "Christians complaining about other Christians.."
ReplyDeleteActual text: "But he said that "disagreements over what prepositions mean" in the statement of faith or "slightly different takes on what the virgin birth amounts to" are treated as major theological disagreements. "Anybody who has a slightly variant position is either fired or questioned," he said."
The discussions are at least being had. I have no idea why founders or presidents of universities can't defend and uphold their core values even the less liberal ones. Secular universities (which were not always secular) sure do.
We hopefully are not so uniformed to not acknoledge where they are and how those now secular universities do think as a collective today.
Its a slow fade when you give yourself away. People never crumble in a day...
Slow Fade Vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-8SYA6rfbs&feature=related
Lyrics
"Slow Fade"
Be careful little eyes what you see
It's the second glance that ties your hands as darkness pulls the strings
Be careful little feet where you go
For it's the little feet behind you that are sure to follow
It's a slow fade when you give yourself away
It's a slow fade when black and white have turned to gray
Thoughts invade, choices are made, a price will be paid
When you give yourself away
People never crumble in a day
It's a slow fade, it's a slow fade
Be careful little ears what you hear
When flattery leads to compromise, the end is always near
Be careful little lips what you say
For empty words and promises lead broken hearts astray..."
Any video forthcoming for the debate between Massimo and Horner?
ReplyDeleteLuke, yes, there will be a video posted on YouTube, I will announce it as soon as it will be up.
ReplyDeleteMassimo,
ReplyDeleteYou look excessively charismatic in this photo: European, perfectly matched clothing, glasses, hand gesture being made, appearance of precise and forceful statement being made.
Massimo
ReplyDeleteGreat, I look forward to that. I think you come across well on audio and video. Perhaps in that debate I may come to understand better your previous statements on morality - though on the debate question there's no doubt we agree.
It's a frustrating question in a way, if for no other reason than it keeps popping up, though I'm glad there's still those willing to debate it openly for "our" side.
This one might interest you. I'm not sure the date's right, but if it is then Michael posted it today - coincidence!?
Shermer: "Why Not Ask God for Moral Guidance?" ("modified excerpt from Chapter 7 of The Science of Good and Evil" - a book I quoted from on your morality blogpost recently).
http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/2010/01/08/why-not-ask-god-for-moral-guidance/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've never really bought case 1 of the Euthyphro dilemma. Seems to me that if we're entertaining the notion of a being that is responsible for the physical universe, including the principles upon which it operates, it makes just as much sense to ascribe the existence and nature of morality to that being as well. Furthermore, it seems incorrect to equate this with might making right in the human context, since within that context a moral sense already exists, whereas what we're talking about is the origin, meaning, and context of that sense in the first place. In light of that, it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that the moral aspect of a universe created by such a being needn't, of itself, be moral in any sense that we would recognize or agree with. There is no inherent contradiction in the idea that such a being could endow humans with sensibilities that run contrary to its own parameterization of the universe's moral aspect.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the dilemma, as I see it, is that it accepts an unfalsifiable absurd proposition and then seeks to argue it away.
MannsWord:
ReplyDeleteMorality is arises both from the nature and the will of God. Therefore, morality is neither arbitrary (just an act of will) nor independent of God (He embodies morality)!
I know you suppose this is a kick-arse refutation or stop sign for Euthyphro. But can you unpack it a bit for me? It just seams to be sophistry. I'll give it my best attempt, but I'm sure you can do better. If I sound a bit snarky, I'm only having a bit of fun with the ideas, not at your expense.
Morality arises from the nature and will of God.
So, you impale God on both horns of the dilema to do only half the harm? Or is it that as God is supported sufficiently, all that magisterial weight distributed equally on both horns, that ordinary physics kicks in and God rests serenly (like when you can walk with snow shoes but sink in ordinary on soft snow)?
If morality depends, even in part on God's will, - God's will is necessary but not sufficient - then it follows that if God's will is in anyway independent of God's nature that might makes right as it is the arbitrary dictates as much as God can dictate independent of his nature.
If morality depends in part on God's nature (or if God's will is bound by his nature - he'd never will something immoral), then presumably God couldn't be any other way, so then morality precedes God in the sense that God had no say in it.
It seems you're having an each way bet, but neither way avoids Euthyphro.
How do you see it working?
perspicio
ReplyDeleteThere is no inherent contradiction in the idea that such a being could endow humans with sensibilities that run contrary to its own parameterization of the universe's moral aspect.
Then why call God good or right if one doesn't mean good or right? God is supposed to be as good as it gets, and the source goodness/rightness. If you are positing an amoral or immoral god then cool, but it doesn't appear to be the god of Abrahamic religions as practised by lots of folks.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, why assume the god of Abrahamic religions in a conversation about the Euthyphro dilemma?
Second, even if we do, there's no basis for assuming that "good" and "right" with respect to such a being could even be apprehended using the same standards of "good" or "right" with respect to humans. We're positing a being that parameterized "good" and "right" with respect to humans, who are far more constrained in perceptual and behavioral ability than that being would be. There is simply no reason to assume moral symmetry across those domains. Even leaving out the "who made who" of it, we can look at the behaviors of different animals and see instances where behaviors that work for one species' social groupings and/or individuals would not work for another's. If nature is not morally homogenous, why then would we invent that standard in order to hold God to it? It all seems very anthropocentric.
Third, what is it exactly about the god of Abrahamic religions that leads you to believe this would be a moral being in the first place?
Brian,
ReplyDeleteWould you follow all the same rules as you'd demand of a dog living in your house?
If not, would that mean you were not good or not right? Would it make you either immoral or amoral?
Where natures differ, different rules apply.
Brian (and Perspicio),
ReplyDeleteI’ll try to elaborate a little more on Ethyphro’s Dilemma, but I first must remind you that it was Massimo who invoked this argument as a supposed slam-dunk against the relevance of God to the question of morality
Euthyphro’s Dilemma posits that if God endorses morality because it is good, it makes Him irrelevant and diminishes His ontological status in the light of pre-existing moral truth. After all, who needs God to point out the sun if we can already see it! However, if God merely chooses what is moral, it makes morality arbitrary – “might makes right” – and raises the question of “How can God be good.”
This Dilemma is resolved when we recognize that it presents us with a false dichotomy like having to choose between love and justice or between the left and right wing of a plane. God not only chooses what is moral, He also is what is moral. Therefore, our God-given morality isn’t arbitrary because His choice is based on ontological goodness. And this ontological goodness doesn’t make God irrelevant because He is the very source of this goodness.
Not only this, but Christ made us like Himself (Genesis 1:26-27) and placed His truths within us. Consequently, we can only reject this morality and the concept of moral absolutes at great expense to ourselves—the very rejection of our nature and being, resulting in alienation and meaninglessness.
Nevertheless, humankind does reject the notion of moral absolutes because this reality points so persuasively to the existence of a Designer who has laid moral claim to our lives. Oddly, we don’t reject reason and logic even though they too gesture so persuasively to their Creator. (It just boggles the mind to imagine how these unchanging standards of thought could have naturally evolved out of an explosion and molecules-in-motion!) We can’t reject them without rejecting ourselves and any argument we might incoherently raise against their existence.
However, when the atheist rejects God, he also rejects any possible basis for moral absolutes. Morality then becomes arbitrary, something to be manipulated by any despot or pleasure seeker. Lenin was once asked, “What is the morality of Communism (the premier atheistic experiment)?” Lenin understandably answered, “Another that promotes the revolution is ‘good.’ Anything that interferes with it is ‘bad.’” No wonder the uniformly brutal and repressive legacy of militant atheism!
Yet again, Mann's Word reliably does not understand the point of an argument pertaining to religion. The question here is not what you would like to believe, but whether morality must necessarily come from gods, and the dilemma blows the yes answer out of the water. Yes, it could be that the gods' will is identical with an objective universal morality that must be part of the gods' nature so that they can be good. But then gods are still superfluous, and the morals would be the same without the deities, resulting in a "no" to the question underlying the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI do also not feel any butt-kicking on atheists taking place even if you were right. Some people can live quite well with pragmatic considerations, and it has no bearing on the question of the gods' existence anyway.
From my perspective, that latter aspect is also what is peculiar about the above article. The series of discussions is supposedly about the overarching question of the Abrahamic god's existence, but stuff like the free will defense or Euthyphro's dilemma is completely besides the point. So what if god would have to be a repressive bastard or would have to be limited by universal morals? So what if there is evil in the world? Just postulate an evil and capricious god; the one described in the bible fits the bill very well.
The only question that would be relevant to the discussion series' title would be: do we have any evidence, however indirect, that gods actually exist? I guess that was the topic of "Does God Exist I"? Well, after concluding no, can we not ignore all the questions that only make sense if the answer had been yes?
Mintman,
ReplyDeleteWe agree that we can set Euthyphro aside, although Massimo would protest. This Dilemma indeed puts the ultimate kibosh on neither side. So let’s deal with what I think is the crux of your position:
“Some people can live quite well with pragmatic considerations, and it has no bearing on the question of the gods' existence anyway.”
We also agree (at least, I think we agree) that we can know right from wrong apart from a belief in a God. (According to Scriptural revelation, God has instilled this knowledge in our heart {Romans 2:14-15}, making us morally accountable, as we should be!). However, pragmatism alone is an inadequate rational basis for morality. In essence, it says that “I can be thoroughly good by being selfish. If I tend to my own welfare, I will naturally love others.”
Indeed, we are all pragmatists in some sense, and I think that the history of humankind has ruled decisively against such a position. Morality sometimes demands self-sacrifice, even death. Pragmatism does not provide the substance for heroic living – the type of living that our heart instructs us is true.
Mann'sWorld
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean to say: "He also is what is moral."
Doesn't this lead to another tautology? How would one know this? The answer is usually a sacred text(?), then how would we know the sacred text is correct (?), "it is the word of God" - or "inspired" by God (?), how do we know it is the word of God (?), "it is written in the sacred text" (?).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCaliana,
ReplyDeleteGod does certainly have His ways – often inscrutable – and his timing. You are so right about people’s hearts. Fundamentally, it’s not about evidence, but a change of heart that only God can bring about (John 6:44).
Nevertheless, He does use evidences. It required a bloody chainsaw injury to open my eyes.
Luke,
Contrary to popular opinion, faith in our Creator is not a matter of a leap into the darkness, but a willingness to accept what has always been before our reluctant eyes.
Regarding the Bible, there are many compelling evidences – miracles, fulfilled prophecies, internal and external coherence, and changed lives/societies. I’d be glad to review some of the many evidences if you think you’d find this important.
Daniel, (mann's word)
ReplyDeleteSome people I think feel that because they do not know anything of God's will and ways no one can. Well...I guess that is one way to view the world.
By the way, yours is an interesting story. Read some on your site(s).
Caliana,
ReplyDeleteGod does certainly have His ways – often inscrutable – and his timing. You are so right about people’s hearts. Fundamentally, it’s not about evidence, but a change of heart that only God can bring about (John 6:44).
Nevertheless, He does use evidences. It required a bloody chainsaw injury to open my eyes.
Luke,
Contrary to popular opinion, faith in our Creator is not a matter of a leap into the darkness, but a willingness to accept what has always been before our reluctant eyes.
Regarding the Bible, there are many compelling evidences – miracles, fulfilled prophecies, internal and external coherence, and changed lives/societies. I’d be glad to review some of the many evidences if you think you’d find this important.
Perspicio:
ReplyDeleteSecond, even if we do, there's no basis for assuming that "good" and "right" with respect to such a being could even be apprehended using the same standards of "good" or "right" with respect to humans.
Yes there is. God is a person, like us, only better. God is good, but just maximally good, etc. It's pretty standard dogma of Abrahamic religions. I understand that the theologians and philosophers make God less personal, but that's neither here nor there.
Seems like Massimo has struck another rich lode of crazy. Who would have thought this exchange could result from the innocuous contents of the blog post?
ReplyDeleteInnocuous?
ReplyDelete"on the question of whether we need gods to be moral. (Duh, no.)"
I don't think that question is innocuous. I think it is direct push to place man at the center when man does not even know his mind let alone the mind of God.
What makes you think that you can even KNOW if you can be moral without GOD? What does it mean to be moral in the first place?
Like Mann's Word says it has something to do with self sacrifice and that certainly is not a very man centered idea at the core.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou know, Roy, it is a good question. Not that I think God was immoral for not healing him before my sister prayed for my (believing) father-in-law. I mean, we get older and things happen, ya know.
ReplyDeleteI have seen a lot more instances of God doing things that seem very miraculous this year. Its amazing. If I could tell you all that I've seen....But what can one say to those who don't want to believe?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"what can one say to those who don't want to believe?"
ReplyDeleteContrapositively, those that want to believe will find reasons to. That's just confirmation bias, plain and simple.
Chew on this for a second: Not wanting to believe (~not pre-judging) is not the same as wanting to not believe (~denying the possibility of). On the flipside, though, wanting not to believe in something is the identical twin of wanting to believe in not-something, which is pretty much all god-faith amounts to: wanting to not-believe in purposelessness/uncertainty/indeterminacy, and therefore believing in their opposites instead.
To the god-faithers I say, believe what you want. Just don't bother trying to use reason to justify a Yahweh (or equivalent) fixation. It's simply not rational. You can bring in rationality to some degree after the fact to kind of prop up what you've decided on another basis entirely, but you're better off to stick with faith/denial arguments. They're more restrictive, but they're far stronger.
Yeah, well,
ReplyDeleteI think it is direct push to place man at the center when man does not even know his mind let alone the mind of God.
this is a key sentence, but you are probably too blinded to realize it. You freely admit that we cannot possibly know what a god wants, and it could be added that we cannot possibly know if a god exists, unless of course it opens the skies and speaks its will with thunderous voice, or left some evidence for its existence and wishes behind, which it from all we know did not. So how do you know all the stuff you and Mann's Word are confidently asserting all the time? You confuse repeating a wild idea over and over with knowing something, or you know it in your hearts. Newsflash: some people know in their hearts that Buddhism is true, some know in their hearts that Jennifer Lopez loves them even though she has never met them, and others still know in their hearts that they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Which is why we should use our brains to think, and not our hearts, and which is why we invented mental institutions.
On the other hand, and in contrast to what you also just asserted, we can in fact study our own minds. That's what neurology, psychology, moral philosophy and a variety of other areas of human endeavor are for. Problem solved.
Caliana:
ReplyDeleteIts amazing. If I could tell you all that I've seen....But what can one say to those who don't want to believe?
I want to believe. But I won't throw my belief into the abyss where it might be allah, jesus or budda or are they all avatars of lord shiva? So all I ask is some thing that I can aprehend that delineates wishful thinking from truth. For example, if someone says that Bob stole my car, but upon investigating I found that Bob had died a year beforehand, I reasonably determine that it was not Bob. Can you give something that would test your belief, something real that if wrong would make your belief wrong? If not, then I can't see how I could distinguish wishful thinking from truth. Sincerely, if you have it, please present it. If you refer to scripture, then we're wasting our time because there's nothing, apart from existing faith, to suggest that the Bible is more reliable than the works of Homer. If you say that after you prayed then something advantageous happened then likewise I'll not believe because that's the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Unless of course you have already ruled out all other possible causes by experiment beforehand.
Thanks in advance.
(Apologies for spelling, but I don't think I've set up this computer well. I have no spell checker.)
Brian, Caliana, Perspicio, and Mintman,
ReplyDeleteMintman, Brian, Perspicio, Caliana,
There are literally thousands of reasons to believe in the God of the Bible. Let me just mention one – fulfilled prophecy – and let me just mention one aspect of this form of proof – the Jewish people!
Moses had instructed Israel that God had given Israel the ability to accumulate wealth in order to fulfill His promises to the Patriarchs (Deut. 8). However, He (and the Prophets) also warned them that if they turned their back on God, He would turn His back on them with catastrophic results. They would be hated and driven from one nation to another, but He also promised that He would bring Israel back to their land!
Wherever the Jews go, they are fantastically successful and fantastically despised! And on three occasions, they have miraculously returned to Israel!!
Mintman, you responded, “On the other hand, and in contrast to what you also just asserted, we can in fact study our own minds. That's what neurology, psychology, moral philosophy and a variety of other areas of human endeavor are for.”
However, everywhere we look, we find incredible evidence for design. God’s creation screams out His name! Neurologically, with have trillions of neural connections that our “closest relatives” lack. Evolution clearly lacks the time to account for these. Psychologically, we find an incredible degree of harmony between the truth we find written on our hearts and the well-being we derive when we listen to those dictates. Philosophically, we cannot derive an adequate, rational foundation for morality without the acknowledgment of God.
Can you point to any discipline where we are unable to point to design?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMann's Word:
ReplyDeleteYou should perhaps research the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy one of these days. If the Jews insist on having to return to Israel at some point because of those prophecies, they will of course actually try to do so once the option presents itself. Many other instances of "fulfilled prophecies" have demonstrably been inserted into the Torah after the "prophecized" event had already taken place. On the other hand, the bible is also chock full of those that have not been fulfilled, like Egypt and the city of Damascus becoming uninhabited wastelands, or, most obviously, the rapture taking place within the lifetime of Jesus' disciples.
The main point is, however, that all other religions, from the Mormons to the Hindus to some tribal cult in western Africa will also claim divine inspiration, knowing things in their heart, miracle healings and fulfilled prophecies, and treat you with the same condescension for not realizing the self-evident truth of their beliefs as you treat atheists here.
See, you clearly have no understanding of evolution, or of the time frames involved. You also clearly have no idea about the fundamental nature of our universe, or you would not pretend that it provided evidence of design. If anything looks precisely like not designed, it is all the world around us. But even if it did! Even if we saw the signature of design in the cosmos - and believe me, I would not close myself to that truth if it were truth - how exactly would that validate your specific interpretation of god? If we had found that the universe is a firmament, that it has started in a state of minimum entropy, and decaying ever since, with a positive energy sum, with the earth exactly in the center - all these hypothetical points in favor of design that, however, we actually do not find in reality - how would even that tell us that Jesus saves, as opposed to Muhammad or Zoroaster? As a wiser man than myself once wrote, "it would be a dishonest Christian who would deny that had he been born in Saudi Arabia, he would be as big an advocate for Muhammad as he is now for Jesus."
"If the Jews insist on having to return to Israel at some point because of those prophecies, they will of course actually try to do so once the option presents itself. Many other instances of "fulfilled prophecies" have demonstrably been inserted into the Torah after the "prophecized" event had already taken place."
ReplyDeleteThen the WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD that claims that Jews have no right to the LAND must believe in self fulfilling prophecies too. The Bible says that Jerusalem will be a cup of trembling for the nations.
What do you see?
This is what I see: “Thus says the LORD 'Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it'” (Zechariah 12:2,3).
Mintman,
ReplyDeleteI hope you will not accuse me of dishonesty for refuting you quote: “it would be a dishonest Christian who would deny that had he been born in Saudi Arabia, he would be as big an advocate for Muhammad as he is now for Jesus."
I was born Jewish. In fact, I was the most intensely Jewish member of my family. I was also a fervent Zionist, who lived in Israel for two years. I also hated anything to do with faith and with Christianity.
My story is not unusual. Christ has drawn all kinds of people to Himself. Evidently, you find this to be quite anomalous, and it is when we regard the experience of the other religions. Likewise, when you compare their holy books to our Bible, you will find profound differences. In fact, Mohammed admitted that he didn’t have any miraculous evidences – miracles, fulfilled prophecy.
If you try to throw all religions into the same bag, you are being illegitimately indiscriminate.
I think a lot people totally misunderstand "choseness". It just isn't the enviable (or even reason to have envy) position that some in the world make it out to be, Jews or non-Jews.
ReplyDeleteJews were chosen, most importantly, to carry the Bible to this point and time and that sure has not come without its hardships.
"Chosen for what?" is the timely question.
Mann's Word:
ReplyDeleteOkay, there are converts, rarely, you are right. Although I must say that some of what you write does sound incoherent - you were "most intensely Jewish" but you "hated anything to do with faith"? That is a contradiction in itself.
And you must also admit that Muhammad has drawn all kinds of people to himself, as have Joseph Smith, Zoroaster, Laotse, Siddhartha Gautama, Mani, Ad-Darazi, Guru Nanak Dev and many others, and all their followers are entirely convinced that they are right. And because neither you nor they ever test your faith honestly against outside evidence, you will never agree on anything except maybe that atheists are even worse than an infidel.
Caliana:
And in Amos 9:15 god promises the Jews that they will never again driven out of their promised land. When was that? What happened in 70 C.E.? Not very reliable, the bible.
Mintman,
ReplyDeleteMust you resort to put-downs: “And because neither you nor they ever test your faith honestly against outside evidence…”
To answer your challenge to Caliana, Amos 9:15 and other prophecies refer to a time after the Davidic Kingdom will be restored under the Messiah. This Kingdom will indeed be an everlasting Kingdom.
Mintman,
ReplyDeleteOur congregation's leadership prefers the Inductive Method of reading or studying the Bible as it is very rare that a verse will stand all by itself and be comprehensive in its meaning. Same is true of all kinds of texts.
One does not have the whole story on an issue by just taking ONE comment out of a whole chapter. Understand?
The observation part of induction ought to look like this:
* Who: Who is mentioned in the passage? To whom it is said or written? Who are the audience? It helps you to get the picture of what is going on in the passage.
* What: What is happening? What is the passage about? Is there some kind of teaching, event like miracle or healing, exhortation, warning, conversation, debate, arguments, discussion etc?
* It also helps to ask question, weather the bible passage is the historical event, poetry, narration, letter etc?
* When and Where: This is an important piece of information. Ask yourself, when and where did this occur? The place and its significance, time of the day/month/year?
Interpretation:
Once you get a good background and understanding of the bible passage. Now, you can move to questions about the interpretation.
* Why: Why is it mentioned? What is the core issue? What is the main focus or theme of the passage?
* You may use some other resources, such as bible dictionary or a bible commentary, if the passage is difficult to understand.
* Observation and Interpretation may overlap each other sometimes, but these two steps will enable you to understand the context and meaning of the bible passage.
http://bibleseo.com/bible-study-methods/inductive-bible-study-method/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome people follow inductive rules naturally when they read anything, Roy. Some people just don't and they need the tools to do so.
ReplyDeleteAs for your comments here
"It would be a lot easer to believe that there was some entity in the cosmos that in some sense had fashioned some enforceable set of moral laws for higher forms of life to thereby obey and prosper if that being or entity was also obliged to follow its own commandments."
Would it really be easier to BELIEVE if you were able to bring GOD down to your own level? Do honestly think you'd have more respect for Him?
That is doubtful. That is much like the child who insists that a parent have a nine o'clock curfew because he does. Is that fitting, appropriate or respectful?
The Lord of he universe should follow your rules and ideas about them because...?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRoy: Wouldn't that depend upon what the point of morality is? If it's to make us better human beings, of what use would that be to YHVH?
ReplyDeleteI go back to my earlier statement: Where natures differ, different rules apply.
Of course, I don't accept the god proposition in the first place, since it requires superimposing a labyrinth of blind alleys where otherwise there is a great deal more clarity. But if you're going to entertain the notion for the sake of argument, then from a rational perspective caliana's pretty much right. It simply doesn't follow that God's morality would fully map onto man's in a meaningful way. And there's a lot of reason to suppose it wouldn't.
I always find it interesting how Christians refer to their god construct in monarchical terms, "Lord", "He reigns", sitting on a throne like in those Jack Chick tracts, and so forth.
ReplyDeleteWherever the Jews go, they are fantastically successful and fantastically despised!
And how is that different than numerous other immigrant groups? The Chinese are often referred to as the Jews of Asia, and Chinese immigrant communities throughout South East Asia prospered in business while being despised by the natives. You see it in places like Malaysia and Indonesia. Indian immigrants have had similar experiences. In Uganda they formed the backbone of the economy and then Idi Amin kicked them out and Uganda's economy went down the toilet.
However, when the atheist rejects God, he also rejects any possible basis for moral absolutes.
Now that's a load of nonsense. One can reason their way to moral absolutes without injecting a deity into the equation. Morals are basically how we relate to one another. Theistic morality is simply wrapping someone's subjective moral system in the guise of divine command so as to shut off debate and criticism. Because once you declare that soemthing is god's law, there's really nowhere to go with that person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTommyKey,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “One can reason their way to moral absolutes without injecting a deity into the equation.”
Yes, we can reason our way to moral absolutes if there is first a basis in existence for these absolutes! Just consider these requirements for moral absolutism:
1. Immutability – if it changes, it can’t be absolute.
2. Universality – if its truth isn’t universal, then it can’t be absolute.
3. Transcendence – if it doesn’t transcend our own thinking and inclinations, then each one of us becomes the Supreme Court of our own subjective, non-absolute inclinations and thinking. There must exist something higher than us, something to which we are all subject.
In the above, moral law is similar to physical laws. However, there is one more necessary ingredient of absolute moral law that sets it apart from the physical laws – it carries transcendent authority. We can’t violate it without experiencing punishment, at least psychologically. While we can do a lot of things to violate the “demands” of gravity – getting on an elevator or plane – moral laws can’t be sidestepped so easily, at least not without personal consequence.
Conclusion: Acknowledging moral absolutes is to acknowledge a transcendent law-Giver.
Yes, we can reason our way to moral absolutes if there is first a basis in existence for these absolutes!
ReplyDeleteYou say this while relating moral laws with physical ones, yet, as you know, physical laws were not established with a basis for the existence of absolutes. Not to mention, a discovery tomorrow will change our understanding of those laws, perhaps creating new ones.
Your attempt to validate absolutism is curbed at every step because of the simple fact that you do not know all there is to know about everything.
Like caliana, you pretend to know something about the world that you can't possibly prove under even the weakest of scrutiny (I believe twice you were asked to support your beliefs in a testable manner of that of reasonable evidence); you simply stated that there are a number of reasons to believe - which were really a euphemism for the bible (prophecy). That only demonstrates an absurd want to shut down any other form of inquiry, not to mention an ego that mocks the idea of being incorrect (please read Julia's fine post recently submitted on this site).
One of my favorite poets once said that the more we study, the more we discover our ignorance. I think that this is a pretty good truism if there ever was one. Apparently, judging by this thread and your words, the christian is the exception - all they need is one book to know whats worth knowing.
As I said to caliana in another thread: stop pretending.
Mann's Word:
ReplyDeleteOnce again, wishful thinking is your entire modus operandi. Your last posts reads like this:
1. Morals must be absolute
2. They can only be absolute if there is an agency outside of us setting them
3. Following from 1 & 2, this agency must exist
4. Let's call it God!
Even if 1 were true, and I do not believe that anyway, just wanting to have absolute morals does not prove the existence of that outside agency, just like wanting to have a free will does not prove the existence of free will, and just like not wanting to die does not prove the existence of eternal souls. Get that into your head, please.
To complicate matters, the outside agency in 2 or 4 must not necessarily be a god. It could just as well be that morals are universal only in the sense that we can define a set of basic morals that must be accepted to make a working society of sentient beings. This is what I would argue - no matter how alien a society is to us in other regards, it must consider lying, stealing and murder as vices, otherwise it will not be a society. The outside agency that the "absolute" morals are based on would then be a functional constraint, nothing more.
DarekW,
ReplyDeleteI’d be glad to respond to you with evidences for the Christian faith and demonstrations that the existence of moral absolutes inevitably lead to the conclusion of God, but I’m really not sure what you want. However, it seems that your response is more about making personal attacks – “you pretend to know,” “an absurd want to shut down any other form of inquiry, not to mention an ego that mocks the idea of being incorrect,” “the christian is the exception - all they need is one book to know whats worth knowing,” “stop pretending.”
If instead, you are looking to dialogue, please make that clear by responding with something substantive.
Mann'sWord,
ReplyDeleteDo you know of Jacob Prasch? http://morielbealertblog.blogspot.com/ Went to listen to him last night in Abq. I may go back to the conf today if I get my stuff done and leave this blog alone. Lol!
Jacob was at one time an agnostic and his wife was an atheist. No pretending involved, there REALLY is hope for all! :)
There must exist something higher than us, something to which we are all subject.
ReplyDeleteThat's just human egocentrism in action for you, this belief that our mundane affairs on a tiny speck of a planet in a universe filled with billions of galaxies is of paramount importance to an omniscient and omnipotent being.
Jacob was at one time an agnostic and his wife was an atheist. No pretending involved, there REALLY is hope for all! :)
And I was once a believer and I became an atheist, so there REALLY is hope for you too! ;-)
Mann'sWord, I gather you are an adult? If you take those as personal attacks, than its best not to have a discussion at all - afterall, how is anyone suppose to call you out on rubbish?
ReplyDeleteYou seem like someone who is not an idiot, so after I repeat a request by others for you to do as asked - you claim your not sure what I want?
I gather you indeed get my intention in my last post - that you've waved your hand with a number of empty clauses. Back them up as asked previously (at least twice before without me repeating the motion). Instead you cry about not being asked a certain way. If thats how you dodge criticism, thats fine but don't expect a person to behave a certain way just for you.
Being frank with you, Mann'sWord, is not offensive, it can be a form of respect (as I expect others to be frank with me).
Mintman,
ReplyDeleteI thought you did a good job both in summarizing my argument and then critiquing it. However, let me just remind you that I wasn’t trying to prove that morals are absolute. Instead, I was arguing against someone (Tommykey) who had taken the position that morals are absolute. Consequently, I was just trying to demonstrate the divine implications of taking this correct stance.
Meanwhile, you argue that certain morals are universal because of their pragmatic or utilitarian value in enabling society – as we know it – to exist. But why should society exist? Why shouldn’t the “survival of the fittest” be the governing principle?
To put it another way, you have quietly and cryptically imported an “ought” from an “is” – “society ought to exist.”
Although, as a Christian, I applaud the fact that you are moral, ultimately you must base this morality on an ontological right and wrong, which, as an atheist, I don’t think you can produce.
Caliana,
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't know Jacob Prasch, but I too share your hope, having been virulently anti-Christian – so much so that I had even believed that they had a different odor. Our God has a sense of humor.
Mann's Word
ReplyDeleteI expect to go places and hear people (theists and non) that either mirror things I have heard before or they ARE things that I HAVE HEARD BEFORE. I expected to go to hear Jacob and NOT TAKE NOTES. But I took a lot of notes! He's dead serious about his Biblical assertions. There just doesn't seem to be double mindedness in him.
Christians smell different? :) Then miracles do happen?
Use to wish that I had a repellent to keep Christians away. Had what I would consider an ultra, ultra rebellious mind. That is why I always hold to the idea that if GOD could change my husband and I HE REALLY CAN change anyone. It works out precisely as God's word says:
“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14).
That's testable, isn't it.
Tommykey,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote that a belief in God is “just human egocentrism in action for you, this belief that our mundane affairs on a tiny speck of a planet in a universe filled with billions of galaxies is of paramount importance to an omniscient and omnipotent being.”
Charging me with “egocentrism” is no substitute for evidence to support your contention. Why couldn’t God be concerned about us? In contrast to Carl Sagan’s insistence that planet Earth is no more than one of trillions of cosmic rock heaps, science is finding that our planet demonstrates profound design. I’d recommend the PRIVILEGED PLANET – the book or the DVD.
Although, as a Christian, I applaud the fact that you are moral, ultimately you must base this morality on an ontological right and wrong, which, as an atheist, I don’t think you can produce.
ReplyDeleteAnd neither can you. However, you are free to argue that the moral system you find in the Bible is one that is the best one.
Instead, I was arguing against someone (Tommykey) who had taken the position that morals are absolute.
I have to apologize that the term "absolute" was probably not ideal. What I meant was that moral practice that is universal in its applicability can be considered the absolute or objective ideal. For instance, non-rape is universal in its applicability, whereas rape is not.
Darek W,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you’re right about the language, and that I need to learn better how to “go with the flow??”
Let me try to address one of your challenges: “Your attempt to validate absolutism is curbed at every step because of the simple fact that you do not know all there is to know about everything.”
I certainly do believe that both moral and physical absolutes. Although I agree with you that I “do not know all there is to know about everything,” I think I do know some things, and with the little I do know, I must somehow try to illuminate the surrounding darkness.
We all need to make decisions, even if our light is very dim. Physics has identified many absolute formulas for all sorts of phenomena – energy, the attraction between two bodies; electro-magnetism – despite the fact that they lack knowledge “about everything.” Would you deny the physicist the right to specify these absolutes, even if their theories change from time to time? If not, on the basis of what would you deny me the right to suggest that moral absolutes exist and to specify those necessary conditions upon which their absolute nature must be predicated?
Mann's Word:
ReplyDeleteIf you remember our hosts' recent posts on the issue, you may also remember that I argued vehemently in the comments section to Massimo's that there is no way to get from is to ought. I remain personally unconvinced that there are moral absolutes, or that there is an objective basis for morality brought in from outside, or even that it would be troubling if I could not produce an "ontological right and wrong" as an atheist.
No, really, I am fine with the idea that wanting to form a functioning society and wanting to achieve the situation of greatest welfare for all is just a spurious decision on part of the majority of humans. I need to invent an outside source of morality just as much as I need to invent an outside source of the meaning of life: not at all. We can create our own, and we even have to considering the fact that the universe, all the evidence, quite in opposition to what you would like to believe, screams into our face that there is no god.
I was merely arguing that even if you were right with the need for an outside source of morals (which again, I do not believe), even then there would be no self-evident reason to assume that this source must be some god; and even if it were shown that it had to be a god (which you haven't, just by asserting it), there would be even less reason to assume that it had to be your specific Jesus-saves-god as opposed to, for example, Viracocha.
But most importantly, and I know I am repeating myself, it all remains in the realm of wishful thinking. Even if morals need an absolute foundation, that does not mean that there is one, and you may just have to deal with that. Tough luck, that is what being a grown-up means.
Tommykey,
ReplyDeleteI think that Christianity does have the rational basis for objective moral absolutes. For one thing, without a higher, transcendent standard of truth – God – there is no rational basis upon which to objectively mediate disagreements. Thus, each one of us is, in a sense, our own highest court without any standard of truth that is higher than our inclinations. Therefore, we have no grounds upon which to tell Hitler that he is guilty of genocide. Without God, he can claim that his own tribal “truth” isn’t inferior to anyone else’s.
Mintman,
ReplyDeleteYou argued that, “there is no way to get from is to ought. I remain personally unconvinced that there are moral absolutes, or that there is an objective basis for morality brought in from outside, or even that it would be troubling if I could not produce an "ontological right and wrong" as an atheist.”
I think that there is a way to get from “is” to “ought.” If God “is,” then His existence – and His alone – necessarily implies “oughts.”
“I am fine with the idea that wanting to form a functioning society and wanting to achieve the situation of greatest welfare for all is just a spurious decision on part of the majority of humans. I need to invent an outside source of morality just as much as I need to invent an outside source of the meaning of life: not at all.”
Not having a rational basis for morality creates a vacuum that invites in a cacophony of deadly ideas. Usually, might-makes-right fills the vacuum. It has the power to push aside libertarianism, postmodernism, and anarchism.
“even if you were right with the need for an outside source of morals (which again, I do not believe), even then there would be no self-evident reason to assume that this source must be some god; and even if it were shown that it had to be a god (which you haven't, just by asserting it), there would be even less reason to assume that it had to be your specific Jesus-saves-god as opposed to, for example, Viracocha.”
Jesus taught, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). We, who search and cry out for the truth, will not recognize Viracocha’s voice. It is foreign and offensive (I’m guessing, because I am not familiar with this god). It’s the Biblical teachings that resonate with our heart and mind, because we have been inculcated with His truths. Besides, there are many objective reasons to support the contention that the Bible is the Word of God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRoy,
ReplyDeleteYou can't take seriously everything that the master politician -- Hitler -- had to say.
You can't take seriously everything that the master politician -- Hitler -- had to say.
ReplyDeleteWell, I hope all you Christians remember your argument the next time one of you comes with the idea that "Darwinism" is responsible for the holocaust because Hitler wrote something that could be interpreted as a completely garbled understanding of survival of the fittest.
MannsWord,
ReplyDeleteOk, we might be moving somewhere. With regard to language, understand that this isn't the first time I've had a discussion involving some of these themes. So when for the nth time someone makes what I think is clearly an unsupported claim, my immediate instinct isn't to put on 'kid gloves' in criticism.
I agree with your sentiment about our lights being dim in comparison to the darkness around us, but how does one go from conceding that to making claims about the totality of something (moral or physical)? Isn't that the mother of all 'oughts' from is''?
The analogy you use is interesting because you specify that it is a physical laws' formulas that makes it an absolute. So am I to assume that absolutism rests upon logical statements? Do you not see the problem with this analogy?
I've never heard a scientist say that there are absolutes with respect to how you use the term. In fact, today in the news there is yet another example of understanding in change. Why you have decided to take that position tells me more about what you want things like formulas and morals to say rather than what they themselves may or may not mean.
In terms of the very notion of moral absolutes. Look. Morality by definition is subjective. To say that there is absolute morality is once again simply assuming what is good or bad according to you ought to apply universally. This simply is not the case. Just look at some of the social issues disputed every election year in the US or some of the belief systems of aboriginal peoples in certain parts of the world. There are loads of examples which fly in the face of your particular notion of what is good or bad which is relative to a self-identified christian.
Not to mention, there are disorders like acquired psychopathy which prevents you from knowing right from wrong. How does this fit within your absolutist frame-work?
You have every right to claim whatever it is you want to claim, but your comparison to the physicist is not even remotely in the same ball-field. Nice try; I doubt you ever, ever, have taken the steps to arrive at the conclusions you have with respect to morality as the physicist has with nature.
Darek W,
ReplyDeleteYou maintain that, “Morality by definition is subjective. To say that there is absolute morality is once again simply assuming what is good or bad according to you ought to apply universally.”
Aren’t you too making an assumption about morality?-- that it is subjective? While we both would agree in our common human experience – moral sentiments press unmistakably upon us from what we call “conscience” – you assume that it merely represents a chance, un-designed bio-chemical arrangement. However, I’m convinced, for many reasons, that these constitute messages from beyond, from our Creator, regarding moral absolutes.
However, you point out the diversity among various cultures, in terms of what they recognize as moral, as an argument against universality, a necessary ingredient for moral absolutes. Here are some of my observations about this:
1. Atheists generally emphasize the obvious commonalities or universals, without which we can’t even establish a pragmatic basis for morality.
2. People are free to reject the objective message that arises from their conscience and to establish their own self-serving moral codes. However, it has been observed that even with these denials, certain objective moral imperatives remain. Just consider what happens when someone cuts in line in front of you. You protest, “I was here first” or “The line forms to the rear.” Even though we might deny the existence of this common law, we can’t detach ourselves from it, as C.S. Lewis observes:
• “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promises to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining, ‘It’s not fair.’”
• “If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so—that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.” (Mere Christianity)
Mintman,
ReplyDeleteAs with any politician, we have to be skeptical about their words, but we can draw some substantive conclusions from their WORKS.
Besides this, we can get a better grasp of the mind of Hitler from his less circumspect underlings, especially the psychiatrists under Hitler.
Hitler WAS a Situational Ethicist and that parallels perfectly with Darwinism and Natural Selection.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was about 13-14, was in a place where situational ethics was being used and (or tested) on really young teens. What was given to us were scenarios where only a certain amount of resources or space is left for a certain number of people. Questions then arise "Who are are you gonna save...dump out of the boat...off the cliff? or out of some other bizarre situation and so on. I don't think I was believer then and I still was not comfortable making a decision even towards these hypothetical disposals of certain types of people. Remind me again, what is it Natural selection is said to mean??? And you still believe that Darwinism does NOT promote SITUATIONAL ETHICS?
Its time for some serious talk about honesty here people. I may accept that you have been lied to and you believed it but I WILL NOT ACCEPT that Hitler was not using what considered Natural selection to save resources and procure power for himself.
Caliana.
ReplyDeleteThe way we think is the way we live. I agree that the connection between Hitler and Darwin is firmly established. In "Psychiatrists: The Men Behind Hitler," Roder, Kubillus, and Burwell wrote:
"Bluntly stated, Social Darwinism was perhaps the central theoretical foundation of German Nazi ideology. Very soon after Darwin, dangerous new ideas began to emerge, among them the concept of 'social hygiene' the brainchild of German philosopher Wilhem Schallmayer, and, as we will see later, a recurrent theme in Nazi ideology and practice...Darwin's influence on Hitler's and his accomplices perverse world view is undeniable...In Darwin, who contributed so greatly to the formation of the Nazi philosophy, we should see a warning sign...We have seen throughout history, as we see with Darwinian theory and Nazism, that science can be a cover under which immorality, misanthropy and murder can prosper." (15-16)
Morality is defined as "a particular system of values and principles of conduct, esp. one held by a specified person or society" (emphasis mine). If you have another definition that isn't subjective, feel free to disclose. Otherwise you're just playing word games where meanings become meaningless to simply suit your needs. This sleight of hand may work for you, but it doesn't fool me.
ReplyDeleteWe may agree upon certain commonalities, yes, but I wouldn't be so quick to attribute them (all) to stemming from our own consciousness. I may acknowledge that I don't like to be stolen from (as an example), but that may be because of the consequences of theft. Overall the lack of benefit may pressure a group to concede that we're better off not stealing from one another (though there still may be a couple of rotten eggs in the basket). The adherence to than saying theft is wrong is a 'good thing' perpetuates the benefit. Other primates have also been observed to acknowledge this concept, among others such as food-sharing. What is 'outside' of that dilemma?
Please don't assess how I understand things like chance or whatever it is you are getting at with "un-designed bio-chemical arrangement" from your own ignorance. You have demonstrated previously that you don't understand evolution. I would refrain from using this as a means to describe how your 'opposition' in a discussion like this thinks (same goes for you, caliana).
The thing you are not getting is that this 'message' and 'rule of law' you and Lewis are talking about is that its all in your head. You don't want to go to jail. So there is plenty of pressure other than your own will to prevent you from doing bad things like stealing. Same with lying - your reputation with others is at stake. The relationships between an individual and a group is far more powerful in explanation than anything C.S. Lewis can conjure up - in spite of his god-awful works of fiction.
And now, you and caliana have resorted to obscure sources to trash Darwin and make him and is work out to be a boogey-man in this conversation in the same way tea-baggers throughout the United States have painted Obama as the second coming of Mao. Even if there was a link (which there isn't), Darwin and his work would be no more at fault or his work any less true, for one, and second, if we are to make the judgement you want people to make by parading a false claim like a hitler/darwin link than I can make a similar claim that christianity leads to same 'situational ethics' as David Koresh.
This is pathetic. Thanks for bringing this discussion down to the pisser (though with the brilliance the two of you have displayed, I doubt it had much promise to begin with).
Darek W,
ReplyDeleteAlthough there isn’t a necessary connection between Darwinism and eugenics and genocide, there seems to be a logical congruence among them for at least three reasons:
1. As society rejects theism in favor of naturalism (Darwinism), it also rejects any basis for moral absolutes. As such, morals no longer constitute an independent reality to be discovered. Instead, they must be arbitrarily created. This opens the door to the creation of any number of moralities—social Darwinism, hedonism, enlightened selfism, utilitarianism—none of which have an adequate rational basis. As philosopher David Hume had pointed out, it isn’t logically possible to go from what “is” to what “ought to be.” Therefore, how can we contemplate standing up against evil if we refuse to recognize that such a thing even exists?
Consequently, atheist Arthur Leff, Duke School of Law, writes,
“The so-called death of God wasn’t just His funeral, but was the elimination of any coherent ethical or legal system…As it stands now, everything is up for grabs…Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor wicked, buying and selling people is depraved—but, ‘Sez who?’ God help us.”
2. Within this moral vacuum, the Darwinist understands that natural selection is the guiding and mothering force that has sired us forth from the slim, and we are its grandest “achievement.” It is therefore understandable that genomic progress would become our highest goal. (And historically, it often has!) For many, this means helping natural selection along with some of our own eugenic, genocidal manipulations.
3. Darwinism and naturalism relativizes our moral inclinations, banishing them into the nether-world of arbitrary circumstances – the way you were raised or genetics. Therefore, there is no convincing reason to maintain our moral integrity when our welfare is at stake. Morality then becomes a matter of convenience, a luxury, something that can be compromised when the circumstances require it.
There is also a profound and undeniable historical connection between Darwinism and eugenics.
"Even if there was a link (which there isn't), Darwin and his work would be no more at fault or his work any less true, for one, and second, if we are to make the judgement you want people to make by parading a false claim like a hitler/darwin .."
ReplyDeleteOkay, Derek, Darwin's not totally at fault for you following his teachings, you are.
As for your comments about how primates sometimes seem to know stealing is bad, well, primates also leave their sick and dying behind (and harm them occasionally) and have been known to possibly eat their offspring. Do you still maintain primates offer us a great model for ethics?
And resources. And how do we decide what is ethical in the division of resources between a group of any kind? Primates?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, marginalizing those who don't agree with you is not the same as having a REALLY good argument. People who have FACTS just don't need to do that.
"Ignorance is king, many would not prosper by its abdication." -Walter M. Miller, A Canticle for Leibowitz
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing to be gained by arguing with those who conflate conviction with fact.
*one long sigh*
ReplyDeleteMannsWord,
Again, you don't understand 'Darwinism'. Evolution has as much to say about what is best for society, good vs evil, what is a good life, what is best for happiness, etc., as Sarah Palin does on Russian foreign policy. Understand? Lets get at least that much straight. I'm not going to sit here and educate you on evolutionary biology - which is an education both you can caliana seriously need, it would clear out a lot of garbage and misconceptions you have stored up on the subject. I mean, an intro class would be all you'd need, frankly.
Anyway, theres a big reason why evolution can't answer those questions - because any answer posited would just be someone's opinion. Just like each of your points trying to connect a godless lifestyle with accepting certain scientific conclusions (a science that doesn't even have anything to say about lifestyles. Hint: there is a reason why all biologist aren't atheists, ok?).
Its amazing to me that you are trying to lecture me on David Humes' logic when you've so badly mangled it yourself in previous posts within this thread. Get over yourself. Try reading Hume again - for the first time.
Leff never declared himself an atheist, but I understand why you would want this kind of figure of authority. Try honesty instead, MannsWord. Regardless, this notion that without a father-figure (even as adults) that we're doomed is as childish as it sounds. Leff may have been a good lawyer, but that doesn't always necessarily help, does it?
By the way - I believe Leff was from Yale, not Duke - not that it really matters to you but if you are going to repeat this elsewhere, you may want to make a note.
The problem you have, MannsWord, is that as much as you'd like to have what you say mean something real - it doesn't. Its so vague as to be meaningless. What possible frame of reference can you establish to prove anything you've claimed in those three points? You have no correlating evidence to give me. I mean, the majority of the world's population is of one religion or another - are you saying the godless population is the cause of all ills? Most ills? Is the godless population of the world waiting in the wings to install a mass eugenics program? Are they all biologists? They all understand Darwin?
Maybe its because the world just isn't Christian - thats it! Thats the answer! But... when you think about it, countries (like the US) with a high population of christians aren't necessarily great models of happiness and morality, are they? Wait a minute - I see now, we just all have to think like you. How stupid of us.
Back on earth - in the real world, countries with a high population of godless are doing quite well in terms of happiness - especially in comparison to the United States.
Again - you want what you say to reflect some form of reality. But it doesn't and the most basic form of investigation on any of the matters you are trying to get at reflect a different reality than the fantasy you're trying to perpetuate.
caliana,
ReplyDeleteI can read what you say just fine without all the capitalization. Just a thought.
Let me do something for you:
primates also leave their sick and dying behind
See here
(and harm them occasionally)
and here
and have been known to possibly eat their offspring.
and here
Do you still maintain primates offer us a great model for ethics?
Read those links again.
Darek,
ReplyDeleteYou just proved my point in saying, “Anyway, theres a big reason why evolution can't answer those [moral] questions - because any answer posited would just be someone's opinion. Just like each of your points trying to connect a godless lifestyle with accepting certain scientific conclusions.”
The problem here is that evolution is more than just a collection of scientific findings. It also reflects the naturalistic worldview – RANDOM mutation and NATURAL selection. Therefore, as you stated, morality “would just be someone's opinion.” That’s not very reassuring when we are confronted with genocide.
Perspicio,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “There's nothing to be gained by arguing with those who conflate conviction with fact.”
However, shouldn’t conviction and fact go together? Shouldn’t we be “convicted” when the facts spell out victimization? I think that you are assuming a purist stance and throw all religions/belief systems into the same bag. Indeed, there are conflicts between religion and science when a religion adopts the dictum, “I will only entertain things of faith/spirit and not physical evidences.” Of course, there are religions like this which believe that this is a world of illusion – the physical world does not exist – and consequently not worth investigating. Other religions would have it that our main task is to transcend this physical, evil world, while postmodernism maintains that “facts” are just the product of our subjective mentalities.
On the other hand, there are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category.
Indeed, the Biblical faiths, especially Judaism and Christianity, which are rigorous belief systems, requiring evidences and proofs. For example, the principle of Deuteronomy 19:15 permeates Biblical thinking:
• “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
In like manner, Jesus warned his followers to NOT believe Him without corroborating evidences (John 5:31). Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, faith is not something that is baseless, but rather a stance that is required in light of the confirming evidences. In other words, we believe because we have compelling evidences to believe – we attempt to join conviction to fact.
The problem here is that evolution is more than just a collection of scientific findings. It also reflects the naturalistic worldview – RANDOM mutation and NATURAL selection. Therefore, as you stated, morality “would just be someone's opinion.” That’s not very reassuring when we are confronted with genocide.
ReplyDeleteMannsWord, how can you maintain this bizarre notion that without a god concept, without a 'supreme leader', if you will, that all of us are then the equivalent of chickens with their heads cut off, ready to do bad things at the drop of a hat? You know this isn't true. Are not those that do have a belief in god committing bad things? Dare I say genocide in certain parts of the world? Last time I checked these people weren't soaked in evolutionary literature.
Your extrapolation that they are, in one way or another, is just that - your extrapolation. Whether its based in fact is another thing (which, of course, it isn't because you don't even understand the very subject you claim is a part of a worldview).
In other cases, where there isn't violence, clearly, people who don't see the world the way you do are doing quite fine - whether they are christians as well and just don't share the same viewpoints you do, of a different religion or no religion at all. Are not these peoples' attempt to answer those same questions above simply their opinions? I think you would agree actually that they are - because according to you, they have the wrong answers. Its just that you refuse to believe that your answers are in the same bag.
The problem is you want something thats based in fact (like evolution). You would love to be able to give me the kind of falsification that science can provide. But you can't. And its clear to me now that you know you can't. You can (and have) just sat there and told me a lot of things you believe, quoted certain parts of a book, have made certain emotional pleas about how you feel, but are unable to say anything convincing that can't be challenged in fact or with a greater range of experience and education.
Darek,
ReplyDeleteEvolution carries much philosophical baggage. For one thing, science has no way of eliminating the possibility that additional forces might be driving a phenomenon. Thus, the notion of “Random mutations” cannot be scientifically established, but instead is philosophically derived!
You also deny that this theory has a tendency to produce certain negative moral fruitage. So let me quote one of your own in this regard, the evolutionist Karl Giberson, in “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution,”
o “[Evolutionist] Ernst Haeckel nudged the racism of the Third Reich along its malignant road by suggesting that the various human races were like stages in the embryonic development of the fetus…”You must draw [a line] between the most highly developed civilized people on the one hand and the crudest primitive people on the other and unite the latter with animals.” 76)
o “How shocking it is today to acknowledge that virtually every educated person in the Western culture at the time …shared Haeckel’s ideas. Countless atrocities around the globe were rationalized by the belief that superior races were improving the planet by exterminating defective elements…there can be little doubt that such viewpoints muted voices that would otherwise have been raised in protest.”
o “The Holocaust would have happened with or without Charles Darwin. There can be no doubt however, that the Nazi campaign against the Jews was assisted via rhetoric and rationalization with arguments from social Darwinism. (79)”
Although modern evolutionists distance themselves from these ideas, they are nevertheless still endemic in the nature of the theory.
MannsWord,
ReplyDeleteYes. Facts and theories have implications. If we live in a world where the status quo is that the earth is flat. Discovering that the earth is round brings baggage.
If we live in a world where the status quo is that god created all things. Discovering how things (really) came about brings baggage.
The problem is - and I'm not denying anything by saying this - is that the facts themselves, the theories themselves, are not bringing this baggage. No where in evolutionary theory can you find the answer to which race is better. That blond hair and blue eyes are more pure. The whites are better than blacks. That men are fitter than women. That homosexuality is to be weeded out. Its the people who think about these things - often times crunching through opposing, different, polarized views, who are the ones with the baggage and the problems.
Not to mention, ironically - it is religious rhetoric and literature which has brought those ideas and upheld them - slavery, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, genocide. Shall I provide a supporting quotation for each of a religious person in favor? I don't think there is a need, you know as well as I do
That you fail to understand this and use quotes to perpetuate falsehoods while ignoring basic facts is appalling at worst, intellectually dishonest at least.
There is no distancing of any ideas. There are simply those who understand evolution and those who think they do. Look at you and caliana, for instance.
C: "Do you still maintain primates offer us a great model for ethics?
ReplyDeleteD: "Read those links again."
Derek, I am totally aware that people do bad things to their offspring and to other defenseless individuals. We are responsible X 1000 because we have complete KNOWLEDGE of the horrendous nature of those deeds. AND THE MORE EDUCATED AND AWARE THAT YOU ARE incidentally the more responsible one ought to be to know this behavior is not only unethical but completely out of the realm of anything we as humans ought be engaging in. !!!! But no, then there is reality, the reality of the college prof who just murdered three of her colleagues because of not making tenure.
A good education ought to be added reason to be intensely ethical. But because of excuses like ones you list above,(our "meaningful" connection to primates and so on) it is not.
caliana,
ReplyDeleteWhere do YOU get off talking about a GOOD EDUCATION? (see, capitalization didn't make that sentence any more direct)
The reputation that you've built so far is one of a person who resorts to extreme examples as a means to build principle, rule of law and morality. A good education doesn't necessarily mean anything, caliana. I think it helps, but it is only one factor of many that influences a person. Environment is another (being born in wealth vs poverty, for instance). Social pressures. As I've said to you elsewhere on this site, the world isn't black and white as you seem to think it is. I mean, it seems you'd have me believe that if only people had god in their lives and people never knew an inkling about things like evolution, all the problems of the world would fade away... But like MannsWord, in order for that belief to exist, you have to ignore much of what we know about the real world, nevermind its history.
In this respect, I don't have to marginalize you - you do it yourself with such a narrow perspective.
You do not think people with an advanced education are not to be held to a higher standard? With increased awareness ought to come increased responsibility.
ReplyDeleteThat's only sensible.
That fact that so many Phds are not pro-life is does not mean that being pro-life is "wrong" it just means that no matter what your level of education is, you can still be led around by the nose.
Education then is no defense or assurance against deception.
Darek,
ReplyDeleteYou responded, “No where in evolutionary theory can you find the answer to which race is better. That blond hair and blue eyes are more pure. The whites are better than blacks. That men are fitter than women. That homosexuality is to be weeded out. Its the people who think about these things - often times crunching through opposing, different, polarized views, who are the ones with the baggage and the problems.”
Indeed, evolution doesn’t say these things. It just leaves a moral vacuum where these types of things can be encouraged.
While I agree with you that horrible things have been done in the name of religion, the Bible itself stands against genocide (We’re created in the image of God – all of us!), sexism (both man and woman are created in the image of God), and racism (Out of one set of parents came all humanity!) This is more than can be said for Darwinism.
caliana,
ReplyDeleteI do think people with an education should be held to higher standards - and they are, certainly they are - its no cake walk to teach at places like Harvard or Yale.
But even then, it doesn't necessarily mean anything if you've made all the 'right moves' if your education leads you to develop, say, economic policies which maintain wealth for the already wealthy and maintain poverty for the already poor. People have done this and continue to do this all in the guise of being held to higher standards. The administrations and cabinets of US officials in decades past aren't filled with college dropouts, ya know. Yet we still make wars, install policies which benefit a few over many and just do a lot of bad things (maybe we don't see them as bad things now, but down the road).
You trying to say that all these people were led astray because way back in freshman year of college they had an intro to biology class?
Come on, calina, even you can't believe that.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have our most talented educated in key positions, I'm simply saying things are more complicated than that.
"But even then, it doesn't necessarily mean anything if you've made all the 'right moves' if your education leads you to develop, say, economic policies which maintain wealth for the already wealthy and maintain poverty for the already poor."
ReplyDeleteThat is a total lie propagated by the left. The right does not think that way at all. Of course it makes good press tho and keeps the two sides nice and polarized, doesn't it.
If social justice really were the highest good one wouldn't think that the majority of abortion clinics were in poor(er) neighborhoods, would you.
The Fruits of Naturalism:
ReplyDeleteI just got this quote from the blog: “Uncommon Descent,” and thought it might be apropos:
• Jeffrey Dahmer: “If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.” [Biography, "Jeffrey Dahmer: The Monster Within," A&E, 1996.]
Oh right, if the world isn't black or white, caliana, its left or right. I keep forgetting these boxes of perspective with you.
ReplyDeleteNevermind that - I just used politics as an example for a larger point, which of course you missed. The kind of hysteria that pours out of you, caliana, is just exhausting.
MannsWord,
I've read my bible. I am sure when I get home I can turn to scripture that has the Israelites ordered to exterminate certain groups while leaving their women for spoils. Try to interpret it with all the sugar coating you want, but don't lie to me about it and say it only sounds like genocide...
And we've already covered 'darwinism'. It doesn't say anything about itself. There is no holy book, no manifesto. So why continue this strawman?
You are becoming a nasty individual to continue talking to with the crap you continually spout as if previous discussions have never occurred between us.
If this lying for jesus continues, lets just end this conversation right here and now as I'm not interested in repeating myself.
I agree. Let's throw in the towel!
ReplyDeleteYou mean all the anger and insults JUST BECAUSE some people do not want to be forced to conclude that Darwinism/Situational Ethics and Hitler have a connection to each other? Yeah, that'd be a good reason to quit if I ever saw one!
ReplyDeleteI might insist that we stop the conversation too if I felt cornered but I don't so I suggest Derek that you build your case on facts not emotions centering around things that you don't like to discuss.
MAN UP, bro.
Shorter Caliana: Everything bad in the world that happened after 1859 is Darwin's fault.
ReplyDelete"Everything bad in the world that happened after 1859 is Darwin's fault."
ReplyDeleteOne's environment doesn't have to shape ones values, but if you believe that is the only thing that can shape values then you do have a real problem. I don't think I'd shove that responsibility (if you even wanna call it "responsibility"?) off on Darwin tho. Situational/environmental ethics might have formed with him or without him. Easy believism.
Massimo, the link to your debate appears broken at the moment. I know, it's older, but I was hoping to track down a transcript of the actual debate. Speaking of which, do you know if there is one?
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeletethe link should be back soon, there is no transcript, as far as I know.
"Morality arises both from the nature and the will of God." This statement, although beautiful, is completely without bases. What evidence do you have, other than the bible, that supports your claim that morality arises from the nature and the will of God.
ReplyDelete"You deny an ontological and rational right and wrong and are left with only arbitrary biological and pragmatic considerations." This statement is a classic example of supernatural bias. You attempt to somehow prove that morality can only have originated from God under the deluded assumption that man is incapable of being truly moral without God.
However, pragmatism alone is an inadequate rational basis for morality. In essence, it says that “I can be thoroughly good by being selfish. If I tend to my own welfare, I will naturally love others.”This definition of pragmatism is based on your opinion and not an actual definition of pragmatism. Pragmatism is a practical approach to problems, ideologies, or propositions. Its states that something is something is true if it works. Your definition of pragmatism attempts to make pragmatism out to be something negative, as if it is wrong to approach a search for practical approaches to morality.
"Morality sometimes demands self-sacrifice, even death." This is exactly the type of thinking that makes what you say impractical. If morality comes from God, and you claim man can not be moral without God, then in a sense, you are claiming that morality is God. By saying that morality demands death, you take the concept of morality to a level of dangerous extremes only found in cults. This is exactly the type of thinking that inspired the crusades, and pretty much every religious war today. This is the type of think that resulted in the deaths of so many people in Waco Texas. Morality demands that you merely practice empathy. Do unto others. Your bases for morality is founded on a delusion that you are in some sort of war against an unseen enemy. The reason you are so willing to die, or sacrifice yourself, is because you believe that is what God calls you to. If everyone thought like that, the world would be filled with superstitious religious zealots with a death wish. Seeing that your religious beliefs are so extreme in nature, it is only logical that you would be so opposed to the practical nature of pragmatism because of the pure fact that it doesn't offer the delusions of grandeur that a christian lifestyle does. Of course I speak of the fact that Christianity attempts to make everyone feel as though they are spiritual soldiers in war that cannot be seen, fighting an enemy that is supposedly responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world. Just by reading some of your examples of pragmatism, it is clear that you do not have a clear understanding of what it entails. "I can be thoroughly good by being selfish". This has to be the most inaccurate representation of pragmatism I have ever heard of. The question I have for you is what is your source for your claim that the history of humankind has ruled decisively against pragmatism? One thing I notice is that you make broad sweeping generalizations, and baseless statements of opinion that you wish pass of facts.
"Regarding the Bible, there are many compelling evidences – miracles, fulfilled prophecies, internal and external coherence, and changed lives/societies." This statement of opinion is based on your perspective. While you claim that there are evidences, I highly doubt that you are actually able to provide any that couldn't be considered coincidences, uneducated deductions, or superstitious nonsense.
"There are literally thousands of reasons to believe in the God of the Bible." This could be said of any relgion. You mention the Jews return to Israel as if it were some proof of a fulfilled prophecy. As if people haven't been driven from their land before in history. Just because a group of people are driven from their land, and they somehow manage to find themselves back on this land, it doesn't mean that it was through some sort of supernatural intervention. That would be like saying I lost my house to the bank, but managed to eventually get it back. This must be Gods hand. That is the type of oversimplification that makes superstitious beliefs like that look childish. "Neurologically, with have trillions of neural connections that our “closest relatives” lack. Evolution clearly lacks the time to account for these" First off, this is something that you are attempting to state as fact without actually providing your readers with a source to check your information for validity. Secondly, you intend to disprove evolution by without actually providing any substantial evidence to support your claims. Is the "supposed" lack of evidence supposed to prove that God blinked everything into existence like some bad "I dream of Genie" rerun. Not only is that rediculous, it can not be substantiated by any sort of respectable evidence that is not the bible. If you intend to make statements like this you can at least offer up some sort of proof to support your statements otherwise they are just opinions. "If you try to throw all religions into the same bag, you are being illegitimately indiscriminate" As if it is a bad thing to come to the realization that pretty much every religion is trying to do the same thing. Almost every religion believes in a higher power of some kind. They all believe that you should lead a good life, and that there are consequences for our actions, whether it is karmic, or sanctioned by God. What good can come from being discriminative when God is subject that no man can claim to be an expert on. The reality is we could all be wrong, and we could all be right. Accepting otherwise only proves that religion itself is based on pride, the pride of thinking that you are right about who or what God is. The pride of thinking that everyone else in the world is wrong. It is this thinking that makes Christianity itself inherently discriminative, prideful, and even egotistical. "Must you resort to put-downs: “And because neither you nor they ever test your faith honestly against outside evidence" Are you afraid to approach the reality that you can no more prove that you are right than any other religion? This is no put down, it is a challenge. A challenge that can never be won. What makes your religion any more valid than Hinduism, a religion that has been around thousands of years longer than Christianity? Are you afraid to approach the fact that outside of your bible, your arguments are baseless opinions?
ReplyDelete"consider these requirements for moral absolutism" Where did these requirments come from? Who designed them? What authority do they have on the subject of moral absolution? "Yes, we can reason our way to moral absolutes if there is first a basis in existence for these absolutes!" What evidence do you have to prove the contrary? If you have no evidence, then this is just an eloquently stated opinion. "Acknowledging moral absolutes is to acknowledge a transcendent law-Giver" What evidence do you have to validate this statement? Where was this acknowledgment of a transcendent law giver during the crusades, during the catholic church child molestation fiasco, and during religious fueled homosexual hate crimes? Either something was immutable, not transcendent, or lack universality, at least by your unfounded standards. Christianity can no more lay claim to moral absolution than anyone else, especially since they have committed atrocities while supposedly under the divine supervision of an omnipotent law giver.
"I’d be glad to respond to you with evidences for the Christian faith and demonstrations that the existence of moral absolutes inevitably lead to the conclusion of God, but I’m really not sure what you want" Several times during this conversation, people have asked you to provide them with evidence to substantiate you claims that moral absolutes inevitably lead to the conclusion of God. Rather than actually providing evidences to substantiate your claims, you merely side step the challenges and claim that you don't know what they are want. What they want is for you to provide evidence to substantiate your claim that moral absolution can not exist without a belief in a divine law giver. If you cannot substantiate you claims with immutable evidence than they are baseless statements of opinions that are a product of your personal beliefs and convictions. I think the overall question is what moral absolutes does christianity introduce that have not already been introduced by any other religion?
ReplyDelete"science is finding that our planet demonstrates profound design." I would imagine that you are speaking of christian science, no less. Of course, how could I know. You've provided yet another baseless statement of opinion with nothing to substantiate it except your own words.
"Although I agree with you that I “do not know all there is to know about everything,” I think I do know some things, and with the little I do know, I must somehow try to illuminate the surrounding darkness." Whether you claim to know "something" about moral absolutes, or about God, what you know is merely the product of your religious education in the bible. Outside of the bible, the subject of God, and moral absolutes is obviously a subject that you are incapable of substantiating.
"despite the fact that they lack knowledge “about everything.” Would you deny the physicist the right to specify these absolutes, even if their theories change from time to time?" There is a big difference between a physicist theories and a christians theories. A physicist theories are based on his understanding of tangible nature. A christians theories are based on his understanding of a book that was written by men thousands of years ago. A christians understanding is based on a religion founded in superstition, lack of scientific understanding, and tradition. You can't possible expect your audience to give christian theories the same respect that they would give physicists. Thats like comparing a doctor to some guy in a grass skirt and white face paint from the jungles of africa. Theres no comparison. If you expect any rational human being to take anything you say seriously when in terms of moral absolutes, you will have to do a lot better than simply saying that we are moral because knowing God magically makes us care about people. Not only is that oversimplistic, it is completely irrational. What you are going to have understand is that God is inherently a faith based idea, founded on hope and faith as evidence of his existence. You can hold that there is proof and evidence all you want, but the reality is that your evidence is based on a book written by men. You can try to claim that the men of the bible spoke the words of God himself, but what evidence do you have to support that other than the words of those very men themselves written in the bible? Religion and God are inspirations, but not the bases for morality. When religion and God become the bases for morality, history has shown that man loses touch with reality and in doing so, loses touch with the reality of morality.