About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Three fixations of fundamentalist Christians

I’ve been reading Kevin Roose’s The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University, which makes for both irritating and fascinating reading. It’s the story of a semester the author spent at ultra-conservative Liberty University as a (temporary) transfer student from ultra-liberal Brown, with the aim of getting the insider’s view of what fundamentalist Christianity is all about. You can check out my Amazon review of the book if you are interested in my broad assessment of it (the short version: enjoyable read, good attempt by the author at bridging the cultural divide, unfortunate tendency by Roose to overplay the likable side of his Liberty University buddies and even of Jerry Falwell and to downplay their homophobia and bigotry).

What I’d like to focus on here is Roose’s observation, while taking various courses at Liberty, that three themes repeatedly emerged from his interactions with his professors (and I use the word in a very charitable fashion here, for the sake of argument): evolution didn’t happen, abortion is murder, and absolute truth exists. Given my interest in understanding the fundamentalist mind and fighting its pernicious effects on society, it seems to me obligatory to ponder on these three points, which I have also observed form a recurring pattern in my own more than decade-long interactions with Christian fundamentalists (though it should be added that the same themes are strong also in other fundamentalist versions of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious mythology).

Roose maintains that there are three ways in which Liberty professors attack evolution: by equating acceptance of evolution to faith in God, by questioning one or another of its scientific tenets (an all-time favorite is, of course, criticism of radio dating of rocks), or by sheer sarcasm (as in “can you believe scientists actually think the human eye is the result of chance? — They don’t, by the way). These are all very telling. The sarcasm is a form of anti-intellectualism that strongly suggests to the faithful that we simple minded folks are in fact much smarter than them PhD-sporting scientists, an anti-expert attitude that of course few fundies actually carry through in any other area of their lives (most of them go to car mechanics, doctors, lawyers, financial consultants and other such experts). The other two tacks are even more fascinating because they are mutually contradictory, and in fact represent two distinct tactics adopted by the creationist movement in the United States during the 20th century. It is simply not coherent to criticize a position on (alleged) scientific grounds (even attempting to present a scientifically acceptable alternative in the form of the oxymoronic “creation science”) while at the same time charging the other side with simply engaging in a religious belief. The content of religious beliefs is not subject to scientific inquiry by its very nature, so one cannot reasonably use science and rationality to criticize an idea, only to switch when convenient to the position that that same idea is held by faith, meaning in spite of the evidence. Then again, there never was much reasonableness in the fundamentalist mind.

Abortion, of course, would take several posts in and of itself, as it is a complex matter even for progressives. I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that abortion should be as easily available as aspirin, or that women have an absolute and unquestionable right to do what they will with the fetuses they carry. To contemplate having an abortion is to engage in an incredibly complex and painful exercise in ethical judgment, and there simply is no easy way out. That said, the fundamentalist insistence on the “sanctity of life” strikes me as hypocritical and ill-founded. First off, most of the same people who scream “baby murder” are also in favor of the death penalty, for instance, or have no trouble sending thousands or even millions of innocents to their death by declaring holy wars of one kind or another. But more to the point, these people seem to be completely incapable of understanding that “personhood” is a continuous process that is only potential at the moment of conception. Is the zygote a human life form? Yes, though it won’t become a human being for months. Is it a human person? At that moment most certainly not. This is important because we recognize rights to persons not to cells (well, we unfortunately recognize rights to corporations too, but that’s a whole different story). If it were biological material that had rights, then sperms and eggs shouldn’t be wasted either (if your mind wandered to Monty Python’s Every Sperm is Sacred you are in good company). Moreover, and rather counterintuitively, fundamentalists should be in favor of human cloning, and should defend the right to existence of every single human cell, since they are all potential human beings that could become actual if they were to go through a cloning process. This position is absurd, of course, but it highlights the idea that there is no simple solution to the issue, no clear black and white, us vs. them approach that is tenable.

And that brings me to the last tenet on Roose’s list: absolute truth (to be found, of course, in the Bible). This is really what fundamentalists of all stripes have a problem with. They simply cannot accept that Truth with a capital T is essentially inaccessible to humans (except when we are talking about logic and mathematics), and that moreover in many real cases of interest to human affairs there is no absolute truth. This doesn’t mean that anything goes (the dreaded extreme postmodernist position), but rather that truth comes in degrees, or that there may be more than one reasonable assessment of a given situation, leading to pluralism on whatever issue one may be considering.

Indeed, it is this obsession with absolute truth, this epistemological hubris if you will, that also explains the other two recurrent themes: fundamentalists wouldn’t have a problem with evolution if they didn’t insist on taking the Bible as the definitive word in matters of history and science (as many moderate Christians in fact don’t). And they would be able to tolerate a range of positions on abortion if they didn’t think that there is an absolute distinction between human and non-human, and an absolute way to determine right and wrong.

There is, of course, no simple solution to the problem of fundamentalism. However, I must admit that — as irritating as Roose’s book becomes at times — he has hit on a good point in his Epilogue: “Humans have always quarreled [I’d say murdered each other, but whatever] over their beliefs, and I suppose they always will. But judging from my post-Liberty experience, this particular religious conflict isn’t built around a hundred-foot brick wall. If anything, it’s built around a flimsy piece of cardboard, held in place on both sides by paranoia and lack of exposure. It’s there, no doubt, but it’s hardly forbidding. And more important, it’s hardly soundproof. Religious conflict might be a basic human instinct, but I have faith [a rather unfortunate choice of word], now more than ever before, that we can subvert that instinct for long enough to listen to each other.”

In other words, start wearing a suitable “Your Friendly Atheist Neighbor” t-shirt. If you really are friendly, the other side might see you as someone to respectfully disagree with, not as a demon to send to hell as expeditiously as possible. That would be progress indeed.

115 comments:

  1. "In other words, start wearing a suitable “Your Friendly Atheist Neighbor” t-shirt. If you really are friendly, the other side might see you as someone to respectfully disagree with, not as a demon to send to hell as expeditiously as possible. That would be progress indeed."

    Call me cynical (aka realist) but the sad fact is that the neighbors who would damn you to hell for having the audacity to be an atheist, will not be swayed by your agreeableness. Maybe the neighbors' children, but the neighbors themselves, no.

    I wish I could get my mind around the idea of lying to your students. I guess this is one problem with fundamentalism, if you live by absolutes, reality is a force to be countered not discovered.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First off, most of the same people who scream “baby murder” are also in favor of the death penalty, for instance,

    1) Perhaps the biggest anti-abortion blocs, Roman Catholics, are anti-capital punishment.

    2) This is a totally specious comparison. The fetuses are legally and morally innocent. The convict who has been sentenced to death is not. He freely chose to take the actions which resulted in him being put to death.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >>legally and morally innocent.
    Doubtful on both cases.

    Legally, the potential human is engaging in a long term theft of food, energy, and other biological/chemical agents from the mother - many times against her will.

    Morally innocent - Incorrect if you accept the Christian viewpoint that all humans are sinners and carry Original Sin. That is unless the fetus is without sin until it exits the mother, in which case woman on woman contact creates the sin, or in the case of man, touching the naughty place of a married woman, not your own. Shame, shame.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't many scientists believe there is an absolute truth? Either the force of gravity exists or it doesn't. When you get into quantum mechanics, the absolute state of the universe gets fuzzy, so to some extent there the concept of truth gets undermined, but what the laws are the govern quantum mechanics are a form of absolute truth. It seems to me that most scientists perceive themselves to be pursuing absolute truth, where they disagree with fundamentalists is how to go about that pursuit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can I say I'm always puzzled when people bring up that whole absolute truth thing and I'm kind of puzzled by your use of it Massimo. What if I were to argue truth with whatever capitalisation you please is a concept so simple, so banal, so trivial we use it all the time? It's so trivial in fact whenever we do use it, we don't even need to say the word, instead all we say are things like 'the snow is white' or 'that kick hurt.'

    Truth is the easy stuff. Having sufficient reasons for a belief when truth isn't available is the hard stuff though as science shows, when you aim your reasons at truth, not impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm (sort of) with you, K. Greybe. It isn't precisely the idea of absolute truth that's the problem - it's the epistemic arrogance of those who think they have access to truth (absolute or not) without doing any of the hard work. That's what the word "Absolute" points to in this context: It actually just indicates claims that are assumed to be true, as opposed to claims which have somehow or other been demonstrated to be true. Unfortunately for those inclined to such epistemic arrogance, there is no conceivable way of distinguishing truth from the mere appearance of truth without first acknowledging that the distinction exists - that is, by entertaining real doubt (not the kind of pseudo-doubt that's resolved for a believer by believing harder, i.e. faith).

    Although a trifle dry and pedantic in spots, I don't think the distinction between epistemic arrogance and epistemic responsibility has been made more clearly than Tom Clark makes it here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The hubris of people untrained in biology to question the consensus of the experts regarding evolution is amazing. They don't question physicists r.e. gravity, or chemist r.e. aromatics. But hey, they just know evolution is wrong, and the experts are faith heads. Strangely, if faith is so good, then how is comparing scientists to believers an insult?

    Ken Miller has tried to claim that fundis rejection of evolution is based on an American pioneering ethos. (As if other cultures don't have go getters or whatever). To see how false that assertion is, just look at which sciences they attack (evolution, geology), and which they accept.

    I find the concept of absolute truth almost risible. There may be an absolute truth, if something exists, I suppose that is an absolute truth. But apart from that, all we have is our own experience. Good old Hume pointed out that our experience never gives absolute truth about matters of fact (contingencies). A lot of apologetics try to get around this by some vicious circle. I.e. the bible is infallible proof that God exists and God guarantees the truthiness of the Bible and induction or some presuppositionalist bunk. Of course, we can blame the rationalists like Descartes for this idea, that a clear idea of some concept and a good, non deceiving God, guarantees truth absolutely.....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and keep the posts coming Massimo. Very interesting and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rich,

    noted the point about Catholics, though it certainly doesn't apply to Baptists and many other denominations strongly opposed to a right to choose.

    As for my comparison being specious, I disagree. The issue is the sanctity of life, regardless of the moral frailty of individuals. As many fundamentalists say (but don't practice), love the sinner, hate the sin. And there is the issue of course that many people on death row are actually innocent.

    Besides, I noticed that you conveniently ignored the other component of my charge of hypocrisy: the fact that many fundamentalists are pro-war.

    ReplyDelete
  10. lalawawa, K.Greybe, thinkmonkey,

    scientists (should) hold to any conclusion only provisionally, and philosophers have long made the argument that the only truths that are unquestionably such are those arrived at by deductive logic. Scientific conclusions are inductive, and therefore always subject to doubt.

    The issue, of course, is that often the degree of doubt is incredibly small, so that for practical purposes scientists behave as if, for instance, they absolutely knew that the earth goes around the sun. Indeed, on that one, I would bet my salary.

    Moreover, there is a distinction between truths about facts (gravity exists) and theories aimed at explaining those facts (gravity is a deformation of space-time imposed by mass).

    Finally, remember that we are talking largely about moral truths, the very idea of which is, of course, highly controversial.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Massimo:

    I'll bite and say that certainty might unattainable, however the term true is still useful but only if we drop all the baggage and treat it as something like the stuff that does the work in a conditional in boolean logic, hence 'snow is white', or to use it's full name, 'it is true that snow is white.' Absolute Truth as a term never gets used like this. In fact, I've never quite seen Absolute Truth described in a way that could ever include this concept of truth, or in fact any meaningful concept truth; Absolute Truth is an incredibly poorly defined term.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "First off, most of the same people who scream “baby murder” are also in favor of the death penalty, for instance, or have no trouble sending thousands or even millions of innocents to their death by declaring holy wars of one kind or another."

    Care to differentiate?

    That is to say that the reasons that people are placed on death row means nothing.

    The reasons women (and the men who are usually behind them on this) have abortions that too means nothing.

    Or countries who wish to remain free - there is not EVER a good reason to go to war.

    You are suggesting as well that all these reasons (for a guilty person forfeiting their life, a person giving their life and one being outright taken from them)are equal in worth, while clearly they are not.

    apparently then, according to your comment here, the left must think it is the person on death row who is having their life "taken" no matter how many others killed and destroyed...while it is the unborn child who is "guilty" of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    ???

    The advantage of not having a phd, I guess, is that I was only taught to read PLAIN English.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Legally, the potential human is engaging in a long term theft of food, energy, and other biological/chemical agents from the mother - many times against her will."

    Yep. And if she remains PG for nine months she doesn't ALWAYS make such a great bed partner for her SO, does she? Tell me now MW, who is the unborn child really thieving from?

    There are no men on earth WORTH trading one of my children for, that's for certain.

    And because this is all so scientific and everything...its funny no one seems to mention the fact that women are generally healthier hormonally when they bear children and breastfeed between 20s to early 30s. Less inclined to breast cancer and other female organ cancers. Abortion survivors, not so well.

    Wheres that in your data, MW?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Roose maintains that there are three ways in which Liberty professors attack evolution: ... or by sheer sarcasm (as in "can you believe scientists actually think the human eye is the result of chance? — They don't, by the way). These are all very telling. The sarcasm is a form of anti-intellectualism that strongly suggests to the faithful that we simple minded folks are in fact much smarter than them PhD-sporting scientists, an anti-expert attitude that of course few fundies actually carry through in any other area of their lives (most of them go to car mechanics, doctors, lawyers, financial consultants and other such experts).

    Creationists, and particularly the Liberty faculty, are, I'm sure, aware of the nonrandom aspect of natural selection. But they are using a different meaning of "chance" which, to them, means something like "unintentionally." Not that it makes it any more coherent.

    As to the anti-intellectualism argument against expertise, it is also inconsistent in that the "creation science" and Intelligent Design "experts" are quick to point out their own Ph.D.s when trying to convince those selfsame simple minded folks that there are legitimate arguments against evolution.

    The most lunatic instance of the anti-expert trope in recent memory is the one by Dr. michael Egnor, who is -- wait for it -- a pediatric neurosurgeon. If there is a more arcane and expert-intensive area of medicine, it is hard to imagine what. But maybe Dr. Egnor will start passing out do-it-yourself-brain-surgery-kits to his young patients so they won't have to bow to his expertise.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The key to understanding the fundamentalist mindset is really fear. Fundamentalism blooms in times of rapid change, uncertainty, and instability. These characteristics have typified the modern world and its many upheavals over the past two centuries, and is why Fundamentalism really is a modern phenomenon (As Karen Armstrong has strongly argued, Fundamentalism is very much a modern construct that is a non-traditional reaction to naturalistic and logico-deductive ways of viewing the world). Such times create fear, and in times of fear, a great many people crave certainty. Fundamentalist distortions of religion satisfies these cravings by presenting adherents or potential adherents with holy texts that must be interpreted just so, rules that must be followed just so, and moral precepts that are strictly black and white. Such relieves the need to dither or figure out the messiness of actual moral and ethical decisions. Just follow the rules given, and everything is fine from this point of view. You know you did the right thing because you did as you were told. In just the same way, if you believe just so, then everything will be okay no matter what. That can be tremendously comforting, but such certainty is a fragile thing because of its all or nothing nature. This is the reason Fundamentalism has such a hard time with science: if how to believe and what to believe is set in stone, then any conflict with that belief system is an existential threat to that belief system. Thus all matter of post hoc thinking, blinders, and self-delusion have to be used to justify refusal to accept that the belief system has some things incorrect. If a fundamentalist accepts evolution, then Genesis is wrong, then the entire Bible is worthless, and there is no God. To allow for certainty, the belief system of a Fundamentalist must be one great piece of interlocking, absolutely true beliefs, and if any is incorrect, then none are. Ironically, I think that this sort of mindset ends up generating as much if not more fear in some than it alleviates. I think this also explains why, contrary to expectations, many Fundamentalists are really extremely intelligent: it requires a great deal of thought to maintain the belief system - that or a great deal of ignorance.

    I think a lot of this explains something I have personally seen: most of the friends I have who are quite religious, but not Fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination, are more secure in their faith than many of the Fundamentalists I have met (in addition to being happier people it seems). The world is not a threat to them, nor is science a threat to them (not unusual, as I am a biology grad student and know many religious people engaged in scientific research). Sure, they don't have immediate, black and white answers to every moral quandary; they have to wrestle with moral decisions and figure out what is the proper way to go in such cases. But when they come to a decision, they seem to have a better idea of why.
    Just my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Massimo,

    I agree with the last paragraph and say we should all don the proverbial t-shirts. A recent issue of the American Psychologist had a nice research article on reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. We already know we can reduce prejudice with real contact and common goals. So seeing and hearing about good nonbelievers will also help tear down that cardboard wall.

    ReplyDelete
  17. On one hand, it's important both as a mental exercise and in terms of the public dialogue to keep pace with irrationalists' arguments and present compelling counterarguments. The activity is meaningful; the irrationalists do challenge more than merely our patience. Pursuing the answers to questions such as how the complexity of the eye could have evolved, for example, get jostled up the priority list principally because of the efforts of irrationalists to find a way to dissolve rationalism. We should be thankful for this kind of adversity, as it promotes strength and resiliency in the warp and weft of the rationalist worldview, as well as expanding it.

    On the other hand, the irrationalists' arguments are generally not honest ones in the first place (except maybe solipsism, and its honesty is marinated in arrogant narcissism), so while the exercise may be worthwhile, it is a game that can never be won.

    ---

    In terms of understanding the mind of the faith-fundamentalist, or the doctrinaire in general, the assumed philosophical positions and their nuances are irrelevant, since these are merely tactics of convenience to ward off contrary views. To comprehend the nature of the phenomenon itself from a rationalist perspective, the principle that must be grasped is that the foundation of the doctrinaire's mindset and worldview is certainty. Certainty about what doesn't really matter. The rationalist already understands that certainty is, by its nature, not an idea, but a wholly subjective emotional experience. As such, it is an entirely unsound premise upon which to base a universal (read: objective) moral philosophy. In a word, certainty's truth value is null, so nothing more really needs to be said about it.

    There is, however, something more to be said about the way that the doctrinaire employs certainty.

    In his most honest form, the doctrinaire does not recognize the inherent falsehood of the "certainty connotes truth" proposition, and uses it as a shroud to occlude his own ignorance. In such cases, certainty operates principally as a security blanket, granting the bearer some sense of protection from complete psychological exposure. This is a "true believer". One could expound upon this behavior at some length, and thereby shed some light on many faith-specific issues, such as the "ignorance-bliss-innocence / knowledge-suffering-sin" spectrum.

    On the other extreme lies the doctrinaire who, well aware of the falsehood of certainty, willfully twists the ignorant honesty of false certainty back upon itself, and expresses it as pretended certainty. In this instance, the appearance of certainty is used to manipulate the ignorance of the less-aware. The most common reason for doing so is for personal power. Individuals such as this are not uncommon, but the highest concentration of them are found in the uppermost echelons of fundamentalist institutions' power structures. One could certainly argue that such an individual is not truly a doctrinaire at all, since he doesn't believe his own bullshit, as it were. In this I would have to agree. However, it's worth pointing out the existence of such people, precisely because of their superficial similiarity to "true believers" and the operational relationship between them. But ultimately it is important to understand the different pathologies and learn how to recognize them in action, since the effective means of dealing with each are quite different.

    Going back to first principles then, and recognizing that certainty is at its root an emotional experience, it seems reasonable to suppose that persuading a "true believer" to come out from under his security blanket is primarily an exercise in navigating his emotional landscape effectively. Reason may be employed, but it is generally insufficient, and in many instances may not even be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hello Massimo,

    I am a Christian, and am going to add your blog to my Google Reader.

    Could you please make a post explaining your thoughts about Jesus?

    Did he really exist, in your opinion?
    And, if he did exist, what do you make of him?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Please, Massimo, read a bit more carefully and charitably. I'm well aware that science isn't in the absolute truth business - all scientific claims are provisional, and I never implied otherwise. (Nor did K. Greybe, I think. lalawala does seem confused, though, so perhaps he or she set you up to mis-read the subsequent posts.)

    I was merely pointing out that believers, no matter how much they use terms like "Absolute Truth," cannot be in the truth business at all if they refuse to take any epistemic responsibility for justifying their truth claims - and they do indeed spectacularly fail to take any epistemic responsibility whatsoever. So the primary problem isn't with 'Absolute Truth' per se. Because they fail to acknowledge that any degree of truth for any claim must be justified somehow, not merely assumed or asserted, those who adopt faith beliefs fail to grasp the 'truth' part of that concept quite without regard to the 'absolute' part. 'Absolute' is just the adjective, and they fail even to understand the noun it modifies.

    Perhaps, ultimately, this might indicate the most straightforward and precise definition of faith - adopting beliefs while eschewing all epistemic responsibility for them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Andy,

    thanks for your interest. Yeah, one of these days I will have to address the big-J directly, though usually my posts are prompted by readings I do, so the right article or book would have to come along.

    The short version is that I think there is a reasonable chance (though not a lot of evidence) that the historical Jesus existed. Of course, I consider him as divine as Jupiter for the Romans of Quetzalcoatl for the Aztecs...

    ReplyDelete
  21. thinkmonkey,

    > Perhaps, ultimately, this might indicate the most straightforward and precise definition of faith - adopting beliefs while eschewing all epistemic responsibility for them. <

    I like, I may start to use it. I like the concept of "epistemic responsibility."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Massimo,

    There are many areas where I would delight in taking issue with you, but I will limit myself to this one statement:

    “They [fundamentalists] simply cannot accept that Truth with a capital T is essentially inaccessible to humans (except when we are talking about logic and mathematics), and that moreover in many real cases of interest to human affairs there is no absolute truth.”

    Even you have made a statement of absolute truth—“that absolute truth is inaccessible to humans.” Although you make an exception for “logic and mathematics,” your absolute statement goes beyond the limits of pure logic. By what twist of logic or math can you confidently say that absolute truth is inaccessible?

    And how about perceptual truth? Can’t I say absolutely that I’m breathing and typing at my keyboard? Would you deny me this certitude? Is there anything in logic that would deny me my confidence?

    Regarding your claims of certitude regarding macro-evolution, I would strongly recommend that you read, “God’s Undertaker,” by John C. Lennox. Regarding other repugnant claims of certitude, I suggest you visit my blog at www.MannsWord.blogspot.com.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Daniel,

    oh please, not the old and trite "you made an absolute claim also." Ok, let's break it down:

    > By what twist of logic or math can you confidently say that absolute truth is inaccessible? <

    Actually, Godel's theorem and similar conclusions in mathematics and logic tell us that even in math and logic one cannot get complete truth. So I was a bit too generous, come think of it.

    Second, my statement referred obviously, when taken in context, to theories about the world. This is Hume's well known problem of induction, so far unsolved.

    Third, yes, I would maintain that in theory you can't even be sure that you are breathing, or of any other personal experience. As Descartes pointed out, an evil demon could be fooling you (or the world could be just an outgrowth of your mind, etc.).

    As for Lennox, why on earth would a mathematician have anything more interesting to say about macroevolution than a paleontologist? And when did I ever state that macroevolution is an absolute truth anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Zachary,

    I'm not sure that 'fear' is the best description of the underlying emotion but you are not far off the mark.

    See:
    http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/06/out-of-control-how-anxiety-over-loss-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. Massimo,

    Godel’s theorem doesn’t rule out absolute truth, but perhaps “complete” (as you say) or comprehensive truth. If it did rule out absolute truth, it would also rule out his own theorem.

    There’s a big difference between absolute truth and comprehensive truth. It represents the difference between saying “Jesus rose from the dead” and “I can explain to you EVERYTHING regarding the mechanics of His resurrection”—two very different kinds of claims.

    Although it is true that I can’t logically PROVE my existence, having certainty about my existence is foundational and necessary for everything else I think and do. Even if it is logically possible that an “evil demon” might be deceiving me about my existence, existentially, it isn’t possible. As soon as you choose to communicate, you are asserting that you exist. If you have serious doubts about your existence and then assert with confidence that others are fools and idiots, you make yourself into a hypocrite. If you have doubts about your existence, you shouldn’t express confidence about things that are far more peripheral.

    Correspondingly, to be consistent, you shouldn’t make your confident judgments against Christians. Indeed, Lennox isn’t a paleontologist, but how can you be so certain that geneticists, mathematicians and others can’t say some truly important things about macro-evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  26. This reminds me of Hume's claim that there are relations of ideas and matters of fact. I've read people state, without probably having read Hume, that

    well what is this statement then? Is it a relation of ideas, if so, it tells us nothing about the world, or is it a matter of fact? If so, what fact supports it? Ergo, I'm better than Hume.


    The point I find interesting is that Hume's fork isn't an a priori assertion, that is, not a relation of ideas, but drawn, or gleaned, from his observations. It's an empirical conclusion. It's open to refutation. That's quite clearly stated in the treatise. You can argue that his axioms about impressions and ideas or whatever is wrong, but not that he's cheating with his principle, when it's understood.

    Anyway, after that digression, I'd say people should give Massimo, and scientists the same benefit of the doubt. Principles about truth are not absolute truth claims, but empirical or inductive claims. That is because they're not a priori or necessary. Nobody is infallible. Except the fundamentalists who claim to have absolute Truth. ;)

    And in that spirit, it's very probable, based on induction, that a mathematician has no more expertise than any intelligent person (assuming they've read up on evolution) versus an evolutionary biologist. Fields are so specialized, that without the requisite undergrad, postgrad education and research, you most probably haven't got a lot to say about the cutting edge of any field. Of course, that's not a logical certainty, it's not analytic that untrained = inexpert, but it's highly probable.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Brian,

    thanks, very reasonable comment.

    Mann'sWord,

    > the difference between saying “Jesus rose from the dead” and “I can explain to you EVERYTHING regarding the mechanics of His resurrection”—two very different kinds of claims. <

    Indeed. I never heard the second one, but it is no different from the first one in kind: they are both myths based on no evidence. There's about the same likelihood that Julius Cesar -- who certainly existed -- went up to the heavens called by the Olympian gods.

    > Even if it is logically possible that an “evil demon” might be deceiving me about my existence, existentially, it isn’t possible. <

    How so?

    > if you have serious doubts about your existence and then assert with confidence that others are fools and idiots, you make yourself into a hypocrite. <

    I don't have serious doubts about my existence. But I have doubts, that was the point...

    > you shouldn’t make your confident judgments against Christians. Indeed, Lennox isn’t a paleontologist, but how can you be so certain that geneticists, mathematicians and others can’t say some truly important things about macro-evolution? <

    Of course it is possible, but frankly I don't have the time to read every crackpot's book on evolution. Would you care to summarize this guy's alleged arguments, so that we can stop invoking authorities (which is a logical fallacy)?

    ReplyDelete
  28. On the subject of "absolute truth", I maintain that most scientists believe that absolute truths exist, and indeed science is all about the pursuit of absolute truth, but I agree that in science any opinion is provisional. I think in this debate the phrase "absolute truth" is being confused with "absolute certainty". A good scientist does not assert that he is absolutely certain, whereas a religious person might take pride in being absolutely certain.

    BTW I'm a "he", last I checked.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Before I read every single response, I have to jump in on the "absolute truth" topic.

    The problem of the concept of "absolute truth" is that it suggests a finality, an end, and not open to revision. If one even thinks they are close to it, then they are on the road to dogmatism. "Truth" is never absolute, but always open to revison.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Massimo,

    Here are some things I've drawn from the Lennox book:

    "There is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens." ( Smith, E. Szathmary— "God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God", 107.)

    "In the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution, all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types". (Siegfried Scherer)

    Cell biologist E.J. Ambrose argued that it is unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown in the organism. He then points out that only one in 1,000 mutations is non-deleterious, so that the chance of five non-deleterious mutations occurring is 1 in a million billion replications.

    Lennox observes that there seems to be a pre-planned limit within a given gene pool, beyond which it can’t go:

    "If there are limits even to the amount of variation the most skilled breeders can achieve, the clear implication is that natural selection is likely to achieve much less." (108).

    Nor is there any laboratory evidence for macro-evolution:

    "In his book, Grasse observed that fruit flies remain fruit flies in spite of thousands of generations that have been bred and all the mutations that have been induced in them…More recent work on the E. coli bacterium backs this up. In this research no real innovative changes were observed through 25,000 generations of E. coli bacterium." (108)

    Assessing the odds for macro-changes taking place, astro-physicist Fred Hoyle concluded: “Well, as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small, but not in the large.”

    Nor does the fossil record deal any more gently with the militants! Lennox continues:

    "The impression that microevolution is limited in its scope is confirmed by the comments of Wesson and others to the effect that the fossil record gives no good examples of macroevolution." (110).

    Even Darwin confirms this dismal assessment:

    "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [should] be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain." (The Origin of Species)

    This indeed is a tremendous problem. Instead of demonstrating a gradual progression among the various species—something that Darwinism must be able to demonstrate—the fossil record reveals that, for the great extent, species have remained unchanged. Regarding this embarrassment, the late eminent Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

    "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of palaeontology.

    The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with the idea that they gradually evolved:

    1. Stasis.
    2. Sudden appearance.” (111)

    Other evolutionists make similar confessions:

    "Palaeontologist David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History…said, “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much." (111)

    Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History] makes an astonishing admission. “We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not...
    I tried in vain to document examples of the kind of slow directional change we all thought ought to be there every since Darwin told us that natural selection should leave precisely such a tell-tale signal…I found instead that once species appear in the fossil record they tend not to change.”

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mann's Word, might I suggest you peruse Talk origins to help overcome your ignorance and invalid arguments from authority?

    Frank Hoyle is no more expert on biology than I for example. Sheesh....

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mann'sWord,

    besides the fact that a discussion of macroevolution has nothing to do with the post, as I suspected Lennox is full of crap.

    Those are all well worn, and amply addressed, points. As WAT suggests, a few hours on TalkOrigins will clear up the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @lalawawa
    I cannot speak for all scientists, but I can speak for myself as a scientist (well, grad student, same thing), and I don't see what I do as a scientist as pursuit of "absolute truth". Indeed, my impression from speaking to colleagues is that there are very few of us who see it the way you think (though I admit that this may simply be sampling bias). As I approach it, science is a human activity in which humans seek to form models that accurately describe the objective universe as it is. To that end, we engage in hypothesis testing to attempt to ensure that the models from which those hypotheses are drawn are consistent with the objective universe and thus at least provisionally descriptive of it. I am not seeking "absolute truth". I am seeking to understand the objective universe as best as is possible. In my more idealistic moments, I can hope for perfect understanding of the objective universe, but I am pragmatic enough to realize that such perfect understanding is impossible, for I must make do with a mind evolved for other things. It actually irks me when people talk about we scientists as seekers of "truth" or "absolute truth" because I see those as such esoteric concepts (no offense). Facts and understanding via testable, descriptive models are what I am after, and I suspect most scientists are as well.

    As for religion, that is a very long topic to approach, but as a scientist, I have no problem with it. I think that the scientific way of understanding the universe is quite different from the mythic or religious way of understanding the universe. Science seeks to understand the universe as it is. Myth is a way to understand the universe not as it is, but as it is to us through metaphor. I don't see any inherent conflict. When there is conflict, it is caused by a failure to realize that mythic explanations are not scientific and vice versa. The mos thoughtful religious people I know see this distinction, and they, again contrary to what you have said, don't seem to take much pride in being certain of their beliefs. I have a Hindu colleague, for instance, who once spent thirty minutes explaining the Hindu views on reincarnation. At the end, she smiled and said,"But we could be wrong, and that is okay." To me, that really encompasses true religiousness, and shows why the Fundamentalists really aren't all that religious at all.
    Just my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What I’d like to focus on here is Roose’s observation...that three themes repeatedly emerged from his interactions with his professors: evolution didn’t happen, abortion is murder, and absolute truth exists. Given my interest in understanding the fundamentalist mind and fighting its pernicious effects on society, it seems to me obligatory to ponder on these three points....



    I've read the article a couple of times now. In my view, the only part that actually promotes understanding of the fundamentalist mind in such a way as to advance the cause of countering its negative effects on society is the part about absolute truth.

    I maintain that engaging in discussions on the merits of the other two points or almost any other that fundamentalists raise by assessing their intellectual integrity, offers scant promise of getting you where you say you're trying to go. What it comes down to is this: certainty, specifically the unquestioning certainty of codified beliefs, is the one and only key defining aspect of the fundamentalist mind. And this, of course, is just another way of saying "blind faith".

    It should come as no revelation that blind faith comprises the core of fundamentalism, so I find it curious that this quintessential and widely recognized fact figures only peripherally into an article that purports to be about understanding the fundamentalist mind.

    To understand the mind, one need only understand certainty. That's it. Nothing else. The rest is just window dressing.

    For instance, "Evolution didn't happen" is an a priori conclusion arrived at without inquiry; hence, the position is absurd on its face, and would never happen except for the fact that knowledge of evolution is powerfully corrosive to some of the central codified beliefs of the fundamentalist. Again, if your purpose is to understand the fundamentalist mind, then don't rehash evolution itself or address the red herring arguments that surround it. Rather, simply observe that the essence of the fundamentalist's position on the matter is nothing more than certainty in defiance of empiricism.

    From this, we might inductively infer that, to the fundamentalist, certainty trumps empiricism. A quick check of other historical points of friction between fundamentalism and empiricism confirms this. From evolution to heliocentricity to the ancient universe, wherever empiricism contradicts their codified beliefs fundamentalists refute or subvert empiricism; yet, when the two are not in conflict empiricism is not questioned. Thus, to the fundamentalist, while evidence is elective, certainty is essential.

    As for "abortion is murder", this is merely empathy on steroids, honed and targeted at any who would question the primacy of the fundamentalists' moral worldview. Never mind the vast swaths of common ground available on the subject. The fact that most people are morally uncomfortable with abortion is irrelevant. To the fundamentalist, being morally challenged by abortion is the kiss of death. You've got to be dead-set and unquestioningly against it. Certainty is what matters.

    As for the existence of absolute, capital-T Truth, while the discussion is interesting on purely epistemological grounds (and, yes, I do find epistemology very interesting), in this context it is nevertheless wholly irrelevant. The alpha and omega of the fundamentalist mind is the conflation certainty of codified beliefs with the apprehension of absolute truth. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  35. “downplay their homophobia and bigotry”

    There’s a difference? If they’re bigoted what is it for if not that?

    “This is really what fundamentalists of all stripes have a problem with. They simply cannot accept that Truth with a capital T is essentially inaccessible to humans”

    You tip-toed around the more important issue by mentioning “the sanctity of life” but not emphasizing it. It is not the idea of an inaccessible truth that gets to them but the idea that life loses its sanctity if there is no God. Fundamentalists think we need God for our lives to have value. They impose a false dichotomy between moral objectivity and moral relativism. Either there are strict laws or there are no laws at all. To fight religious fundamentalism the singularly greatest thing we can do is to explain that reason DOES have something to say about morality.

    ReplyDelete
  36. To fight religious fundamentalism the singularly greatest thing we can do is to explain that reason DOES have something to say about morality.

    I agree that reason has something to say about morality, but whereas fundamentalism provides the simplicity of strict laws, reason provides complexity and nuance. That's a hard sell. For example, consider election campaigns. Sound bites often trump thoughtful analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I guess I must be a fundamentalist. I believe in love, justice, fair-play, truth (with a capital "T" or not), and I even believe that what I am writing now is true. But I believe that you too believe the same way. Otherwise, you wouldn't even bother to write.

    If this is the case, what then is the difference between us, and why do you insist on "demonizing," with such CERTAINTY, those who think as I do?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mann'sWord, I'm not really sure who you are directing your question to. Who has demonized you or those who think like you?

    Also, what does it mean to say you "believe in" love, justice, fair play and truth? That they exist? Certainly they do, but so do their opposites. Do you believe in those, too? Or do you mean more generally that you value these things?

    Regardless, I have said that "certainty, specifically the unquestioning certainty of codified beliefs, is the one and only key defining aspect of the fundamentalist mind." Your beliefs do not meet the "codified" criterion, so, in my view at least, they do not constitute fundamentalism.

    My broader point is, and has been, that the fundamentalist mind cannot be understood except by understanding certainty. Fundamentalists can aptly be described as "devotees of certainty". The cornerstone of their faith is, recursively, faith itself. It is the skin of the bubble within which their worldview is insulated from, rather than integrated with, reality. Particulars about the contents of that bubble (i.e. subsidiary beliefs and arguments) are wholly immaterial to comprehending the principle that defines the bubble to begin with.

    Whatever one calls it, the only "fixation" necessary to understanding the fundamentalist mind is certainty.

    Here is an excellent article on the subject.

    When it comes right down to bare bones, the fallacy of fundamentalism arises from nothing more exotic than self-referentialism. Faith in faith, or certainty of certainty, is what renders the model trivial, not transcendent.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am liking what Man's Word is throwing down.

    I think that these discussions are great.

    It is my opinion that when we speak about these things, constructing straw men and knocking them down should not be done, and I am not suggesting that is what you have done.

    But, I would like to say a word in defense of Fundamentalist Christians. Like my Mother, they are usually not prepared to defend themselves against intellectual assaults on the Christianity that they have come to hold so dear. She is really not even aware that she lives in a world in which someone would not believe in God. It would be like you lived your whole life believing that your wife loved you and then someone came around and told you that she did not. You would not be prepared to defend yourself against such an attack.

    Christian apologists, whom I admire, need to have a different mindset than Christian fundamentalists. They need to see the argument from the atheists perspective.

    In 1,000 years, if atheism has prevailed on an intellectual level, and God is finally proclaimed dead, would you not consider it a good development that certain people have plunged deeper into atheism, and have ceased figuring out ways to defend it?

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  40. A "Like my Mother, they are usually not prepared to defend themselves against intellectual assaults on the Christianity that they have come to hold so dear. She is really not even aware that she lives in a world in which someone would not believe in God."


    MOST mothers are ever hopeful and that is okay. Someone needs to be. It would be best if everyone in the world were not a screaming, raging skeptic. Don't ya think?

    My mother never made an intellectual argument in her life. Not that I can recall anyway. BUT I DO REMEMBER HER TELLING ME EXPLICITLY as I walked out the door, "Remember (W)who's you are..." And I just hated it. Good grief, I just wanted to go do whatever I WANTED TO DO!

    By nature, and or by default we are (or were) all Atheists. Nothing at all mysterious or original about that.

    So my mother may not have made great intellectual statements, but she certainly made much stronger spiritual ones!

    ReplyDelete
  41. I disagree with you saying that by nature or by default we are all atheists.

    I will illustrate that in a way that I hope will convince you to agree with me just on this one point.

    If we are by nature or by default atheists, then it would not make sense for us to make up gods to worship. That would presumably mean that their must have been a very good reason for us to develop beliefs in gods, such as Jesus coming down to Earth.

    However, I do not believe such a thing. I believe it is a very natural and human thing to do to have a inclination to believe in something greater than ourselves. I would not say that this is a reason to believe in a god, but it is an essentially accurate view of human nature.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yeah, I think it's actually been shown that we're hardwired for belief. There are ways such "programming" may have been evolutionarily helpful to us as a species. But that doesn't mean it's good to give into "human nature." Maybe we're also hardwired for our worst qualities, like greed, violence, rape, etc. Those could also be helpful in terms of surviving to spread our genes, but I don't think we should give in to them.

    I know faith isn't equivalent to rape, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it is. Just pointing out the flaw with the "it's human nature" argument for believing in God.

    Also, Andy, religion was around waaaay before Jesus allegedly came down to Earth. The reason we invented religion need not be supernatural at all: What's that bright circle in the sky that lights everything up during the day and disappears at night? What's that flash of light that sometimes happens during a rainstorm? For that matter, why does it rain at all? There was absolutely no way for our primitive ancestors to know the answers to these questions, so they invoked myths of gods and demons to explain them.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "I would like to say a word in defense of Fundamentalist Christians. Like my Mother, they are usually not prepared to defend themselves against intellectual assaults on the Christianity that they have come to hold so dear. She is really not even aware that she lives in a world in which someone would not believe in God. It would be like you lived your whole life believing that your wife loved you and then someone came around and told you that she did not. You would not be prepared to defend yourself against such an attack."


    I like this a great deal, Andy. The dialogue is most productive when we understand each others' feelings, as well as our own.

    "It would be best if everyone in the world were not a screaming, raging skeptic. Don't ya think?"


    Agreed. I'm no great fan of screaming or rage. That being said, if I had to choose, I'd prefer a screaming, raging skeptic over a screaming, raging fundamentalist any day. But a world full of either would be difficult to bear.

    The point to remember is that people at the extreme of either camp are there because they feel passionately about it, so naturally a frontal assault will only provoke fits of screaming and raging. It's generally much better to be calm and patient with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  44. " I believe it is a very natural and human thing to do to have a inclination to believe in something greater than ourselves. I would not say that this is a reason to believe in a god, but it is an essentially accurate view of human nature."

    Peter, I made it a point to say that I was not using that as an argument.And, yes, I agree that using Jesus was a bad example. It just so happens that Jesus is the lynchpin of my Christian belief.

    Also, I would like to point out that us sophisticates still have a hard time explaining these natural phenomena that you mention (stay with me). "What's that bright circle in the sky that lights everything up during the day and disappears at night?" Well, we commonly call it the Sun and we can describe it in all sorts of ways. Like, it is mostly made up of a material that we call hydrogen, and it is a pretty far ways away, measured by something we call miles, and it is held up in the sky by something we call gravity.

    The point is that I do not think that a more detailed description of these natural phenomena dispels any mystery about them.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Perspicio,

    You will probably be surprised to hear that most Evangelicals would agree with you that “faith in faith” or “faith based upon faith” is foolish. We believe because we are overwhelmed by the solid reasons to believe, whether subjective or objective. Furthermore, this has always been the Biblical position. (However, I can understand your mis-assessment. There are many sincere Christians around, like Andy’s mother, who simply know Christ is real from their intuitions and experiences and have no need to seek further verification. Besides this, the Christian faith is often misconstrued in the worst possible way.)

    God performed many miracles for Israel — a blanket of miracles — so that Israel would KNOW and have proof of His reality and care for them. Jesus did the same and even warned that He shouldn’t be believed without confirmatory evidences, of which He provided many (John 5:31-38). In addition to this, people, within the context of the Bible, are honored for not accepting some testimony without evidence.

    It’s because of the evidence that I came to a faith in Christ. I had been a “truth-seeker” for years prior, but had failed to find anything. In retrospect, I can see now that I had wanted the truth according to my own terms and to satisfy my own purposes. Experience has now led me to a greater appreciation of Christ’s words:

    "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8)

    ReplyDelete
  46. "You will probably be surprised to hear that most Evangelicals would agree with you that “faith in faith” or “faith based upon faith” is foolish."

    Actually, I'm not surprised to hear that in the least. I have heard it plenty of times before. What would surprise me is if it turned out that their faith really did amount to something more than this, since nothing I observe ever seems to support such a conclusion, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.

    "We believe because we are overwhelmed by the solid reasons to believe, whether subjective or objective."

    Case in point. I'm all ears, but saying it is so doesn't invoke my belief, and ever since I outgrew the default tendency to accept the legitimacy of "argument from authority", I've never encountered any compelling reasons, subjective or objective, solid or otherwise, to believe in a bible-centric worldview.

    "Furthermore, this has always been the Biblical position."

    Well, maybe one of them, but not the only one. (A common experience). The message of Hebrews 11:1 ("Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.") and 11:6 ("And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.") seems to be, believe first, ask questions later - or never.

    "However, I can understand your mis-assessment."

    Perhaps you can, but I honestly don't think you do, and that's why you call it a mis-assessment.

    "There are many sincere Christians around, like Andy’s mother, who simply know Christ is real from their intuitions and experiences and have no need to seek further verification."

    There are many sincere Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Jains, Buddhists, Scientologists, astrologists, numerologists, et al., who meet the same standard. Doesn't say much for "knowing", does it?

    "It’s because of the evidence that I came to a faith in Christ."

    Evidence alluded to but not presented...never presented...which is funny, since it's precisely because of the lack of evidence that I came out of a faith in Christ. I could have chosen to keep believing, and interpreting reality according to my preconceived notions, but I had faith that seeing the world without prejudgment could only lead to greater understanding, and lo! the scales fell from my eyes and I could see! And my life has gotten immeasurably better ever since.

    Ironic, huh?

    "I had been a “truth-seeker” for years prior, but had failed to find anything. In retrospect, I can see now that I had wanted the truth according to my own terms and to satisfy my own purposes."

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe "the truth" wasn't something you could know? Is it perhaps possible that at some point you got tired of wandering in the ideological desert and traded in truth-seeking for a familiar, prefabricated set of terms?

    I can't tell you how many times I've heard similar accounts of, "I used to seek truth, until I found it!" from people. And in almost every instance where the person has shared their moment of "conversion" or "rebirth" with me, it has consisted of experiencing something extraordinary, and leaping to interpret it as a miracle, "proof" of the whole biblical worldview. The funny thing is, I identify with the experiences they describe very personally, because I've experienced some pretty amazing things myself - internal events, like epiphanies, and external events that some people might call "miraculous" - but since I couldn't explain them, I didn't. I was just awed by them.

    You see, I learned my lesson long ago, by repetition. Self-deception is easy. It comes naturally. Just tell yourself what you want to believe (or you can even just accept the stories your mind comes up with automatically) - and voila! Tetelestai!

    Honest self-examination is far more challenging...and the process is never finished...but the rewards are much deeper and richer as well. So say I.

    ReplyDelete
  47. My Dearest Perspicio,

    Understandably, you want the hard evidence, the real meat. As your obedient waiter, I will try to serve this up for you, but I must point out that it’s already on your table, albeit without an adequate plate. The logic and reason, to which your resort so ably, rest squarely upon an unchanging creator God. The naturalistic paradigm will not support the dainties you so clearly esteem. All it can posit are molecules in motion. A Big Bang without a God cannot accommodate unchanging laws. You clearly believe in the physical laws of nature. However, God provides the best plate to support these facts. If you find that your plate cannot accommodate what you want to put on it, I’d suggest you order a more adequate paradigm.

    Likewise, your desert is resting on the table before you, but it too lacks a plate. You make objectively moral statements, but you seem to be blissfully unaware of the fact that it must rest on moral truth. A consistent non-theist must maintain that there are no transcendent, super-material values hanging somewhere out in space. However, the paradigm of an unchanging transcendent God is the only plate that will hold your desert of moral truth.

    You also seem to be anthropocentric in regards to your morality. After all, you are eating meat. You therefore require a worldview that places humankind far above the rest of the animal world. If you believe that we are created in the image of God, then you will have such a worldview.

    I must also make an observation about your desert wine. You might find the atheistic position liberating, but in the long-run, it flattens everything out into sameness and meaninglessness. You may flatter yourself into thinking that you are now free to fill your wine basement with whatever delicacy you might so desire. But they will all begin to taste the same. So drink them down quickly!

    I’m so sorry to answer you so sarcastically and flippantly, but as a Christian, I’m mandated to condescend to where my brother sits.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mann'sWord, you needn't apologize to me for your sarcasm & flippancy, nor allege that a mandate made you do it. They do not offend me. And so long as they are honest expressions, and do not subsume the message or substitute for one, they may add light, not just heat, to the discussion. In any event, I have a good sense of humor, both about myself and about the human condition in general, and a touch of wit can lend sharpness and definition to the tension between our views that a modest courtesy might avoid addressing altogether. Failing that, it can at least make the conversation more entertaining.

    That said, I didn't find the meat in what you had to say, but the sauce was pretty tangy.

    Skimming off its ornate embellishments, the first paragraph of your culinary metaphor boils down to this:

    The universe. Therefore, God.

    What is this, the Emperor's New Restaurant? If I wasn't convinced before, why would I be now?

    In your 2nd paragraph, you tell me that I make objectively moral statements, and construct your argument from that point. I am quite confident that I have not done so. If you wish me to consider your argument, kindly support your claim.

    As for your 3rd paragraph, you begin:

    "You also seem to be anthropocentric in regards to your morality. After all, you are eating meat. You therefore require a worldview that places humankind far above the rest of the animal world. "

    At this point you appear to have gotten lost in your metaphor and confused it with fact. How embarrassing. I can assure you I was neither eating meat when you wrote that, nor when I read it, nor at any point in between, so we can rule out divinely bestowed clairvoyance. But whether or not I eat meat is irrelevant. Plenty of cultures have rituals to honor the spirit of the animals they kill, and even ask pardon for doing so. Eating meat in no way denotes an anthropocentric morality. In summary, that dog don't hunt - and I ain't swallowin' it.

    You conclude the paragraph with:

    "If you believe that we are created in the image of God, then you will have such a worldview.

    Ehhhh...thanks but not thanks on that bridge to nowhere. It seems arrogant to me.

    Finally, you tell me that,

    "You might find the atheistic position liberating, but in the long-run, it flattens everything out into sameness and meaninglessness."

    Keep trying to convince me, brother, if that is your bent. You may be speaking from your own truth-seeking experience, but it ends at the doorstep of mine. Life is beautiful. The desert I crossed, once a wasteland, is now in full bloom.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Perspicio,

    For a more serious treatment of the moral argument for the existence of God, please see the last post on my blog: www.MannsWord.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  50. Andy, I didn't mean to say that you were making that argument. I have a bad habit of posting comments prematurely, and I meant to explain my point more fully.

    I was actually agreeing with you that it isn't in our nature to be atheists. Some people use the argument that faith is our "default setting" as proof that there is a god. While you shot that argument down in your first post, I was just elaborating on why it isn't a valid argument.

    As for your last comment, "I do not think that a more detailed description of these natural phenomena dispels any mystery about them," I think if you used the word "wonder" I'd agree entirely. When I try to imagine what the sun must be like, knowing that it's an unfathomably large ball of exploding hydrogen, I am filled with wonder. But I think the _mystery_, while not eliminated (because of course there is still plenty of stuff we don't know!), is diminished. We used to have absolutely no idea about most things, and now we have a pretty good, albeit incomplete, idea. I believe that's called the God of the Gaps, where the amount we need to explain with deities is inversely proportional to our knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  51. No thanks, Mann'sWord. I wasn't seeking a moral argument for God. I was asking you to support your claim that I had made objectively moral statements.

    No offense, but the meal you served me didn't earn you a repeat customer. I didn't get what I was promised, wasn't impressed with what I got, and you didn't effectively address my specific concerns. All in all, it was a parallel experience to the last time I ate in a Mexican restaurant. (Tip: Avoid Los Aztecas in Dubuque.) Why would I go out of my way for more?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Sorry for the double post, but I just read one of Massimo's Picks (this article at Newsweek) that directly addresses a hypothetical statement from my previous post ("Maybe we're also hardwired for our worst qualities, like greed, violence, rape, etc."). Of course, I was saying that even if those qualities were part of so-called "human nature" that we shouldn't give in to them. I was saying that with no knowledge of evolutionary psychology or the controversy surrounding it, but the article basically demolishes the whole notion of an inherent human nature along with the field of evo psych.

    I don't remember where I originally read that humans are hardwired for faith (I have a feeling I heard it on an early episode of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe), but what does this article imply about that claim? An inclination toward belief seems very different from specific social activities like those mentioned in the article, so if I had to guess I'd say it's still valid, but because I'm not sure how it got in my head in the first place I'd like to hear what some of you think.

    ReplyDelete
  53. but I have faith [a rather unfortunate choice of word], now more than ever before, that we can subvert that instinct for long enough to listen to each other

    Hm, not that unfortunate, methinks... You see, he believes something in spite of much evidence. :-P

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'll put my spoon in other people's cauldron, sorry about that (not really).

    A Big Bang without a God cannot accommodate unchanging laws. You clearly believe in the physical laws of nature.

    Weak, very weak.

    First of all, who said the laws are unchanging?

    Second, you are getting carried away in the metaphors. There isn't such a thing as a law of nature (or moral law, by the way). I can almost see the image, in some people's head, of the laws being written by a legislator... What we call laws of nature are just our current models of how we perceive the world to work, based on our limited observations of it. No judges, juries, nor executioners involved.

    Likewise, your desert is resting on the table before you, but it too lacks a plate.

    That must be one big table. Are there camels in that desert, or is it a North American desert?

    However, the paradigm of an unchanging transcendent God is the only plate that will hold your desert of moral truth.

    There comes the sand again. Anyway, there is no such thing as moral truth, or moral law. Your arguments are old and tired (and tiresome), as previously noted in posts above.

    You might find the atheistic position liberating, but in the long-run, it flattens everything out into sameness and meaninglessness.

    Thanks for the pride and arrogance, but I'm inclines to suspect you know very little about the long run. Much less about being an atheist in the long run -- been for a long time, have you? Gotta love Cardinal Sins -- I myself am free from them, because the concept of sin is meaningless to me. :-)

    Regarding your posts on evolutionary biology, Mann's Word, while they are much more well written than 95% of the tripe we see out there, I would still advise you to keep them private. No need to embarrass yourself in public, is there?

    ReplyDelete
  55. My Dear J.

    You state, “There isn't such a thing as a law of nature (or moral law, by the way). I can almost see the image, in some people's head, of the laws being written by a legislator... What we call laws of nature are just our current models of how we perceive the world to work, based on our limited observations of it. No judges, juries, nor executioners involved.”

    We all agree that things work according to pattern or formula. When you limit phenomena to “models” and “observations” and refuse to consider what accounts for the regularities, you are putting your head in the sand -- a form of denial which might plug up all your senses.

    The viability of a scientific theory is partially based upon its ability to account for the findings within its domain and to relate phenomena to formulas (laws). Your unwillingness to do this suggests, perhaps, your appropriate hesitation about whom you might find at the end of your “current models.”

    ReplyDelete
  56. Mann:

    You're being ridiculous. How about I suggest that in a universe without regularities, assuming anything like us could exist at all, I would be in no position to to conceive of such a thing as regularities. The point here is that before we can even conceive of the world as having regularities it needs to be in the situation of having regularities. The conclusion, if you actually think through the anthropic principle and not mangle it as you have and as all theists aways seem to, is that it is completely unsurprising that the world is one we can make sense of.

    Your unwillingness to do this suggests, perhaps, your appropriate hesitation about whom you might find at the end of your “current models.”

    In future can I suggest you understand the argument you're making before you accuse others of intellectual dishonest?

    ReplyDelete
  57. K. Greybe,

    However many hypothetical universes you choose to dream up, the fact remains that we are surrounded by regularities and formulas. Refusing to consider the laws or underlying causal relationships is simply irresponsible.

    When our teacher repeatedly screams at us, claiming we have not done our homework, perhaps there's a causal relationship between her screams and our failure to do our homework. A refusal to consider this relationship will doom us to repeat our failures.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I'm afraid Mann, this will probably be my last addition to this argument because I can't add any more than that you've got the Anthropic principle the wrong way around. It's not that it's surprising that the world is such that we can exist, it's that it's totally unsurprising because the world cannot be otherwise because we exist. Another way to put it might be that a purely physical world and a god created world by necessity (and by this I mean philosophically necessary) look exactly the same so parsimony says we stick with the physical world. In other words, get a different argument.

    ReplyDelete
  59. K. Greybe,

    You wrote, "It's not that it's surprising that the world is such that we can exist, it's that it's totally unsurprising because the world cannot be otherwise because we exist."

    Although it's true that we would have to be living in an orderly and coherent world in order to even think about laws, this is irrelevant to the question of "from where the laws derive." I really do think you must consider this question, even if you might find the answer disturbing. (After all, unguided explosions--the Big Bang--are incapable of explaining stable and authoritative laws.)

    I agree with you that, all other things being equal, the parsimonious theory is the preferable theory. (I am pleased that you are willing to consider causal theories, after all!) In line with this, I must point out that the theistic theory is the most parsimonious--able to explain all phenomena like the existence of life, DNA, proteins, laws of nature, consciousness, freewill, morality, biological diversity, and the fine-tuning of the universe. For these various phenomena, naturalism must invent an entirely distinct explanation--not very parsimonious!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Frankly your argument an abuse of the concept of parsimony. A friend of mine tried this on me once pointing out that the most parsimonious explanations for airplanes is not air pressure, but metal birds fly. How about we instead accept the principle as a scientist would which can be described as an ontological minimalism: accept only the entities that are necessary for the data. God is not necessary, therefore...

    Do note also that this doesn't need to be an absolutist position; show me the data that renders god necessary and we've got something to discuss. Your mangling of the anthropic principle and here parsimony do no such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You are still confusing things in our heads with actually existing "laws", Mann's Word. Anyway...

    In line with this, I must point out that the theistic theory is the most parsimonious

    That is entirely ridiculous! You sound like you have absolutely no clue what 'parsimonious explanation' means. Or explanation, for that matter.

    So, you think that "god did it all" is more parsimonious than separate naturalistic explanations for each phenomenon, if I understood correctly. It could be, if it ended there. Which anyone can tell doesn't, obviously. It obviously does not explain anything at all beyond the surface. Because now you have to tell us HOW, and WHEN, and WHY (purpose), etc., god did each one of the things we're trying to explain. Notice that there's one aspect there (what purpose?) that is not even needed in naturalistic explanations. That by itself already makes the theistic "explanation" less parsimonious. But there's one much worse problem: explain god (where, why, when, who, etc.). Which I know you won't. Except by saying some empty platitude which does not explain anything, obviously.

    As anyone who uses reason can conclude, the theistic "explanation" is multiplying entities without necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dear J.

    You’re certainly correct that a naturalistic explanation doesn’t involve the question of purpose, while purpose is a very significant question in a theistic world. However, I’d like to argue that this extra parameter, rather than detracting from the theistic paradigm, actually strengthens it. Let me try to demonstrate:

    Let’s suppose that we have five solid witnesses who’ve testified that they’ve seen Dr. Gun shoot his wife dead. This constitutes pretty strong proof even if we don’t know what his purpose might have been. But let’s also say that a neighbor has come forward to testify that he heard Gun say that his wife gets him so frustrated that he sometimes thinks of killing her. Let’s add to this that we find that he just took a million dollar life-insurance policy out on her. While we had a strong case that Gun had killed his wife, after establishing the motive or purpose, we have even a stronger case!

    I would therefore conclude that the question of God’s purpose doesn’t detract from the God-hypothesis but potentially adds to it.

    Now for your second challenge! I’ll try to rephrase it in the best possible light—“By invoking God, you’re not explaining anything. You’re simply passing the buck. If you claim that God created everything, you must also explain how God was created or exists eternally, and you can’t! Therefore, you’re explanation is meaningless!”

    Again, you’re correct. No one can explain how God can exist causeless and eternally. However, we can demonstrate that it’s more likely that God exists without cause, eternally, than we can regarding the natural laws and the universe. For one thing, Bib Bang cosmology has decisively put to death the idea of an always-existing or “steady-state” universe. More convincingly, I think, it can be logically demonstrated that the idea of infinite (eternal) time (required by a steady-state universe) is logically incoherent. This would leave us with a Being who transcends time and space, unless you want to suggest that everything sprung into existence uncaused out of nothing. But I don’t think you want to go there.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Barbara Bradley Hagerty of USA TODAY writes how, a few years ago, she witnessed two great British scientists in a showdown at Cambridge University. The guest speaker was John Barrow. Almost as an aside to his talk, the Cambridge mathematician asserted that the astonishing precision of the universe was evidence for "divine action." At that, Richard Dawkins nearly leapt from his seat.

    "But why would you want to look for evidence of divine action?" demanded Dawkins.

    "For the same reason someone might not want to," Barrow responded with a little smile.

    In that instant, Hagerty thought, there it is. God is a choice. You can look at the evidence and see life unfolding as a wholly material process, or you can see the hand of God.

    In her essay, Hagerdy goes on to provide anecdotal evidence that something more than the mechanical and material is involved in consciousness.

    She relates a story about Pam Reynolds concluding, "Her story raises the question: Was Reynolds' consciousness operating separately from her brain?

    She says Reynolds' experience — and that of many others — is prompting researchers at institutions such as the University of Montreal and the University of Virginia to investigate the astonishing proposition that a person might have a consciousness — or (gasp) a soul — that can operate when the brain is off-line.

    "In the end, we could learn that we are nothing more than nerve cells and molecules. But it is too early for believers to raise the white flag. It is just as plausible —indeed, more elegant — to believe that our brain activity reflects an unseen reality. Perhaps our brains are reflecting an encounter with the divine — unseen, surely, but still real.

    "Science can't referee that question. Either way, whether you are Richard Dawkins or doctor and spiritual guru Deepak Chopra, what you believe is a matter of faith. Given the choice, I opt for God," writes Hargety.

    I propose that there are multiple dimensions of our human experience that science does not have to tools to decipher. Science is good as far as it goes but falls far short of providing an adequate guide for life.

    I choose Christianity for many reasons but most of all because the life it calls me to live--to model my behavior after Jesus--is a life of exquisite beauty and generosity; a life-style I can only aspire to because it often asks me to behave contrary to my natural (evolved?)inclinations. Christ's parables of the father waiting for the return of his profligate son or the story of the Good Samaritan encourage us to live a life of beauty on multiple levels. These stories confront our prejudices, self-centerness and jealousies and call us to do better.

    Those who would turn to science for such values strain for a connection to purpose and discipline that, in the end, is not found in science but in the human spirit born of a divine origin.

    Science has provided us with a view of God's handiwork that is exquisitely complex. We can only be awestruck as we try to unfold the coding and exquisite genius of the genome as the regulator of life, itself a process we struggle to define. I won't quibble with the details but draw great comfort from having been told by the Psalmist (and others) what I can't discover, that in this scientific wonder of inter-relatedness we should see the hand of the divine.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Oh Christ, the ridiculous 'Ultimate Meaning' argument. How about we limit our question to say whether or not there is meaning, is it really the case that science can say nothing? I can't help but think that people confuse science with white lab coats as opposed to the far simpler definitiion of comparing your beliefs to the world as it is. By my definition science actually has quite a few things to say about meaning for example it can answer the question about whether life has meaning for you, by asking you!

    Humanists, by basing our answers to ethical questions and questions of 'meaning' on what we as human beings actually want and believe, are using science, again I'll admit by my definition, as a stepping stone to take humanity further than the pronouncements of a bunch of bronze age patriarchs or the knee-jerk elevation to divine command of our evolved intitutions ever could.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Kallan.G

    Although you want to limit your search and meaning to science alone, this just isn't possible. Science can't tell me to love my children or to seek justice.

    Even your own response demonstrates that you are relying on philosophy (scientism) and not science to make your case.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Mann mate, this is getting embarrassing. I'm getting the sense there's some problems because I can't see how you can continue to make these kinds of mistakes.

    The scientific question when we consider your love for your children is 'Do you Love your Children?' The Humanists will then say because you love your children, you ought to protect them. I struggle to see where that isn't science informing ethics. The trouble comes when ethics doesn't even try to do that much, such as with Roman Catholics and condoms.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Kallan G., I didn't mean to be making an argument, just offering how I see it. If you want to use your own definition of science, so be it. I take science to be a process of discovery based on empirical data. Yes, loving our children is an easy one. Loving someone who doesn't love my children is bit more challenging. In either case I don't see science as offering an ought -- science may observe that parents, in general, love their children, and might even offer that that has survival merit. But I don't see that as an ethical ought that would carry over to loving someone else's child.

    And there are many other areas where science is, from my perspective, silent. Justice for example, where we seek protection for the weak (less fit?)is not, scientifically speaking,intuitive.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Dear Kallan.G,

    Let me just clarify my point--However greatly we might esteem science, it remains only one means of cognition. It can't tell us that Beethoven composed great music or that sugar tastes sweet. Also, it can't dictate morality. While some erroneously derive from science a survival-of-the-fittest ethic, others assume that science mandates that we should follow our feelings or our conscience.

    The latter seems to be what you are arguing: If I feel love towards my children, then I should act out of this love. However, we also have many negative feelings. Following this philosophy, we should then also act out our negative feelings.

    Of course, you don't want to go there. However, to avoid this dead end, you will have to abandon scientific deduction and make use of philosophical thinking--the very thing you eschew.

    Please see my treatment of the moral argument: www.MannsWord.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  69. Mann:
    I'm sorry to say, you continue to say shockingly stupid things.

    "If I feel love towards my children, then I should act out of this love. However, we also have many negative feelings. Following this philosophy, we should then also act out our negative feelings."

    That's not even close to the point I was making. You're assuming I'm naive enough to confuse Is and Ought when all I'm saying is that our ethics need to point to the things we as humans desire to have any meaning, any force, to change action. When we point at humans though, we also have a way to measure the impact of our ethical choices.

    Obviously there's a lot more to say on this but I'm trying to be focused here on the point I'm making about Humanism. If you go and actually read some philosophy though, you'll find that, I guess technically since Euthyphro's dilemma so back in Plato's day, Ethics in general hasn't had a lot of truck with theistic arguments.

    "However greatly we might esteem science, it remains only one means of cognition."

    I'm sorry Mann, but that's not just bullshit, that's bullshit squared. What in the world can be more simple than when I make claims about the world, they better fit the world as it is. If you think there are other means of cognition in this sense go right ahead. Hell, all those arguments from Rorty or Wittgenstein never actually give an alternative, just wave their hands and say 'if an incommensurate language was found.' If anything is simple or basic in G.E Moore's sense, it's science.

    Finally on music, are you seriously telling me that music isn't something in the world? So if I sing out of tune and you tell me that I'm out of tune and then we make a recording and compare my singing to the song, we wouldn't find out? This is a classic example of people elevating a bullshit meaningless question. If you give me a definition of what you mean by 'great music' you'll find actually we can actually say quite a lot. The problem is not that science has nothing to say about music, it's that you've made no claims so your belief has no "propositional content", its meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Kallan.G,

    I'm sorry if I misrepresented your ethical position, but I'm genuinely confused about it. On the one hand, you acknowledge that you can't get from an IS (science) to an OUGHT (moral obligation), but then you claim that science is enough to derive ethics.

    Help me out here!

    ReplyDelete
  71. From the top then. Science is not a bunch of men in labcoats, science is the rigorous application of I guess you could say a general empirical principle; all you need to do to be said to be doing science is to take the things you claim and then compare them to the world.

    The next step is just to point out that all those oughts we talk about, in order to be oughts, need to make at least one claim: that they make the world better. The problem is that generally, what better means gets very poorly defined. As in that silly Beathoven/great music question you posed: give me something to measure. As a virtue ethicist for example ethical actions foster human flourishing or as a Utilitarian it would be that the greatest happiness has accrued or as a Humanist, we obtain those things we as human beings value such as freedom or health or the welfare of the people we love. These are all things we can point to in the world. If at the end of your ethical considerations you can't point to anything in the world that defines success, you're not being ethical, you're just trying to elevate your intuitions and as is so obvious with things like abstinence only sex education, ultimately you go on to cause a lot of problems.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Kallan.G,

    You wrote, “The next step is just to point out that all those oughts we talk about, in order to be oughts, need to make at least one claim: that they make the world better.”

    Why should the world be “better?” This statement has nothing to do with science. It’s a religious-philosophical statement.

    You also wrote, “ethical actions foster human flourishing or as a Utilitarian it would be that the greatest happiness has accrued or as a Humanist, we obtain those things we as human beings value such as freedom or health or the welfare of the people we love.”

    Once again, we can raise the question of why even be concerned about “human flourishing.” Even if the majority agree about this concept, we still have the problem of going from an “is” (majority opinion) to an “ought” (why this should become an imperative).

    Even more important is the question about “utilitarianism.” Is it a sound principle? What if the maximum “good” was achieved through scape-goating or killing another person? If you answer “yes,” then you are opening the door to any justifications of abuse as long as the majority “flourishes.” If you answer “no,” then you are like me, a Christian (Sorry, I just couldn’t resist it!), in placing the law of the God-given conscience above your philosophical construct. However, you disdain “your intuitions.” Perhaps you need to reconsider them??

    ReplyDelete
  73. First off Mann, this is not a bloody religious-philosophical debate, this is a philosophical debate. Since Plato no thorough ethical philosopher has bothered with bringing in god.

    As for the force of ethical oughts, I kind of left that open on purpose. It's obvious that whatever it is that has force depends on your prior commitments. That said, I've a lot of reason to prefer ethics which point to the real world and to real things for justification rather than the bullshit theistic position pulling god out of my arse to elevate my ethical intuitions into a sort of divine command; you either realise that that is about as scary an ethic as is imaginable or quite frankly there is nothing more to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Been following the discussion in silence since I had no time to write anything for a while. But it became clear Mann's Word and David are a little behind in quite a few things. It would do you guys good to read, for starters, "The Science of Good and Evil", by Michael Shermer ("How we believe" is a good one too). By the posts so far, it sounds very much like you haven't read this book.

    You guys think a little too much of yourselves, obviously, and therefore you are using the "god of the gaps" approach: since you don't know how the universe, or moral feelings, etc. came about, it MUST have been something divine, otherwise you'd know... Well, Shermer's book gives quite a bit of interesting ideas on how morality evolved -- you might not have heard, but some animals seem to have a concept of "justice" or at least "fairness", for example, among other (proto?)moral feelings. Not to mention altruism, another bad example raised by one of you as only possible if god-given.

    And with that I end my participation in this thread. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  75. Kallan.G

    You wrote, "Since Plato no thorough ethical philosopher has bothered with bringing in god."

    Just in case you're feeling impoverished by this "absence," I'd recommend C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." Francis Collins credits this little book as instrumental in his coming to a faith in Christ from atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mann'sWord,

    I must say that Mere Christianity is one of the most overrated books of the past century. And of course Lewis was no philosopher (and neither is Collins).

    ReplyDelete
  77. J,

    Let's just say, as you suggest, that animals also possess a moral sense. What does this prove? Naturalism? How? By virtue of the common features? How different must features be in order to rule against naturalism? And what if it is subsequently demonstrated that their is no ancestral/evolutionary link between the moral sense of animals and that of humans? Evolutionists will put a patch on the problem and call it "convergent evolution."

    ReplyDelete
  78. Messr. Mann, the problems continue.

    First off read Euthyphro's dilemma, answer enough to charges of the divine nature of morality and the reason no thorough ethical philosopher has bothered with divine arguments since Plato.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

    On your bit about the moral sense we've other issues. The first is that evolution is precisely how we can link the moral sense of animals to that of human beings. Game theory goes further in building a relatively useful model for how a moral sense can be built. I'll accept that that suffers from the usual problems of evolutionary psychology, that it's a bit of a just so story, that said proof in principle is all I need to discredit your position here about the necessarily divine nature of moral intuition.

    The second problem is that it's still left open whether we actually want to follow our moral intuitions. Sure we appear to have a relatively good inbuilt sense of justice and the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (look it up, I dare you) appears to be nearly universal, but our moral sense also leads us to say things like homosexuality is a sin for no good reason or to declare that there's a fundamental human dignity, whatever that means. It's much the same with our intuitions of physics which tend to a crude sort of Aristotelian Animism; it works okay but clearly we can do better.

    Finally, even if we do follow our moral intuitions, what's puzzling is that very little of what it recommends seems to have any bearing on what religions actually proscribe. That's a pretty big and surprising gap for a 'revealed word of god' or the claim that that this sense is divinely inspired.

    It's therefore pretty clear to me that religious attempts to define morality are all just a confused muddle that we had better do without.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Kallan.G

    Thanks for the challenge regarding Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the Wikipedia link. However, the solution is really quite simple. This 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. However, if God merely chooses what is moral, it makes morality arbitrary 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 (while both are necessary) or like having to choose between the left and right wing of a plane. God not only chooses what is moral, He also is what is moral. 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 persistently 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!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Mann'sWord,

    "This dilemma is resolved when we recognize that it presents us with a false dichotomy like having to choose between love and justice (while both are necessary) or like having to choose between the left and right wing of a plane. God not only chooses what is moral, He also is what is moral."

    Nice try, but you are now presenting god as a logical impossibility: he simply cannot both choose and be morality. Euthyphro's dilemma has remained unsolved despite literally two millennia of attempts by very smart people, and it drives a stake through the heart of any argument that links morality with the divine. Sorry, and many kudos to Plato!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Massimo,

    You wrote: "...you are now presenting god as a logical impossibility: he simply cannot both choose and be morality."

    I don't see the problem with this formulation. I might have a strong inclination to jump into the water and save someone who is drowning, but I also decide to go along with this moral inclination. Why then limit God to one or the other--moral inclinations (nature) or moral decisions/affirmations? If I can embody both, certainly can God!

    ReplyDelete
  82. This isn't a matter of inclinations, it is a question of where moral imperatives come from. Your example does not address this issue, it is simply an unobjectionable description of what a human being would do.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Massimo,

    I'd be glad to respond to you, but this would depend on you further ellucidating the substance of your challenge. As it stands, I'm not sure what the objection is.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Mann'sWord,

    the substance of Euthyphro's dilemma is that there are only two logical possibilities as to the *ultimate* source of morality (the issue doesn't apply to derived moral thinking, because one can always ask: why do you think X is moral?).

    These two options are: a) either an intelligent agent (gods or humans) *arbitrarily* decides what is right or wrong; or b) all intelligent agents *recognize* that something is good or wrong, which means they turn to some other source of moral knowledge *outside* of themselves.

    Even in a case in which an arbitrary decision coincides with the actual moral law (your example of the drowning person might be thought of in this way) that still means that you don't *need* god for morality, because you can arrive at god's conclusion by other means. God is still superfluous to make someone a moral individual.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Massimo,

    You responded that there are two options: “a) either an intelligent agent (gods or humans) *arbitrarily* decides what is right or wrong; or b) all intelligent agents *recognize* that something is good or wrong, which means they turn to some other source of moral knowledge *outside* of themselves.”

    Let me try to restate this: If God DISCOVERS morality, then God is less than God; if God CREATES (or chooses) morality and then imposes it upon us, He is an arbitrary despot. I tried to answer that this isn’t a question of either-or, but both! Morality is not arbitrary or antecedent to God, because it finds its origin within the Being of God. (It’s also freely embraced by God.)

    The only objection that you raised against this understanding is that it’s not possible for God to embody both. Ironically, it’s the atheist’s butt that Euthyphro finds particularly succulent. You concluded, “God is still superfluous to make someone a moral individual.” However, according to Euthyphro, the atheist CAN’T be a moral individual. Here’s why. The atheist must also either create or discover his morality. However, the atheist flees from the idea of discovering morality. This implies that there is a higher moral truth that exists independent of human will. It also implies a moral truth Giver—ugh!

    However, the atheist also hesitates to create his own morality, knowing that it would be completely arbitrary and meaningless. Where then does this leave the atheist? He must find some middle ground. However, you correctly pointed out that there isn’t any middle ground—morality is either CREATED or DISCOVERED.

    What then to do? Secretly create a “middle” position! Here are several:

    1. PRAGMATISM/UTILITARIANISM (The maximum good for the majority of people)
    2. THE ACCUMULATED WISDOM OF EVOLUTION OF CIVILIZATION
    3. ENLIGHTENED SELFISHNESS (If I am selfish in a wise way, I will also be moral.)
    4. MAJORITY DECIDES

    In an attempt to not appear arbitrary and therefore meaningless, all of the above attempt to secretly smuggle in a moral absolute through the back door. Clearly, there is nothing for the majority to decide about if there is nothing right and wrong to begin with! Likewise, there is nothing for the pragmatist to be pragmatic about if there isn’t a good! All illegitimately attempt to go from an “is” to an “ought.” (“What difference does it make if evolution or society made me this way!”)

    Euthyphro is not a problem for the theist, but for the atheist. This is God’s world. By denying Him, the atheist inevitably denies the very presuppositions he so desperately requires.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Mann'sWord,

    sorry, but it seems to me that you simply don't get Euthyphro (or perhaps refuse to).

    > Morality is not arbitrary or antecedent to God, because it finds its origin within the Being of God. (It’s also freely embraced by God.) <

    First, how does it find its origin "within god"? And second, what does it mean for god to both originate morality and freely embrace it? At any rate, if he originates it (i.e., makes it up) then it is arbitrary, and you have still not escaped the dilemma.

    > The atheist must also either create or discover his morality. However, the atheist flees from the idea of discovering morality. This implies that there is a higher moral truth that exists independent of human will. It also implies a moral truth Giver—ugh! <

    Morality for the atheist is the result of several factors, it isn't a monolithic block. The origins of a sense of morality are to be found in our evolution as intelligent social primates (empirical evidence and mathematical models back this up, unlike the case for your fanciful fairy tales). Then we use reason to extend morality to realms where it doesn't go naturally (e.g., to members of other groups, not just members of our tribe -- unlike your religion, I must add).

    What we get, of course, is an ever evolving, pragmatic, never dogmatic sort of morality. Which suits me just fine, but is absolutely not acceptable to those like you who wish for a simple set of perennial rules.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Massimo,

    If I am not getting Euthyphro, please enlighten me! You must be patient with those of us who still believe in fairy tales, cognizant, as you are, of the mental disability such beliefs impose.

    You asked, “First, how does it find its origin "within god"? And second, what does it mean for god to both originate morality and freely embrace it? At any rate, if he originates it (i.e., makes it up) then it is arbitrary, and you have still not escaped the dilemma.”

    He doesn’t originate it. He is it—love, truth, justice. But He isn’t controlled by it, such that He has to act these things out as a computer. Instead, He freely chooses to act in concert with His character.

    More interestingly, you state, “Morality for the atheist is the result of several factors, it isn't a monolithic block. The origins of a sense of morality are to be found in our evolution as intelligent social primates (empirical evidence and mathematical models back this up, unlike the case for your fanciful fairy tales). Then we use reason to extend morality to realms where it doesn't go naturally (e.g., to members of other groups, not just members of our tribe -- unlike your religion, I must add).”

    You have failed to engage my challenge. Is this “sense of morality” DISCOVERED or CREATED? (Are you trying to be naughty and create that “middle” ground without being explicit about it?) It seems like you’re saying that you’ve discovered something moral and normative in your biology? But why should your biology be normative? What invests biology with its moral imperative? Must you eat whenever you feel like it? Must you scream whenever you have the urge?

    I think instead you are following your conscience, but I must ask “why?” For me, the conscience is a compelling guide to moral truth, similar to how our minds serve as a guide to rational truth. But for you, the conscience is no more than circuitry stuffed with chemicals. How do you get morality out of that? Why even bother with it? Just take a pill if it acts up. Perhaps a surgical procedure might be devised to excise it!

    You say that the basis of morality “it isn’t a monolithic block,” but is this merely a way to deflect serious scrutiny? You also say that morality is “ever evolving.” What does that mean? Does it mean that although murder is wrong today, it might not be tomorrow? Shouldn’t this then imply that we shouldn’t have legal standards? Can the defendant claim leniency because morality is evolving and might be different tomorrow? Or perhaps he should simply say that the entire show is arbitrary since he’s gone through certain biological changes and doesn’t FEEL the same way as the majority?

    Before I give up my “fairy tales,” I think I’ll need a little more convincing. Euthyphro also needs to be answered.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Mann'sWord,

    I'm afraid even my abilities to enlighten people are pretty limited. I will not engage in what I once defined as the rationalistic fallacy (you can look it up on the old Rationally Speaking collection).

    Still, there are plenty of better writers, and if you are really interesting in learning, which I seriously doubt, I will be happy to suggest good stuff on the origin and successive development of morality.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Look mate, it's pretty clear the Euthyphro is a problem for the theist and only the theist. The atheist simply accepts it and then sets out trying to make a system that works, at which point you get to head off and read the genuinely interesting work done in ethics. True you get no ultimate meaning and at some point you're forced to just kick out the sociopaths, essentially arbitrarily, but you do get a system going that generates real, measurable benefits for human beings. Trying to get around this by saying "god can do both" is textbook special pleading.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Kallan.G

    I think that Euthyphro brings atheism to its knees. He offers only two possibilities—morality is either DISCOVERED or CREATED—and atheism is unable to receive either. However, atheism’s problems don’t stop there.

    Atheism demonstrates itself to be an inadequate paradigm in many other ways. It fails to be able to account for the facts. Although it may be able to deny the existence of transcendent moral absolutes, it certainly can’t deny the use and existence of reason, logic and math. However, the atheistic paradigm can’t account for them. It can only account for molecules-in-motion, not necessary and unchanging verities, which are able to not only “map” the world but also predict future discoveries. Take math, for instance, and the formulas and regularities that it has been able to DISCOVER.

    I was particularly fascinated to learn that the musical harmonies that we recognize and enjoy are supported by precise mathematical relationships. Where do these come from? From an explosion or from Design?

    Where do the laws of nature come from? An explosion (Big Bang) or Design? As far as we can tell, they work precisely and uniformly throughout the universe. Where does gravity reside? What maintains and stabilizes its attraction? How can it work uniformly and unchangingly throughout, especially in the midst of change and expansion? What accounts for the existence of both change and non-change?

    How did everything spring into existence without cause? What accounts for our informational systems (DNA), life, consciousness, or freewill? How do you carve meaning out of a meaningless world? Evidently, you must CREATE it, but then it is arbitrary and essentially meaningless. How does the atheist cope psychologically with the flatness and emptiness of life? Rationality should teach that the atheistic paradigm is not adequate to embrace the verities of life.

    ANSWER: DISCOVER a new paradigm!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Mann:

    I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say or do when your consistent reply is to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore every argument. I'm going to have to follow the advice of far wiser heads than I and bow out.

    Before I go though I suggest you take up Massimo on his offer to give you some readings on ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Kallan.G

    I both appreciate your frustration and your willingness to point me to the right path. However, there are two "problems." You must first demonstrate that I'm on the wrong path.

    More importantly, I have followed my Savior for 33 years now. He has delivered me from decades of depression and panic attacks, whereas no psychiatrist or psychologist had been able to put a dent in it. (They even added to it!) Christ has so lovingly received me and cleansed me from the scum that had covered me. He has stood me on my feet and has given me something glorious to live for. He has taken my fears, carried away my failures and sins, and has given me a confidence about life that I had never experienced before. He has also given me cognitive fulfillment and completeness.

    If you have something better, please let me know about it!

    ReplyDelete
  93. Mann:

    If you've managed to turn your life around, congratulations, but I can only say that Jesus need take no credit. All the pain you've caused or suffered, all your victories, your failures and your joys, they're all yours and no one elses. You can fool yourself into believing someone else is responsible but it's an illusion and you know what, admitting that is the best thing that's ever happened to me.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Kallan.G.

    I will not fault you regarding your cynicism about God. We who believe in Christ have not done a good job in making His presence know through our lives. I truly grieve over this.

    However, I pray that you are willing to look past our sordid lives and go to God Himself about this. Jesus promised that if we seek we will truly find (Matthew 7:7-8). On one level, it's that easy; on another, we have a powerful resistance against contact with the real God.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Mann'sWord

    You have failed to provide a resolution to the Euthyphro Dilemma, without which your arguments are nonsense built on stilts.

    The challenge that Socrates gave to Euthyphro that led to the formulation of the dilemma was to provide a transparent definition of goodness (actually piety in the original). Your answer is to provide a worse definition of goodness than Euthyphro gave. This does not resolve the dilemma at all. It is very strange logic indfeed to think that a worse (more opqaue and indirect) definition resolves this. Indeed saying goodness is somehow identical with God does not even look like a definition at all.

    It also fails sine the dilemma is applied to the definition offered by the theist and your answer requires a straw man version of the dliemma, with respect to your definition. In your case your definition must be something along the lines of good is identical to an eternal attribute of god's nature (or substitute your won version)and the dilemma becomes "is it good because it is identical to an eternal attribute of god's nature or is it an eternal attribute of god's nature becuase it is identical to the good?" The dilemma remains. You take the the first horn of this version which is subjective (internal to god) and relative to your god (e.g. Others could take the first horn relative to their god). If you are genuinely concerned about finding an objective grounds for morality, that that is a sufficient reason to rejecting god based morality.

    Finally you completely misunderstand atheism, which is the thesis that the proposition that "at least one god exists" is (most likely) false. This says nothing about morality (or politics or economics or even science for that matter)and you are deeply mistaken to draw any conclusions about morality given atheism as a premise.

    PS Massimo the embedded version of commentsd sucks, sorry for recommending it to you in the first place. However I think the popup version is better than this page version, especially for long comment threads like this since the comment box appears underneath the latest comments and it is easier to refer to comments you are responding to.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Who's being cynical? Don't you realise taking reponsibility for your actions for good or ill is as liberating a thought as is imaginable? Realising that there is nothing but this world in which to act makes every action incredible meaningful. Realising that there is no point to the world, no god who has decided what we shall do, no god who has hobbled us before we even had a chance to begin is the closest thing to a clarion call, a call to arms to act and make things better in the here and now for the people in the here and now. Giving up god and the pretense of a lack of freedom is a human beings most noble, most ethical, most affirming act. I pity you that you cannot see that and don't doubt that you are not moral until you do.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Faithless god,

    You wrote, “Finally you completely misunderstand atheism, which is the thesis that the proposition that "at least one god exists" is (most likely) false. This says nothing about morality (or politics or economics or even science for that matter) and you are deeply mistaken to draw any conclusions about morality given atheism as a premise.”

    Faithless, you are perfectly right that it is “mistaken to draw any conclusions about morality given atheism as a premise.” In fact, I’d go a step further—it’s impossible to say anything about anything from the premise of atheism, apart from the fact that there is no god(s) and perhaps also that there is no moral or spiritual truth beyond what we humans create. However, this is precisely the problem that I tried to address. Because you occupy this intolerable vacuum of atheism, you are forced to “borrow capital,” to stealthfully import alien presuppositions in order to supply the necessary decision-making axioms to provide structure and substance. Without doing so, atheism is absolutely impoverished.

    Let me give an example. Most atheists hold to the ideas of unalienable rights, the “Bill of Rights,” and the concept of mutual respect (or “unconditional positive regard”). However, lacking a transcendent set of values, atheism is limited to physical, measurable phenomena to make all its assessments, which necessarily will be limited to pragmatic considerations—what works, what yields benefits. (However, even this consideration is also beyond the reach of atheism which values nothing!)

    It therefore follows that if an individual is a drain on society and is costly to the lives around him, the atheist must judge him negatively. Therefore, the criminal, mentally ill or welfare recipient shouldn’t be valued positively, nor the elderly and infirmed. However, if we fail to value people positively, therapeutic and other relationships will fail and people will suffer.

    You might argue that it is pragmatic to treat others with respect and even-handedness even if you don’t believe them worthy of respect. However, this is hypocritical and manipulative. (Just imagine a psychotherapist expressing a high regard for his client, while secretly he disdains him!) Consequently, the atheist must clandestinely borrow alien presuppositions like the “sanctity of life” orientation, even when it contradicts atheism. In short, atheism, as a worldview, just doesn’t work!!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Mann, stop it already. As I and Massimo and Jay have pointed out mate, Ethics already assumes atheism. Stop spouting this bullshit and learn something already.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Kallan.G

    If you and the rest of your holy trinity believe that atheism implies morality and morality atheism, let me refer you to the faithlessgod, one of your own!

    ReplyDelete
  100. Mann'sWord

    "Faithless, you are perfectly right that it is “mistaken to draw any conclusions about morality given atheism as a premise.” In fact, I’d go a step further—it’s impossible to say anything about anything from the premise of atheism, apart from the fact that there is no god(s) and perhaps also that there is no moral or spiritual truth beyond what we humans create."
    You understand this and then you add the phrase in italics which is exactly what you cannot do if you (have already) acknowledged the rest of my point. There is no such thing as worldview atheism upon which to make the rest of your points and so your argument does not follow.(This also applies to plain vanilla theism - this too is not a worldview and fails to indicate any particular moral (or political, economic, social) positions either. This is different to your, presumably, a form of Christian theism which is a worldview.)

    The only inference you can draw from atheism is a rejection of voluntarism, the subjective and relative moral theory more familiar to you as divine command or divine nature theory i.e. what you are asserting. This is no big deal since there is a full range of moral theories subjective and objective, cognitive and non-cognitive available to atheists and theists alike.

    You have still failed to address the points I made and until you do it is, given you are making a supposed argument for a morally objective position, it is not just intellectually and rationally dubious to employ the rhetoric and sophistry you do but morally suspect too. You are performatively contradicting yourself by claiming a supposed moral high ground by actually taking the moral low ground, so refuting your morality.

    So if you truly care about find morally objective grounds, then this is a strong reason to reject your divine command theory, since that is subjective and relative. Or you do not truly care about the best grounds for morality but really want to make any argument to support your subjective and relative belief in your god including the trivial (and false) rhetorical assertion that this is objective.

    I give you the benefit of the doubt one more time. Either honestly address the points that I and others have made or what else is there to conclude that your argument are nonsense built on stilts standing in quicksand?

    PS Max, Thanks for the comment entry change. I hope others find it as useful as I do.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Dear Faithless god,

    You wrote, "There is no such thing as worldview atheism upon which to make the rest of your points and so your argument does not follow."

    While I agree with you, in a formal sense, the fact remains that I never met an atheist that believes nothing more than "no God." As atheists recognise, it's impossible to build a life and decision-making on this simple negation. There has to be more to the belief system of the average atheist, and there is!

    When I see atheist ads advertising their meet-ups or fellowship groups, they usually read something like this, "where like-minded people can congregate," recognizing that there is more than just a negation that draws them together.

    Even when I regard what you have written, I see many commitments that transcend this negation, and necessarily so. I see a belief in a common langauge and logic. I see a concern about truth. Otherwise, you wouldn't even waste your time in writing and critiquing what you believe to be deception.

    Therefore, I think that if the atheist is going to be transparent, he must admit that he has many worldview commitments. I am reminded of the affirmations of so many atheists that they can be good without God. This simple statement is loaded with content.

    This brings us back to your second challenge--that the theist can't establish objective grounds for morality. So far, I've restricted myself to making one simple point--that morality depends upon a foundation of unchanging moral truth and that an unchanging moral God must be that foundation.

    In contrast to this, the evolutionist-atheist can't account for anything more than molecules-in-motion with their philosophy of life--no foundation at all for unchanging truth of any kind.

    Conclusion: Your worldview must be either expanded or simply jettisoned to account for the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Mann'sWord

    To a degree, you have a valid point. Atheism is not a foundational concept to any philosophy: it is just a conclusion drawn. There are many radically different philosophical positions that can come to the atheist conclusion. Ayn Rand's Objectivism; Marx's Dialectal Materialism; Buddhism; and many others. However, as a general rule what we find here (the US and Europe) and now is that most people that have come to the atheist conclusion have adopted what is in effect, if not explicitly, Metaphysical Naturalism (or some variation on the theme).

    Now that said, I think that the rest of what you are asserting wrt to moral foundations is hogwash.

    ReplyDelete
  103. @jdhuey

    Even naturalism is not a single worldview. Knowing someone is a naturalist still does not tell you what their politics, economics let alone their morality is. Still your last paragraph is undeniably quite correct.

    @Mann'sWord

    The point I was making is that atheism is not a worldview, which you grudging agree to. Of course anyone - atheist or theist - has a worldview but you cannot presume nor impose your own distortions on what this might be. Your "argument" is a big straw man.

    "So far, I've restricted myself to making one simple point--that morality depends upon a foundation of unchanging moral truth and that an unchanging moral God must be that foundation."
    Myself and others have criticised this "simple point" - actually it is two and both have serious porblems. You have made rhetorical assertions without demonstrating the soundness nor the validity of your position. Since you have again avoided addressing the questions I have asked I can only presume you are unable to provide such support for your position and the only available conclusion remains that your point is in error.

    If you continue to make this supposed point without providing support and ignoring
    criticisms of it provided by myself and others this can only show that you, contrary to your claims, do not care about morality at all since if you really did honestly care, you would at least attempt to answer these criticisms rather than avoid doing so.

    If you avoid this challenge again then I can only read it that you have consented to the fact that your morality is without substance and you have no basis to criticise others moral views, whatever they are.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Dear Faithless One,

    You wrote, "Since you have again avoided addressing the questions I have asked I can only presume you are unable to provide such support for your position and the only available conclusion remains that your point is in error."

    Let me point out that there is another possibility--Perhaps you might have failed to make your challenge clear enough. Often, and to my regret, I am forced to pass over those challenges that lack clarity and leave me thinking, "huh??"

    Please rephrase your point(s), and I would be glad to respond with all the transparency with which I am capable.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Mann'sWord

    Really my points were quite clear see my first two posts in this thread. You are just avoiding the questions yet again and how else can I take it but that you conceded that you have no argument and that is that.

    If you ever want to resume this conversation honestly just answer the questions in my first post onwards and until then I think any interested reader of this comment thread can only conclude that you, at the very least have no moral theory that can stand up to criticism and, at the worst, that your avoidance of such criticisms is itself immoral, given the subject matter.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "...Truth with a capital T is essentially inaccessible to humans (except when we are talking about logic and mathematics), and that moreover in many real cases of interest to human affairs there is no absolute truth. "

    It causes me much mental anguish when supposedly rational, non-religious persons make such bold, yet unsupported, statements that are, seemingly unrealized by their authors, strongly in FAVOR of RELIGION when attempting to defend me and promote secularism. "Truth with a capitol T" must be one of these three things:
    1. accessible to human beings through inquiry, observation, and testing
    2. the product of divine law
    3. an abstract concept invented by human beings that does not exist in reality

    Positions 2 and 3 cannot be held by a rational atheist. If you're arguing in favor of position 3 you're essentially arguing that reality itself is irrational it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong and you must admit that any logic you attempt to use to convince me is meaningless because nothing we know is real so I'm just going to ignore you and consider only positions 1 and 2. "Absolute truth" must exist in a rational atheistic world. It is only in a supernatural world that facts can spontaneously change based on undetectable or paranormal stimuli causing "Truth" to be inaccessible to us. The author admits that absolute truth can exist for self-contained logic systems such as math. If the universe is not a self-contained logical system than it is a supernatural system.

    There is a big difference between saying you don't know the answer, or you are unsure of the answer, or you are sure but still open to the idea that additional evidence could change your position on what the answer is and claiming that the answer is unknowable. The former is logical, scientific, and atheistic. The latter is supernaturalism.

    Atheist Activists needs to not take the illogical, ad hominem, straw man arguments against us so seriously. We don't need to try and cast ourselves as the opposite of this mythical fundamentalist atheist who thinks they know everything with absolute certainty and would never change their mind about the existence of supernatural phenomenon no matter what evidence was presented. Stand firmly on the ground that there exists one and only one way to know the truth about anything: observation and testing. Proclaim with confidence that the universe is not "unknowable" or full of "gray areas" it is just amazingly complicated making it difficult, but not impossible, to take all variables into account.

    For the vast majority of problems there exists a best solution. Figuring out what it is might not be easy, it might even be a waste of time if the current solution is good enough, but claiming that it doesn't exist or is impossible to know just because you're too lazy/ignorant to figure it out is just silly.

    For the artsy types out there who may be afraid that I'm sucking all the beauty and awe out of the world here it is from Tim Minchin, one of my favorite performer/poets in his poem entitled "Storm".

    Otherwise a well-written post. I might end up having to read this book at some point myself although you've confirmed my fear from other reviews and interviews about the book that it's probably really annoying at some points. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Dear Faithless,

    You accuse me of avoiding your challenges, while I tell you that you must first clarify them before I can address them. Meanwhile, it is you who fail to address my challenges.

    I had argued that unchanging moral absolutes require a foundation of unchanging truth, which, in turn requires a greater cause--an unchanging truth Giver. Only if there are truths that are higher than we are, moral absolutes that are discovered rather than created, can we even begin to think about an adequate moral system.

    However, your response was little more than a brush-off: "You have made rhetorical assertions without demonstrating the soundness nor the validity of your position."

    Please tell me what is wrong with my formulation, and then I will gladly take up your challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Flasher,

    Bravo! I'd just like to add one little observation to what you've already stated:

    When someone states that that "absolute truth is unknowable," they are contradicting themselves. In essence, they are saying that "I KNOW absolutely that you can't know!"

    They are arrogating for themselves knowledge in the same area where they are claiming others CAN'T have such knowledge. That's naughty!

    ReplyDelete
  109. @MannWorld

    "I had argued that unchanging Moral absolutes..."

    You have not made the case that here are 'unchanging moral absolutes'. You first have to show that there are indeed things like 'moral absolutes' and then show that they are unchanging. I seriously doubt that this is possible but let's say you somehow do make that case then we come to this:

    . "... require a foundation of unchanging truth,..."

    an unsubstantiated and probably meaningless statement. Followed by:

    "...which, in turn requires a greater cause --an unchanging truth Giver."

    Both unsubstantiated, hopelessly vague and most probably meaningless.

    "Only if there are truths that are higher than we are, moral absolutes that are discovered rather than created, can we even begin to think about an adequate moral system.

    This is just a rehash of your prior statements, again, unsubstantiated
    and essentially meaningless.

    "However, your response was little more than a brush-off: "You have made rhetorical assertions without demonstrating the soundness nor the validity of your position.""


    This is a perfectly correct assessment of what you have written.

    ReplyDelete
  110. @Mann'sWord

    "Please tell me what is wrong with my formulation, and then I will gladly take up your challenge."
    Everything. I note you say "formulation" rather than "argument" - is this because you have provided no argument and you know this? JDHuey has succinctly and accurately demolished your "formulation" and identified your empty rhetoric again.

    Your avoidance of answering my challenge yet again just confirms the moral vacuity of your position. I already asked you to answer my first post in this thread:
    "The dilemma remains. You take the the first horn of this version which is subjective (internal to god) and relative to your god (e.g. Others could take the first horn relative to their god). If you are genuinely concerned about finding an objective grounds for morality, that that is a sufficient reason to rejecting god based morality."

    Either you are self-deluded in which case you are being morally irresponsible, negligent and/or reckless in asserting your "formulation" which no good person would do; or you have been deluded by others such as your church and its leaders in which case they should be held in contempt; or you are wilfully pretending ignorance which totally negates any moral claims you make and you should be condemned for such duplicity.

    However one looks at it, regardless of your motivation and understanding, you have made no case nor are willing to make one and as long as you continue in this vein, you are taking the moral low ground and making god-based morality look like an oxymoron (if it did not look like that already).

    ReplyDelete
  111. Dear jdhuey,

    Thanks for your challenge regarding evidence for moral absolutes.

    Presently, I am on the road, but once I return I will try to present you with such a proof.

    ReplyDelete
  112. jdhuey:

    Proving the existence of moral absolutes isn’t easy. They can’t be seen, touched, measured or quantified, but neither is it easy to prove our own existence. Although I can be touched and even photographed, all of this “evidence” might be no more than a dream, and not even my own dream. Nevertheless, I can’t deny my own existence without also denying everything that is part of my life—my thoughts, speech, and activity.

    Likewise, I want to demonstrate that the denial of moral absolutes is contradicted by our very lives, thereby contradicting and disqualifying this denial. In others words, a denial of moral absolutes can’t stand any more than a denial of one’s own existence.

    I think that we would all agree that we are wired for morality, whether this wiring of our conscience is a product of evolution or also reflects some grand design and a truth independent of our own electro-chemical reactions. It is interesting to note that many atheists say something like this:

    “You don’t need god to be good. I am good because there are many benefits personally, socially and politically.”

    Although this is true, this also acknowledges certain facts around which we can all agree:

    1. Acting “morally” has its own rewards.
    2. There is an obvious correspondence between moral behavior and personal and social benefits.
    3. This very obvious and thorough correspondence gives the appearance of a grand design.

    Putting the question of design aside, I want to demonstrate that while the atheist denies the existence of moral absolutes with his mouth, he involuntary affirms them with his life, thereby disqualifying his denial.

    We cannot avoid acting like we are aware of moral absolutes—a common law to which we are all bound. It is unavoidable to say things like, “How would you like it if someone did the same to you?” or “That’s my seat! I was there first!” or “Leave him alone; he isn’t doing any harm,” or “Give me a bit of your orange. I gave you a bit of mine!” All of these statements imply that there are external and authoritative moral truths that govern our lives. Regarding this, C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) writes,

    “Now what interests me about theses remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies, ‘To hell with your standard.’ Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse.”

    “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.”

    The atheist will laugh in agreement, but will also insist that this is merely the product of his genetic programming. However, rather than steadfastly maintaining the relative nature of his moral inclinations and dissociating himself from the “Rule of Law,” he embraces it. He continues in his moralizing judgments as if they are based in objective reality (which they are).

    Atheists have often called me “liar” or hypocrite,” suggesting that there are objective and external categories I have violated. They aren’t merely saying, “According to my subjective and relative way of thinking, you are a liar.” Instead, their denunciations suggest that I have violated a cardinal truth.

    If you deny the existence of moral absolutes, you must act in accordance with your denial and quit making accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Well, I can't see where in your post that you have addressed any of the basic problems with the idea of a 'moral absolute'. For one, you never even really define it. All that you have done is to state what we have all already agreed to: people make moral statements (and make moral decisions.)

    You acknowledge that morality can be explained by a strictly evolutionary process but then you put that entirely aside to try and show some type of logical inconsistency. But you very much fail to show this inconsistency. All that you have shown is that what Naturalists (a more general term than atheist) do and say is inconsistent with the idea of Moral Absolutes but you fail to show that they are inconsistent with the idea that Morality is a strictly natural phenomenon.

    It also seems, at least implicitly, that you are confused between an 'objective' moral position and between an 'absolute' moral position. I personally don't have any problems with the idea that some moral principles are 'objectively' better than other moral principles (see the research into 'the tit-for-tat' strategy in game theory) but that is radically different than saying that a moral principle is an 'absolute truth' (whatever, that means.)

    In addition to failing to define what you mean by 'absolute moral truths', and failing to demonstrate any meaningful logical contradictions of a naturalistic morality, you have also failed to show any connection between this undefined term - absolute morality - and the equally undefined realm of the Supernatural.

    In other words, you are exactly back where you started.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Jdhuey:

    You did an excellent job in analyzing what I “failed to show” or write, but you would have done better having analyzed what I did write. Perhaps it would now be most productive to take up your challenge:

    “All that you have shown is that what Naturalists (a more general term than atheist) do and say is inconsistent with the idea of Moral Absolutes but you fail to show that they are inconsistent with the idea that Morality is a strictly natural phenomenon.”

    While we can discuss morality as “a strictly natural phenomenon,” this perspective is not adequate to provide us with a moral system with a rationale to act morally. Here are some reasons for this:

    1. Although we both agree that we have a strong natural moral sense (conscience), this provides an insufficient guide and rationale for moral behavior. For instance, we have many anti-social impulses like lust, rage, jealousy, bitterness, and anger. What is our rationale for following one impulse rather than another? Worldview/philosophical considerations must be added to this “natural” perspective.

    2. We also both agree that acting morally has personal and social benefits. We also acknowledge this elegant correspondence (or design) between following our conscience and the salutary benefits we derive. However, this pragmatic philosophy is also very limited. In the short run—and we are very short-sighted without a principled divine perspective—pragmatism becomes selfishness. We want immediate benefits and lack the conviction that serving Christ best serves our long-term needs. Without this conviction, pragmatism leads us to sell-out for immediate results. Who is going to be a whistle-blower, understanding that we’ll loose our job in the process, to the immediate detriment of our families? Who would rescue Jews from Nazis knowing that this would result in a bullet to the head? Faithless pragmatism will choose immediate results over uncertain, insufficiently-founded, long-term ethical principles.

    3. Much of this discussion about ethics is purely academic. We already agree on many ethical issues: It’s right to preserve the environment; laws should be just; we should be concerned about the welfare of others; it’s wrong to torture babies or kidnap our friend’s wife. However, you lack an adequate rationale to live according to your convictions. If your conscience troubles you, why follow it if you can take a pill to silence it? If a moral action violates your pragmatic convictions, so what! If pragmatism is merely a matter of what renders positive results, it’s no different than selfishness. Pragmatism would argue against sheltering Jews or placing one’s family in jeopardy. Why not then just live a self-serving, selfish life without all of the hypocritical trappings of a “higher” philosophy? Interestingly, the vast majority of people who rescued Jews had a strong faith in Christ.

    To return to your original assertion that we can be moral without recourse to the Supernatural -- a “natural” or pragmatic rationale for morality just doesn’t “cut it”! As human beings, we require more than just “natural” inclinations and a philosophy based upon selfishness. We need to have the conviction that we are serving Truth and that this Truth will serve us.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.