2/6/09

Atheist Wisdom?

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by IrishFarmer
Labels: , , ,

46 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2009 at 7:39 PM

    Re. "Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion."

    I hope the author gave credit to the writers of The Simpsons for that line. Ironically, I think they put it in the words of a person they were doing a parody of, so that is two strikes against the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. IrishFarmerFebruary 6, 2009 at 7:45 PM

    He did.

    ReplyDelete
  3. IrishFarmerFebruary 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM

    Give it credit, I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2009 at 10:39 PM

    Isn't "Atheist Wisdom" a tautology?

    As for the rest, why does everybody have to write such lengthy pieces nowadays...time is precious you know.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousFebruary 6, 2009 at 11:03 PM

    Theist: God must exist because without God there would be no life.

    Theist: God must exist because without God there would be no morality.

    Theist: God must exist because without God there would be no (fill in the blank).

    Atheist: Actually, here is a plausible explanation for how (fill in the blank) could have happened without God.

    Theist: What this ultimately has to do with God's existence is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jay McHueFebruary 7, 2009 at 7:05 AM

    "Atheist: Actually, here is a plausible explanation for how (fill in the blank) could have happened without God."

    Yeah, that "fill in the blank" part is perfectly appropriate, because that what atheists have: a lot of blanks to fill.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ReynoldFebruary 7, 2009 at 9:44 AM

    Jinxy is showing his ignorance again...the comment is pointing out that whatever explanation that atheists come up with, a theist will just poo-poo it and demand that their god be put in instead.

    Some examples would include star formation, earth's formation, storms, earthquakes, natural selection/evolution/how we got here, etc.

    Interesting though that Jinx never noted this statement:
    Theist: God must exist because without God there would be no (fill in the blank).

    ReplyDelete
  8. IrishFarmerFebruary 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM

    Theist: God must exist because without God there would be no life.

    Theist: God must exist because without God there would be no morality.

    Theist: God must exist because without God there would be no (fill in the blank).

    Atheist: Actually, here is a plausible explanation for how (fill in the blank) could have happened without God.

    Theist: What this ultimately has to do with God's existence is beyond me.

    The only time I used those words was in response to the atheist's contention that scientific theories don't require God to "work". Of course, they also don't require a disbelief in God to work. Hence my question: What do scientific theories have to do with God's existence or non-existence?

    It's a rhetorical question, see? The answer is: Scientific theories have nothing to do with God or atheism, until you start injecting your own non-scientific prejudice into otherwise objective science.

    What you and the atheist respondant are doing is committing the genetic fallacy. For instance, on the issue of morality. You can quantify humanity's moral nature with science all you want, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, atheists go a step further and commit the genetic fallacy by claiming that we only have moral beliefs because they were evolved naturally, and therefore there is no truth behind our moral sense. Even if it's true that our moral sense was evolved (completely naturally), our moral sense might still reflect truth.

    Read this article and notice the last two paragraphs:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1136482/Brains-hardwired-believe-God-imaginary-friends.html

    It's a common logical pitfall to commit the genetic fallacy, and honest scientists (who aren't militant atheists, though they may be atheist) work hard to avoid those types of conclusions. But it's a mistake that's easy to make. Heck, almost the entire foundation of Dawkins' career is firmly settled within the genetic fallacy.

    You might also find this illuminating:

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

    To make matters worse, we have no real way of knowing how evolution happened (if it happened). I'm personally not committed against evolution, but the point I'm getting at is that no one knows how evolution happened exactly. We have evidence that all animals are related, and we have evidence even that mutations were probably (though this issue is fuzzy) involved to some extent. All the other conclusions that it happened completely naturally, and the assumptions that go along with that are nothing more than that - assumptions. What you and your godless friends are doing is the atheist equivalent of God-of-the-Gaps. Except you have noGod-of-the-Gaps.



    That all said, thanks for the feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ReynoldFebruary 7, 2009 at 1:32 PM

    We have evidence that all animals are related, and we have evidence even that mutations were probably (though this issue is fuzzy) involved to some extent. All the other conclusions that it happened completely naturally, and the assumptions that go along with that are nothing more than that - assumptions. What you and your godless friends are doing is the atheist equivalent of God-of-the-Gaps. Except you have noGod-of-the-Gaps.
    Right...how then would a religiously neutral theory of evolution look like then?

    There is no evidence that there is a god or outside force at work in natural selection, so what reason is there to suppose that there is a god doing it?

    If there's no evidence that any outside force like "god" is driving evolution & natural selection, then there's no need to put one in. It's not the "genetic fallacy" (a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself), it's just leaving out a so-far unecessary hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  10. IrishFarmerFebruary 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. IrishFarmerFebruary 7, 2009 at 3:29 PM

    Right...how then would a religiously neutral theory of evolution look like then?

    Pretty much the way it looks now. I already said this, but I'll reinforce it here: It is only militant atheists who are leeching off science, using it as a weapon to support their philosophy, who view science as having some explicit or implicit support for atheism.

    Back in the day, I used to argue for strict creationism. As I studied both sides of the issues, and started to educate myself more, I started to lose "faith" in creationism, and came to decide that ultimately the issue of evolution doesn't matter in the debate on religion. What's interesting now, is it seems to me that atheists who think that science has to support their atheism are on the same page as creationists who think science has to support their religious beliefs on origins. In principal, it's the same thing.

    There is no evidence that there is a god or outside force at work in natural selection, so what reason is there to suppose that there is a god doing it?

    I'm not arguing that God was involved in morality, origins, etc in my post. I'm arguing that the atheist reasoning that God isn't involved is logically flawed. That said, I'm not going to criticize you guys for inserting your atheism into science without warrant, and then turn around and insert God without warrant. The atheist made the argument that because of science, we have no place for God in origins, morality, and so on. So the burden of proof is on the atheist. I never made a counterargument, I simply criticized this contention.

    If there's no evidence that any outside force like "god" is driving evolution & natural selection, then there's no need to put one in. It's not the "genetic fallacy" (a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself), it's just leaving out a so-far unecessary hypothesis.

    Of course. However, the atheist argument goes something like this:

    Our moral sense developed by natural forces. Therefore your claim that our moral sense reflects an objective moral realm is incorrect.

    Let me break this down so that you see the comparison.

    The Christian belief goes something like this:

    God is our measure of morality, and there is a realm of objective moral values.

    The atheist would criticize this belief by saying (to rephrase the atheist from the article):

    Your moral beliefs are incorrect because they're simply the product of evolution.

    So, to some up the link you gave, here's how you determine a genetic fallacy.

    1). Perceived defect in the origin of a claim, belief, etc.
    2). Defect is used to reason that the claim, belief, etc is false.

    1). The perceived defect is the contention that our moral sense was developed by natural forces through evolution. 2). This is then used to conclude that our moral beliefs are nothing more than illusion (read: false).

    So, explain again how that doesn't fit the bill?

    ReplyDelete
  12. NALFebruary 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM

    Question #6: If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true?

    Would not cognitive faculties that were selected for survival also be those faculties that best determine objective reality? Any animal that has problems determining reality is going to be at a survival disadvantage.

    ReplyDelete
  13. IrishFarmerFebruary 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM

    Would not cognitive faculties that were selected for survival also be those faculties that best determine objective reality? Any animal that has problems determining reality is going to be at a survival disadvantage.


    Question #6 was actually a restatement of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Evolution.

    In the argument itself, Plantinga explains why your response is inadequate. For instance, let's say a deer is hardwired to run from a cayote because it thinks running from the cayote will help it find a mate. This belief is clearly wrong, but still gives the deer a survival advantage.

    This example demonstrates that selecting for beliefs which lead to survival isn't the same as selecting for beliefs that are correct.

    ReplyDelete
  14. NALFebruary 7, 2009 at 6:17 PM

    This belief is clearly wrong, but still gives the deer a survival advantage.

    The objective reality is that, to a deer, a wolf (easier to spell) is a threat. A deer that does not correctly perceive this reality is at a survival disadvantage. The "why" a deer perceives a wolf as a threat, whether it believes it will be eaten or if it believes it will help find a mate, seems irrelevant, the wolf is still a threat. I limited my comment to cognitive factors that perceive objective reality.

    ReplyDelete
  15. IrishFarmerFebruary 8, 2009 at 12:30 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. IrishFarmerFebruary 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM

    The objective reality is that, to a deer, a wolf (easier to spell) is a threat. A deer that does not correctly perceive this reality is at a survival disadvantage. The "why" a deer perceives a wolf as a threat, whether it believes it will be eaten or if it believes it will help find a mate, seems irrelevant, the wolf is still a threat. I limited my comment to cognitive factors that perceive objective reality.

    *sigh*

    You're either not reading what I'm saying, or you're not understanding what I'm saying.

    My example was hypothetical. I don't actually think deer have beliefs. It does, however, demonstrate a logical principal which you have yet to contradict.

    It may be the case that in reality a deer is actually afraid of it's predators because it knows the predators are a danger.

    However, in my hypothetical example I'm not talking about reality. The objective fact is, a deer which does not perceive a predator as a threat but instead believes that running from certain animals (that just happen to be predators) will cause it to be more attractive to a mate, has just as much of a survival advantage as a deer who believes that predators are a threat to their survival. This example demonstrates the logical principal that beliefs don't have to be true in order to aid in the survival of a species.

    Now, you have three choices, because based on this logical principal it's very possible that - given naturalism and evolution - nothing you believe is true. You can either demonstrate why examples like these aren't a threat to your epistemology as a naturalist. You can provide a secondary process by which our beliefs can be assuredly true, outside of naturalism and evolution. Or you can discard naturalism.

    I suspect that you will be unable to do the first two of those options, and unwilling to do the third. Feel free to prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ReynoldFebruary 8, 2009 at 1:50 AM

    I'm not arguing that God was involved in morality, origins, etc in my post. I'm arguing that the atheist reasoning that God isn't involved is logically flawed. That said, I'm not going to criticize you guys for inserting your atheism into science without warrant, and then turn around and insert God without warrant. The atheist made the argument that because of science, we have no place for God in origins, morality, and so on. So the burden of proof is on the atheist. I never made a counterargument, I simply criticized this contention.
    How can the burden of proof be on the atheist? If there is no evidence of any "god" interfering in science, then there's no reason to insert him or her in there.

    Same thing with math, or plumbing. Science can only go by the facts and what best explains the facts. If so far the naturalistic or "no-god-required" explanation works, what reason would there be to put in a god?

    Sure, some "militant atheists" say that evolution refutes god, but not all say that, as you imply.

    Problem is: Evolution does directly fly against the description of creation in Genesis. The order of created things is different, etc.

    If one wants to have god and evolution, it's no problem, but one has to adjust their view of god to do it.

    If there's no evidence that any outside force like "god" is driving evolution & natural selection, then there's no need to put one in. It's not the "genetic fallacy" (a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself), it's just leaving out a so-far unecessary hypothesis.
    Of course. However, the atheist argument goes something like this:

    Our moral sense developed by natural forces. Therefore your claim that our moral sense reflects an objective moral realm is incorrect.

    Let me break this down so that you see the comparison.

    The Christian belief goes something like this:

    God is our measure of morality, and there is a realm of objective moral values.

    The atheist would criticize this belief by saying (to rephrase the atheist from the article):

    Your moral beliefs are incorrect because they're simply the product of evolution.
    That's some rephrasing: I don't know if any atheist would say that the theistic moral beliefs are "incorrect", just that they're not "absolute". Morality or ethics at least changes over time due to circumstances. Look at the differences between the OT and the NT for instance. Or look at how people like William Lane Craig justifies infanticide in the OT yet he's one of the people who call themselves "pro-life" today.

    So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.



    So, to sum up the link you gave, here's how you determine a genetic fallacy.

    1). Perceived defect in the origin of a claim, belief, etc.
    I pointed out that it's not necessarily a defect, just that the claim of "absolute morality" is wrong, as can be demonstrated by both religious history and your own bible. Atheists just figure that morality comes from a different source; human empathy and societal contracts, etc as opposed to being "handed down from above".

    2). Defect is used to reason that the claim, belief, etc is false.
    What's done is the moral inconsistency is pointed out, especially the actions of the OT god. Again, atheists just contest the source of morality, not whether it's "defective" or not. At least not so far as I know.

    Evolution really has nothing to do with this.

    1). The perceived defect is the contention that our moral sense was developed by natural forces through evolution. 2). This is then used to conclude that our moral beliefs are nothing more than illusion (read: false).

    How does one determine if a moral belief is "false"? As far as I know, athiests just say that are moral beliefs have a different source than that claimed by christians. Not that they're "false" or "illusionary".

    I pointed out that religious history and your own bible show that morality changes over time. Evolution need not apply for the claim of moral inconsistency.

    So, explain again how that doesn't fit the bill?
    I think I've just done that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousFebruary 8, 2009 at 2:40 AM

    IrishFarmer,

    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I would agree with you the atheist would be making a leap to say that a scientific explanation implied the non-existence of God, if he meant this as a positive assertion. But he was not saying that someone had mixed some test tubes together and poof out came non-god. He was saying that natural explanations for phenomena undermine one of the key types of argument for God which is that God is an explanation for the otherwise unexplained. So his statement was just a reply to the "God must exist because God explains blank" type of argument. If you make no such arguments, then you're right-- his reply would not persuade you in any way.

    And every honest atheist will tell you that while science can keep making the gaps smaller, there will always be room for God in those gaps. Hey, why not? There's a chance that bigfoot is out there too. Science can never prove the non-existence of God. Science can only make God superfluous as an explanation.

    Our moral sense developed by natural forces. Therefore your claim that our moral sense reflects an objective moral realm is incorrect.

    Please don't label this "the atheist argument", because, at least in this form, it is a non-sequitur that no reasonable person would believe. You're absolutely right that the natural origin of morality does not defeat moral realism. However, if your belief in moral realism is contingent on God's existence, and your belief in God is contingent on the argument from morality, then a natural explanation of morality does destroy this chain of reasoning and requires you to at least come up with a new reason to believe in moral realism.

    In a comment you mentioned EAAN. I find EAAN to be so clever and unconvincing at the same time. I came up with a very computer sciencey counterargument to it that I really should write up to get some feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  19. IrishFarmerFebruary 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM

    How can the burden of proof be on the atheist? If there is no evidence of any "god" interfering in science, then there's no reason to insert him or her in there.

    Let me rephrase my original contention that you responded to. If the atheist wants to claim that, for instance, science has disproved the belief that morality is objective, this claim needs some justification.

    Absolutely, this claim puts the burden of proof on the claimer.

    Same thing with math, or plumbing. Science can only go by the facts and what best explains the facts. If so far the naturalistic or "no-god-required" explanation works, what reason would there be to put in a god?

    I can think of some, but I'm not here to argue for my personal philosophy in this post. I've already said this, but just because I believe that atheists shouldn't insert their atheism into science, doesn't mean I'm claiming that Christians should be just be able to wantonly insert God into science.

    If one wants to have god and evolution, it's no problem, but one has to adjust their view of god to do it.

    One might have to adjust their interpretation of the Bible, yes.

    It's interesting that you bring that topic up. Atheists like to claim that science has forced Christians to bend their beliefs. This might be so, but only because science has become so entangled with atheism. Of course Christians will have to bend their beliefs to make them conform to atheism, because these beliefs are basically mutually exclusive in nature.

    However, if we were to restore science back to it's rightfully neutral place, fundamentalist/militant atheists would have to bend their own beliefs just as much in order to make them conform to science as well. Atheists really like to think that they're fighting a downhill battle on this one, but the differences between fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist Christians when it comes to science are scarce.

    That's some rephrasing: I don't know if any atheist would say that the theistic moral beliefs are "incorrect", just that they're not "absolute".

    I'm not arguing that moral beliefs should be considered absolute, which is the belief that they are rigid and unchanging no matter what the circumstances.

    Very few people actually hold to this view.

    What I'm arguing is that, regardless of opinion, our moral sense apprehends a morality which is itself objectively true. Actually, I'm not even arguing that, I'm merely pointing the flaws in any criticism of this belief.

    Morality or ethics at least changes over time due to circumstances.

    You're free to believe that if you want. However, I'm not talking about specific instances of moral actions, I'm talking about the concept of morality itself. Does our moral sense reflect reality, or is our moral sense just an illusion created by natural forces because we live in an amoral, atheistic universe?

    The atheist in the post I responded to, implied that because we have quantified (scientifically) the way morality works in our brain, we can therefore conclude that our moral sense does not reflect reality, but is just a brain function. This is an example of the genetic fallacy. No offense, but I'm really not interested in getting into a drawn out debate on morality, because it's like arguing with someone who believes that the outside world doesn't actually exist, but is actually an illusion. How do you win that argument?

    Look at the differences between the OT and the NT for instance. Or look at how people like William Lane Craig justifies infanticide in the OT yet he's one of the people who call themselves "pro-life" today.

    You're right, I think Glenn Miller does a much better job on those subjects.

    christian-thinktank.org

    I pointed out that it's not necessarily a defect, just that the claim of "absolute morality" is wrong, as can be demonstrated by both religious history and your own bible.

    That's fine by me, I'm not a moral absolutist anyway.

    And I'm not criticising any argument that you've specifically made. I criticised the atheist from the other blog, and now I'm defending my criticism as valid.

    Atheists just figure that morality comes from a different source; human empathy and societal contracts, etc as opposed to being "handed down from above".

    Well, atheists are allowed to believe what they want. So long as atheists "just believe" something, then there's not much for me to criticise. However, if you want to make an argument against theistic morality, as the atheist from the other blog did, then you're making an affirmative argument that's subject to criticism.

    What's done is the moral inconsistency is pointed out, especially the actions of the OT god.

    Actually, all you did was point out a possible moral inconsistency with Dr. Craig. However, in the Bible, if you want to criticize God's actions you have to either concede that morality is objective, and God violated objective morality through OT actions, or you have to admit that you don't believe any action is objectively wrong and therefore what God did in the Bible isn't actually wrong, you just don't personally like it.

    I would argue that if you are an naturalist atheist on the one hand, but on the other hand want to believe that morality is objective (that is simply believe that there are things that are actually right or wrong outside of human opinion) you're contradicting yourself and one or the other belief has to be discarded. But that's for another discussion.

    What Dr. Craig thinks has no bearing on the general discussion of whether or not morality is objective or subjective in nature.

    Again, atheists just contest the source of morality, not whether it's "defective" or not. At least not so far as I know

    Wrong. In the original post the atheist claimed that because scientists understood the source of morality in the human brain, that therefore our moral sense did not reflect reality.

    How does one determine if a moral belief is "false"?

    I'm speaking in general terms. Regardless of what you believe in your philosophical life, everyone has the sense that there are certain things, actions, etc in our universe that are "right" and "wrong".

    The question is, does this moral sense reflect reality. To be fair, I haven't done a very good job so far expalining my position.

    As far as I know, athiests just say that are moral beliefs have a different source than that claimed by christians. Not that they're "false" or "illusionary".

    If you're a moral nihilist, as a good portion of atheists are, then you have to believe that our moral sense is illusiory.

    I pointed out that religious history and your own bible show that morality changes over time. Evolution need not apply for the claim of moral inconsistency.

    This is a seperate instance of the genetic fallacy. It might be the case that the hebrew religion has evolved over time, but that doesn't mean that their beliefs and values are incorrect now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AnonymousFebruary 9, 2009 at 5:47 PM

    "Wrong. In the original post the atheist claimed that because scientists understood the source of morality in the human brain, that therefore our moral sense did not reflect reality."

    I haven't even read the original post, but this statement makes no sense to me (which makes me wonder if you might have misrepresented him). To say that morality does or does not "reflect reality" is a bad description to begin with, but if you have to go with that metaphor, then what could morality possibly reflect if not reality? To say that scientists have understood the source of morality in the brain is a bit of an overstatement, since nobody yet completely knows how the brain works. We know how bits and pieces of it work, but understanding the mechanisms of morality requires also the input of evolutionary dynamics and history, ethology, and many other disciplines. Putting it all together, we know enough to form a plausible hypothesis with a growing mass of evidence in support of it, but there's no need to hyperbolize and claim that we have understood everything.

    "If you're a moral nihilist, as a good portion of atheists are, then you have to believe that our moral sense is illusiory. "

    I think you mean moral relativists. I don't know any atheists that are moral nihilists, and who think that the moral sense is illusory. They just don't think that it derives from God.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Masked MarauderFebruary 9, 2009 at 6:20 PM

    IrishFarmer: However, in my hypothetical example I'm not talking about reality. The objective fact is, a deer which does not perceive a predator as a threat but instead believes that running from certain animals (that just happen to be predators) will cause it to be more attractive to a mate, has just as much of a survival advantage as a deer who believes that predators are a threat to their survival. This example demonstrates the logical principal that beliefs don't have to be true in order to aid in the survival of a species.
    Perhaps you should talk about reality then. I'm not trying to be snarky here. Its just that I wonder how much useful insight can be had by considering an implausible and unrealistic conjecture. Can you give a more realistic example that would still fit?

    How about witch burning, perhapsfor example? Thousands were executed for partying with Satan and souring their neighbor's milk by casting the Evil Eye. The executioners stood on unassailable epistemological grounds and knew for a certain fact that they were doing Right.

    And yet, their many fine arguments ring hollow today. Did reliance on the Bible, rigorous logic and plain faith bring the church any closer to The Truth© about the witch theory of disease than did naturalistic science? And, how do you know?

    There is no claim in biology that natural selection (NS) should yield rational and philosophically sound understanding of the world around us. In fact, actual studies of how actual people actually think (as opposed to made up ideal Platonic people) shows that our "reasoning" is riddled with systematic and often predictable error, irrational biases and wrong ideas. Las Vegas is living proof. Since human rationality is a demonstrated counterfactual it need not be explained. Saying that ToE doesn't predict human moral and philosphical perfection (eg: burning witches) is not a failure of the ToE, but a reflection of unrealistic expectations for it.

    All that NS requires to work is an inheritable trait conferring differential reproductive advantage. In the particular case of the hypothetical deer, and I admit that I'm no expert in deer biology, I'd be very surprised if a dead deer was ever found attractive by a putative mate. So, yes, running away from a wolf for the "wrong" reason, "right" reason or no reason at all, does makes a deer more attractive later on. For ToE to hold, an inheritable adaptive behavior need only be efficacious, not philosophically defensible.

    All of this leads back to your question #6: ...how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true?
    The answer is, we can't. And we don't claim that we can. Science has never been about discovering The Truth©, except in a vernacular sense. It has always been about minimizing error. And that is why science is so much more successful than religion in practical matters. Where error can be detected empirically, it can be minimized. And that is where the well-earned confidence in it comes from; knowing that it is possible to detect and correct errors.

    The same does not pertain to religion which, by its construction, can not question its imponderable roots or its ethereal claims. In that paradigm The Truth© is a matter of conformity to arbitrary doctrine, not to ostensible experience.

    ReplyDelete
  22. AnonymousFebruary 9, 2009 at 8:01 PM

    Sorry to butt in,

    The only time I used those words was in response to the atheist's contention that scientific theories don't require God to "work". Of course, they also don't require a disbelief in God to work. Hence my question: What do scientific theories have to do with God's existence or non-existence?

    Nothing. Yet, they do support the notion that there is no need for a God to explain anything. Since there is no such need, why believe in any Gods? It makes perfect sense.

    Then you have the problem of science contradicting particular beliefs. Not yours necessarily.

    As for plantinga's. Yep, selecting for survival does not mean selecting for reliable "beliefs." Problem is:

    1. It assumes beliefs to be selected for, when the selection would be for a systems that produces the belief. Since it is a system (a nervous system for that matter), it has to have at least a minimal "trustability" to work properly even in unexpected circumstances.

    2. Organisms do not evolve in isolation and competition complicate matters. Only those hominids with more trustable cognitive faculties can survive competition against other hominids with less trustable facuties.

    3. Still our cognitive faculties are not perfectly reliable. But they are reliable enough that we can notice the possible sources of problems, and thus deviced methods to keep us away from the wrong conclusions (such as lists of fallacies, and the scientific method).

    4. Thus, naturalism and evolution do make a lot of sense together.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ReynoldFebruary 10, 2009 at 7:25 AM

    IrishFarmer said, quoting me:

    How can the burden of proof be on the atheist? If there is no evidence of any "god" interfering in science, then there's no reason to insert him or her in there.
    Let me rephrase my original contention that you responded to. If the atheist wants to claim that, for instance, science has disproved the belief that morality is objective, this claim needs some justification.
    If anything all science has done is shown that there might be a biological basis for the psychological reasons that humans try to come up with rules to get along--maybe a biological basis for empathy? I think that adonais probably sums it up better in his response to you...science has not yet firmly established it yet.

    Besides, I'm talking about how looking at history has shown that. Just look at how different cultures have different rules. All science does is try to explain the natural world.


    Same thing with math, or plumbing. Science can only go by the facts and what best explains the facts. If so far the naturalistic or "no-god-required" explanation works, what reason would there be to put in a god?
    I can think of some, but I'm not here to argue for my personal philosophy in this post. I've already said this, but just because I believe that atheists shouldn't insert their atheism into science, doesn't mean I'm claiming that Christians should be just be able to wantonly insert God into science.
    That's good.

    If one wants to have god and evolution, it's no problem, but one has to adjust their view of god to do it.
    One might have to adjust their interpretation of the Bible, yes.
    And to be able to justify their interpretation. Face it, the big bang requires a lot of adjustment to be made to Genesis. The order of events is different, for one thing. Then there's the time frame involved.

    It's interesting that you bring that topic up. Atheists like to claim that science has forced Christians to bend their beliefs. This might be so, but only because science has become so entangled with atheism.
    Baloney. It's because established observable facts of science sometimes wind up contradicting theist religious views. That, if anything, is what causes any "entanglement" of science and atheism. You've gotten it backwards. Science used to be entangled with religion, if anything until the tide of evidence started to shift.

    Of course Christians will have to bend their beliefs to make them conform to atheism, because these beliefs are basically mutually exclusive in nature.
    Yep.

    However, if we were to restore science back to it's rightfully neutral place,
    Theists are just complaining because science winds up shooting down their beliefs so much. Tough. Maybe that's the logical result of what happens when dealing with a belief system that came about while people were in the bronze age?

    fundamentalist/militant atheists would have to bend their own beliefs just as much in order to make them conform to science as well.
    Only if observable facts of science force them to. Any examples?

    Atheists really like to think that they're fighting a downhill battle on this one, but the differences between fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist Christians when it comes to science are scarce.
    I think you're just projecting here. "Fundamentalist atheists" haven't had to adjust their beliefs near so much as fundamentalist theists have.



    I'm not arguing that moral beliefs should be considered absolute, which is the belief that they are rigid and unchanging no matter what the circumstances.

    Very few people actually hold to this view.

    What I'm arguing is that, regardless of opinion, our moral sense apprehends a morality which is itself objectively true. Actually, I'm not even arguing that, I'm merely pointing the flaws in any criticism of this belief.

    Morality or ethics at least changes over time due to circumstances.

    You're free to believe that if you want.
    Odd, that statement seems to imply that you do after all think that moral beliefs are absolute...
    Let's see, slavery, the wholesale killing of pregnant women are frowned upon now, yet in biblical times, they weren't.

    However, I'm not talking about specific instances of moral actions, I'm talking about the concept of morality itself.
    How else can morality be measured? If those actions were considered to be acceptable once and are not anymore, it's obvious that the concept of morality has changed, or at the very least, the interpretation of morality has changed.

    I think you're just dodging here.

    Does our moral sense reflect reality, or is our moral sense just an illusion created by natural forces because we live in an amoral, atheistic universe?
    What do you mean, an "illusion"? We have a moral sense regardless of what brought it about, "god" or biology. Atheists just point out that morality changes over time, and that even the books theists use as moral guides actually show that.


    The atheist in the post I responded to, implied that because we have quantified (scientifically) the way morality works in our brain, we can therefore conclude that our moral sense does not reflect reality, but is just a brain function.
    So what? If we were made by "god", is the mechanism for morality different?

    This is an example of the genetic fallacy.
    Only if the point I made right above was ignored: how is the mechanism for morality any different, whether it's biology or "god". Again, you could look to adonais reply.

    No offense, but I'm really not interested in getting into a drawn out debate on morality, because it's like arguing with someone who believes that the outside world doesn't actually exist, but is actually an illusion. How do you win that argument?
    Your analogy is messed up. Why? The outside world can be physically verified and the interpretation of it will be pretty constant from person to person regardless of the culture. Not so with morality.



    Look at the differences between the OT and the NT for instance. Or look at how people like William Lane Craig justifies infanticide in the OT yet he's one of the people who call themselves "pro-life" today.
    You're right, I think Glenn Miller does a much better job on those subjects.

    christian-thinktank.org
    Oh for the love of....Miller is no better. I've read his stuff way before I stumbled upon Craig. Theists will try to explain away any action that makes their "god" look non-"good".

    His rationalizations comes down to a form of situational ethics, which argues against any concept of "absolute morality".


    I pointed out that it's not necessarily a defect, just that the claim of "absolute morality" is wrong, as can be demonstrated by both religious history and your own bible.
    That's fine by me, I'm not a moral absolutist anyway.
    Oh? Most theists I've run across seem to be. That's one of the things they blame atheism for, it seems.


    Atheists just figure that morality comes from a different source; human empathy and societal contracts, etc as opposed to being "handed down from above".
    Well, atheists are allowed to believe what they want. So long as atheists "just believe" something, then there's not much for me to criticise. However, if you want to make an argument against theistic morality, as the atheist from the other blog did, then you're making an affirmative argument that's subject to criticism.
    To make an argument against theistic morality, all one needs to do is show how inconsistent theistic morality is. (pointing out the OT actions that the so-called "pro-life" people like Glenn Miller and William Lane Craig defend today)

    Unless the theist believes that his deity's morals can change over time, (they don't; they usually claim "absolute morality" from their gods) that becomes an argument the atheist can use.

    That's why theists like Glenn Miller and William Lane Craig are left trying to defend OT genocide: they're trying to defend "god" as the one who "defines" absolute, perfect "morality".



    What's done is the moral inconsistency is pointed out, especially the actions of the OT god.
    Actually, all you did was point out a possible moral inconsistency with Dr. Craig. However, in the Bible, if you want to criticize God's actions you have to either concede that morality is objective, and God violated objective morality through OT actions, or you have to admit that you don't believe any action is objectively wrong and therefore what God did in the Bible isn't actually wrong, you just don't personally like it.
    Uh, no. I'm just pointing out that the theistic view of morality is inconsistent. Baby-killing at one time is OK? Baby-killing at another time (abortion) is not ok.

    As for just "personally not liking it", uh no. Killing babies and pregnant women isn't exactly a strong survival tactic for the human, or any animal race, is it?

    Atheists acknowledge that morality changes over time, based on circumstances and whatnot, and that people try to work out what's best based on consequences and empathy.

    Theists say that their god is perfectly moral and that he never changes. So we atheists just have to go and point out some of the actions of this "perfectly moral", "unchanging" god of yours.


    I would argue that if you are an naturalist atheist on the one hand, but on the other hand want to believe that morality is objective (that is simply believe that there are things that are actually right or wrong outside of human opinion) you're contradicting yourself and one or the other belief has to be discarded.
    I'm just pointing out that morality changes over time. As I just said before.



    What Dr. Craig thinks has no bearing on the general discussion of whether or not morality is objective or subjective in nature.
    He is useful in showing how inconsistent theist morality is, so his views are relevent.

    Again, atheists just contest the source of morality, not whether it's "defective" or not. At least not so far as I know
    Wrong. In the original post the atheist claimed that because scientists understood the source of morality in the human brain, that therefore our moral sense did not reflect reality.
    It seems to me that if it's a good survival tactic, it's have to reflect reality at some level. If we can't judge what's real or not, we're less likely to survive, aren't we?

    You say:
    First off, why should this question be more unsettling for theists than atheists? In traditional theism, God is the ultimate measure for truth, and has endowed us with self-awareness and the ability to comprehend Him - and thus Truth. Theists shouldn't be concerned at all.
    Except when things like "moral truths" keep changing over time, and it seems that many people can't "comprehend Him" at all.

    You need a "holy book" to do that, and even then your interpretations of it aren't perfectly consistent.


    In this case, the atheist is right. Simply because we have a moral sense, does not mean that our minds are apprehending a realm of objective moral values. However, simply because the atheist is a moral nihilist, doesn't mean that our moral sense does NOT apprehend a objective moral values.
    Does it mean that our moral sense does apprehend an "objective moral value"? If it does neither, as you seem to say, then what the our moral sense do, in your opinion?


    How does one determine if a moral belief is "false"?
    I'm speaking in general terms. Regardless of what you believe in your philosophical life, everyone has the sense that there are certain things, actions, etc in our universe that are "right" and "wrong".

    The question is, does this moral sense reflect reality. To be fair, I haven't done a very good job so far expalining my position.

    As far as I know, athiests just say that are moral beliefs have a different source than that claimed by christians. Not that they're "false" or "illusionary".
    If you're a moral nihilist, as a good portion of atheists are, then you have to believe that our moral sense is illusiory.
    I think that you'd better back up your claim that "a good portion of atheists are moral nihilists" and you'd better explain just what you mean by that term. In my experience, atheists are no less moral then theists.

    I pointed out that religious history and your own bible show that morality changes over time. Evolution need not apply for the claim of moral inconsistency.
    This is a seperate instance of the genetic fallacy. It might be the case that the hebrew religion has evolved over time, but that doesn't mean that their beliefs and values are incorrect now.
    To paraphrase what you like to say, it also doesn't mean that their beliefs and values are correct now, either, does it?

    All I'm saying is that their theistic morality is inconsistent. As for being "wrong", well, killing babies and pregnant women isn't exactly a strong evolutionary survival tactic, is it? Even if one does not "believe" in evolution, is it a good survival tactic, period?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ai DengFebruary 10, 2009 at 8:38 AM

    Wow, looks like the Blog's author has quite a bit to respond to. There's alot of good comments herein. One little thing I didn't see mentioned, perhaps because the train of thought led elsewhere, was in regards to IrishFarmer's hypothetical statement that:

    "The objective fact is, a deer which does not perceive a predator as a threat but instead believes that running from certain animals (that just happen to be predators) will cause it to be more attractive to a mate, has just as much of a survival advantage as a deer who believes that predators are a threat to their survival."

    Respectfully, IrishFarmer, I agree the hypothetical example does show that a false belief/instinct can aid to survival. However, in your example, it is absolutely not the case that such a false belief/instanct "has just as much of a survival advantage" as compared to one that is true. The reason, when your deer is in the process of mating and a wolf comes along, he no longer has any reason to run. This may be nit picky in the overall discussion, but I felt I had to mention it nevertheless.

    ReplyDelete
  25. IrishFarmerFebruary 11, 2009 at 7:13 PM

    I'm really not going to be able to respond as thoroughly as I like. This argument is getting too big for me.

    Although, I do enjoy being right, so I'll stick with it for a bit longer. :p

    Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

    Thanks for thinking my reply was thoughtful. :)

    He was saying that natural explanations for phenomena undermine one of the key types of argument for God which is that God is an explanation for the otherwise unexplained. So his statement was just a reply to the "God must exist because God explains blank" type of argument.

    The problem is, his arguments don't even do that much. He's simply inserting his own atheistic assertions, using the genetic fallacy, and then saying, "Ta-da! God isn't necessary."

    And every honest atheist will tell you that while science can keep making the gaps smaller, there will always be room for God in those gaps.

    I hate this argument, because it assumes that there are these closing gaps that God has already been pushed out of. However, whenever you take a close look at any of these gaps, you notice someone has haphazardly plugged it with their atheism - not with science.

    And this is, of course, the problem with your response, and the response of the other atheists in general. You're so used to getting away with your atheism-of-the-gaps that you guys don't even know you're plugging the gaps in our knowledge with atheism. You're doing exactly what you accuse Christians of doing.

    The fact is, in spite of what you and other atheists might say, God wasn't being pushed out of gaps in science, He was being out of gaps in atheism. Well, that shouldn't surprise anyone, since atheism is antithetical to God (sic?).

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousFebruary 11, 2009 at 8:05 PM

    Irishfarmer,

    And this is, of course, the problem with your response, and the response of the other atheists in general. You're so used to getting away with your atheism-of-the-gaps that you guys don't even know you're plugging the gaps in our knowledge with atheism. You're doing exactly what you accuse Christians of doing.

    Did you really write this? Because it does not make any sense. It is so nonsensical that I cannot even find a proper way to respond.

    I will try this way:

    God of the gaps is what Christians do when they say "science cannot explain the origin of life" (For instance, and not you necessarily.)

    When science finds an explanation the Christians move the goal posts or invent a strawman. But plainly, the whole thing is that everytime this happens, God is taken out of that gap, and so on and so forth.

    I do not see how this would be atheists plugging anything with atheism, nor how filling gaps with scientific explanations would be "atheism of the gaps." It is not equivalent in any logical way.

    Thus I go for another of your arguments above.

    These are questions asked to atheists, right? So, if you ask an atheist to explain those "facts" with something more logical than the idea that the resurrection is a fact, and the atheist answers with a string of possibilities, you main complain is, in short, that the atheist is assuming that naturalism is true.

    1. What do you expect? You asked an atheist for the most logical explanation! You did not ask a very superstitions person, you asked an atheist, which tend to be, but not always are, skeptical.

    2. Should I assume then, that if I told you that everytime I pray I float around the room you would plainly believe that just as possible as that, perhaps I get a bit dizzy out of so much concentrating on my prayer? After all, naturalism might not be true. Right?

    3. Are you saying then that confronted with something out of the ordinary experience, we should take a neutral position? If someone comes and tells us that she was abducted by aliens we should just believe that such a thing is equally probable than her having a bad dream, or some other "natural" explanation? Otherwise you would be assuming that alien abduction is false, and that naturalism is true.

    At every point I was wondering how could you possibly dare to write those arguments and then put "Atheism Wisdom" in your title, with a question mark.

    "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
    --Mathew 7:3

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  27. NohmFebruary 12, 2009 at 1:06 PM

    IrishFarmer,

    While most of what you write falls into the "let's agree to disagree" category for me, I have an issue with one particular claim you made:

    If you're a moral nihilist, as a good portion of atheists are

    Now, I'm not trying to do an argument from authority here, but I've been talking to atheists and reading atheist comments extensively for over 15 years now. I have found that the percentage of atheists who are "moral nihilists" are equivalent to the number of christians who agree with the Phelps clan; that is, teeny tiny enough to be effectively ignored. Also, they tend to be angry teenagers, who I feel I can also effectively ignore.

    If you can name a dozen atheists who describe themselves as "moral nihilists", I'll be incredibly impressed. But to say that "a good portion" of atheists are moral nihilists just... strains credibility so much that it's functionally equivalent to you writing:

    "If you're a female, as a good portion of Smurfs are..."

    And I take it just as seriously... which is... yeah, not so much.

    I think you've been watching "The Big Lebowski" too much.

    ReplyDelete
  28. IrishFarmerFebruary 12, 2009 at 4:01 PM

    I haven't even read the original post, but this statement makes no sense to me (which makes me wonder if you might have misrepresented him).

    No offense, but I don't think you really deserve any of my time if you're going to admit that you're willing to write up a comment on something for which you haven't bothered to spend any time understanding.

    To say that morality does or does not "reflect reality" is a bad description to begin with, but if you have to go with that metaphor, then what could morality possibly reflect if not reality?

    Let me rephrase that, then: Our moral sense (that is, our sense that certain things are right and wrong) corresponds to the objective reality that things are actually right or wrong.

    In that way, it is logically possible that our sense that things are actually right or wrong is nothing more than an illusion, because in fact we live in a morally neutral universe.

    I think you mean moral relativists. I don't know any atheists that are moral nihilists, and who think that the moral sense is illusory. They just don't think that it derives from God.

    Really? You don't know of any atheists who are moral nihilists? Then you've never heard of Richard Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  29. IrishFarmerFebruary 12, 2009 at 4:17 PM

    Perhaps you should talk about reality then. I'm not trying to be snarky here. Its just that I wonder how much useful insight can be had by considering an implausible and unrealistic conjecture. Can you give a more realistic example that would still fit?

    I shouldn't have to. The example I gave was merely meant to illustrate a principal.

    Plus, I can't think of any off hand.

    How about witch burning, perhapsfor example? Thousands were executed for partying with Satan and souring their neighbor's milk by casting the Evil Eye. The executioners stood on unassailable epistemological grounds and knew for a certain fact that they were doing Right.

    And yet, their many fine arguments ring hollow today. Did reliance on the Bible, rigorous logic and plain faith bring the church any closer to The Truth© about the witch theory of disease than did naturalistic science? And, how do you know?

    This is a really interesting question, but has absolutely nothing to do with my point. However, the next time I argue that New World Christians had a superior epistemology compared to Modern people, you can bring this example back up. :)

    There is no claim in biology that natural selection (NS) should yield rational and philosophically sound understanding of the world around us. In fact, actual studies of how actual people actually think (as opposed to made up ideal Platonic people) shows that our "reasoning" is riddled with systematic and often predictable error, irrational biases and wrong ideas.

    That's all fine and dandy. However, by pointing this out, you assume that there is some aspect of human reasoning that is rational and sound. Otherwise, you couldn't claim to know that even some of our reasoning is unsound and irrational, right?

    This is a valid assumption to make, and I agree with this assumption. The question is, is this assumption contradicted (or cast in doubt) by a belief in both evolution and naturalism? According to the EAAN, it is.

    Saying that ToE doesn't predict human moral and philosphical perfection (eg: burning witches) is not a failure of the ToE, but a reflection of unrealistic expectations for it.

    It never ceases to amaze me that atheists have all sorts of interesting interpretations of what I say, but I don't remember ever claiming that evolution did provide moral or philosophical perfection - whatever that is.

    All that NS requires to work is an inheritable trait conferring differential reproductive advantage. In the particular case of the hypothetical deer, and I admit that I'm no expert in deer biology, I'd be very surprised if a dead deer was ever found attractive by a putative mate. So, yes, running away from a wolf for the "wrong" reason, "right" reason or no reason at all, does makes a deer more attractive later on. For ToE to hold, an inheritable adaptive behavior need only be efficacious, not philosophically defensible.

    This response would be more relavant had I argued that evolution was false. But since I didn't.......

    The answer is, we can't. And we don't claim that we can. Science has never been about discovering The Truth©, except in a vernacular sense. It has always been about minimizing error. And that is why science is so much more successful than religion in practical matters. Where error can be detected empirically, it can be minimized. And that is where the well-earned confidence in it comes from; knowing that it is possible to detect and correct errors.

    You refer to "reducing error", as if reducing error isn't the same thing as finding truth.

    You're right, science approximates truth as much as possible. However, I'm not arguing against science or evolution, so I don't get your point.

    The same does not pertain to religion which, by its construction, can not question its imponderable roots or its ethereal claims.

    I can contradict this claim in my own experience, unless you have some logically sound argument for why this is the case. You're not just regurgitating learned bigotry, are you?

    Of course not. But since I can tell you that from experience myself, and the many Christian philosophers I've studied have questioned religious beliefs and so on and so forth, I personally know that your statement that we don't question our religion is simply false.

    In that paradigm The Truth© is a matter of conformity to arbitrary doctrine, not to ostensible experience.

    Again, based on my personal experience, I know that you're not making factual statements. I have seen arbitrary doctrines, like many of those found in Catholicism, but one can hardly claim that ALL religious doctrines are simply arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  30. IrishFarmerFebruary 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM

    Nothing. Yet, they do support the notion that there is no need for a God to explain anything. Since there is no such need, why believe in any Gods? It makes perfect sense.

    This statement only makes sense if you assume that science is the be-all and end-all of human knowledge. Do you really want to go down that road? Because if you can't see the mistake in that sort of thinking I can very quickly point it out to you.

    Hint: If you believe that science is the be-all end-all of human knowledge, this belief is non-scientific (actually, philosophical) in nature. Think about it.

    1. It assumes beliefs to be selected for, when the selection would be for a systems that produces the belief. Since it is a system (a nervous system for that matter), it has to have at least a minimal "trustability" to work properly even in unexpected circumstances.

    All you've done is push the problem back. Either our beliefs are inscrutably reliable, or our systems of belief are inscrutably reliable. That's a difference without a distinction, so to speak.

    2. Organisms do not evolve in isolation and competition complicate matters. Only those hominids with more trustable cognitive faculties can survive competition against other hominids with less trustable facuties.

    No. That begs the question. Why does their cognitive faculty have to be more reliable? NS only requires that it allows them to survive, not that it allows them to accurately comprehend reality. Please don't claim that those two things go hand in hand without explaining how - as the other atheists have so far done.

    3. Still our cognitive faculties are not perfectly reliable. But they are reliable enough that we can notice the possible sources of problems, and thus deviced methods to keep us away from the wrong conclusions (such as lists of fallacies, and the scientific method).

    I agree. However, the EAAN isn't trying to convince you that everything you believe is wrong, so this is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  31. NohmFebruary 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM

    IrishFarmer said:

    Really? You don't know of any atheists who are moral nihilists? Then you've never heard of Richard Dawkins.

    Please show a quote from Mr. Dawkins where he claims that he is a moral nihilist.

    While I haven't read every word that the man has written, and I don't know him personally, I have an exceptionally hard time believing that he would ever refer to himself as a moral nihilist. Also, in what I've read of his books and websites, and the videos I've watched of him, I don't see him making any statements that could be considered nihilistic... well, outside of quote-mining him, of course.

    I am willing to be shown wrong if you can provide the evidence that he is a moral nihilist.

    ReplyDelete
  32. NohmFebruary 12, 2009 at 4:50 PM

    IrishFarmer,

    Actually, maybe we should start out with what you think a nihilist is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. NohmFebruary 12, 2009 at 5:12 PM

    IrishFarmer,

    Would you agree with the following definition of "moral nihilism"?

    ----

    Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.

    Moral nihilism must be distinguished from ethical subjectivism, and moral relativism, which do allow for moral statements to be true or false in a non-objective sense, but do not assign any static truth-values to moral statements. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilists are moral skeptics.

    ----

    If so, then I think you'll find that, as I said, the vast majority of atheists are not moral nihilists, but instead are moral relativists, as the distinction is made in the above description.

    ReplyDelete
  34. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2009 at 5:13 PM

    "No offense, but I don't think you really deserve any of my time"

    No offense at all taken, but thanks for the heads-up.

    "Let me rephrase that, then: Our moral sense (that is, our sense that certain things are right and wrong) corresponds to the objective reality that things are actually right or wrong."

    Except it doesn't. But I won't any more of your time.

    "In that way, it is logically possible that our sense that things are actually right or wrong is nothing more than an illusion, because in fact we live in a morally neutral universe."

    It is also logically possible that the notion of "oomph" is nothing more than an illusion, because we live in fact in a oomphatically neutral universe.

    Words can be meaningless, you know, if they are used in such a way that no information is conveyed.

    "Really? You don't know of any atheists who are moral nihilists? Then you've never heard of Richard Dawkins."

    You're absolutely full of it. Dawkins is squarely in the evolutionary psychology camp, and consequently a moral relativist. Is it possible that you have formed an opinion based on an out-of-context quote, and ignored everything else he has written on altruism and morality?

    ReplyDelete
  35. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2009 at 5:42 PM

    Nohm:

    In my understanding, moral nihilism is the position that NO moral principles or values exist whatsoever, and that we are fundamentally amoral creatures. Here are a couple of elaborations:

    Moral nihilism; Moral skepticism (also talks about moral nihilism)

    ReplyDelete
  36. NohmFebruary 12, 2009 at 5:48 PM

    adonais,

    I'm curious what IrishFarmer uses as a definition for "moral nihilist" which allows him to include Richard Dawkins' moral views into the definition.

    Even if you and I slightly disagree on the definition, I think we both agree that moral nihilists in no way shape or form make up "a good portion" of atheists, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  37. IrishFarmerFebruary 12, 2009 at 6:42 PM

    If anything all science has done is shown that there might be a biological basis for the psychological reasons that humans try to come up with rules to get along--maybe a biological basis for empathy? I think that adonais probably sums it up better in his response to you...science has not yet firmly established it yet.

    That's fine. But such a conclusion leaves just as much room for God is it does atheism.

    Besides, I'm talking about how looking at history has shown that. Just look at how different cultures have different rules. All science does is try to explain the natural world.

    This is exactly the point I'm trying to make myself! Science can neither push God into, nor out of the picture.

    And to be able to justify their interpretation. Face it, the big bang requires a lot of adjustment to be made to Genesis. The order of events is different, for one thing. Then there's the time frame involved.

    Ok, that's beyond my scope here. Let me just add that this is in no way threatening to the core of my theology. If I have to believe that Genesis is allegory, or even flat out wrong on some things, I'm not going to lose any sleep. However, like I said, this goes beyond what I meant to discuss with my post.

    Baloney. It's because established observable facts of science sometimes wind up contradicting theist religious views.

    Ok.

    That, if anything, is what causes any "entanglement" of science and atheism.

    Baloney. There has not been one thing in science that has "confirmed" atheism, if such a thing is actually possible.

    You've gotten it backwards. Science used to be entangled with religion, if anything until the tide of evidence started to shift.

    No, I haven't gotten it backwards. The only change is that fundamentalist theists used to claim science proved their religion, now fundamentalist atheists are using the same "reasoning" to turn the tables and claim that science backs up their unscientific beliefs.

    The only thing that has actually happened, at worst, is certain interpretations of the Bible were contradicted. If that's the case, fine. So what? That doesn't mean that suddently science has started to prove atheism true.

    Theists are just complaining because science winds up shooting down their beliefs so much.

    You're not talking to theists, you're talking to me. And I haven't done that myself.

    Furthermore, that isn't really a counterpoint to anything I've said. I've already explained why you feel this way, and that is partially because theists do sometimes try and assert a God-of-the-gaps, but mostly because you yourself are quite comfortable with your atheism-of-the-gaps.

    Tough. Maybe that's the logical result of what happens when dealing with a belief system that came about while people were in the bronze age?

    In a perfect world, people would be embarrassed by statements like these. Not just for the illogical irony of your statement (logically, just because the beleifs came from the bronze age, doesn't mean they aren't true - this is called the genetic fallacy...once again), but because it's little more than snobbery. "Hmph. We're so much smarter than those bronze agers. Those big dumb oafs."

    Feel free to keep representing atheism this way, if you want. It only makes your side look bad.

    I think you're just projecting here. "Fundamentalist atheists" haven't had to adjust their beliefs near so much as fundamentalist theists have.

    You're free to think that if you want.

    Odd, that statement seems to imply that you do after all think that moral beliefs are absolute...

    No, I believe that morality is objective.

    Let's see, slavery, the wholesale killing of pregnant women are frowned upon now, yet in biblical times, they weren't.

    All this proves is that the Hebrew people weren't so inspired by God in some of their actions. In no way does any immoral act, supposedly commanded by God, prove that morality is subjective. But feel free to keep bring this point up over and over and over again. I never get tired of respoding to the same thing time after time.

    What do you mean, an "illusion"? We have a moral sense regardless of what brought it about, "god" or biology.

    Yeah, that's kinda my point. The question is, does that moral sense parallel objective reality, or is it just a subjective illusion created by our brains.

    Atheists just point out that morality changes over time, and that even the books theists use as moral guides actually show that.

    Well, congratufriggenlations. Pardon my french, but logically, any supposedly immoral act in the Bible does not prove that morality is simply subjective.

    So what? If we were made by "god", is the mechanism for morality different?

    No, actually. And that's my point. It really doesn't matter how our brains gained their "moral sense".

    Only if the point I made right above was ignored: how is the mechanism for morality any different, whether it's biology or "god". Again, you could look to adonais reply.

    This question misses my point entirely. You're creating a false dilemma. It's not either, or. Both options are logically compatible.

    Your analogy is messed up. Why? The outside world can be physically verified and the interpretation of it will be pretty constant from person to person regardless of the culture. Not so with morality

    It amazes me that such a simple philosophical concept still has to be explained time and again. The fact is, you can't "prove" that other people even exist. For all you know, the outside world and everything in it is just a sense illusion. We can only be as certain about the existence of the outside world as we can about the existence of objective morality.

    While neither of these things can be proven to exist, we're within the bounds of rationality to accept their objective existence unless we have some reason to think otherwise.

    Oh for the love of....Miller is no better. I've read his stuff way before I stumbled upon Craig. Theists will try to explain away any action that makes their "god" look non-"good".

    Well, I'm sure you put a lot of thought into the subject. Just like you put a lot of thought into your argument that Christianity is false because it came from the bronze age.

    I hate to get down to such a juvenile level, but I don't know how else to respond to that.

    His rationalizations comes down to a form of situational ethics, which argues against any concept of "absolute morality"

    I'll just mention it one last time to make sure I've said it enough: neither myself nor Dr. Craig, nor Glenn Miller (from what I can tell) are moral absolutists. We're moral objectivists.

    Uh, no. I'm just pointing out that the theistic view of morality is inconsistent. Baby-killing at one time is OK? Baby-killing at another time (abortion) is not ok.

    This statement, for example, isn't a proper criticism. Since we're not moral absolutists, we don't say, "Killing babies no matter what, is wrong." Another example would be lying. Lying is wrong, but does that mean Christians wouldn't lie to a Nazi to save people hiding in a house? Of course we would. So clearly, we're not absolutists.

    As for just "personally not liking it", uh no. Killing babies and pregnant women isn't exactly a strong survival tactic for the human, or any animal race, is it?

    Actually, in this case it was, because oftentimes those nations were partaking in deleterious actions. So, if you want to stick to evolutionary morality, then what the Jews did was a-ok, because it contributed to the betterment of humanity. So, not only do you lose on my moral foundation, but you lose on your's as well.

    If you want to criticize the Bible, then you need some alternative source for morality. As an atheist, you have none except your subjective "feelings", which change from person-to-person. So, your claim that we're inconsistent is wrong, because it's based on the erroneous assumption that theists are moral absolutists, which we're not. Furthermore, you have no other grounds to call these actions immoral except your subjective feelings.

    Your only other option is to assume that naturalism provides some sort of objective morality, i.e. whatever leads to the survival of humanity is moral. However, this assumption is subjective itself. I, for one, might feel that it's moral to destroy humanity. Which one of us is right? Why? without appealing to your assumptions, please...

    He is useful in showing how inconsistent theist morality is, so his views are relevent.

    No. Sorry, but that's not how it works. Showing that one person's morality is inconsistent, which you actually haven't (you've only proven that he isn't an absolutist), has no effect on the ontological status of morality. But what do I know, I still hold to bronze age beliefs...

    It seems to me that if it's a good survival tactic, it's have to reflect reality at some level. If we can't judge what's real or not, we're less likely to survive, aren't we?

    That's not the case. Morality might not reflect objective reality at all, but it can still contribute to our survavability, so I don't agree.

    You need a "holy book" to do that, and even then your interpretations of it aren't perfectly consistent.

    That's all fine and dandy. Let's assume for a moment that the Bible is completely inconsistent. Morality might still be objective. That isn't a relavant objection.

    Does it mean that our moral sense does apprehend an "objective moral value"?

    Our moral sense reflects the objective existence of moral values. Yes.

    I think that you'd better back up your claim that "a good portion of atheists are moral nihilists" and you'd better explain just what you mean by that term. In my experience, atheists are no less moral then theists.

    I didn't say atheists were less moral. Moral nihilism simply means that you think that morality is subjective, open to interpretation, and ontologically meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  38. IrishFarmerFebruary 12, 2009 at 6:43 PM

    Respectfully, IrishFarmer, I agree the hypothetical example does show that a false belief/instinct can aid to survival. However, in your example, it is absolutely not the case that such a false belief/instanct "has just as much of a survival advantage" as compared to one that is true. The reason, when your deer is in the process of mating and a wolf comes along, he no longer has any reason to run.

    Really? Where in my example did I say that running from the predator lead directly to mating?

    ReplyDelete
  39. IrishFarmerFebruary 12, 2009 at 6:53 PM

    I do not see how this would be atheists plugging anything with atheism, nor how filling gaps with scientific explanations would be "atheism of the gaps." It is not equivalent in any logical way.

    Well, for instance when atheists add fanciful natural explanations to the origin and evolution of the universe and life, without any evidence to back it up, and they simply use their naturalist assumptions to back up their beliefs. That's a direct parallel.

    It's difficult to see, because atheists are so used to simply be able to plug their assumptions into science that it happens "under the radar" so to speak.

    These are questions asked to atheists, right? So, if you ask an atheist to explain those "facts" with something more logical than the idea that the resurrection is a fact, and the atheist answers with a string of possibilities, you main complain is, in short, that the atheist is assuming that naturalism is true.

    Well, more or less. The problem is you can't assume any explanation makes more or less sense until you way them out.

    1. What do you expect? You asked an atheist for the most logical explanation! You did not ask a very superstitions person, you asked an atheist, which tend to be, but not always are, skeptical.

    Atheists don't have some unwrittent right to assume things without warrant. Sorry.

    2. Should I assume then, that if I told you that everytime I pray I float around the room you would plainly believe that just as possible as that, perhaps I get a bit dizzy out of so much concentrating on my prayer? After all, naturalism might not be true. Right?

    That ultimately depends on the situation at hand. If I had reason to think you were telling the truth, then that makes your explanation more reasonable than any "naturalistic" explanation to that story.

    . Are you saying then that confronted with something out of the ordinary experience, we should take a neutral position?

    I'm saying you can't assume that any given explanation makes sense simply because it's naturalistic. For all you know naturalism isn't true to begin with. If you don't like the idea of being neutral when given something to believe or not, can you explain why we should all assume naturalism is true? Since the other explanations rely on atheism to begin with?

    If someone comes and tells us that she was abducted by aliens we should just believe that such a thing is equally probable than her having a bad dream, or some other "natural" explanation?

    That would depend. I could just as well assume that aliens are a reasonable explanation based on naturalism (aliens can evolve on other planets, right?), but false based on Christianity since it might be the case that God only created life on Earth. Fact is, you can assume all you want based on your prior beliefs, but how do I really know which explanation makes more sense. Until I consider other factors (the reliability of the witness) and so on, I can't say for sure, can I?

    At every point I was wondering how could you possibly dare to write those arguments and then put "Atheism Wisdom" in your title, with a question mark.

    "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
    --Mathew 7:3

    Oh, I have no delusions of wisdom myself, believe me. Or don't.

    ReplyDelete
  40. IrishFarmerFebruary 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM

    You guys are wearing me out. I can't even remember how to spell "weigh" anymore.

    I'll be around later to answer questions, but I've just arrived at my new duty station and I have a good friend of mine visiting for the weekend so I won't be around for some time.

    I'm becoming more bitter and sarcastic, but I do enjoy our conversations, so I hope no one takes it personally. Sarcasm is just my way of being light-hearted, believe it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Masked MarauderFebruary 12, 2009 at 7:06 PM

    IrishFarmer: The example I gave was merely meant to illustrate a principal.
    Since realism isn't central to your argument here it might save time in future discussions to simply say that deer have no beliefs at all and be done with it. Where subjective belief is irrelevant altogether its unnecessarily confusing and a bit misleading to introduce the subject of correct/incorrect into places where it doesn't mater. My error was to suppose that you were saying that the correctness of a belief was supposed matter somehow.

    This is a really interesting question, but has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
    I rather think it does. Or, am I also wrong in thinking that you are arguing that scientific reasoning is somehow inferior (or less reliable, or more labile, or... something?) than the religious methodology that purges a group one year and denies it exists another?

    (a)The question is, is this assumption contradicted (or cast in doubt) by a belief in both evolution and naturalism?(b)According to the EAAN, it is.
    a: no
    b: so? EAAN is hardly definitive.

    You refer to "reducing error", as if reducing error isn't the same thing as finding truth.
    Well, they aren't.

    I have seen arbitrary doctrines, like many of those found in Catholicism, but one can hardly claim that ALL religious doctrines are simply arbitrary.
    Simply or complexly, arbitrary is still arbitrary. May I ask, how do you distinguish an arbitrary doctrine from one that is not? If with god all things are possible, as I've been told, then it seems to me that nothing is impossible. Where the subject is presumed to be lawless there can be no binding rules. I don't see how anything can be excluded here, however bizarre or confusing, except by arbitrary choice.

    ReplyDelete
  42. NohmFebruary 12, 2009 at 7:20 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2009 at 7:33 PM

    "Moral nihilism simply means that you think that morality is subjective, open to interpretation, and ontologically meaningless."

    You're still off.

    The difference between moral relativists and nihilists is that the former still think that moral judgments can be understood in relative, cultural, social or biological terms (or whatever your favorite pet theory might be) - AND, that these insights can help in the formulation of a normative ethic. Moral relativism itself is NOT a normative ethic; it's merely a propositional statement about what morality is. Moral nihilism is not even that; nihilism says that there are no underlying moral principles to even investigate, and that morality in that sense is really just an illusion. This is absolutely not what Dawkins and other moral relativists are saying.

    ReplyDelete
  44. NohmFebruary 12, 2009 at 8:08 PM

    IrishFarmer wrote:

    Moral nihilism simply means that you think that morality is subjective, open to interpretation, and ontologically meaningless.

    I'm curious... where did you get this definition? It's not like any definition of "moral nihilism" that I've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  45. AnonymousFebruary 13, 2009 at 10:56 AM

    Sorry for putting so much stuff IrishFarmer, but your post was long too.

    Now, let me see if I can be bref about the point. It is not whether an atheist assumes naturalism to be true or not, but whether the explanation makes more sense. It is quite obvious that things we have closer to experience make much more sense than things such as resurrections, which are not everyday experiences. If it were happening all the time, it would be just as easy to accept a resurrection as an explanation. But given all what we can witness, even within out limited lifespan, the most logical assumption is to come out with natural (not "naturalistic") explanation. Not just natural but proximal.

    Aliens could be "naturalistic," but the idea is so far fetched in any logical realm, that I rather try every "proximate" explanation rather than just give aliens equal weight. Even after lots of witnesses.

    Thus, your complain about assuming "naturalism" is still far from "wisdoming out" the atheist's answers.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  46. ReynoldFebruary 16, 2009 at 7:20 AM

    IrishFarmer said...

    If anything all science has done is shown that there might be a biological basis for the psychological reasons that humans try to come up with rules to get along--maybe a biological basis for empathy? I think that adonais probably sums it up better in his response to you...science has not yet firmly established it yet.

    That's fine. But such a conclusion leaves just as much room for God is it does atheism.
    True, but: With biology, one doesn't necessarily need a god, but rather, if one is a believer, one has to assume without evidence that this "god" exists.

    Of course, there are many areas in science that directly contradict the bible. (anthropology, paleontology, radiometric dating, astronomy-->the big band is older than the bible says the universe is, and the order of "creation" events is different).

    Besides, I'm talking about how looking at history has shown that. Just look at how different cultures have different rules. All science does is try to explain the natural world.
    This is exactly the point I'm trying to make myself!
    There's one difference. The scientific method allows one to test one's views on the physical world, correct and even scrap them. Not so with religion, is it? The core doctrines of religon must remain "sacred", don't they? No matter what.

    Science can neither push God into, nor out of the picture.
    As I've said above: there are many areas in science that directly contradict the bible. (anthropology, paleontology, radiometric dating, astronomy-->the big band is older than the bible says the universe is, and the order of "creation" events is different).

    When the bible makes specific claims about the natural world, that's when it gets into trouble with observable science.

    "Pushing god" out of the picutre is really a side effect of the scientific progress.

    And to be able to justify their interpretation. Face it, the big bang requires a lot of adjustment to be made to Genesis. The order of events is different, for one thing. Then there's the time frame involved.
    Ok, that's beyond my scope here.
    It's not that hard to look up

    Let me just add that this is in no way threatening to the core of my theology.
    It is if you're a biblical literalist. Thing is, what adjustments have you had to make to your "understanding" of Genesis in order for the events and sequence of the big bang in order for them to not be a problem with your theology?

    In other words, how can you take the bible seriously if it doesn't get the order of "creation" events right?

    If I have to believe that Genesis is allegory, or even flat out wrong on some things, I'm not going to lose any sleep. However, like I said, this goes beyond what I meant to discuss with my post.
    Ok, but did not Jesus himself verify genesis? What about the interpretation of those who take genesis literally?

    If you don't take genesis literally because it goes against science, then what's stopping you from taking various "miracles" of the bible literally because they go against science? (ex. Christ's "resurrection")?

    Why accept one and toss the other?

    Baloney. It's because established observable facts of science sometimes wind up contradicting theist religious views.
    Ok.

    That, if anything, is what causes any "entanglement" of science and atheism.
    Baloney. There has not been one thing in science that has "confirmed" atheism, if such a thing is actually possible.
    Wouldn't anything that contradicts "holy scripture" count? If you're willing to adjust your beliefs enough as you are with Genesis, then perhaps you're right.

    Thing is: where do you draw the line and not lose your faith altogether?



    You've gotten it backwards. Science used to be entangled with religion, if anything until the tide of evidence started to shift.
    No, I haven't gotten it backwards. The only change is that fundamentalist theists used to claim science proved their religion, now fundamentalist atheists are using the same "reasoning" to turn the tables and claim that science backs up their unscientific beliefs.
    What does happen is that as more gaps are filled, a supernatural explanation, including any "gods" becomes more and more unnecessary, that is what weakens the case for any "gods" in the gaps. That's especially the case when science actually contradicts various parts of "holy scriptures".

    The only thing that has actually happened, at worst, is certain interpretations of the Bible were contradicted. If that's the case, fine. So what? That doesn't mean that suddently science has started to prove atheism true.
    Why not? How many "interpretations" are you willing to change before your faith becomes meaningless? Your problem is that the bible itself makes an all-or-nothing claim about it's authenticity as "gods' word".



    Theists are just complaining because science winds up shooting down their beliefs so much.
    You're not talking to theists, you're talking to me.
    Are you an atheist then? You could have contstructed that sentence better if you are a theist after all...

    And I haven't done that myself.
    That's why I've said "theists" in general as opposed to saying just "you" in the post.

    Furthermore, that isn't really a counterpoint to anything I've said. I've already explained why you feel this way, and that is partially because theists do sometimes try and assert a God-of-the-gaps, but mostly because you yourself are quite comfortable with your atheism-of-the-gaps.
    Righhht...you know me better than I know myself...

    I'm just pointing out that science, including archeology, is squeezing "god" out of the gaps. When god's squeezed out, what's left?

    Tough. Maybe that's the logical result of what happens when dealing with a belief system that came about while people were in the bronze age?
    In a perfect world, people would be embarrassed by statements like these. Not just for the illogical irony of your statement (logically, just because the beleifs came from the bronze age, doesn't mean they aren't true - this is called the genetic fallacy...once again)
    Wrong. I'm pointing out that in the bronze age, people were far more ignorant of the natural world around us. Not a fallacy, but fact. I'm not saying that they were wrong about everything, that would be a mistake, but rather that science has shown that they did get a lot of stuff wrong, and the fact that they lived in the bronze age (pre-scientific age) is why.

    but because it's little more than snobbery. "Hmph. We're so much smarter than those bronze agers. Those big dumb oafs."
    That's just stupid. It has nothing to do with "intelligence". What it does has to do with is the level of scientific progress at the time. There was very little. They weren't less intelligent than we were, just less informed. There is a difference.


    I think you're just projecting here. "Fundamentalist atheists" haven't had to adjust their beliefs near so much as fundamentalist theists have.
    You're free to think that if you want.
    History bears me out. For one thing, you could read A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom

    Odd, that statement seems to imply that you do after all think that moral beliefs are absolute...
    Huh? It was a historical statement I made, not "moral".

    No, I believe that morality is objective.
    Let's see, slavery, the wholesale killing of pregnant women are frowned upon now, yet in biblical times, they weren't.
    All this proves is that the Hebrew people weren't so inspired by God in some of their actions.
    Read your own bible. The particular actions I'm referring to were commanded by your god!

    In no way does any immoral act, supposedly commanded by God, prove that morality is subjective. But feel free to keep bring this point up over and over and over again. I never get tired of respoding to the same thing time after time.
    If you have problems, talk to the bible authors please. Not my religion, not my beliefs, not my problem. Deal with it. Morality is subjective; subject to the whims of this god of yours. Read some fellow believers of yours and see what I mean.

    What do you mean, an "illusion"? We have a moral sense regardless of what brought it about, "god" or biology.
    Yeah, that's kinda my point. The question is, does that moral sense parallel objective reality, or is it just a subjective illusion created by our brains.
    An "illusion" implies that something doesn't exist...morality does exist, it's just that as circumstances of the world around us changes, it gets changed to, to help us adapt. Atheists just have a different basis for morality than xians do.

    Atheists just point out that morality changes over time, and that even the books theists use as moral guides actually show that.

    Well, congratufriggenlations. Pardon my french, but logically, any supposedly immoral act in the Bible does not prove that morality is simply subjective.
    It's not your french that needs pardoning...what does it mean then when your own god doesn't act consistenly moral??

    So what? If we were made by "god", is the mechanism for morality different?
    No, actually. And that's my point. It really doesn't matter how our brains gained their "moral sense".
    Only what's the justification for your claim that "god" gave it to us? If there's a natural explanation, why do we need to assume that "god" made it that way? What's the evidence for it?

    Only if the point I made right above was ignored: how is the mechanism for morality any different, whether it's biology or "god". Again, you could look to adonais reply.

    This question misses my point entirely. You're creating a false dilemma. It's not either, or. Both options are logically compatible.
    Which one can be backed up though? Can you show that your god is responsible? If all we've found so far is a natural explanation, why does one need to show "god" in there?

    Your analogy is messed up. Why? The outside world can be physically verified and the interpretation of it will be pretty constant from person to person regardless of the culture. Not so with morality
    It amazes me that such a simple philosophical concept still has to be explained time and again. The fact is, you can't "prove" that other people even exist. For all you know, the outside world and everything in it is just a sense illusion. We can only be as certain about the existence of the outside world as we can about the existence of objective morality.
    Great, "matrix" reasoning...

    While neither of these things can be proven to exist, we're within the bounds of rationality to accept their objective existence unless we have some reason to think otherwise.
    And what gives us the reasons to accept their objective existence? Our physical senses. Where does "god" fit into this?

    It seems to me that you're stuggling to fit your "god" into anywhere you can fit him even when the physical evidence does not require nor point to him.

    Oh for the love of....Miller is no better. I've read his stuff way before I stumbled upon Craig. Theists will try to explain away any action that makes their "god" look non-"good".
    Well, I'm sure you put a lot of thought into the subject. Just like you put a lot of thought into your argument that Christianity is false because it came from the bronze age.
    Yes, I have put a lot of thought into them. More than you seem to have put in this reply of yours...I'm just pointing out that the bible writers made a lot of mistakes because they lived in the bronze age. That would, by itself be no big deal, except for It's the fact that the bible itself claims inerrancy. Not my fault, and not a "genetic fallacy". Just checking to see if your "holy book" matches it's own claims.

    Though since you don't take the bible as rigidly as other theists (ICR, AIG, James Kennedy, John Hagee, etc) that probably won't bother you as much as it would them.


    His rationalizations comes down to a form of situational ethics, which argues against any concept of "absolute morality"
    I'll just mention it one last time to make sure I've said it enough: neither myself nor Dr. Craig, nor Glenn Miller (from what I can tell) are moral absolutists. We're moral objectivists.
    Too bad that not all xian theists are, as I give some examples later. You should maybe have a talk with them since they're apparently misrepresenting your position.

    Uh, no. I'm just pointing out that the theistic view of morality is inconsistent. Baby-killing at one time is OK? Baby-killing at another time (abortion) is not ok.
    This statement, for example, isn't a proper criticism. Since we're not moral absolutists, we don't say, "Killing babies no matter what, is wrong." Another example would be lying. Lying is wrong, but does that mean Christians wouldn't lie to a Nazi to save people hiding in a house? Of course we would. So clearly, we're not absolutists.
    As I say later below, you'll have to talk with some fellow theists of yours who do claim that your religion provides "absolute morality".

    As for just "personally not liking it", uh no. Killing babies and pregnant women isn't exactly a strong survival tactic for the human, or any animal race, is it?
    Actually, in this case it was, because oftentimes those nations were partaking in deleterious actions.
    Did I say they weren't? Thing is, as bad as child sacrifice (a religious practice, I'll note) is, and I do say it's bad...otherwise why would I care about any child getting murdred, they at least did not wipe out the entire people, innocent and guilty. Would you advocate the wiping out of the entire population of the USA because abortion, as foul as it it, is legal?

    Besides, there's some evidence at least, that some of those practices may not have actually have happened as the bible claims they did. Read from the section The ethics of biblical genocide onwards.

    So, if you want to stick to evolutionary morality, then what the Jews did was a-ok, because it contributed to the betterment of humanity. So, not only do you lose on my moral foundation, but you lose on your's as well.
    You need to think a little bit more before you type.

    If you want to criticize the Bible, then you need some alternative source for morality. As an atheist, you have none except your subjective "feelings", which change from person-to-person.
    You've left out things like: consequences, the "golden rule" or the idea of if you do something to someone, they'll do it back, the good of society, etc.

    Please stop misreprenting the atheist position.

    So, your claim that we're inconsistent is wrong, because it's based on the erroneous assumption that theists are moral absolutists, which we're not.
    Then you'd better have a talk with the theistic crowd that claims that their god is what gives them "absolute morality".

    James Kennedy is another example

    Furthermore, you have no other grounds to call these actions immoral except your subjective feelings.
    As I just said above: stop misrepesenting things please.

    Your only other option is to assume that naturalism provides some sort of objective morality,
    Not really: morality changes over time, as our situations and surroundings change. (ie. as our reality changes)

    i.e. whatever leads to the survival of humanity is moral. However, this assumption is subjective itself. I, for one, might feel that it's moral to destroy humanity. Which one of us is right? Why? without appealing to your assumptions, please...
    Doesn't need any assumptions to realize that destroying humanity is counterproductive to our survival.



    He is useful in showing how inconsistent theist morality is, so his views are relevent.
    No. Sorry, but that's not how it works. Showing that one person's morality is inconsistent, which you actually haven't (you've only proven that he isn't an absolutist),
    You can't get more inconsistent than a person saying that killing babies is alright in one situation, but is wrong in another situation. If you don't find that inconsistent, then please: give us an example of inconsistent morality.

    has no effect on the ontological status of morality. But what do I know, I still hold to bronze age beliefs...
    It's not your "bronze age beliefs" that are making me doubt your intelligence, it's your arguments.

    It seems to me that if it's a good survival tactic, it's have to reflect reality at some level. If we can't judge what's real or not, we're less likely to survive, aren't we?
    That's not the case. Morality might not reflect objective reality at all, but it can still contribute to our survavability, so I don't agree.
    How so? If it doesn't reflect objective reality then it would hinder our survivability. Just as if our senses didn't reflect objective reality.

    You need a "holy book" to do that, and even then your interpretations of it aren't perfectly consistent.
    That's all fine and dandy.
    Ok...let's see: Where do you get your moral guidance from? Just secular sources, or do you also look to the bible?

    Let's assume for a moment that the Bible is completely inconsistent. Morality might still be objective. That isn't a relavant objection.
    You'd be left with no reason to assume that morality came from your "god" though, as theists seem to like to claim. If you're different, good for you.

    Does it mean that our moral sense does apprehend an "objective moral value"?

    Our moral sense reflects the objective existence of moral values. Yes.



    I didn't say atheists were less moral. Moral nihilism simply means that you think that morality is subjective, open to interpretation, and ontologically meaningless.
    As Nohm said:

    I'm curious... where did you get this definition? It's not like any definition of "moral nihilism" that I've ever seen.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)