Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Rabbi pleads with Darwinian atheists: Turn back from legal pedophilia. But they can’t.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Moshe Averick
Jewish? I'll pester you until you take your heritage seriously ...

The Maverick Rabbi, author of The Confused, Illusory World of the Atheist speaks up on the unmentionable subject in “A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia Is Next On the Slippery Slope; Let Us Turn Back Before It Is Too Late” (Algemeiner, August 29, 2011) Moshe Averick points out that materialist atheism is intrinsically amoral. One results is capsuled by the journey of a philosophy professor:

Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the U. of New Haven, who for 10 years authored the “Moral Moments” column in Philosophy Now, made the following, rather shocking about-face in a 2010 article entitled, “An Amoral Manifesto.”

“This philosopher has been laboring under an unexamined assumption, namely that there is such a thing as right and wrong. I now believe there isn’t…The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality…I experienced my shocking epiphany that religious fundamentalists are correct; without God there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.

Marks then quite boldly and candidly addresses the implications of his newfound beliefs:

“Even though words like “sinful” and “evil” come naturally to the tongue as say a description of child molesting. They do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God…nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality…yet we human beings can still discover plenty of completely naturally explainable resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molestation of children and would likely continue to be…

At this point the utter intellectual (and moral) bankruptcy of Marks’ position becomes apparent. After correctly concluding that a world without God is free from the shackles of the illusory concepts of morality and immorality, he pathetically attempts to have his cake and eat it too by suggesting that there is something “good” or “better” about the preference to being averse to child molestation.

Well, Darwin – the materialist atheist’s only true deity – could explain the preference of some for molesting girls because it sexualizes a girl early, resulting in more selfish genes being spread later. Of course, he can’t offer quite the same explanation for molesting boys. Oh wait, Darwinian theory accounts for homosexuality because gays can help siblings raise children, thus spreading some of their selfish genes more successfully. Thus molesting boys gets them into the habit of helping others spread their selfish genes.

What about those uptight folk who oppose the practice? Darwin can explain that too, as it happens: They evolved in such a way as to conserve their selfish genes until there is a high chance of success.

It all lays waste to any argument for protecting children.

In this context, “atheists” means “materialist atheists,” of course. The Dalai Lama (as other Buddhists) is technically an atheist, but the heart of Buddhism is the idea that the cosmos is – among other things – profoundly moral. Thus karma forbids any escape from the consequences of one’s actions. That kind of atheism is unlikely to catch on seriously in today’s West.

The Darwinian atheist, by contrast, thinks that morality is an illusion, as Michael Ruse puts it – maybe useful, maybe not. But the atheist decides which it is, depending on the preferences dictated by his selfish genes. That’s just so much more attractive.

How will it end? In “Our atheist commenters have kindly explained why atheism is doomed”, we see how atheists will destroy atheism: From time immemorial, people who flirt with “no actual morality” are easy prey for people dedicated to an evil morality.

See also: “Rabbi: Dawkins claimed that a debate he lost had never occurred – until it was posted online”, featuring yet another rabbi who doesn’t play rollover for Darwinists.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
So, according to MarkF and Elizabeth Liddle, it is not "self-evidently immoral", nor objectively immoral, for an adult to have sex with a child (as per the thread's original focus), many people don't find there to be anything wrong with it. If society gets to the place where it is acceptable for an adult to have sex with a child, then they're on board. Nice to know the kind of people we're debating.William J Murray
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Elizabeth,
I was disappointed that no coherent response was made by any religious leader to Dawkins’ article, which seemed to me to demand a response.
I'm no religious leader, but here's a response: Dawkins equates teaching religious belief to mind control, turning men into mindless pigeons that will guide bombs. What about teaching people not to kill? Is that also mind control? It's like people who think it's okay to teach children what they approve of, but if you teach them something different it becomes "brainwashing." Yes, some religions do manipulate vulnerable minds, but it's is not exclusive to religion. Governments do it. By Dawkins' logic I could argue that teachers of evolution do it, including Dawkins. Marketers do it. Compare 'kill people and go to paradise' and 'wear this deodorant and have sex.' The principle is the same. Only the outcomes differ. It's rather twisted to equate teaching with mind control, and disingenuous to apply the principle only to teachings one doesn't approve.ScottAndrews
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
"because I was, and am, committed to following my head rather than my heart."
I think there's a lot of good reasons for leaving Catholicism. But what exactly, in a nutshell, has your "head" learned that has made you bail out on the theism your "heart"?mike1962
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, You select whatever current, available semantic, definitinol and philosophical contrivances exist to justify your personal moral predilections and use them to do so without any regard to how they can be fundamentally justified on basis nor any thought towards ultimate ramifications. If you are not authorized to make moral judgements via your system, then who is? Do you rely on others who have other ethical systems to enact and carry out laws for you? Is law not based on morality and ethics? Should we do away with law? You "would argue" that the "definitional basis" for ethics is [insert personal preference here] ... but "that you would argue" bears no weight on why I or anyone should agree to live our lives according to some arbitrary definition. What kind of basis is "I would argue that by definition ethics means X ..., so from that definition we should do Y.." Should we also listen to "I would argue" arguments from "the definitional basis of ethics " in terms of survival of the fittest, of might makes right, of will-to-power? Or are you and your definitional predilections special? Why should we not apply those convenient and existing definitional frameworks in our moral and ethical structure? Am I not allowed to define ethics and morality however I see fit? No? Why not? Of course I can, just as you are free to define them however you see fit. Since you have no authority to pass moral or ethical judgements, then you cannot complain about my morality if I decide it is moral to throw you in jail for heresy. Well, you could not complain if you actually adhered to the consequences of your statements, but ultimately you and I both know you are free to drag in any principle or redefine your own on the fly to justify whatever it is you "feel" needs to be done at the time. You range about finding whatever statements suit your rhetorical commentary - redefining "self-evidently true" as "consensus" when your obvious self-contradiction is revealed, as if something becomes not self-evidently true simply because someone disagrees. You agree that some things are self-evidently immoral, but then add the caveat after you invoke consensus as your moral guide that "self-evident" means only "universally agreed" (everyone, as you said, agrees to it), failing to realize that you cannot claim something is self-evidently true (as you did) unless you know there is universal agreement to the statement. Is it self-evidently true that taking newborn daughters out to the water and drowning them is wrong? I guess not - since so many Chinese mothers have thought otherwise. Is it self-evidently wrong to throw physically imperfect infants over a cliff? I guess not, since a whole culture (Spartans) did so. Is it self-evidently wrong to round up Jews, starve them and gas them to death for no reason other than that they are Jewish? By your answers, the answer is "no" simply because so many people disagreed with that assertion. But, all this has already been pointed out, and it apparently means nothing to you, other than as being what other people happen to argue based on the way things seem to them.William J Murray
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
The test of reason is not opinion or feeling or agreement among a given circle etc, but objective warrant; however limited our capacity to warrant in a given case. Warrant, on credible facts, factual adequacy of explanations, coherence [logical and dynamical], explanatory, predictive and application power etc.kairosfocus
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Asking atheists to provide reasoned analysis and discussion points on the subject of theology is like asking Ayatollah Khomeini to write a detailed review of "the Satanic Verses". Atheists cannot produce any original thought or clear thinking when it comes to theology. Most of them can’t even produce any original thought or clear thinking when it comes to atheism! Richard Dawkins’ quote about our existence (if the atheistic worldview is true) is one of those rare occasions when an atheist does utter something honest and coherent about their own beliefs: The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. Any atheist who doesn't realise that this outcome is entirely unavoidable when you embrace the atheistic worldview frankly needs to spend more time privately reflecting on their beliefs, instead of wasting time posting ill-conceived posts on the internet.Chris Doyle
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
Actually I didn't "insist", Chris - I'd seen it misattribute without realising it. I checked, and confirmed that you were correct. I'm always happy to be corrected, as I hope should be clear by now. To your main point: there is no "atheist position" - there are atheists, and their positions vis a vis many things, varies. What they have in common is simply a negative - not holding a belief in god or gods. So no, you do not "know more about the atheist position" than I do. There is no single position. And if you read that article by Dawkins, you will find that he makes a very clear point that what happened was evil. He actually uses that word. So clearly he does not hold the view that good and evil do not exist. Moreoever, he is not "merely spouting his unqualified and ignorant hatred for religious". He is making a very specific point that it was the promise of an afterlife,that induced those men to serve as missile guidance systems. In other words, a religious belief. I was disappointed that no coherent response was made by any religious leader to Dawkins' article, which seemed to me to demand a response. What responses there were were mostly of the generic "Dawkins is merely spouting his hatred of religion" type that you yourself have just produced. No, he isn't. He is making an extremely pertinent point - religious belief can be a powerful weapon, literally - by inducing belief that this life matters less than the next, it can, and does, induce a disregard for not only your own life but those of other people. This is a challenge that religious people must meet, not merely dismiss as a religious hatred. Anyway, if you are interested, I've posted an OP here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=163Elizabeth Liddle
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
It should put the lie to the canard that Richard Dawkins denies the existence of good and evil. It does nothing of the sort. Dawkins is merely spouting his unqualified and ignorant hatred for religious. Clearly, I know more about the atheist position than you do (you recently insisted that quote was from Darwin, and nothing to do with life...). The Dawkins quote above sums it up perfectly and is subscribed to by many atheists. That you cannot accept that is not my problem, other than wasting my time again having to refute this nonsense.Chris Doyle
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
nullasalus, I'm just going to add: sarcasm doesn't render your own position more persuasive. A specific point would be more, well, to the point. Also more charitable. I started that thread as a theist, and mid-thread came reluctantly to the reasoned conclusion that it was based on a false premise. It was an earth-shattering experience for me, and one that took some time to adjust to. It was two more years before I ceased attending mass, and the first Christmas I missed I wept. An emotional response, sure, and a very deep one, but a necessary process, because I was, and am, committed to following my head rather than my heart. Feel free to critique my reasoning, but please don't mistake my conclusion for an emotional response. It was reached despite a strong emotional pull in precisely the opposite direction.Elizabeth Liddle
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
OK, in that case I misunderstood you. I didn't realise that you thought it was a good axiom because it had divine provenance. That certainly wasn't ever my position. My position was the reverse - that because it is a good axiom, it must have divine provenance.Elizabeth Liddle
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT
I read an argument that made sense to me. That's reason.Elizabeth Liddle
September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, Well I did read your posts on what made you change. I found the following interesting: Quoting Einstein "'A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.' and is as at least as good a statement of my own theology as I could ever make, I think. So, the dust is settling. My views have changed. The bad news is that I still don't get the kitten barbecue, because although there has been something of an explosion in my way of thinking, the pieces seem to be re-forming themselves into something not dissimilar to what I started with, but on what feels like a sounder footing. I dunno. What I did really like about Dennett is what he calls the "intentional stance" which is sort of what I have been banging on about over several threads. My theism is at bottom about teleology. The non-overlapping domains of religion and science seemed to me to be non-overlapping because one is concerned with teleology and the other isn't. A non-teleological view of causation gives us science. A teleological view gives us something else. It gave me theism. It gives Dennett something he calls teleofunctionalism. Perhaps I am now a teleofunctionalist. It doesn't seem to make my God-model any less real, but we'll see." First of all, regarding the quote from Einstein. What he's doing is taking a bottom up approach to an appreciation of all that is good. Theism does the opposite and takes a top down approach. It starts with God and His character and works downward. With this there are obviously gaps where we don't know the good, because we don't know God fully. With Einstein's approach, however, there's still no basis for defining the good that he seeks to recognize in all of creation, so there's nothing but a gap. He fills in a huge gap not with a top down approach, but pretty much his own need to actualize beyond the self; without recognizing that this need comes from God Himself. It's certainly a beautiful statement, but it doesn't ultimately work. If I start from myself and work outward, I ultimately only end up with what Einstein starts with; those closest to me. There's too much in the world to reach out to in order to fulfill such a noble cause. Furthermore, it doesn't escape what has been a condition of humans throughout history, and that is in thinking that they are more capable and more noble than they actually are; leading not to that which actualizes the noble intent, but to upwardly grandiose ideals that lead to tyranny. I like Star Trek, but it represents one of those grandiose ideals that doesn't take into account the potential for human evil. I'm not a cynic either; I believe people ARE capable of great good; but not in recognizing themselves as that good; rather, that there is something greater than themselves, which drives them towards the good. Try to apply this kind of philosophy to an alcoholic, who doesn't have it in him/her to change without the help of something outside him/herself such as a higher power or even just a sponsor, and I think you've lost the battle. Grandiose human utopian ideals don't work, and history has pretty much proved this. The more appropriate approach it seems to me is to acknowledge that everything in the world is already embraced by God Himself, and by loving God, my approach to the world will be in line with God's embrace, touching on issues, people and events I could never hope to affect on my own. This too will not lead to a utopia. It's not intended to. HIs Kingdom is yet to come. It's intended to counter the tendency to believe we are much more than we are. It's also intended to help us understand that our greatness and value does not derive from who we are, but from who He is. Which is greater? And in case you're thinking that this approach doesn't solve any of the problems we have in the world, consider what organizations around the world are being the most helpful with human suffering, and from whence their perspective on human dignity derives. Christians themselves are not even interested in maligning the reputations of charitable organizations that are not so based, but are right in there with them as well; but you will find a lot of maligning of Christian charity among atheist defenders. Somehow I get the impression that the dust has not completely settled here.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
"I didn’t mean that we shared everything, but that what you expressed in that post was very much what I believed." What I wrote in that post is diametrically opposed to what you wrote in the sections quoted. I don't see how you can equate that with agreeing with my position. I say that the golden rule is derived in the good; an actual being we call God. You claim, even while holding the position of a theist that "it works as a reasonable axiom, not because it comes from divine authority (although, as it happens, it does come from at least one alleged divine authority) but because it works, not only as a rule in itself, but as an axiom from which other ethical principles can be derived." There's a huge difference in worldviews present here, Lizzie. I hold that it is a reasonable axiom only because it is derived from the good; and this is why it works. You hold the opposite, that it works not because it comes from a divine authority, but because it is reasonable even if such a divine authority is only "alleged." That's hardly the position of most theists I know. Perhaps what you wrote in that post was in the midst of your transition from theism to atheism? That would seem more reasonable.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
I didn't mean that we shared everything, but that what you expressed in that post was very much what I believed. I'm sure we differ on much else :) However, you should not doubt that I believed in a good God, creator of the universe and the ground of our being. I was not an atheist.Elizabeth Liddle
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, If what you express in your linked treatise "Why I am a Theist" is what you're referring to as what your position was precisely to mine, I beg to differ: "So I regard it [the Golden Rule] as a reasonable axiom, not because it comes from divine authority (although, as it happens, it does come from at least one alleged divine authority) but because it works, not only as a rule in itself, but as an axiom from which other ethical principles can be derived. So, like many atheists, I consider the Golden Rule the axiom on which all other ethical principles can be derived, by reason, and also like many atheists, I consider that it derives from our biology. I do not, however, consider that it can be derived ex nihilo from reason alone as a personal strategy. I think it is something we may choose to adopt as rational strategy for survival as part of a society in which departure from that normative model is penalised. However, because there are other rational strategies we can adopt to ensure maximum personal benefit (to cheat; to restrict the application of the GR to members of the society we have a vested interest in belonging to), I do not consider that reason alone is sufficient to allow us to deduce the most beneficial behaviour for us as individuals. Therefore I do not consider reason a reliable guide to personal ethics. However, I do consider that we can account for our tendency to adopt the GR as a rational basis for our social justice systems in terms of an interaction between our capacity for empathy, altruism and co-operation and our capacity to apply an abstract principle (the GR) when devising the rules we expect members of our society to abide by if they are not to be penalised. In other words, I do not appeal to authority to account for our human systems of ethics, or to justify my adoption of the GR as axiomatic. I account for them in terms of biology and reason." Brackets mine. I hold that the golden rule works because it derives from the good; the actual divine authority; not just alleged. It doesn't come from our biology, but outside ourselves. I sense that you have always pretty much believed as you do now, you've just put a different, more appropriate label on it: "And I suspect that a great many atheists choose it as a model, but simply label the moving parts in different ways to mine. I think most people on this forum pragmatically, if not theoretically, regard themselves as autonomous moral agents trying to do good. The essential difference between me and you is that I countenance the possibility that this may be true. The non-essential difference between me and you is that I label one of the moving parts “God”." You countenanced the possibility that it may be true, but not the glaring and appropriate necessity that it be true? There's a huge difference in commitment here.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Liz: "There’s a kind of nihilistic form of atheism that I do think is problematic." And how do you determine that your brand of atheism is the correct one? Maybe by determining how closely you can get it to resemble the Christianity that you abandoned?junkdnaforlife
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
BTW, it's not the consensus -- you could have that in favour of a wrong and it would still be wrong. The objectivity in this case is seen through the consequence of attempted denial: patent absurdity.kairosfocus
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Out of reason, most definitely. I did not want to reach the conclusion I found myself reaching. My emotions were most definitely pulling the other way. Not exactly illustrated by your links, either on the 'out of reason' count (other than in the "I made a decision" sense) or the emotional sense. But hey, if you say so, eh?nullasalus
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Reductio ad absurdum for materialism.kairosfocus
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
NB: I have responded to the attempted comeback on self evidence of morality [implicitly accept the point, ignore its implications and try to strawmannise the theistic claim about that self evidence . . . i.e try to change the subject and attack a caricature of the point being argued), and on the attempt to project asserted circularity on inferring to the good Creator God as best explanation for a world in which objective morality exists, here.kairosfocus
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Der Liddle: Pardon me, but you are ducking and dodging. At no point have I said one must be a theist to see that a self evident moral truth is such. The issue, as has been pointed out to you for many months now, is warrant for morality as such. And BTW, without skipping a beat, you flipped from doubting objectivity of morality to trying to cleverly use suddenly implicitly accepted objectivity of at least one moral claim to suggest that it is irrelevant that evolutionary materialist atheists have a system in which morality is without foundations at all and is only subjective. In short you are ducking and trying to twist about an exposed contradiction in atheistical thought on morality. Namely, there is no IS in evolutionary materialism that can ground ought, so ought cannot be knowledge that is objectively warranted. And yet, here we have a clear example of a known -- indeed undeniable on pain of absurdity, moral truth. Do you not see that your system is falling apart around your ears? If ought is real, and we have an objectively warranted case in hand, there MUST be an IS that can ground it. So, what is it. It sure is not the matter, energy, mechanical forces, chance, space and time that are all the resources atheism sees as foundational to the world. There is exactly one serious candidate for that, the inherently good Creator God. As was gone over in summary here above this morning; which -- without proper warrant, you tried to dismiss as "circular." Sorry, the argument is precisely NOT circular, and you should be able to see that by looking at it. Here is a simple challenge to you: as you now implicitly accept, OUGHT is objectively real, in at least some cases. Therefore there has to be a foundation of that OUGHT. That goes back to a foundational IS that can ground purpose, and can justify distinguishing things that fulfill or thwart such purpose, as foundational to worldview. We have already done the comparative on evolutionary materialism and theism, and evo mat failed. (And that inference to best explanation already shows that the argument cannot be circular, unless you are prepared to dismiss science itself as circular, as that is how theories in the end are warranted in science. But then, if it's just the neurons firing, logic and meaning are irrelevant . . . yet another absurdity.) What other candidate IS do you have that can ground ought, so that the inference to best explanation on the good creator God is demoted form best explanation? Let's hear it, and see the warrant for the claim. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Did you abandon theism out of reason? Or did you abandon it out of emotion, or something else? I don’t exactly know. What I do know based on first principles is that your clinging to atheism is in conflict with things you have stated you accept as true.
Out of reason, most definitely. I did not want to reach the conclusion I found myself reaching. My emotions were most definitely pulling the other way. And I don't think my atheism is in conflict with what I accept as true. If I did, I'd go back to my earlier belief in a heartbeat. If you are interested, the moment is recorded still in cyberspace. Here is my OP, entitled "Why I am a theist". http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?p=4518826#post4518826 And here is when I stopped being one, 696 posts later: http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showpost.php?p=4578996&postcount=696 I don't recommend reading the whole thread :)Elizabeth Liddle
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, "I think this is an important point, actually, because there is an interesting symmetry, in that many of the theists here are ex-atheists, whereas most atheists (including me) are ex-theists. And so there’s a tendency for both “sides” to think that the “clingers” are the ones who still hold the view that oneself has rejected!" I thought I was done until I reread this. Whatever we cling to, there's two possibilities: it is either true or false (well, it could be somewhat in-between as well, so "more true" or "more false"). But I would never make that sort of argument, because it seems quite related to an argument from consensus; which you're obviously trying to avoid, but rendering it legitimate based on what people cling to as if their reasons for doing so don't matter. They do matter. Your point is superflous. The only way I could know that those who abandoned theism or atheism was reasonable is to know the reasons why they did so. Trying to analyse it from relative statistics seems rather pointless. Did you abandon theism out of reason? Or did you abandon it out of emotion, or something else? I don't exactly know. What I do know based on first principles is that your clinging to atheism is in conflict with things you have stated you accept as true. You agree somewhat that "the good" is a reasonable grounding for morality. You agree somewhat that a first cause is necessary for existence. Where the conflict lies is your contention that the first cause does not need to be personal (or "have a mind") as you put it. This is definitely a conflict. Goodness requires consciousness. Not even a human being is good or bad unless there's someone conscious around to accept or acknowledge her/his goodness or badness. Otherwise he/she just is. If only one human being ever came into existence and you are she, you would not require anyone outside yourself to acknowledge your goodness or badness, but this would not mean that there is no good or bad. You could recognize your own goodness or badness based on your own behavior towards yourself; even given that there are no other living beings. What you're really saying is that goodness did not exist until conscious humans came around in numbers. Before that everything was neutral. But if it was neutral before humans came around, what renders it not neutral when humans are around? You're back to the issue of subjective and relative truth as the basis for morality. What is good is a matter of taste and has nothing to do with anything we can ground it in. Well, that's true of some things we call good or bad, but I can pretty much maintain to every human being that comes around that abusing a child is bad, and there's a reason for the guilt and shame that results from it. The common argument I see from atheists against this is that the need for self-preservation renders certain acts good or bad. But the problem therein lies in where the need for self-preservation derives. It derives in something outside itself that is good. Otherwise it is meaningless. Someone locally left a 4 yo child in a car for 1/2 hour with the windows closed this last week, in outdoor temperatures exceeding 100 degrees, so they could attend a party. If it weren't for an observant neighbor, the child would have died. The neighbor did an objectively good thing by notifying authorities and attempting to free the child from the locked car. The initial act was an act of evil regardless if they were just ignorant of the situation. They did harm to a child whether intentionally or unintentionally, their actions were evil. If it was unintentional, the action flowed out of ignorance or some other reason, and they may be less guilty than if it was intentional, and we might be relatively more inclined to forgive or excuse. If it was intentional, it stemmed from selfishness or some other unknown reason and they would be more guilty, and we would be less inclined to forgive or excuse. Whatever the reason, it was still evil. I think you will agree. The perpetrators, a mother and grandmother were appropriately arrested and charged. My initial reaction was not: "I bet they were atheists." That has nothing to do with it. It was an evil act because it was not good. We make laws against neglect or willful harm based on what a person "ought" to do. "Ought" is derived from what we know is good. Good exists and whatever is the basis for that good is necessarily conscious of itself as good, and whatever other good flows from it. When there's a conflict between one's understanding of the basis for morality in what is objectively good and a worldview that does not identify a basis for an objective good, I'm concerned. I don't know, I guess it has something to do with the flow of human history with such issues. I'm not so much concerned with the fact that people abandon long-held beliefs. So in short, I'm concerned with internal conflicts between what people claim to accept as true and their stated worldview. If there's a conflict, they may be missing something somewhere. I think what you're missing is in your stated belief that the necessary first cause does not have to be conscious. This to me is logically incoherent.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
That was my position, CY, until a few years ago, almost precisely. Good to see it expressed so well, even if I no longer hold it :)Elizabeth Liddle
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
"What to do?" Either embrace that absurdity of it all or abandon it altogether.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
"If I have ever used the phrase “objective morality”, it was an error (or just laziness, not wanting to distinguish between “morality” and “the good” for the umpteenth time). Please read over my contributions to date; I have repeatedly made the distinction between “the good”, which is presumed under theistic morality to be an objective commodity, and “morality”, which is a subjective description of how to achieve or fulfill that good in terms of “oughts”." I too need to be careful with this. It is "the good" that is objective/self-evident; not the morality that derives from it. I think I made this point several months back, but not in the same terms. I referred to the Shema Yisrael as the foundation for good. But I think that is just a reflection of the foundation as God's character. Elizabeth objects to the necessary first cause as being personal or having a mind. But when we consider the ultimate good, we have to consider that which is personal; the expression of love, truth, meaning, etc. If the objective founding of morality and truth is the good; it makes no sense in discussing the first cause as non-personal. We can't speak of Love (with a capital) apart from person. I can love a rock that is not personal, but it is entirely different than loving a human being that is. A rock has no feelings that could render my love towards it as meaningful. A human being does. Therefore, in order for human love to be meaningful the ultimate source of that love must possess that which could render that love meaningful. The good is therefore necessarily personal or it means nothing. Does that require a mind? Well not in the human sense of mind, but it does require some sort of consciousness of what is good. God must know (be conscious of) Himself in order to be God. If he is not, then "good" is simply an empty term.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, Incidentally, Genesis doesn't begin with an apologetic argument for the existence of God. It doesn't do so, because it renders the existence of God as a self-evident truth. This does not mean that there were no atheists in the time Genesis was written. The reason why theologians, philosophers and apologists argue for the existence of God is because there are some who don't accept God's existence as self-evident; so it's in part, a charitable enterprise towards those who have no faith or those who have their doubts. Faith and doubt: two things that require certainty about certain other things; which resolve their inherent and underlying problems. There is such thing as an unreasonable faith as well as an unreasonable doubt. Thus, there must also be such things as a reasonable faith and a reasonable doubt. Our task is to work these things out in the real world. We can't work them out fully without the certainty of self-evident first principles. Genesis 1 gives us the very foundation from which to work them out. It's no wonder that the advancement of science was made possible first by those who believed it.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, "Presumably you’ve seen this gif? http://www.raige.net/pictures/images/sig_occam.gif" The existence of God, the very foundation for first principles of reason is what renders Occam's razor useful or meaningful in any way. And without first principles we render all truth as infinitely complicated - past finding out.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, Regarding a necessary first cause: "But I’m not trying to argue it away – I think it’s an interesting question, scientifically, just not theologically!" You have to be kidding, right? "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1. You don't believe that is an interesting question theologically, when it's the subject matter of the very first sentence in a decidedly theological treatise; one that if not true would render theology as complete nonsense? It's the very foundation of theology, and if it's scientifically interesting, it "bridges a gap" (not that I believe there really is a gap) somewhere between the two. Somehow I'm finding more of a reason to be puzzled by your responses than you apparently find in mine.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Elizabeth: You: "As you point out, if a truth is “self-evident” then surely, by definition, anyone can see that it is true, including atheists. So I remain puzzled by your claim that:" Me: "However, self-evident truths have a way of rendering atheist thought absurd in itself. Atheist thought tends to avoid self-evident truth and the underlying congruence of first principles (those principles that are primary, as in “self-evident”) altogether." I would expect you to be puzzled due to your a priori metaphysical position. Do you not accept that people whether theist or atheist can be inconsistent with what they hold as foundational to what is true? See my last response (regarding ground that we've already covered) and I think you will see more clearly the process I use to determine this. That some people don't recognize certain primary truths as self-evident does not render them not self-evident. Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. I think we both agree with that. (truth) without the captal could be in the eye of the beholder, but the process by which we seek Truth (with a capital) requires that there is/are (a) primary principle(s) that cannot be questioned. But atheism does not accept the grounding for those first principles in a first (primary) cause. Therefore, atheism has a tendency towards accepting absurdity - i.e., a natural and infinite regress of causes, which naturally flows into an infinite regress (ungrounded) of truth. Atheist's do not believe in principle that it is necessary to resolve this. You yourself have indicated that while you accept a necessary first cause, it is for you "meaningless." Well if it is "meaningless" as you say, then all that we call Truth is "meaningless." That some atheists accept the same self-evident truths as theists is quite beside the point. They do so because in order to survive intellectually they have to. Apparently some have advanced more than others in the light of reason. But they are being inconsistent with atheism in order to do so - a departure from the full light of reason. If atheism is true there is no grounding for truth. All truth is free in the infinite vacuum of space and time. But we know on self-evident principles that that isn't true; therefore, atheism is not true.CannuckianYankee
September 8, 2011
September
09
Sep
8
08
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply