Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why atheists do end up kicking cats

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:GAto.jpg
"One of us has to be rational. I vote: You!"

Recently, I asked “Are atheists immoral ,” commenting

It’s not so much that [materialist] atheists are immoral, but that immoral people are often atheists. That is, the guy who kicks cats anyway, and fears divine retribution, may resolve his problem by deciding that there is no God and therefore no divine retribution.

Then he goes back to kicking cats in peace. Other atheists don’t like him but what can they do?

The comments were interesting, including

Velikovsky at 5:

I don’t know about in the great white north but I know what an atheist cat lover in Texas might do.

Well, yes, but the problem I anticipated is not quite answered in this way. It is not about taking action. It’s about determining a moral ground for doing so. Jurisdictions in the great white north are as well able as any other to enact laws against cruelty to animals, and even to enforce them. They could enact strange and useless laws that afflict both man and cat, helping neither party, but providing a living for bureaucrats. And, whatever the merits of their cause, people can risk taking the law into their own hands. The dilemma is, how to construct a rational and moral basis for saying that the Atheist League’s members, many of whom are active in animal welfare, are right and the cat kicker is wrong.

It gets more complex. Assume that the population’s makeup gradually changes. The town comes to be dominated by members of an ignorant and violent sect that believes that dogs and cats are unclean – and that it is a virtue to punish them accordingly. What sustains the atheist in the face of persecution for his animal welfare work – other than the conviction that sect members are ignorant and violent? However well founded, such a conviction is not likely to sustain a person long in the face of persecution.

After all, the materialist atheist can have no conviction that he is right in any transcendent sense. His selfish genes cause him to oppose the sect’s cruelties. And the sect is now dominant in public affairs. Sustaining injuries or death from public and private persecution by the sect is pointless because he lives for this world only.

David W. Gibson at 16 says,

I’ve never seen any indication that which church (if any) one attends, has any correlation at all with how well one follows the golden rule. Or with how reliably one keeps one’s word. Or with how tenderly one treats one’s cat.

Not sure I follow. If that’s true, all moral persuasion from any source must be equally useless. It makes no difference whether one belongs to the Atheist League or the ignorant and violent sect, how one behaves toward cats. Unlike Gibson, I have seen plenty of evidence that it does make a difference. But where life experience differs, who shall decide?

Elizabeth Liddle says, at 21 that atheists have a rational base for ethics, but does not say what it is. The trouble is, if we are mere products of our selfish genes and live for this life only, I am not sure what a “rational base” would be. The most we can say is that the Atheist League members’ genes’ and neurons’ behaviour put them in conflict with the genes and neurons of the sect’s members – and that the atheists will likely lose the battle and go extinct. And that cats’ fate will be the least of it.

Gibson attempts to help at 27 by saying,

If there is no untimate basis for morality, some people just think this means there can be no basis for morality whatsoever.

No indeed. Witness the fact that the sect views cat kicking as morally correct, even obligatory. And they are the majority. How does the minority atheist know he is right? Or, as kairosfocus puts it at 31:

… the issue is whether rights and wrongs are even meaningful, beyond one species or other of “might males right.”

Really, the Atheist League can invoke only its minority preferences, and at best hope to get a “second class citizen” exemption from kicking cats. Without any hope of being right in principle – because their own creed does not sustain any such hope. And in any event, the immoral people who only professed to be atheists  – to escape a sense of guilt and impending judgement – are a fifth column within their League. They undermine morale by kicking cats and arguing for compromise on core values, in order to fit in. The rest follows.

You may treat this thought experiment as a parable or prophecy if you wish.

Comments
The holy dish holds form loosely and is pliable. Thou knowest it is good. All that do not hold form loosely and are not pliable fail to follow the example of the holy dish. They are anathema. The holy dish commands us to re-elect Barack Obama for he has the consistency of the holy dish and perfectly follows its way.tribune7
August 23, 2011
August
08
Aug
23
23
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Thanks! I'm off on holiday shortly, but will try to respond when I return. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
August 23, 2011
August
08
Aug
23
23
2011
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
kf:
This then comes back to refusing to recognise the source of the GR which happens to be religious, and grounded in our equality as being made int he image of God that gives us equal moral worth and grounds rights, i.e. having dismissed the religious tradition in the moral foundation of our culture you are forced to go back and borrow without acknowledgement from it.
No, the "source of the GR" does not "happen to be religious". It has come up in countless cultures, probably because the idea that people are of equal worth makes sense. It certainly isn't grounded in the idea that we are made in the image of God, because it is found in cultures in which that is not a core belief. And it certainly isn't original to Christianity. It seems to me to be simply the most objective ethical rule people are capable of coming up with - in other words, it seems to be the rule that comes up ubiquitously, no matter what the belief system - it's a product of our social and cognitive capacity, not a product of a set of beliefs, or otherwise, about our supernatural origins. In contrast, the bible is full of commands that most Christians don't in fact keep. Why not? Because most Christians, in my experience, understand that actually we judge biblical precepts by whether they make good ethical sense, not the other way round.Elizabeth Liddle
August 23, 2011
August
08
Aug
23
23
2011
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle, I have responded on Euthyphro, here. (I struggle with the new format.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 23, 2011
August
08
Aug
23
23
2011
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle The issue is precisely that the good God is the foundation of morality, but this is also simultaneously non-arbitrary, i.e there is such a thing as moral coherence. In the end the immoral or the amoral will be incompatible with clear moral principle. As in, it will be clear that once we have a community of morally governed creatures made in the same equality of the imago dei, then one cannot consistently act outside the premise of mutual benevolence. For instance [And I here respond in part to an SB case], if one's neighbour does want to be loved adulterously [and one may be more than willing to go along], that leads to a violation of the spouse and the wider community [even if the spouse is willing to go along that is not enough . . . ], so that if such adultery became the norm, the influence of such ever-spreading adultery would lead the community to break down. Of course, to those caught up in the heat of the moment such a cool logical case may not be apparent, and some even at their best may not be able to follow the chain of hypothesis and inference that would lead to the conclusion. So, we immediately see the reason for teaching the community moral rules that specify and give key controlling examples of moral principle. Commands by a trustworthy and good God, should not be taken lightly. Indeed, let us observe here Deut:
Dt 10: 12 And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to observe the LORD’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?
I am afraid Euthyphro's dilemma is thus misdirected when targetted at the God of the Judaeo-Christian Faith traditions. the issue, as has been pointed out over and over again, is that when one has an inherently good God as Creator and Lord, then one can see the objective goodness of moral principle, that principle is embedded in the foundations of reality, and it is non-arbitrary. GEM of TKI PS: I am struggling with this new format which is apt to cause gaps in spotting exchanges. I have requested that we have timeline as an alternative view.kairosfocus
August 23, 2011
August
08
Aug
23
23
2011
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
And you still haven't explained why it's the Bible that gives the "finished form" of the moral law, rather than some other religious scripture. They could make exactly the same claim on exactly the same evidence. In fact, Islam could take the claim further: as a later religion, and the last of the Abrahamic religions, it could claim that it's scripture provides the final form of divine revelation.Grunty
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
And such a tyranny by the individual, the group and/or the shadowy manipulators in the hands of the amoral or nihilistic, is a road to a new dark age.
The last thing the tyrant wants is anarchy or nihilism. Tyrants are not amoral or nihilistic, rather they want people to believe that their power is justified by what is right. If people believe that, it secures power while minimizing the need for expensive and potentially treacherous armed forces. The potential tyrant may have certainty about what is right because he believes in himself; he comes to believe that everything he thinks is right must objectively be right. That is the reason we need to limit access to power, even for those who may appear to be on the side of the angels.Philip
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Agreed, the laws are a reflection of God's principles. So, for example, even though there is no longer a commandment to build a fence around our roof, we understand the principle that we must take precautions to protect life. Other laws were specific for those people in that time. For example, not eating pork, wearing a garment with a blue fringe, and the sabbath had purposes which are no longer relevant. (We can't always say for a certainty what the purpose even was.) Sort of like telling your child never, ever to cross the street without holding your hand. At some point there's an understanding that it's no longer necessary. Its purpose is served. In this case it's not an understanding - it's explicit.ScottAndrews
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Please cf here above and onward as linked on the IS-OUGHT issue.kairosfocus
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle:
Divine moral law has been appealed to to justify all kinds of atrocities . . . . I’m still waiting for enlightenment as to how we are supposed to derive a system of ethics from religion in general, and Christianity in particular. How do you judge which commandments to take seriously and which to discard?
Why do you persist in a category confusion like that, not to mention an insistence on a barely veiled hostility? Religions as such -- being human, cultural institutions -- no more than courts, governments or media houses and personalities or even university academic staff [even the ones dressed in the holy lab coat] -- do not and cannot ground moral law, the truly binding OUGHT. At best, they may teach it [or as the case of the troubles in Ireland vs Col 3:5 - 14 as pointed out shows, may also fail tot each it], but the premises of such law, the ISes that can ground OUGHT come under an entirely different head. Even, our consciences are not enough, they -- if properly trained and not benumbed -- testify to that law implanted within. Which is a clue, this is a core part of our being. As you have been forced at length to concede, evolutionary materialism and the like, have no basis in an IS that can ground OUGHT. So, such a worldview is morally bankrupt and absurd. It has no answer to the testimony of conscience within than to dismiss it as a delusion or manipulate it as a handy emotion to use to rhetorical advantage. Such a bankrupt worldview cannot stand in a world where ought is patently real. (Oh, how ironic then is the old -- now plainly failed -- appeal to the reality of evil to try to make the existence of God seem absurd. For, in it lurks the problem of good vs evil. If evil is real, so is good, and if good is real, then so is The Good. this of course is desperately compressed and can be elaborated.) Let's cut to the chase scene. The only serious candidate for an IS capable of grounding OUGHT is the necessary being and architect of the cosmos, who is also a loving, just, inherently good, Creator, Lord and God. Once such a being is on the table, it is immediately apparent that the old Euthyphro dilemma type argument [unsurprisingly -- it was properly directed at the old pagan gods who were precisely not as just described] misses the mark, as God is not separate form good, nor is good simply another world for his arbitrary decree. Good is at he core of his character and so the creation of which he is the architect builds in that moral character, in particular in creatures who are ensouled and enconscienced, made equally in his image. So, we have rights, a proper expectation that our dignity as being so made should be respected, starting with life, liberty, and reputation, etc. Governments -- executive, judicial and legislative -- in particular exist to protect those rights by guarding he civil peace of justice, and are subject to reform or replacement if they fail. In that context, the core moral principles are respect for the good God and Lord of our nation and the world we live in, and respect for our fellow creatures made in his image, i.e love to God and love to neighbour as to self. Then we can jointly look to the stewardship of our common land, and world, etc. None of this should be strange to us. Just, an astonishing hostility and pile of fallaciously dismissive rhetoric have been erected to hide it from view. As to the idea that the first point of departure is that divine moral law can be appealed to to warrant abuse and atrocity, this misses several key issues, coming out the starting gate: 1: We are finite, fallible, morally fallen/struggling and too often ill-willed, so we must be open to correction and reform. 2: That takes care of most cases, i.e. abuse and fraud are not a reason to dismiss right use. 3: it also points to the failure of institutions charged to teach and carry out the right, i.e. it implicitly embeds the same error of institutional relativism corrected in this post above. 4: As was pointed out yesterday, the case of abuse that was flung out with quite incendiary words, husbands abusing wives, Eph 5 to use a specific case, makes it quite plain from context that authority never justifies abuse but instead calls for self-sacrifice to the point of laying down life, literally if necessary. Which is sensible and a case of a carefully balanced and reasonable teaching that can be wrenched out of context by the unstable and unlearned. 5: the same obviously extends to the courtroom or the government, as we can say see from the example of the apostles in dealing with the Sanhedrin in Ac 4 - 5: should we obey you, or God? 7: That is, human authority is under the higher law of our nature as made by the perfectly good and just. (Hence the rights to freedom of conscience, religion, prophetic correction, expression assembly, association etc.) 8: However, there are such things as evildoers, and so there are those who bear the solemn duty of the sword, to protect the civil peace of justice, from enemies foreign and domestic. Including he power of lower magistrates to act jointly with or for the people and interpose themselves in defence of the innocent, as say we may see in Daniel 1 - 4. 9: And that includes cases where some polities have made themselves plagues upon the earth. We may decry what say a Bomber Harris did, after the fact, but we must then answer, what is the reasonable and feasible means of containing a Nazi Germany and breaking its power? Or, what about an Imperial Germany? [It was failure to sufficiently break the latter that led to the rise of the former.] 10: In that context, I think we must realise that the private individual slapped on his cheek does not hold the same moral state as the policeman who bears the revolver and truncheon in defence of the community, or the soldier with the M-16 or AK 47, or the statesman who must decide whether to loose the power of armies, knowing full well the horrors that may obtain, as there may be worse horrors that are predictable if he does not. 11: So, while we do try to restrict wars and the like, we have to recognise that there are different circumstances, and that God as ultimate authority, is in a very different position than we are. Every death, every soul brought before him to account, is under his responsibility as ultimate Lord and Judge. And, we are in no position to push God into the dock and sit in judgement on him. But we are in every position to know and recognise that goodness is central to being God, so we can understand at least the rudimentary principles of what happens when God must judge nations, by consequences, by prophetic correction, by relevant degrees of destruction if they defy correction and become plagues upon the earth. 12: So, let us listen to Dembski's remarks on Boethius:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
VS: Please read here, where the point is developed at 101 level. In the most desperately compressed summary, I am here highlighting a point popularised by Hume, that there is a gap between commonly accepted IS-statements and premises, and OUGHT-obligations. He artfully expressed a surprise to see the usual IS suddenly giving rise to an ought and challenged the grounding of ought. It turns out that here is a major gap between is and ought that needs to be bridged by any serious worldview that professes to guide individuals and communities. To do that, we have to have a foundational is in the worldview that can bear the weight of ought. (Note, I did not say, the religious institution, or the school or the state, I said in the worldview.) The worldview being pushed ever so hard in our day, evolutionary materialism, only permits matter, energy, space, time and things that draw on or depend on these materials and forces. It has no ability to bear the weight of ought. It is inherently amoral, and ends in the principle that Plato pointed out: the highest right is might. Which opens the gateway to factions, chaos and embracing tyranny to get enough stability to survive for now, i.e. as long as I am last in the line for the crocodile, it is enough. Maybe, something will happen . . . The Euthyphro dilemma, ironically [it is usually presented to try to undermine any foundation of morality], shows the way forward. The necessary being and architect of the cosmos, who is also a loving, inherently good, caring Creator God, is an IS that can ground ought, on the strength of his goodness. In that context, we are equally made in his image, as morally governed creatures, who thus have unalienable rights, that we are obligated to mutually respect. Life, liberty, reputation, etc. Governments are then instituted under that context, by consent of the community, to defend the civil peace of justice from those who would war against such rights, by robbery, fraud, invasion, etc. Governments that fail in this duty should be reformed or replaced. Hopefully by the peaceful means established in recent centuries, the ballot box. But therein lieth the rub. If a people can be systematically deceived and benumbed in conscience, they will vote in tyranny, usually in the form of charismatic, glib-tongued political messiahs who promise rescue from danger. Hence the need for guaranteed protection of independent individuals and institutions that fearlessly stand for the truth and the right. And, the need to come down hard on those who would persecute, censor or slander such. A difficult task, and by no means necessarily a sustainable one. THAT IS WHY THERE IS EVER A NEED FOR COURAGE AND FOR REFORMERS. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and we have been asleep at the wheel. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
Mel: The truly self-evident will be true, will be necessarily true, and its denial will lead to patent absurdities. There are indeed self-evident moral truths, but the problem is that they are connected to the issues like: morality-- oughtness -- is real, so we live in a world where there is a foundational IS that grounds OUGHT. There is only one serious candidate for that job. But, so many are so desperate to avoid that implication, that they willingly embrace the absurd and deny that the absurd consequences and incoherences are just that, absurd and self-refuting. They deny and suppress the truth; soon, en-darkened in mind and benumbed in conscience, they demand approval of error and wrong. Resemblance to the current picture of our civilisation is no accident. Nor is resemblance to what Plato described in The Laws, Bk X, or Paul in Rom 1 and Eph 4:17 - 19, or Jesus in Matt 6:22 - 23:
Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
Our civilisation is in mortal danger and many do not understand the conflagration that threatens, even as they resort to incendiary words and rhetoric. We need to think again, and pull back now. Or, we will face a horror and conflagration that we do not begin to conceive of in our worst nightmares. Already, the fires have begun to spread. Mortal danger! Stop the madness! Fire!!! Douse it now, before it burns totally beyond control! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
Philip: It is actually worse than that. The desperate resort to contain anarchy is well known: tyranny. Indeed, that is the core principle of fascism -- in the teeth of the unprecedented existential challenge, some core community identity group turns to a political messiah, the great man who can rescue us from utter chaos, and who therefore has a right to be a nietzschean superman, above morality; or as Schaeffer pointed out, an oligarchy could emerge, or we could even see the shadowy tyranny of those who manipulate the public to get the magic 51% vote. And such a tyranny by the individual, the group and/or the shadowy manipulators in the hands of the amoral or nihilistic, is a road to a new dark age. Our civilisation is in mortal danger. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
A society or civilisation that promotes worldviews that make amorality seem reasonable and “scientific” is buying trouble, bigtime.
Any society that became amoral would quickly start to break apart, and as that happened people would look towards some form of morality again, out of fear, if for no other reason. The state of amorality would effectively annihilate itself; nature abhors a vacuum. The danger is not that people are going to start thinking that amorality or nihilism is reasonable: it is that they will believe in an "objective morality" that is dangerous and destructive.Philip
August 22, 2011
August
08
Aug
22
22
2011
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
"How do you distinguish your God from, say, Allah?" Allah means God. There is no different Christian/Jewish God. It is the same Creator. Muslims differ from Christianity with respect to the role of Jesus. Muslims except the virgin birth, and place Christ as a prophet, but not divine. Islam teaches that the prophet Mohamed was visited by the angel Gabriel, not God. Different from Christianity, whereas Christ speaks directly to the Father. There are no dueling Messiah's. Neither Mohamed, Moses, or Buddha for that matter make the claims that Jesus does. So by their own admission, they distinguish themselves.junkdnaforlife
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
"And the miracles argument seems to land us in dueling miracles." Too bad no methodology exists whereas one could collect data and fit models to it to help determine these things.junkdnaforlife
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
"the bible/quran/torah/book of mormon/..." All the books you mention refer to the same God of Abraham.junkdnaforlife
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
For my part, I would argue against the proposition that Christians, by virtue of being under the new law, are no longer obligated to keep the commandments. In fact, the moral standards for the New Testament are even more demanding than the standards for the Old Testament. Jesus Christ did not lower the bar; he raised the bar. [It is not just a matter of fleeing the acts of adultery and fornication, but also avoiding lustful thoughts; not just abstaining from murder, but also avoiding hate and cruelty of speech; not just refusing to steal, but also giving generously;--and so on]. Granted, we are liberated from "legalism," or the notion that we can achieve salvation simply by being moral, but we are not, it seems to me, excused from keeping the commandments, which contain the minimum requirements demanded by love. Indeed, we keep the law of love to the extent that we keep the commandments and conform our behavior to the Sermon on the Mount. Insofar as we break one of these commandments or exhortations, we are refusing to love in that context. Granted, this is not possible without God's help, but that is the point is it not, to achieve perfection through God's grace ["Be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect?"] The idea is not to bypass the Ten commandments but to trascend them--to achieve such a high degree of love that breaking a commandment would be unthinkable.StephenB
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
Would you briefly expand on this? the issue is warrant, as in what is it that provides and IS that grounds OUGHT. thanksvelikovskys
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
Would you briefly expand on this? the issue is warrant, as in what is it that provides and IS that grounds OUGHT. thanksvelikovskys
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
StephenB,
The Ten Commandments (Old Testament), The Sermon on the Mount (Including the Beatitudes), and the exhortation to Love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourself (New Testament). There is nothing to choose here.
Actually, the Law, including the commandments, was for the Jews. Not to say that it's okay for everyone else to murder, but the sabbath in particular was a sign of their covenant with God. That's also why Christians can eat pork.
the exhortation to Love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourself (New Testament).
Actually both were part of the Law. When asked which two commandments were the greatest, Jesus answered with those. That's interesting because one was one of the ten commandments while the other wasn't. This (and other) scriptures indicate that the commandments and law were not separate entities. So it follows that if we are under the commandments then we are also under every single other law.ScottAndrews
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Most anyone who believes that there is a true God (myself included) must admit that he could have identified himself more plainly if he chose to. He coud personally end these debates about his existence and identity quite easily. It's reasonable to assume that this would be a deliberate choice. If he's all-knowing then he must have foreseen that there would be some confusion and uncertainty. It also follows that he is not likely to be proven or identified by objective logic, as if it's a math problem with only one accurate conclusion. Why choose not to write his name across the sky and then leave a logical puzzle behind for us to solve? Elizabeth mentioned earlier that any identification of him is subjective. That's the truth. We each choose to measure any moral standard by our own or to measure ourselves by it. And give conflicting moral standards, we must make those choices, even if we do so passively. So why leave us with seemingly confusing choices? For one thing, our choices under such circumstances reveal far more about us than if we were confronted with in-your-face evidence. Sort of like what a child does when he thinks no one is looking compared to when his parent is standing over him. Do we choose a religion that requires little or nothing from us? One that emphasizes self-righteous criticism of others? One that tells us we can get rich? Are we inclined to seek out reasons to believe that there is no God? We'd like to think that our choices are objectively the best, but despite any available evidence there is some subjectivity. They reflect our choices and preferences. We could reason that religions are hypocritical, commercial, and take sides in wars, and that's all true. But do we take that as our cue to set it all aside, or do we look for the exception? Jesus said there was a wide road and a narrow one. He also said many who had nothing to do with him would claim to speak for him, and that weeds would grow where he sowed wheat. Clearly discernment would be needed to tell the difference. I don't say any of this to be judgmental, because I'm really not. But the answers aren't found beneath a bottomless pit of philosphical arguments. Just that we have to look for them if we want them. If we keep knocking we'll get an answer. Sometimes they come looking for us.ScottAndrews
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
To look at it from the other perspective, hypothetically, if God doesn't exist (which would be the atheist stance), it would mean his law was invented by people, and thus would amount to subjective human prejudices masquerading as objective. There would then, naturally, be thousands of different religions, all incorporating our common human moral commonalities but each reflecting the biases of the original creators - in other words, without exception, the moral edicts of all religions would be a combination of the archaic views of a particular time and culture (for instance, guidelines for slavery), rules which don't seem to have an objective benefit for humanity (for instance, prohibitions against homosexuality), and the timeless values that seem universal (such as the Golden Rule). The thing is, as much as you want to make this about subjective morality, atheist ethics are grounded in something empirical (the affect of one's actions on others) and *are*, thus, the most objective. Theistic morality is by definition subjective because they're rules that are subject to change. For instance, the Old Testament says you can have as many wives as you want - King Solomon has 300. Now, obviously, you can't. The secular moral explanation would be that polygamy was always wrong, and now we simply better understand that, just as we've come to better understand everything, over time. From a theistic perspective, either the Old Testament was not the literal, moral guide created by God, or morality itself changed.MajorGeneral
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
--Elizabeth: “But I’m still waiting for enlightenment as to how we are supposed to derive a system of ethics from religion in general, and Christianity in particular." Please excuse me, but this question seems to reflect a certain confusion. You can "derive" a general system of ethics by reasoning and observing the natural moral law, which is what WJM has been trying to explain to you. In this sense, the moral law is discovered; it is not invented or created, or arrived at through consensus. Biblical ethics, which are consistent with the natural moral law, are, for the most part, not "derived." On the contrary, they are already there in finished form. One simply agrees to follow them or not follow them. To be sure, one can develop an increasingly sophisticated understanding about them through study and Church teaching, but the moral standard itself is a given. ---"How do you judge which commandments to take seriously and which to discard?” You don't. It's an all or nothing propostion. Let's take a closer look at them: The Ten Commandments (Old Testament), The Sermon on the Mount (Including the Beatitudes), and the exhortation to Love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourself (New Testament). There is nothing to choose here. The latter command us to love and the former tells us how to love. If we follow that light, more will be given. It really isn't very complicated. If you want to make the claim that some of God's actions or some of His specific commands (not precepts) in the Old Testament do not resonate well with you, that is an entirely different matter. I am prepared to discuss that point if you like, but it is not the same point as the exposition of a universal moral law in the Old Testament or its more perfect expression in the New Testament.StephenB
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Elizabeth said:
No, of course it isn’t. As I’ve said, I think you can derive a reasonably objective morality ...
Reasonable to whom, and by what standard? "What does "reasonably objective" mean? I can write up any set of rules, title it "moral rules", and then we have an objectively-existent set of moral rules; but then we could have a billion diverse sets of moral rules that are "reasonably objective" by the standard that they are "physically enumerated rules". Perhaps you mean "reasonably objective" in the sense that "many people will agree to" the rules you have written down; if that is what you mean by "reasonably objective" then what you really mean is "consensus" or "majority"; yet you have already said that some moral rules are self-evidently true regardless of what any authority says, including a consensus-empowered human justice system. So, what do you mean by "reasonably objective"?
...as being behaviour that does not set benefit-to-self above benefit to others,
(1) And if the majority of the people do not agree with this principle? (2) And if they do, who then gets to define what the "benefit" paradigm is, which things are and are not benefits by that particular conceptualization of "benefit", and what benefits are more important to other benefits? Majority rules? Hitler believed that exterminating the Jews would be a benefit to the greater whole of mankind, do you not agree? You do realize that Eugenics programs sterilized tens of thousands of "undesirables" based upon ideas of benefiting the greater good, right? Are those examples of "reasonably objective", beneficial morality programs? If not, why not? Who is to say otherwise, and by what standard or principle? Once again: if not an objective good, what standard do we refer to that makes any difference in a logical argument about morals?
and we set up human justice system to deal with “what if” people violate that morality.
So I take it here you are saying that the only objective downside to being immoral (by the community standard) is if you get caught? There is no downside to being immoral, other than being caught and punished by the local community? Rational morality requires that we premise an objective good from which self-evidently true moral statements can be drawn. No other premise can lead to a rational morality that is not based, one way or another, on some form of might; or can it lead to any meaningful system of consequences for immoral behavior, if such consequences rely only on the ability of "might" to discover and penalize. And "might-makes-right" is a necessarily immoral principle.Meleagar
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Pardon, Dr Liddle Your remarks in the light of recent public uproars, makes this very text highly relevant. The Christian faith, and Paul in particular, have long been slandered on this specific context. You have said something that encourages that reading on this context, and so it is entirely in order to correct the slanderous misreading. Submission and authority in the Christian Faith, whether in family, workplace or polity, NEVER excuses support for abuse or oppression. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Folks, It seems the key point has been conceded. Game over, case closed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: In short, we are back at moral relativism and an underlying amorality:
AFAICT is there is NO “objective” way of determining what we “ought” to do, we just figure it out, over the generations, in such a way that most people are cooperative and cheaters are discouraged. The golden rule comes up repeatedly, because it seems to work.
This then comes back to refusing to recognise the source of the GR which happens to be religious, and grounded in our equality as being made int he image of God that gives us equal moral worth and grounds rights, i.e. having dismissed the religious tradition in the moral foundation of our culture you are forced to go back and borrow without acknowledgement from it. Worse, you then try to poison the well:
Unfortunately lots of worse things also come up, frequently from sources claiming divine authority.
Sorry, but a lot worse things also come up from unjust secularist judges and politicians and bureaucrats and media stars and pundits, before we get to the list of such dictators from the past 100 years, too. the issue is not whetehr we have moral struggles and chalelgnes and are prone to errors. the issue, again, is what is it that provides and IS that can ground OUGHT. Absent such we are back at might -- including might at manipulation [which is then backed up by the hammer of the state for those whose consciences refuse to go along] -- makes right. You have now effectively conceded that atheism has in it no IS that can ground OUGHT. So, it is morally absurd and bankrupt. We can safely lay it to one side as a serious worldview to guide a civilisation, for one thing we are properly convinced of is that we have rights and those ought to be respected. Now, let us consider the approach that the only credible ground for OUGHT is the good Creator God who has made us in his image and thus endows us with certain unalienable rights:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
I challenge you to identify the specifically theistic and even more specifically Judaeo-Christian themes in this foundational document for modern democracy, in light of the already linked. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
"It’s not so much that [materialist] atheists are immoral, but that immoral people are often atheists." I think that's wrong. Atheists are UNDER-REPRESENTED in prison populations. As a "finger in the air" test, it's probably a pretty good indication that immoral people usually aren't atheists. Unless you consider that disbelief is immoral, in which case they are ALL immoral!Grunty
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
I have asked for a choice of thread vs timeline. Will take time to code. Gkairosfocus
August 21, 2011
August
08
Aug
21
21
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply