CommentorMac said...
"Morality" itself is a tool invented by man, to be used by man, to help mankind live better lives.Mac believes that morality is subjective.
Within that framework, one might argue that one particular rule or another is so plainly beneficial as to be "objectively" true.
Subjective doesn't become objective just because it "is so plainly beneficial". Objective means that the source of Moral Law is outside the human mind. That is what atheists deny. In denying the objectivity of morality, atheists admit that murder would be morally right if all (or most) humans agreed it was.
If something were objectively true in the sense I think you are trying to use, then that would mean it's true independent of the state of mankind.Yes.
Therefore, by your logic, even if mankind suddenly ceased to exist (say, a black hole swallowed up Earth), murder would still be wrong.
Yes, it would.
Yet without any human beings around to define murder and right and wrong, the concept of murder (and concepts in general for that matter) ceases to exist.I'm a Christian. I believe in the existence of sentient beings even if there were no men. The concept of murder would still exist. And it would still be morally wrong.
Therefore all moral rules exist only relative to humanity.
No. Many moral rules apply to humanity, but their Source is not humanity.
Only if one accepts atheism. I don't.This renders your original question ("Do you really believe... of our opinions?") as inappropriate as, say, asking "if pigs can fly, why do you think the sky is green?
Even the terms, "objective," and "subjective," represent human concepts... they are tools humans use to help us understand the universe by breaking it down into categories. Categories which are subjective to our own experience, by the way.
If you jump off a cliff, is the result objective or subjective? Is the event at the moment you hit the ground merely a matter of your opinion? Or does it have a reality independent of you?
So do I think murder is wrong? I would say it is objectively wrong to the extent that it is defined as such.
'I would say that murder is objectively wrong to the extent that it is defined as objectively wrong.'
Atheism is so funny that it's difficult to parody.
Atheism is so funny that it's difficult to parody.
And that definition is subjective to humanity, not god (who does not exist anyway).Then you believe that killing innocent people or raping children is only wrong if people believe it to be so, and that it would be right if people believed it right. You and I disagree on that.
That's a nonsensical answer, but that's what you get when you ask a nonsensical question!The question made a lot of sense. It's perhaps the most important question a society can ask. Your answer was nonsensical though, so you're half right.
I must admit that debating atheists has made me a much more convinced Christian. As Peter said in John 6:68, when asked by Jesus if he would leave Him: "Where else would I go?"
There is nowhere else to go.
When I first became a Christian, I feared rational refutation. I feared that there was a strong argument to be made against belief in God. I am no longer afraid. I am astonished at the weakness of the atheist arguments, not least on the question of the objectivity of moral law.
Of course the Moral Law is objective. Atheism is a willfully ignorant ideology.
Hear, hear!
ReplyDeleteExcellent rebuttal.
I admit I'm flattered by your prompt consideration of my comment! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIf I may summarize my comment: 1. Your original question might make sense, in a strictly logical manner, if one takes a black-and-white look at objectivity and subjectivity. 2. I propose that there is a perspective on objectivity and subjectivity from an adaptive point of view, that holds them to be merely conceptual tools employed by the human mind, and to this end we use them to gain understanding of the universe. 3. Under the premise of #2, your original question itself becomes ambiguous.
"'Yet without any human beings around to define murder and right and wrong, the concept of murder (and concepts in general for that matter) ceases to exist.'
I'm a Christian. I believe in the existence of sentient beings even if there were no men. The concept of murder would still exist. And it would still be morally wrong."
An excellent juxtaposition of our philosophies. Nothing "willfully ignorant" about that. Here is my obstacle to sharing your perspective: until you can convince me of an afterlife, I find no reason to believe that right and wrong exist irrespective of the human mind. I believe that when I die, I no longer exist, and everything ceases to matter to me. That is not to say that I am incapable of imagining what the universe would be like after my passing, or that I don't have emotional attachment to those imaginings. Very different.
Likewise, I do not expect you to endorse my viewpoint, so long as you believe in an absolute, judgemental god. However, I don't think that your interpretations are all inevitable consequences of Christian philosophy.
Two part comment, for length if not tedium...
"If you jump off a cliff, is the result objective or subjective?"
ReplyDeleteI confindently state that you'd probably die if you just jumped willy-nilly off a big cliff. A few rare individuals have beaten the odds. Objectively, we could agree on this. Reality is the sine qua non of objectivity, and it wins every time. But reality exists in matter and energy, and objectivity exists as neural circuitry and philosophy.
To break it down: this is a good example of a situation where I would grab "objectivity" out of my mental toolkit of concepts, to reason that jumping off a cliff is deadly. It demonstrates its usefulness as a concept to me, because it helps me interpret something life-preserving about reality! And it's adaptive, because it helps me pass my genes on to the next generation. Subjectively, it's good, in the sense that not plummeting to my death will increase my enjoyment out of life.
"Then you believe that killing innocent people or raping children is only wrong if people believe it to be so, and that it would be right if people believed it right. You and I disagree on that."
Woah there, partner! You risk missing the point. Do I believe they are wrong? Yes. For the reasons you say? No. In the extreme case of your example, I don't really care if other people think it's right or wrong. I don't even care if god says it's right or wrong, because if he said it was right (like the god of the old testament did) I would still argue against god. That example is one of the reasons I find faith untenable, by the way. In short: denying that morality is strictly objective is not the same as accepting the conclusion quoted above. A false leap of logic, sir.
Killing innocents increases suffering, causes big problems for society, and I have an emotional aversion to it. It's a conscious choice of mine to oppose these things (hat tip to free will), not for fear of divine retribution. Being an atheist can be liberating, but it is hard work some times! You have to think for yourself and you can't just threaten people with eternal damnation to see things your way.
So, to get to the punchline. No, I don't believe in a strictly objective morality that exists completely independent of humanity. But neither do I believe that morality is strictly subjective. How? Because subjectiveness and objectiveness are mere conceptual tools for understanding reality and making choices. They are not mutually exclusive. As a thinking mind, I can use them or not use them and reap the consequences. If this fits your particular definition of "moral relativism," so be it.
So what the heck DO I beleive about morality, then? I believe morality, besides being a tool, is an emergent metaphysical property that arises at the nexus of humanity and reality.
Reality itself will go on according to its laws of physics, without much care for our mental processes. That is my atheistic viewpoint. I infer that you believe reality is part of god, is intentful and cares about our decisions and actions (and forgives us or damns us to hell based on those actions). I politely consider it a romantic notion, but unsupported by evidence. And, uncompelling for other reasons.
I think we are revisiting Euthyphro's dilemma here. I appreciate very much that you kindly offer a forum to do so, and take the time to ask thought-provoking (if sometimes mocking) questions. :)
Mac,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you have an 'aversion' to murder, Mac.
Without objective morality, that aversion better become widespread and FAST.
BUT...Free will, Mac?
Please explain how determinism and materialism allows for anything but the ILLUSION of free will? You must be tipping your hat at fantasy. Or perhaps tilting at windmills?
Atheism is 'Liberating' from what? Purpose? Hope? The nagging question 'WHY'? Moral law?
A student may be 'liberated' from his classes, but he misses the lesson.
If we follow your reasoning down it's evolutionary path, your ideas are counterproductive and will result in you being expelled from the body politic of mainstream thought. All those synopsis and chemical reactions will have been for naught. In 1000 years there will be MORE Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc and LESS Atheists. Why? Use your own reasoning: Just because.
That is just the way the cards fell. Theism/deism just works better.
The alphas prefer theism, the 'nerds' don't count.
Their 'nerdy' theories of futility are not productive and are historically proven to lead to totalitarian dystopias. Besides they are usually ugly. And we all know that in 'naturalism' beauty=survival and survival=right. So? Religion is beautiful, powerful, and GROWING.
∴ Theism must be right.
Being an Atheist is a challenge; a challenge to experience and reality.
It is LITERALLY to be the devils advocate, and in these days He pays a very good retainer.
But you're right - it IS a challenge.
A challenge that usually results in the Atheist dismounted by the lance of logic.
A biological analogy, for tedium's sake: Atheists are like the spermatozoa that refuses to swim up the canal, claiming the need of proof of an ovum and a guarantee that YOU (personally) will be granted the opportunity to combine with it. How does this affect those that DO swim? It increases their chances.
Theism is a working model.
Atheism is an exercise in futility. If that is not is not adequate metaphysical proof of it's fallacy, there can be non forthcoming to a mind so closed.
If not wilful ignorance, then metaphysical 'sour grapes', perhaps?
For most of history, mankind seems NOT to have had an aversion to murder. Or torture. Or genocide. Despite things like the ten commandments. Simply read the old testament and you will see many examples of genocide and murder sanctioned by god. I don't blame religion though. Rather, religion was co-opted by primitive societies as an excuse to wipe out enemies. Our ancestors would have been killing each other with or without that justification.
ReplyDelete"Free will" an illusion? Maybe. What's your point? I referred to it light-heartedly. The scientific evidence tends to say it's an illusion. Personally, I think the jury is still out, and we're asking the wrong question. But you call free will a fantasy: are you telling me that, rather than you having a soul that can choose or not choose to obey god's will, you're just a deterministic mass of neurons and other cells, merely acting out a pre-determined course?
I don't understand how a Christian god would judge a person on their actions if he didn't also give them free will. When you denied free will, did you not deny your own religion?
There will be fewer atheists in the future, you say? You're making a testable prediction. Your argument is uncompelling. I'd be more receptive if you supported it with data and demographic analysis. Good luck.
Yes, it is a challenge to think for yourself, and to take responsibility for your choices. It's harder than abdicating reason to the inscrutable will of a 2000 year old zombie who lives in the sky, is his own dad, thinks the earth is fixed in space, and has ordered people to kill each other in various fits of rage.
Finally, would you kindly elaborate on how atheism is an exercise in futility? Your sperm analogy kind of lost me!
"Free will" an illusion? Maybe. What's your point?
ReplyDeleteFree will is not an illusion.
It is the choices we face all day. Determinism - the logical and reasonable extension of atheism - denies that choice. Not an argument for theism I agree; simply a solid proof against New Atheist doctrine.
..are ....you're just a deterministic mass of neurons and other cells, merely acting out a pre-determined course?
Quite the reverse, actually. I was simply illustrating the circular form of your reasoning on this matter. YOUR point is one of determinism - not mine. You must defend the 'meatbag' position as an Atheist. I will defend the soul and purpose as a Theist. I do not envy you in that.
I don't understand how a Christian god would judge a person on their actions if he didn't also give them free will. When you denied free will, did you not deny your own religion?
Your previous comments make this lack of understanding quite clear. I suggest you come to understand the faith(s) you lampoon if you wish to make a more profound statement on faith in general.
There will be fewer atheists in the future, you say? You're making a testable prediction. Your argument is uncompelling. I'd be more receptive if you supported it with data and demographic analysis. Good luck.
There are fewer devout today (worldwide) than ever before. Demographics eh?
Where is the new Atheist movement in the most populous continents of the world? How is Atheism competing with Islam in the EU, for example? Africa? How did state Atheism work out in SE Asia? Or in the Former Soviet republics? Atheism is an ideological vacuum and we all know what such vacuums do/lead to: A Cambrian Explosion of faiths is the usual result.
The trends are clear.
Luck is not required (more windmills?).
If by demographics and proof you mean links etc: Do your own homework!
Yes, it is a challenge to think for yourself, and to take responsibility for your choices. It's harder than abdicating reason to the inscrutable will of a 2000 year old zombie who lives in the sky, is his own dad, thinks the earth is fixed in space, and has ordered people to kill each other in various fits of rage.
Think for yourself. That is a good start. Try it!
Zombie eh? Juvenile humour?
I recall someone asking a silly question like that when I was a boy...another boy of course.
Reanimation and Resurrection are very different events to the mature adult mind.
The irony is that we are ALL zombies to the Atheist, aren't we, Mac?
Animated bags of meat seeking sustenance. "BRAINS!!!" anyone?
Finally, would you kindly elaborate on how atheism is an exercise in futility? Your sperm analogy kind of lost me!
The sperm was an excellent example, as it is capable of transformation and combination. The sperm that does not swim up the canal is destined ONLY to be a sperm. Of course my analogy needs a sperm that converse and make ridiculous pretensions about existence, like an Atheist.
Perhaps I should be less artful and more blunt. A faith such as Atheism that simply surrenders to random force all that is 'sacred' in life, is futile. It is a shadow cast by it's opposite, and only serves to contrast with the correct path.
Atheism is the shadow of reason and faith. It serves only as a contrast and does not exist on it's own. It is a detraction. Faith may exist without it, as I may have no shadow in the noonday sun. The shadow may grow and fade it the night. Sometimes it may seem that ALL is shadows. But the shadow does not exist without me and the night time darkness only masks the truth.
Get it?
You ask were is morality without man. Dr Egnor counters with other beings - that morality is objective.
I say in addition: where is Atheism without faith to contrast with? Like a shadow it vanishes in the high noon. Faith and morality exist without Atheism. Atheism cannot exist without faith and morality to rebel against.
Futile?
You bet ya.
Free will: It's clear you and I have different understandings of what constitutes, "solid proof." We're way off topic now, but I think free will is a helpful concept to me regardless of whether or not the universe is deterministic or not...
ReplyDeleteDeterminism: ... and that's why I said it's "asking the wrong question." By the way, a question for you: do you infer that a deterministic universe necessarily means that future states are entirely predictable? i.e. can you have "random" (i.e. unpredictable) events yet still live in a deterministic universe?
Lack of understanding: what I misunderstood, was that I thought for a moment that you didn't believe in free will. That surprised me. You clarified your position, and my rhetoric is moot.
Demographics: You order me to do my own homework, but dude, you are the one making the data-driven assertion. Without data, you're not supporting it well. To wit: in a numbers question, convince me with numbers or qualitative summaries, backed up by scholarly citations, otherwise I'm skeptical. I also think we have different opinions of what constitutes an "ideological vacuum..." (And I'm surprised if you believe in the Cambrian explosion, too. Maybe you refer to it poetically.)
Juvenile humor: please forgive my sarcasm. But I do enjoy juvenile humor: what's the difference between reanimation and ressurection? One of them wants to eat your flesh, the other wants you to eat his! Oh lordy, I slay me. But no, in all seriousness, I don't honestly believe Jesus was a zombie.
"Atheism...random force...": ah, maybe we're on to something! Forces in nature aren't random. They're governed by beautiful, elegant, mathematical laws. But what is randomness, after all, but that which man cannot predict? God's most arbitrary fits are every bit as "random" to humans as the spontaneous degeneration of an unstable nucleus. Reason and faith are antitheses of each other, by the way...
I leave you with a dilemma to ponder: The digits of pi. You could call them a random sequence, and you would not be wrong. Yet you could call them deterministic, because they can be calculated correctly. What does this say about determinism vs. randomness? And what carries over into the question of objective vs. subjective? Oh, this is so exciting!!