The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Morality and the 'new atheism' > Comments

Morality and the 'new atheism' : Comments

By Benjamin O'Donnell, published 1/2/2008

The problem of morality: good deeds, it seems, really are their own reward.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
Thank you for the concise, and delightfully good-humoured examination of this problem.

Since the bulk of the arguments depend on an acceptance of Darwinian evolution, I fear that the power of your logic will be lost on those who need it most.
Posted by jpw2040, Friday, 1 February 2008 8:41:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This sophisticated essay addresses both the scientism vs exoteric religion culture wars "debate", and it also points out why/how scientism cannot provide an enduring basis for a truly moral culture.
And why exoteric religiosity cant either.

1. http://www.dabase.org/spacetim.htm

This essay describes how we are "educated" by salt of the earth "materialists" and exoteric religionists to be incapable of True responsibility for our presence and actions in the world.

1. http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2

Another reason why exoteric "religion" fails to produce a truly moral person is because it reduces everyone to children via the image of the Parental Deity---"morality" is thus based on pleasing the big daddy in the sky, and/or fear of the punishment of big daddy if we are "naughty".

The doctrine of "original" sin also provides a potent means for preventing any and every one from being a truly moral presence in the world. We are thus intrinsically (morally) crippled---or so the doctrine goes.
As does the "catholic" confession.No one is thus expected to become truly moral, and NOT do that "sin" any more---just say a few hail marys.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 1 February 2008 9:11:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not a bad effort, but you can't mention Platotic argument against the religious totality of morality and not explain Euthyphro properly. It should be compulsory reading for every citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro
Posted by BBoy, Friday, 1 February 2008 9:17:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jpw2040

'Since the bulk of the arguments depend on an acceptance of Darwinian evolution, I fear that the power of your logic will be lost on those who need it most.' To right. Darwinian evolution is the biggest scientific fraud of our age. It is full of holes and a load of crap!
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 February 2008 10:28:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Moral reasoning, like any other, make propositions which develop, improve and are subject to falsification. For ardent theists to tie all moral discussion to the absolute limitations allegedly provided in a divinely revealed holy book - and expect the rest of us to follow it - is to to truncuate intelligence itself.

For a matter of course, I currently hold that people of adult reasoning are engaging in self-regarding acts of their own violition as a moral right. Further they are capable of determining between others of like capacity to engage in consensual acts. This is neither moral relativism, nor moral absolutism but rather moral universalism. It it does not concentrate on the substance of the act, but on the procedure by which it is the act occurs.

I will also take the opportunity to differentiate between moral principles and situational ethics; on occasion, moral principles can be suspended in favour of contexts where greater breaches will occur. The justification for such breaches is entirely case-by-case.

And Ho hum, must you spam every single religious discussion with those kooky links of yours?
Posted by Lev, Friday, 1 February 2008 10:29:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
morality in regard to the religion view on the enviroment is shocking. in genesis god instructs people to go forth and multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over the earth and all living things.
how is this kind of thinking going to help us solve enviromental issues such as global warming and over population?
Posted by gav_gjs, Friday, 1 February 2008 10:32:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you LEV for bring my attention to the Links that HO HUM copied into his post. I had a look at them and find them the rantings of a disturbed mind. They made no sense at all. I find that so many people of "faith" have little ability to have a logical discussion based on any reasonable argument. They therefore refer to some obscure reference that is unintelligible or quote from some holy book written by humans that for some reason they regard as the word of some supernatural deity which they worship. Of all the hundred of "gods" that have appeared and disappeared throughout history. There seems to be an innate desire to have such a superstition and they all have "faith" in their validity, so it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with them.
Posted by snake, Friday, 1 February 2008 3:33:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, just as a matter of interest, what proof would be required for you to accept that Darwinian evolution (that is, evolution by natural selection) is not "crap"? Further, what do you offer as a testable alternative?
Posted by Lev, Friday, 1 February 2008 3:42:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brings me to to the recent news item, "Air Canada flight diverted to Shannon Airport". The co-pilot was shouting "I need to speak to god", the cabin crew had to phyiscally restrain and cuff him.

We don't know if he was a godbotherer, but it was the cabin crew who secured the safety of the aircraft and hundreds of passengers, not god!
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 1 February 2008 4:24:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Benjamin for this very clear exposition of the main approaches to the sources of the moral. I can't think of any other approach that would make it more comprehensive.
I have often wondered, and still do, where does morality come from. I conclude along with you that I try to do the right thing not merely because those others whose opinions I hold in high regard are watching, but because I feel better about myself too when I do the right thing. The deep puzzle remains about the source of our general consensus on what are good and bad things. A social/biological answer seems the most plausible to me.
Posted by Fencepost, Friday, 1 February 2008 4:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp, no doubt god realised that the passengers were in the care of a capable and reliable crew, and thus determined that there was no need to turn away from the creation of his new website:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20080131_god-hates-australia.pdf
Posted by jpw2040, Friday, 1 February 2008 4:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,

Which holes are you talking about? You aren't really trying to tell us God (or a group of gods) created the earth in seven days?

What's your explanation and where is your proof?
Posted by Charger, Friday, 1 February 2008 7:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
gav_gjs wrote:
in genesis god instructs people to go forth and multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over the earth and all living things.

Well, if He hadn't said that perhaps you wouldn't be here, gav_gjs. And perhaps it wouldn't be you but dolphins sitting at their computers and engaging in discussions.

But seriously, what's your definition of morality?
Posted by apis, Friday, 1 February 2008 8:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For O’Donnell to convince me that good exists without God, he needs to do more than convince me that evolution can explain the existence of a limited degree of altruism and a limited degree of empathy. He needs to explain why, in the absence of God, altruism and empathy are “good”.

Why are people worth being altruistic and empathic about? If we’re nothing other than the latest gorilla upgrade, I really don’t see what the fuss is all about, don’t see why one “should” be a altruistic/empathic towards other humans.

When I look at people, I see the divine spark in them, which survives the best and worst they have to offer. I respect this spark because I respect God. Further, this spark is an equaliser, giving me a reason to regard humans as equal, which in turn gets the idea of justice underway.

However, if I remove the spark, and just see the latest gorilla, which happens to be relatively hairless, I can't help but notice and be influenced by the differences, with nothing to level the field: different heights, colours, levels of beauty, degrees of strength and athleticism, differences in intelligence, differences in disposition, differences in behaviour (including degrees of altruism and empathy). And I’m talking about individuals, not groups. Some of them I like and admire, some I don’t. Why should I treat them the same, if they’re different? What important sameness do they possess?

Even if evolution explains why altruism and empathy actually happen, it doesn’t explain why they “should” happen, doesn’t explain why they’re good. I suppose it assumes the human species should survive – but, why should it? In the absence of the spark, I mean.

If I really thought evolution is all there is, I imagine I would value more "highly evolved" humans than less. Perhaps the more intelligent, if that happens to be the way we're evolving (I don't know). Or, if we can't predict the direction of evolution, then I wouldn't know which attributes to value. Evolution gives me facts, not moral guidance.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Friday, 1 February 2008 10:58:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is an interesting question whether humans could behave altruistically without the presence of 'God'?

I believe we can because it is vital to our own survival. It makes good evolutionary sense to show compassion and behave altruistically for the good of community. Without some sense of civilised order or sense of community morals and values we would be back to anarchy and chaos. Perhaps religion helped shape these values and perhaps religion was a necessary step in the evolutionary process until man evolved a sense of his own species to a higher understanding, or the next evolutionary plateau if you like.

Why is it impossible to believe that the desire to do good, act with fairness and kindness, to show respect and compassion could be genetically programmed in humans from an evolutionary sense?

Is this any more unbelievable than the idea of faith (which means in the absence of evidence) in an unproven deity.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 1 February 2008 11:37:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin O'Donnell, brushing aside the wisdom of, amongst others, Dostoevsky who holds that "if there is no God, everything is permitted", and preferring instead the minimalism of private judgement, sums up his own position as follows: Good deeds, it seems to me, really are their own reward.

It seems to me that a person motivated entirely coherently and consistently by such a perception would have to be a person totally without imagination. He would have to be totally ignorant of the depth and power of human passions and totally unmindful of the vagaries of the human heart. In other words he would have to be a machine.

By way of contrast, history and observation of ourselves and those around us demonstrate that human beings very frequently act upon the perception that bad deeds are more "fun". M.D.Aeschliman calls it "the fierce energy of amoral human willfulness". He also observes that the "private judgment" of such charismatic moralists as Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler was to be carried to catastrophic heights. And the historian Leonard Schapiro writes that "the judgments on Stalin, if collected, would present such a catalogue of the folly of intellectuals as ought to prevent those of us who claim to belong to this category from ever raising our voices again."

For myself, I prefer to choose the wisdom of someone who, to quote Aeschliman, is the lineal descendant of a native British tradition of skepticism about skepticism, and thus the heir of Dryden, Swift, Johnson, and Burke, not to mention the more particular traditions of Patristic and Anglican theology, in a word: John Henry Cardinal Newman. Give me his words any day:
"Knowledge is one thing, virtue is another... Philosophy, however enlightened, however profound, gives no command over the passions, no influential motives, no vivifying principles... Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk; then may you hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man."
Posted by apis, Friday, 1 February 2008 11:50:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No good deed goes unpunished. Sad eh.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 2 February 2008 12:30:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is really nothing wrong with Hitler killing the six-million Jews because this was part of the evolutionary process of the superior Aryan race evolving to become a master race. This is consistent with Darwinism which argues that human racial competition and war are part of the evolutionary struggle for existence. Hence the Darwinian-inspired Nazis forcibly sterilised 400,000 Germans categorised as ‘unfit’, and 100,000 Germans labelled as "useless eaters" were killed.

Dawkinism took Darwinism to great heights that tyrants and homicidal governments can only dream about. They now have a ‘scientific’ excuse for ethic cleansing and genocide. The tyrants in Dafur have Dawkins to thank as they model their killings on Dawkins ‘selfish gene’ model of cultural evolution.

Darwinism and Dawkinism are the two greatest fraud in science today. They are not science to begin with. They are at best speculations where our ancestors came from.

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001616 (Fraud in Science)
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/t_sci_me.htm (Scientific Method)
Posted by Philip Tang, Saturday, 2 February 2008 8:25:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, JPW2040 to the link for Westboro Baptist Church news release of Thursday January 31 2008.
An interesting example of the gentle touch which Christianity so frequently applies to human affairs. Not always, mind you, but definitely frequently.
Posted by colinsett, Saturday, 2 February 2008 10:22:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*He needs to explain why, in the absence of God, altruism and empathy are “good”.*

Actually all this stuff has kind of been done to death in the fields
of evolutionary psychology, primatology, neuroscience etc.

People like Frans de Waal have written a fair bit about the basics
of morality being grounded in biology, which we can observe by
studying other primates.

Goodthief, as a member of a social species, one of your genetic
attributes would be that you like being with others of your species
and you want to be accepted by them.

Now you are of course free to rape and pillage, rather then show
empathy or any altruism. Society will soon exclude you if you do
however, so its not really in your self interest to do so. Not only
that, but it would mean that I could rape and pillage your family
and belongings too, which would make for nervous living for you.

So it makes sense to agree on a code of "morality" by which we
both benefit and live more sustainably and harmoniously. That way
we get to live and reproduce. If we all killed each other, we would
soon go extinct as a species.

In other words, if you want to get along with the rest of us,
it is in your self interest to show altruism and empathy.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 2 February 2008 2:48:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, you say “It makes good evolutionary sense to show compassion and behave altruistically for the good of community.”

I don’t think this has been “proved”, but still it doesn’t explain why I “should” act for the good of the community. What’s so valuable about the community, that I should try to protect it, that it "should" survive? Even supposing the community wants to survive, why are actions that promote its survival “good”. O’Donnell should explain this.

Are animals our role model, is that what evolution teaches us? O’Donnell argues that we should be altruistic because some animals sometimes are. Not very persuasive. Some animals sometimes eat their young – doubtless for a laudable evolutionary purpose – shall we model that behaviour?

It is also not clear to me that the animals observed are exercising a choice, of the kind we would call a moral choice. They just do what they do. Evolution creates imperatives, doesn’t it?

Anyhow, O’Donnell has not explained what makes altruism “good”.

Yabby, you conclude “In other words, if you want to get along with the rest of us, it is in your self-interest to show altruism and empathy.”

Thank you, but I was rather hoping to hear something more impressive than self-interest. I think we can do better, and if evolutionary theory cannot comprehend or imagine anything better, then so much for evolutionary theory. I don’t say this means God exists: I just mean that, without God, “good” is not looking too flash.

Your earlier punchline is, “If we all killed each other, we would soon go extinct as a species.”

That doesn’t help me. Why “should” we survive? What’s so significant about us?

Philip Tang, thanks for the Fraud in Science link. Fascinating. The new atheists won’t like it, of course, having placed their faith in science. (Mind you, one thing I agree with Dawkins about is that religious people should not be beyond reach of ethical scrutiny, and have long hidden “above” it.) Your link helps level the field, making sure the atheists don’t similarly adopt a “more ethical than thou” mentality.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Saturday, 2 February 2008 3:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby says its about 'wanting to be accepted by your group'

Then he suggests that Goodthief is free to 'rape and pillage' if he likes..

*BUSTED* Yabby.. the presupposition behind that little burst is that 'raping and pillaging are wrong'..and there are 1.2 billion people in this world who are following a man who did both of those things and they call him 'The best of all mankind'!

So.. there is nothing 'innately' "wrong" or evil about raping and pillaging if you have the 'right' theology....

I continue to be amazed that this seems to be slipping through to the keeper in so many minds.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 2 February 2008 5:44:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican... you also need a dose of Dr Boaz finest snake oil medicine..

"It makes evolutionary sense to be good to the group"....

WHAT ABOUT THE GROUP IN RELATION TO OTHER groups ? (x 100)

Raping..Pillaging.. definitely 'evil'... yet approved of by 'the group' as long as it is being done to 'another' group.

But the law of God.. if followed will prevent atrocities between groups.

It is ONLY the law of God which can do this.. because if your group exists as a result of conflict.. taking territory, raping and pillaging.. then it will have created numerous enemies with long memories.
But if people in both groups are under the Kingdom of God, then 2 things should happen:
1/ More Equitable management and sharing of resources.
2/ Less feeling of 'us/them' and more feeling just of 'we together'.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 2 February 2008 5:50:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I was rather hoping to hear something more impressive than self-interest.*

You can hope all you like, but self interest is hugely critical
in human behaviour. If you help the little old lady across the
street, it makes you feel good. As you enjoy feeling good,
it therefore makes sense to help the little old lady across
the street :)

* Why "should" we survive? What's so significant about us?*

Well we might not in the end. Nothing siginificant about us,
just a bit larger brain then other species and superior vocal
chords. If the planet lands up spinning with little more then
cockroaches and ants, then clearly we were smart enough to
develop new things etc, not smart enough to use them wisely.

Species either adapt to their environments or they go extinct.
Rats for instance, have adapted extremely well to those new
city environments, so they thrive!

No busted at all BD. I remind you that the Xtian armies raped
an pillaged on their way to war, in the name of God. We won't even
start about the mass killings in the OT.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 2 February 2008 6:21:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Co-operation and helping others is a successful way of behaviour for humans and other animals.

A succinct example of this can be found at the following website, where a herd of buffalo return to rescue a young calf captured by lions. I often watch this video when I despair at the behaviour of humans, knowing that there are others out there who display great courage and compassion gives me hope for my own species.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 2 February 2008 6:23:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr BOAZ,

"But if people in both groups are under the Kingdom of God.."

As I recall, the biggest wars in the last 100 years were fought BETWEEN peoples of the same religion.

While the religions may not have been the direct cause of the conflicts, they certainly were not effective in stopping hostilities.

Actually, I don't know of any war that was stopped due to religious belief.
Posted by wobbles, Sunday, 3 February 2008 1:19:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, “Nothing significant about us”. That’s what concerns me. Seems we either survive or we don’t, and it doesn’t really matter. So, it doesn't help me see that loving humans, or protecting the human community, is "good".

It matters for God and God makes us matter (no pun), but of course I’m not trying to convince you of this.

Fractelle, If you think “good” can be explained in the absence of God, I need to hear something about why it’s good that we humans be “successful”. What’s so special about us, that our success is considered “good”? I say it’s the divine spark – ie the fact (I still believe) that we are made in God’s image and that God loves us dearly. What’s the no-God explanation of why we should succeed, rather than simply want to?

Wobbles, I know there have been and are many dreadful religious wars. On the other hand, Northern Ireland seemed as much nationalistic as religious: wouldn't have been a "religious war" without a resented occupation. "Yugoslavia" seemed as much ethnic as religious. The tribal wars in Africa seem ethnic to me. And doesn’t Communism show us not so much that atheism itself starts wars, but that removing God and religion doesn’t stop them (which is really the point)? It also reminds us that atheism never exists on its own: a person, or nation, is never merely atheist.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Sunday, 3 February 2008 5:51:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief

Could you please watch the video before passing comment - my claim is that it makes sense for people to cooperate with each other and that it is inherent in all sentient creatures.

Morality is necessary for the survival of the species. And doing good makes you feel good as well - don't need a patriarchal god to tell me how to behave and if you do - well perhaps you should learn to take responsibility for yourself.

To anyone who wants to be enlightened please check out the Utube link - it is utterly enthralling. And much more real than an old book written by various men for various agendas.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 3 February 2008 8:16:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'evil' and 'good' is irrelevant unless its integrally referred with 'act' in that 'specified' moment of the situation's history...hence most religious text discussing evil-good use story telling approach to aid reader...

'origin of morality'...I think it exists in all animals who form groups...has to or 'group behavior for benefit' wont work...albeit much higher in humans...further it exists in established society like law for order and peace(though law arose from 'morality' ie 'law of equity' it has since further specialized eg contract/administrative/tort)...and at higher level exists in religion and origin to is the interesting one...there are some truly ancient texts which can assist with this...

using 'bhagvad_gita' which hindu text and hope all people will approach it as a study...what makes it interesting is its a discussion on 'highest of morality' on the battle field between 'god whom come to earth to vanquish evil(krishna)' and a 'good' human whose duty was to destroy the human body of evil souls(arujuna)...who couldnt because his cousins and teachers and friends among the evil he had to kill...imagine that...on 'morality' ones act or 'duty' requires removing those who form the fabric of ones immediate society...some 3000years old

http://www.indiasite.com/scriptures/bhagwadgita.html is summary
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html is real deal for those who have the patience and interest...

Sam
Ps~some further assistance...hindu philosophy divides past human history into 'eras'...each era is complete cycle of human society from 'balanced' goes 'imbalanced' ie evil predominates good...needing 'god' taking human form to assist good to bring 'balance'...eg noah and ark...three eras before humans no more...first era 'ramayanam', second 'mahabharata' of which bhagvad_gita one section...and we are in third era...
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 3 February 2008 9:14:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to my previous post...to clarify...krishna use the word 'yoga'...and which is the original meaning (not current corrupted one of body positions)...as 'acting in balance at all times'...and supposedly when one does then they cannot 'sin'...as the balance in all things continued to be maintained...and i think these old words have such wisdom to assist us now in these times when motherearth is struggling...

Sam
Ps~for those interested...another issue of morality exemplified as a sub_story in mahabharata is that of 'karuna'...an soul who never committed a evil act in his life...and so selfless he was that he never refused anything to anyone...example as an old poor villager in a storm came to his house asking for firewood to warm his hut...karuna didnt have any so he chopped his own roof and gave the wood...what interesting is that he was 'imbalanced' as well...not by evil but good...and it exemplified by his last moments...in the battle field he could not die because all the good he had done in his life prevented his soul from leaving his body...so so many arrows had struck him that when he fell that arrows became his mattress...and the battle stopped and both sides came around him...he was loved by all...and finally it took god as krishna to take another human form and asked karuna if he could give something...karuna laughed and said to effect I dont know if I have anything to give but ask...and krishna asked for 'all the good he has done' and to which karuna pulled out one of his arrows and with the blood and flesh gave it to krishna...at which moment he died and soul released...nice story huh...
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 3 February 2008 9:34:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hello again, goodthief. i've read some of the evolutionary arguments for altruism, and to some extent it makes sense to me. but if you are claiming there is no "good" without god, the burden is upon you.

how does the notion of god help in discussions of morality? you may say god is the source of morality. i don't care. my question is how does saying that help? does it tell you what the morality is? does it say the same to you as it does to tim costello, or george pell, or jerry falwell?

you and i can clearly talk about goodness. we may not agree on all moral questions, but we share a large common ground. we can do this even though i do not believe in your god. i am good or bad independent of whether i believe in your god.

i don't think your claim that god is the source of morality is wrong, i think it's pointless. unless you tell me the point.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 3 February 2008 11:09:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a child, when you did something that was seen as unacceptable, did your parents or teacher ever say to you:
“Imagine that EVERYONE did what you just did/wanted what you are asking for?”
This question made me quickly realise that what I did or wanted was selfish or inconsiderate.

Later, I discovered that this kind of thinking is a recognised philosophical way of thinking called the Categorical Imperative:
“Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.”
This rule has much in common with the Golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Morality doesn’t have to be complicated; we just need empathy and a little logic to apply one of the above ways of thinking. We need to test our own actions before we take them by imagining what the community would be like if everyone acted as we do, or that these things were done unto us. God doesn't need to be in the picture.

I don’t want to leave out this famous quote that probably every parent uses and was said to me whenever I wanted to do or have something simply ‘because everyone else has this or does this, too.’
Parent: “If your friends jump off a cliff, would you jump off, too?” End of discussion.
You are an individual, you should think for yourself rather than blindly follow others’ actions or instructions whether they come from friends or a holy book.
Religion teaches people to follow certain instructions and rules blindly.

Interesting video, Fractelle; it shows clearly that survival of individual social animals depends on how the group as a whole functions.

Bushbasher, I agree, it is of uttermost importance to test the morality of God point-by-point.
There is a significant number of points in holy books that, because of the moving zeitgeist, are regarded as extremely immoral today.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 3 February 2008 12:49:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Going by many of the Posts, looks like Socrates was close to the truth when he said - Out with the Gods and in with the Good.

Maybe the boy Jesus was also close to the truth when he said - Blessed Are, rather than - Though Shalt, the phrase Love your Enemy, also giving much food for thought, especially in these days of such hatred between America and Iran.

In fact it has been said that at the time of the early Jesus, the Great Library of Alexandria was still in existence, most of the people in study there being Jews, among them possibly being the Men of Wisdom the boy Jesus is said to have associated with?

Maybe it is about time we tried to make clearer connections between genuine history and definitive portions of the New Testament.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 3 February 2008 1:05:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz,

I'm amazed that you keep pushing this line that morality comes from God or the Bible, when you are proven time and time again, to have a more flawed case than the Atheists and Agnostics have for the origins of morality.

I've already been through this with you before.

<<But the law of God.. if followed will prevent atrocities between groups.>>

So how then, do you propose, are we able cherry-pick the good bits out of the Bible and not follow the bad bits (which some still do)? It had to be a factor outside Christianity.

How do we know that Jesus was to be followed, and not the disgraceful God of the Old Testament? What was it that gave us the ability to know which parts were good and which parts were bad?

Explaining morality with the 'God did it' explanation is extremely infantile compared to all the other explanations we have.

You're 'raping and pillaging' argument ignores so much that it's hard to even know where to begin. You really don't understand evolution at all, do you?

Goodthief,

<<What’s the no-God explanation of why we should succeed, rather than simply want to?>>

“Need to” would be better wording, because it would partly give you and answer to your question.

Explaining the 'spark' that you're referring to, with God, is intellectually narrow and lazy, and is a classic example of the point that I have raised many times on OLO, that religion can hinder our curiosity and discovery.

There are far more logical explanations to the 'spark' than the 'God did it' explanation. That being said, Bushbasher has a good point when he said: "The burden of proof is on you".
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 3 February 2008 1:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, The video is enthralling, but not relevant. I know things we call “good” happen, and not just among buffalo. I even know the human species “needs” to survive. But this doesn’t mean we “should” survive. I have a reason for saying we should. You don’t – see Yabby’s post – or, at least, you haven’t given a reason yet.

You seem to think believing in God is essentially a matter of need. Perhaps for some believers it is, but not all. I’m pretty sure I’d find life easier without this belief.

Hi bushbasher. All I’m saying is that I have a reason for saying that moral ideas are “good” – ie because they come from God. The evolutionists simply say that altruism happens. They say it’s to preserve the human race. But, why? I say the human race is extremely special and infinitely valuable, and therefore worth a lot of trouble preserving, because of the divine spark we all possess (I believe). The evolutionists don't seem to have a reason for saying the human race is worth preserving, but just that the human race will in fact try to preserve itself.

AJ Philips, “Need to” isn’t any more useful than “want to”. It just means altruism happens, which I already know. I’m still waiting for an evolutionist to tell my why it “should” happen – a reason why the human race is worth preserving. Once you do that, you can claim to have an idea of “good”. I won’t have to be impressed with it, any more than you are about God, but at least you’ll have a basis.

Meanwhile, to speak of the “spark” is only lazy if there’s no God.

Celivia, I think your post describes common ground – how particular principles are developed. This is probably true, whether the theists or the atheists are right. You speak of “selfish and inconsiderate” as if they’re bad. Why are they bad? Why should human beings be considered? Just for my own self-preservation, is that the best reason you have?

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Sunday, 3 February 2008 3:42:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief, please argue with others over the claims and implications of evolution. to raise this with me here is simply misdirection. the issue i raised with you is solely the moral value of your belief in god, nothing else.

i ask you again, what is the benefit of claiming morality comes from god? why should i care? to say "moral ideas are 'good' " is simply tautology, and a tautology i'm perfectly capable of without god.

consider any contentious moral issue: abortion, or capital punishment or homosexuality or whatever. you choose. then, tell me how god being the source of morality helps you think about that question. tell me how you can think about that question more clearly than me. if you claim that you can't then, again, i see no value or interest in your claims about god. if you claim you can, then you are saying something of substance, but i think you'll have a hell of a time defending it.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 3 February 2008 4:22:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief,

<<“Need to” isn’t any more useful than “want to”.>>

Yes it is. Because needs are more important than wants.

<<I’m still waiting for an evolutionist to tell my why it “should” happen...>>

For the sake of Survival.

<<...a reason why the human race is worth preserving.>>

Since you are the only one who is asserting that there actually has to be 'reason' why the human race is worth preserving, then it is you in which the burden of proof is on.

<<...but at least you’ll have a basis.>>

A basis has already been given to you by many here, you're just shutting it out with the assumption that there has to be a divine reasoning to it.

Again, if you're not willing to accept the logical answers you're being given by others, and if you want to insist that there is a deeper meaning to it all, then the burden of proof is on you.

<<Meanwhile, to speak of the “spark” is only lazy if there’s no God.>>

I didn't say speaking of the spark was lazy. I said that explaining it with God is lazy.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 3 February 2008 4:26:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you remember the old saying that polite dinner conversation should not include politics or religion. :)

Passions certainly do get aroused - it is such a divisive issue, you can see why SOME wars are inflamed by religious differences even though the root cause may be more to do with shortsighted and inequitable foreign and economic policy.

Perhaps the important thing is whatever your own personal beliefs is how we behave in the world,how we treat others, how fair we are - it is the acts of kindness or compassion and the difference those acts make which really matter.

Not everyone thinks the same - even the sceptics within the various religions do not agree on many of the fundamentals. In Australia we are luckier than some, we can respect the differences and still co-exist albeit with a few rocky moments now and again.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 3 February 2008 6:19:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*But this doesn’t mean we “should” survive. I have a reason for saying we should.*

Goodthief, your reason is about as valid as the kid who believes
in Santa, as then he will get some presents. It might make you
feel better and how you feel clearly matters, but that does not mean
its true. Big difference!

As for the alleged god loving you, clearly he does not give a
rats arse :) For if you were a starving spina bifida baby for
instance, or one of millions suffering through no fault of their
own, all this due to your God's creation, when he could have
created a world without so much suffering, if he has the power
that you claim, then you might think again.

But I concede that belief and hope make people feel better and
assist in regulating their brain chemistry, reducing anxiety etc.
Ok fair enough. Thats why it makes sense that virtually every
tribe ever discovered, invented some kind of god or gods. As
we evolved to become smarter, we also became more curious and
more anxious. Homeostasis of brain chemistry matters when it
comes to survival.

As to your "divine spark", given that we can show that various
primates cooperate within their tribes, share food, display empathy
etc, clearly they copped a bit of spark too!
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 3 February 2008 6:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article. Some interesting and scary links. Fractelle, love yours, jpw2040, yours scared the bejesus out of me.

Pelican, religion, politics and sex are the only really interesting topics to talk about :)
Posted by yvonne, Sunday, 3 February 2008 7:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Say you and your partner came home from a night out. You noticed that your bedroom door was opened. The windows facing the garden were opened wide. The drawers of the wardrobe were partially drawn and it was obvious the condition of the room was not what it was when you left home.

Most of us would not have hesitated to report to the police that a break-in took place. However, AJ Philips the ‘LOGICAL’ evolutionist, would have attributed the opened windows it to the strong wind and, an animal must have come into the room to mess it up.

Evolution is a hypothesis. It is not scientific, it is a speculation about our beginning as much as a belief that an intelligent being made this world. If you are a consistent evolutionist you would be glad that the Nazis killed six-million Jews, the genocide in Dafur and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo took place because you are witnessing the evolution of a superior race or culture.

You would also be glad that they hang homosexuals and lesbians in Islamic countries because the cardinal principle of evolution, survival of the species is being threatened by such a life-style. If same sex marriage is the norm, human-kind would soon be extinct
Posted by Philip Tang, Sunday, 3 February 2008 8:54:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the print edition of yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald there’s an edited version of this essay by Stephen Pinker. Anyone who’s read it in the Herald will profit by reading the original version – it’s much better:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all

Pinker argues that just as it is possible that we have a language instinct, there is evidence for the existence of a moral instinct: “A list of human universals collected by the anthropologist Donald E. Brown [ http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm ] includes many moral concepts and emotions, including a distinction between right and wrong; empathy; fairness; admiration of generosity; rights and obligations; proscription of murder, rape and other forms of violence; redress of wrongs; sanctions for wrongs against the community; shame; and taboos.”

He describes some ingenious pieces of research which reveal much about how people from all kinds of backgrounds, cultures and socio-economic groups have many shared “moral” values.

Not that these things are fixed: “many behaviors have been amoralized, switched from moral failings to lifestyle choices. They include divorce, illegitimacy, being a working mother, marijuana use and homosexuality. Many afflictions have been reassigned from payback for bad choices to unlucky misfortunes. There used to be people called “bums” and “tramps”; today they are “homeless.” Drug addiction is a “disease”; syphilis was rebranded from the price of wanton behavior to a “sexually transmitted disease” and more recently a “sexually transmitted infection.”

This wave of amoralization has led the cultural right to lament that morality itself is under assault, as we see in the group that anointed itself the Moral Majority.”

TBC
Posted by jpw2040, Sunday, 3 February 2008 9:05:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the US context, at least, differences in moral interpretation has a political dimension: “In a large Web survey, Haidt [ can't find the exact link, but see: http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/science.html ] found that liberals put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead place a moderately high weight on all five. It’s not surprising that each side thinks it is driven by lofty ethical values and that the other side is base and unprincipled.”

And, of course, there’s a religious context too: “Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work of it 2,400 years ago. Does God have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as immoral? … Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child.”

Pinker’s conclusion is that scientific investigation of what we know as morality will strengthen it, rather than destroy it: “Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend.”

It's worth repeating: expanding our knowledge of where our sense of morality comes from will help us to find commonality with people whose moral views differ from ours, rather than describing each other as gorillas and frauds, or firing off loopy lines like “If you are a consistent evolutionist you would be glad that the Nazis killed six-million Jews”.
Posted by jpw2040, Sunday, 3 February 2008 9:07:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So far as I can see, there is no reason why the human race should continue to exist. That is, there is no obligation to procreate. But there is reason not to kill or harm those who do exist. (You do not need to prove that causing pain is wrong. It just is.) If the only way we could preserve the race were to send a space ship off to a distant solar system; and the money to pay the immense cost of doing so could instead be used to alleviate pain or save lives, it would be wrong to build the space ship.

Adopting the theory of evolution does not imply accepting that whatever happens is good. I can't for the life of me see how that confusion could arise. To borrow an example, evolutionists have no requirement to think it a good thing that bacteria are evolving which are drug resistant.

You can't base morality on religion, because you need morality in the first place in deciding what you should believe. How can Christians understand the atonement at all, without bringing moral values into their thinking?

The Bible contains too many contradictions to be simply said to be true. Try comparing Genesis chapters one and two, and determine what the order of creation was. Look at the inconsistent moral views of the gospels. You need to determine which bits are true. "Simple faith" which ignores these problems is intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by ozbib, Sunday, 3 February 2008 9:54:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican, As this is a discussion between a theist and some atheists, your point about “religious differences” is very interesting.

bushbasher, Fractelle, Yabby and AJ Philips, Please excuse me for not giving separate replies. This topic began with my post on Friday, in which I was focused on O’Donnell’s assertion that evolution can explain morality. (I wasn’t commenting on his whole article.) On this aspect, the onus is on him and you.

The discussion has not been about the credentials of theistic or scriptural morality – where the onus would be on me. I understand that burden, and I know it’s no longer a dream run.

I have been at pains to draw out how the “moral” phenomena evolutionists identify are actually good, and all I’m getting is that they happen which I already knew. There is no explanation of their value. The nearest we get is that the human species needs to survive, but this is different from saying it should, or that’s it’s good that it does. Still, it seems to be the best explanation on offer. I was hoping someone would at least say humans are a good or valuable species – which I would say – but no-one did.

Ozbib, If evolutionists don’t regard every evolved event as good, then from where do they get their criteria – for a good event and a bad one?

Yabby, Yes I wonder if some of the spark was distributed more widely than theists traditionally think. Interesting idea.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Monday, 4 February 2008 6:32:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief, groups were important for the survival of the human species. If group members didn’t look after each other the group wouldn’t survive. If a group didn’t survive, then individuals wouldn’t survive. According to Darwin, the most altruistic groups have an advantage over selfish groups.

To reply to your question, when I said ‘selfish and inconsiderate’ this was from a functional POV of a group/community. Selfish behaviour by group members would damage the survival of the group because it caused the group to be dysfunctional because selfish behaviour increased risks for anyone in the group- so in that sense it would be ‘bad’ to encourage selfish behaviour over altruistic behaviour.

Human beings are not considered by anyone else but human beings themselves.
All species have an innate need to survive, that's all.
If you’ve watched “March of the Penguins” you know what sacrifices species are willing to make because their need to survive is so strong.

So, I’d say that human beings ‘should be’ considered by human beings because of the need to survive... for self-preservation.
There is no reason from an evolutionary POV why humans have more value than any other species or more right to survive.
Only species that adapt to the environment survive.
If human beings end up surviving longer than other species this is not because a god finds them special or they have a spark but merely because they can adequately adapt to their environment and can often even adjust their environment to suit their needs.

Jpw, I love your posts and will read the links you provided when I get some free time later today.
Posted by Celivia, Monday, 4 February 2008 8:18:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Pelican, religion, politics and sex are the only really interesting topics to talk about :)>

Yvonne, you might have a point there.

Goodthief, I mentioned religious differences to point out that even people of faith cannot agree there is not much chance for theists and atheists to acknowledge the other's point of view.

I do believe strongly that humans are inherently 'good' without the need for belief in the supernatural. As someone already mentioned altrusitic societies are destined to succeed over others societies. Maybe that is the biggest difference between theists and atheists is that one simple premise of human nature.

And the question of Why should we survive is superfluous. We should survive simply because we are here and to live is better than not to live and for the future of our children.

The real question that should be asked is Will we survive rather than Why we should. If we abuse, exploit and pollute our planet much further perhaps we won't survive indefinitely. No-one can predict the future.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 4 February 2008 9:22:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“If evolutionists don’t regard every evolved event as good, then from where do they get their criteria – for a good event and a bad one?” (Goodtheif).
That is not putting a question – rather it is a statement of utter confusion as to what evolution is all about.
For most species, at any one time there are millions of individuals. There is minor variation in the make-up of almost all individuals. Elements having similar characteristics might be favoured in the reproductive stakes under particular circumstances. Those will be the most prominent representatives until a fundamental change in their environment winnows them out in favour of others having different characteristics. It is a matter of being in the right place at the right time with the right goods. Evolution by chance, not design: what is “success” today might be utter failure tomorrow.
For frogs, evolutionary morality had nothing to do with males having slippery backs while females do not. It was the evolutionary necessity of not wasting their “seed” by throwing it indiscriminately around, even if not “casting it upon the ground” like Onan.
In the case of birds and mammals, there is no shortage of demonstration of morality’s existence. Altruism has evolved as a necessary component of dolphins and dogs; humans and other primates. From the god Thor, to the Buddah, to the godless, it is varyingly manifest in interesting stories. And the three monotheist tribes want to cosset it to themselves? – the arrogance
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 4 February 2008 9:30:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And this is at the heart of the entire debate:

What value do human beings have?

Would the planet be better off without us?

I agree with Celivia - that the only value we have is what we award ourselves.

And this is why religion has such a powerful hold - it gives us a value, a worth.

"son of god" "afterlife" "souls"

Such terms denote a value to humanity, that we deny to other creatures. To me this is very arrogant, placing ourselves above everything else. Especially when considered in light of Fractelle's Youtube link to the Battle at Kruger.

What do the religious think of this? That they are the most important life on this planet?
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 4 February 2008 9:33:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief (or should I call you St. Dismas?),

I must admit I am perplexed by your suggestion of the need to explain why "in the absence of God, altruism and empathy are 'good'. To me that is like asking for the need to explain why, in the absence of God, facts are true. Mutual consensus is "good" for the same reasons that correlations with external facts are "true" or for that matter individual tastes determine "beauty". There is no need for God for these justifications, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Philip Tang,

I have read your links and I find them rather devoid of sophiticated reasoning. For starters I may point out to you that Hitler's extermination of Jewry used the scientific false category of human 'races' to justify a religious outlook of the "need" for Christians to exterminate Jews, as evident by his public and private assertions (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm).

The first link you provide (Fraud in Science) gives some examples of human fallibility. Which interestingly enough, were discovered not by divine revelation, but by the application of scientific methods. You must realise that science is always imperfect, but through the process of verification and falsification, makes propositions which are increasingly true. It has a self-correcting mechanism.

The second link (Scientific Method), apart from giving a rather junior-high school definition of the title makes the remarkable claim that evolutionists and creationists alike have "No absolute way to objectivity test their assertions" because there are "No eyewitnesses".

Unfortunately for the creationists, this is demonstrably untrue. There is significant examples of observed speciation including plants (e.g., oenothera gigas, primula kewensis, tragopogon, raphanobrassica, galeopsis tetrahit etc etc) and animals (e.g., drosophila paulistorum, drosophila melanogaster, rhagoletis pomonella, eurosta solidaginis, nereis acuminata etc etc).
Posted by Lev, Monday, 4 February 2008 10:41:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I reckon religious folk get "one God" confused with "One Good".
Their dogma has blinded them to the one Good as society has moved on.
"God" gets in the way, and conflicts with "Good" despite the prophets best attempts.

Buddhism is a non-thiestic morality, alas corrupted by native superstitions. I'm sure another athiestic system can be devised that enoough people can believe in. (multiverse metaphysics seems to be part of the "standard spritual model", allowing infinite "incarnations" without supernatural stuff).
One thing major religions seem to get right: Society needs a common set of ground-rules to avoid social upheaval.
I believe we need an Athiest Church of Minimum Dogma: To protect the kiddies from religion and allow moral athiests to defend themselves from the dodgy dogma so common today.
Posted by Ozandy, Monday, 4 February 2008 11:10:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief, your non-reply is ridiculous. it is true that you are questioning the notion of "good" in evolutionary explanations, but you do so by constant reference to god. your posts are saturated with god versus no-god dichotomising.

if you simply want to question the moral messages of evolution, that's fine. but if, as you do, you present god as a better/correct alternative, as giving some sort of moral clarity, then of course i and others have every right to ask that you back that up.

if you don't mention god, i won't ask you about the value of god. if you do, i will.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 4 February 2008 2:29:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief,

<<I was focused on O’Donnell’s assertion that evolution can explain morality... On this aspect, the onus is on him and you.>>

It's already been explained. Unfortunately though, it's just not sinking in. This is what worries me about the religious mindset – the inability to absorb certain information if it conflicts with their beliefs.

God is a less logical explanation as there is no proof of a God – or 'Creation'.

Phillip Tang,

<<the ‘LOGICAL’ evolutionist, would have attributed the opened windows it to the strong wind and, an animal must have come into the room to mess it up.>>

I liked this statement of yours. It's a good example of why Creationists are laughed at so much, and exposes their simple mindset and their gross misconception that evolutionary theory is just a state-of-mind, like religion is.

For starters, what does a 'break and enter' have to do with the 'origins of life'?

Only until you can explain this, does your comment make any sense.

<<Evolution is a hypothesis. It is not scientific.>>

So then, by your logic, there is no such thing as a 'scientific hypothesis'.

<<...it is a speculation about our beginning as much as a belief that an intelligent being made this world.>>

With the difference being, that there is no evidence for creationism, and mountains of evidence for evolution.

Lev has also pointed out a major distinction between the two: “...science is always imperfect, but through the process of verification and falsification, makes propositions which are increasingly true. It has a self-correcting mechanism.”

Creationism, on the other hand, has nothing more than a rigid and absolutist book of old scribblings. Many of which have now been proven to be historically inaccurate, and filled with borrowed mythology.

The rest of your post is just misinformed racism and homophobia, and shows that you are a very poorly educated person with a blurred understanding of science, evolution and history.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 4 February 2008 5:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It sounds as though, on the evolutionists’ side of the discussion, there is no notion that the human race is especially valuable. In fact, the not-especially-valuable view is so strongly held that I am accused of arrogance for suggesting that the human race might be more valuable than other species. Okay, not the result I was expecting, but there you are. (This might be old news to you guys, but it's new news to me.)

It would follow that altruism and empathy, and every other “good”, should actually not be limited to one’s own species. After all, we’re not special. Egalitarianism and considerations of justice would then apply for the benefit of all species – equally. Is this what is intended?

In saying this, I’m assuming that each act of altruism is a chosen act. If it’s not chosen – if we’re just wired by our evolutionary pedigree to act altruistically towards other humans (on the odd occasion it happens) – and we just do what we do, then I would not call that morality, as I believe morality is about choices.

However, if it’s a chosen act, and if the human species is no more valuable than other species, then we must regard the simplest life-form as equal to ourselves. Is this right? Or, is there a cut-off point somewhere?

AJ Philips – not bushbasher! :) – I don’t see why God is a less logical explanation. Just not an empirical one. For that to mean “less logical”, someone would need to explain why empirical knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge. So far, it just seems to be assumed.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Monday, 4 February 2008 9:25:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief, methinks that you still don't get it. Your morality is
little more then your subjective point of view.

If you are Goodthief, who is specist, who wants his kids to
survive, who believes in the magic of Gods, then your point of
view is that humans matter above all other species.

If you happen to be a bonobo, chimp or gorilla, whose family has
been slaughtered for meat, whose relatives are on the verge of
extinction due to 6 billion "homo destructors", perhaps your
view of our species might not be so rosy.

Your morality is little more then your biased viewpoint, seen
from your narrow perspective.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 4 February 2008 9:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief,

There are two issues: how did humans come to be able to make moral judgments, and how should we justify the judgements we make. (To confuse the two is to commit the genetic fallacy.) Answers to the first are necessarily speculative.

I would ask those who think that physical matter cannot give rise to beings that make moral judgements, how they know that. The only way we know what matter is capable of is by looking and seeing. (This is of course Hume’s argument against miracles. ) As for how it came about, I don’t know. It is just clear that it did. I note, though, that since all factual claims are value-laden, the development of rationality requires the development of value judgements. Reasoning aids survival.

Answers to the second question have nothing to do with how we came into existence. Proposed answers are called moral theories. Most of them propose one or a group of fundamental principles, from which we can derive what we ought to do by attending to the facts and being careful with our logic. Examples are utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories, deontological theories which start with one or a number of rights or duties, and virtue theories, which advise you to be a kind of person (kind, loving, generous etc. and act in accordance with those virtues.

Your suggestion that a creationist theory of our existence can determine an answer to what we should do is mistaken. For first, you would have to determine whether you should obey the creator. That is not obvious. How will you prove it, unless you can first (and independently) establish that God is good—and knowledgeable too? You need at least one moral principle to get going.

We test moral theories by their implications. A crude utilitarian view that implies that it is morally acceptable to murder and torture innocent people for the general good is rejected on that count; and more sophisticated ones are proposed instead. Theories also get developed with insight into what is worthwhile doing and being. (Continued)
Posted by ozbib, Monday, 4 February 2008 10:33:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thus the notion of the 19th century utilitarians that the value of everything came down to happiness, understood as having pleasant sensations, has given way to a more sophisticated understanding of happiness.

It does not need someone to tell us that happiness is a good, or that pain is an evil.

The view that we should do what God tells us can be treated as a moral theory. It requires some way of determining what He is telling us. That is not straightforward, even for those who think that it is all clear from the Bible. Take the command: thou shalt not kill. What should we not kill? Bacteria? Animals? It does not say. We take it, of course, that God would not mean either. But that involves our own moral judgement. The early church took it to imply pacifism. Does it? The only way to find out is to reason about just wars. The Bible does not tell you when a war is just.

I challenge those who think they can work out what to do by reference to the Bible, to explain what should be done when a woman is bearing an hydatiform mole. Or what should have been done with the year 2000 case in England of conjoined twins, known as Jodie and Mary. (See http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/UK/11/07/twins.operation.02/index.html.) In both cases you need moral views that are not in the Bible.

Hence the command does not determine what we should do without interpretation that is guided by independent moral views. Sure, if we follow St. Luke, we should act in love. But that does not tell us what to do.

The bible also gives wrong views. St. Paul is clearly mistaken about homosexuality—about its origin and about the morality of homosexual action. His notion of how God responds supposes that god is morally obnoxious. The Book of Revelation is wildly wrong about justice, and legitimates ethnic cleansing. St. Paul thinks that it is morally acceptable for God to bring people into existence having pre-determined that they will end up in hell. Such a God would be vile.
Posted by ozbib, Monday, 4 February 2008 10:34:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, I don’t think morality is subjective. If it were, I don’t think we’d bother having discussions about moral issues.

I believe humans are, objectively, more valuable than other species. I expect humanists think the same, but without believing in God. To avoid specism, do you believe that all species are actually of equal value? That’s what I raised in my last post.

I realise this idea gets abused – ie humans abuse other species, and the whole world, as well as each other, with a sense of entitlement. I’m not promoting that: I believe (not novel, of course) in responsibility to make sure that kind of thing doesn’t happen.

ozbib, Interesting post. Not sure I can cope with it, actually, but ……

I agree happiness is pleasant. Whose happiness is of value? Just human happiness? This is what I’ve been trying to get at.

For me, God comes before good, and gives the word its meaning. Risky, I know, in view of some of the torridness and oddities in the Bible, but still that’s where my thinking begins.

As for the biblical material that it is tempting to cherry-pick around, I see it as a struggle, but it has not stopped me from perceiving (or fancying that I perceive) much of God’s real character.

Remember, as a Christian, I start with Jesus and work back. I regard Jesus as pretty solid, and working back with that mindset helps me make sense of the Old Testament. If I read something perplexing, I study it, or park it and await illumination. This is all I can do, because I am committed to the relationship with Jesus, and nothing in the Old Testament has convinced me that He is not worth being associated with. On the other hand, as He directs my attention to the Old Testament, I have to go there and make all the sense of it that I can.

Not an exercise many posters here would admire, I realise. Anyhow, I find that Jesus sheds light on the Old Testament just as He sheds light on everything else.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 9:24:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief,

I view God as a less logical explanation for more reasons than I can possibly fit in 350 words.

We don’t have any proof that God – the method used by primitive people to explain how everything came to be, mind you – actually exists. Yet we have another explanation that is back-up with a lot of evidence.

The only aspect of the universe that can’t be explained by science (yet), is how matter came to be. But the explanation that a God (without a beginning or an end) created it doesn’t explain much at all. In fact, all it does is open up far more questions than it answers.

Everything that we have proof for (so far), in regards to how everything started, supports the logical principal that everything starts from a simple entity, then gradually evolves to become a more complex entity.

If there is a God, he would be by far the most incredibly complex thing in existence. Therefore, to suggest that relatively simple entities – in other words, everything in the universe – started with a being as immensely complex as God, is less logical, considering what we do know for sure.

Whenever this type of argument is brought up, Theists are quick to point out that God is not of the physical world, and beyond explanation. But all this is doing is making excuses to not look any further by declaring that God is, by decree, beyond explanation.

This is what I’m talking about when I use the term: “Lazy logic”.

<<… For that to mean “less logical”, someone would need to explain why empirical knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge. So far, it just seems to be assumed.>>

Notice I said “less logical”, not “illogical”

So, empirical knowledge may not be the only form of legitimate knowledge but it’s certainly the most solid one we’ve got, and hence, more logical than sticking to the old theories of relatively primitive people that didn’t know any better.

So no, it's not "assumed" at all.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 9:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What undergirds science is the scientific method, so therefore, to be scientific an experiment must be repeatable, and a concept must be testable. Science is based on facts and evidence that can be repeatedly demonstrated. Science is not sophistry as Lev would have us believe. Truth does not become “more true” the more complicated the argument gets.

Consider the faith statements made by

Dawkins when he said that if you go back 300 million years, you would be able to see the common ancestor of man and fish evolving. (i) This assertion can’t be proven (ii) He is appealing to eye-witness accounts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Luke the historian: “… even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus…”

Luke’s statement can’t be scientifically tested either. It’s a faith statement. However, Dawkin’s assertion would not be admissible in a court of law whereas Luke’s is admissible in a law court if you can get hold of the eye-witnesses.

A legal expert trained in Harvard, concluded after studying evolution for many years that there were serious gaps in the evidence for evolution and errors in the reasoning of evolutionists. He is an agnostic. Evolution had become a religion. The alleged evidence for evolution would not stand up in a court of law. (Norman Macbeth in his book ‘Darwin Retried’)
Posted by Philip Tang, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 2:20:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* I don’t think morality is subjective. If it were, I don’t think we’d bother having discussions about moral issues.
I believe humans are, objectively, more valuable than other species.*

Its because its subjective that we do have these discussions!

You are free to believe what you want, but have no substantiated
evidence for your claim of objective morality. If your alleged
Almighty was there, he would be free to post the rules on the
surface of the moon for all to see, he's never bothered.

The fact is, we can show that if you had grown up in say Egypt
or Iraq, there is a 95% chance that you'd be a Muslim, with a
different set of moral rules, then your present ones. The same
applies if you'd grown up a Hindu, etc, etc.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 7:59:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phillip Tang,

Each individual instances of evolution does not have to repeatable or observable to give credence to evolutionary theory. What you are suggesting is akin to saying the theory of gravity, whilst it works in Perth on Feb 6, 2008, possibly did not work in Uluru 300 million years ago because there was none there to see it and the experiment cannot be repeated.

Evolution is in the same category; we have observed and proven examples of speciation from common ancestors (surely you must acknowledge that speciation has been observed?!?) which indicate that it is true in general until a more consistent, more testable theory is offered.

I may also take the opportunity to mention that you don't seem to know what 'sophistry' is. Please do look it up.

It is interesting that you raise the suggestion that evolution wouldn't stand up in a court of law. I would suggest that you have a long and careful read of a recent case where the creationist doctrine of "intelligent design" was debated against evolution in courts of law. A summary is available, along with a collection of all the documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 10:34:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby wrote 'The fact is, we can show that if you had grown up in say Egypt or Iraq, there is a 95% chance that you'd be a Muslim, with a
different set of moral rules, then your present ones.'...

quite wrong actually...unless one blindly follows religious commands and obeys religious powers of the time without question(though there is a 'comfort and security' to the individual albeit for short period until pressures start developing)...in which case its no different to an authoritarian regime existing for its own power and benefit...or the person chooses to not use their powers of logic and reasoning to religious matters to advance their spiritual development or balanced action in daily action...which would lead to next question is...why?...what is the benefit for the individual among that group to become literally a member of an 'religious_army'...keeping in mind that deceit starts playing increasingly stronger factor the further the action of the 'body' moves away from balanced action eg nazi government, stalin government and now it seems 'bush group' and american government...for 'morality' mainly exists at the individual level in that specific situation...irrespective of their religion or culture...and this is different to application of local 'law' which can be dramatically different eg public stoning and judicial private hanging or prolonged suffering in jail...

the sentence might have more credibility if word 'culture' was used instead of 'morality'...

for 'god_person' relationship is a very personal one...and I think one aspect of current discussion is if this advances moral action in daily life...mass worship in a preset routine does not advance this as much as it does the power and influence of the religious body itself...eg anglican and catholic church income...I dont think any religious body on earth so far has acted to effectively assist an individual developing their personal relationship with 'god' or their spiritual development...without some benefit for themselves from 'group-power'...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 11:58:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Sam. That's claptrap.

"The fact is, we can show that if you had grown up in say Egypt or Iraq, there is a 95% chance that you'd be a Muslim, with a
different set of moral rules, then your present ones."

Is 100 per cent accurate - perhaps not on the precise stats, but I think Yabby's overall point there is totally unassailable. You simply cannot deny, that the vast majority of people born into a rigid belief system, adopt that system themselves, with the morals associated with it.

You cannot argue against that, unless you're denying the reality of these places, and the very facts and statistics all around it. I honestly don't know how you can try to make this foolish argument given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You say: "unless one blindly follows religious commands and obeys religious powers of the time without question."

Indeed. But when you're raised in a doctrine, you become indoctrinated - hence the word. It's all well and good to sit from your comfortable western chair and speak of the importance of critical insight, but the fact of the matter is, if you were raised in an environment where questioning doesn't take place, the vast majority of people won't question.

I'm not saying all, and neither did yabby. The vast majority however, is accurate.

This is a key point why agnostics and secularists reject religion - look around the world for just a moment, and see all the people embracing the faith they're brought up with, compared to the very low number of people who shift from one faith to another.
When you look at it with a little perspective, all these ritualistic belief sets all vying with one another over their version of god look pretty petty in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 12:46:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
trtl I think your unwritten base presumption is if 'fear of authority'exists with the 'rigid belief system' exists...then yes...yabby's statement and ur support of that may have value...hence referral to the authoritarian system and which case that is the bigger problem to the common decent person under that...dont think morality will play an important role in daily life unless it goes underground...and eventually did eventually toppling some of those regimes mentioned towards a more balanced ones now...

however in a free democratic society(if such truly exists)...then 'with a different set of moral rules' is wrong for reasons given irrespective of the culture, religion or beliefs the person was raised in...just to make sure we are on the same page...legal definition of moral action http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+Law

Sam
by the way u still call it claptrap http://www.answers.com/topic/claptrap for it raises an issue of 'closed mind approach' on your part
Posted by Sam said, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 3:02:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Tang,

To add to what Lev has said:

<<This assertion can’t be proven>>

By using the word “assertion”, you're implying that what Dawkins says, is an unsupported claim. This is wrong, as there is so much data that backs the theory of evolution, that it would take you years to learn it all. There is nothing that supports creationism.

Every claim you could make that supposedly supports 'creation', can be debunked in the blink of an eye. The only “evidence” that Creationists have, is their personal interpretation of 'design' in everything they see. But this is flawed for many reasons.

For starters, complexity doesn't imply design. Simplicity is one of the main objectives in design. There are simple things that are designed, and complex things that form naturally.

<<He is appealing to eye-witness accounts...>>

Firstly, what's wrong with that?

Secondly, linking to deceitful videos doesn't give you much credibility, Philip.

Do you even realise that the video you linked to is a hoax video, that has been cleverly edited to make it look like Dawkins was avoiding a question? It's astonishing that such an obviously faked video (not to mention the other versions of that video), is so easily believed by those who are clutching at straws.

The person who posted that video, monitors comments and rejects those that argue against it. Not only that, but evangelical groups have been flagging YouTube videos - that use their creation videos to debunk Creationism - as breaching copyright. Yet these Creation videos have no copyright at all:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/9978

It never ceases to amaze me how slippery and deceitful Creationists can be. If they are so right, then why do they need to employ these sorts of tactics?

Apparently the 9th commandment doesn't apply to them: “Thou shalt not bare false witness against they neighbour”

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 9:54:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<Luke’s [statement] is admissible in a law court if you can get hold of the eye-witnesses.>>

And herein lies the problem.

Not even Luke spoke to the eyewitnesses. His statements were based on hearsay – and we all know how reliable their accounts of hearsay were back then; especially with the methods they used to document events back then.

<<A legal expert trained in Harvard, concluded after studying evolution for many years that there were serious gaps in the evidence for evolution...>>

Ahhh... The gaps.

Considering the rare chain of events that are required for a life-form to be fossilised, and how much rarer and more difficult it is to even find the life-forms that have actually been fossilised, the gaps really don't bare much weight to the creationist argument. Especially when you take into consideration all the other evidence we have, and the technology we've now acquired, that helps to close those relatively small gaps.

Here's a question for you:

If the fossilisation of life-forms, and the discovery of those fossils, is so prevalent, they why haven't we found the fossils of all the animals around the world, migrating from where Noah's Ark was grounded?

<<...and errors in the reasoning of evolutionists.>>

If you could point me to these alleged errors of reasoning, I'd be much obliged. So far, the only errors of reasoning I've seen, have come from Creationists.

So let's take a look at Norman MacBeth's book:

Here we have a lawyer, apparently claiming that creationism – a theory based on (inadmissible) hearsay – would somehow stack-up better than evolution – a theory with almost conclusive evidence – in a court of law.

Rubbish!

I'm not a lawyer, and even I know better than that.

Philip, there's so much information out there, in libraries and on the internet, that conclusively debunks Creationism, but it sounds like reading might make your head sore. So here are some videos for you, with pretty pictures, that will help you to understand a bit more about the world you live in:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Why+do+people+laugh+at+creationists&search_type=&search=Search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx5t5_trnuU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2SVMKZhV2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II3JcUaGWoI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 9:54:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Thief, your notion that morality is dependant on God’s will goes back in Christian theology to William of Occam, and in Islamic theology a bit further, to Ghazali (or Al-Ghazal). It was never accepted as orthodox dogma.

It has some logical consequences, which I think are absurd. Thus I think that it can be shown to be false.

Firstly note that a version of Plato’s point applies. If what is good is whatever God happens to will, then logically God cannot will things because they are good. To call something good, on your theory, means no more than to say that God wills it.

Then to say that something that God does is good is to say only that He does what He wills. That is a mere tautology.

Thus if your view were correct, it would make no sense to praise God for His goodness. It would make no sense to give Him thanks for what He has done. Adoration, too, which at the least involves recognising and responding to God’s goodness, would be absurd. And the experience of the Christian, of comparing his or her own sinfulness with God’s perfection, and knowing therefore her or his need for forgiveness and for improvement of life, would make no sense either.

Thus I think that your view implies nonsense; hence it cannot be true.

There is danger, too, in adopting the view. It is manifest in the beliefs of Osama bin Laden, that he must do whatever Allah has willed—and whose principles of interpretation do not include the criterion of what is morally acceptable. If God says he must kill, then he ought to. If God says he must blow up innocent children, then that is God’s will, so that is what he must do. He is not in a position to say ‘but this is wrong, so it cannot be what God wills’.

And neither are you. You are not in a position to say, for example, that a reason for preferring Christianity to Islam is that Christian beliefs are morally better than those of Islam.
Posted by ozbib, Thursday, 7 February 2008 10:20:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only interesting point in the article was given only one sentence!

“The evolutionary explanation for an urge is not the same thing as a justification for why we should, as rational creatures, promote or fight that urge today.”

Theistic arguments don’t say atheists can’t be good; rather that morality is meaningless without the objective reality of good and evil.

Naturalism: biology (blind chance and random mutations) produces good! Biology produces the capacity to perceive the good, not the good itself. We grow in ability to do good - virtue; and knowledge of the good - moral reasoning. We do not produce it, it is independent of us.

What tells me why I should follow an urge to be altruistic?

Why should I deny the urge to violence?

Why should I sacrifice my life for another?

Atheism is useless here. It can't be the basis of a civilisation. Sweden lives off the scent of the cut flower of Christian civilisation. Don't hold out much hope for her (see her secularism induced immigration and demographic crisis).

Its no good to say we have a duty to be rational and that goodness is rational. Apart from why rationality produced by blind chance is trustworthy or worthy of our honour (or anything for that matter) Atheistic ethicist Kai Nielsen of the University of Calgary writes:

"We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason (moral reasoning), even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality."

We know many wicked men and women die happy and wealthy, and many virtuous people suffer terrible injustices often unrelieved their whole life.

Denying the objective reality of good and evil is an astonishingly arrogant hypothesis. Doing good and avoiding evil is meaningful only within a religious framework.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 14 February 2008 12:06:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, it is in fact you who are astonishingly arrogant. and ignorant. atheism does not attempt to explain good and evil, it is simply the disbelief in god. that's it. get used to it.

i accept that the origin and meaning of good and evil is perplexing. i may even accept that good and evil is "objective", though i'm not sure what that means. what i don't accept is that referring such questions back to an arbitrary and unprovable god helps one iota.

the onus is upon you, and all who claim the theistic origins of morality, to explain how such a claim is valid, or helps moral pondering in any way. you have not done so. none of the god fans on this thread have done so. and i don't plan to hold my breath until anyone finally does.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 14 February 2008 12:24:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,

Statements of facts do not provide moral reasons, in the same way that moral reasons do not create facts.

Moral reasons are themselves a form of rationality sui generis independent of the facticity of a problem.

Moral principles are not objective. Nor are they subjective. They are intersubjective, that is, the only genuine moral act occurs when all participants engage with informed consent.

Likewise ethical justifications are neither absolute, nor are they relative. Instead, they are universal in their procedure. It is not the content of an act that achieves validity, but how the decision to act was reached.

The deceptively selective quote of Kai Nielsen's concerning practical reasoning is correct, but only in the sense of the individual egoism that dominated Kantian philosophy in the eighteenth and and nineteenth century. Subsequent to the linguistic turn in communicative rationality (of which Kai is well aware of) grounds moral reasoning with the intersubjective consensus which is requisite for human consciousness to retain a degree of veracity.
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 14 February 2008 12:44:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Doing good and avoiding evil is meaningful only within a religious framework.*

Absolute rubbish. You are the product of your dna and your
environment. If your father had been a mass killer, you most
likely would not be here, as society would have locked him
up. In other words, your ancestors carried genes that
made them suited to living within some kind of harmonious
society, have children and raise them.

Morality is no more then our opinions, but those opinions
are there for good reasons. They assist in our society,
tribe or group, continuing to the next generation.

Its very similar in other primate groups. Those that share
food, gain when others have food. Those that are selfish
get excluded.

So called morality is part of our genetic heritage as a
social species, all trying to survive, live together as a
group and mulitply.

Natural selection in action, over generation after generation.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 14 February 2008 12:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev, what a load of obfuscating nonsense. Who are you trying to convince with that waffle?

Just admit you dispute the traditional common sense ground of morality, then be honest about its implications for the world.

Admit that you and all those you want to join you in your atheist utopia cannot provide the sanction – what happens to you if you don’t do the good; the inspiration – why do the good; nor the content – what is the good, of morality.

It's supposedly not in my self interest to be bad – "but I’m smart I’ll get away with it". Or my society condemns it – "too bad I don’t like society or the people that make it up. I’m able to live a life of self indulgence and all you can say to me is that my DNA codes for altruism". Fair dinkum!

The atheist plan for society is delusional. The twentieth century is plenty enough evidence of atheistic morality tested in real societies.

Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist and advocate of virtue ethics, wrote,

"The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well."

"Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are 'morally wrong,' and they imagine that they have said something true and significant."

"Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion."

He concludes,

"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying they discourse without meaning."

The escapism of contemporary Westerners is that terrible consolation of thought that after all our lies, murders, and betrayals we will not be judged. I prefer reality - its got style.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 14 February 2008 2:12:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,

For some who quotes university professors you seem to have a problem with language with even a modicum of complexity, even when it addresses the quotes you provided.

As such, I will, for the third time in this thread, repeat the basic condition of moral action.

When adults of adult reasoning agree on an act with informed consent, it is a moral act.

End of story. Neither Church, nor allegedly divinely revealed Holy Book, nor even the State itself can define a standard of morality that transcends that basic statement.

The twentieth century, au contraire, is plenty enough proof of the application of non-secular (Stalinist atheism, Nazi Christianity) of the problem of not following intersubjective moral principles and universal ethics.
Posted by Lev, Thursday, 14 February 2008 2:28:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you were to blindfold monkeys, or for that matter, Dawkins, AJ Philips, jpw2040, and Lev, and give to each of the monkeys a 101-keys keyboard with the keys randomised (ie non QWERTY keyboard), and they are to be blindfolded until they have typed the sentence, 'the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog',
(i) what is the chance of typing the sentence within 35 key strokes (not counting spaces)?
(ii) would the blindfold ever be removed in their lifetime?

Ans
(i) 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007
(ii) No, with 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999993% certainty

The human genome which scientists were able to map out in detail is a billions time more complicated than what is described above. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, comprising of top scientists from all over the world, became an evangelical after carefully examining the evidences before him. So is 40% of working scientists today.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

It takes a great leap of faith to believe that some-how the human genome came together by chance.

Darwin’s seminal work is also known as “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Small wander that evolution , Nazism and communism are inter linked. Communism replaced struggle for “life” for struggle for “race” , and with communism the struggle of "race" is replaced by the struggle of "class" as history is viewed as an evolutionary struggle. True atheists and evolutionist are Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Between them they have send at least 100 million people to death.

World-famous biologist Dr. Ernst Haeckel set the stage for Nazism racial policy, before Hitler, with the famous dictum, “politics is applied biology”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

If evolutionists like jpw2040 are worth their salt, ie true scientist, they have to face up to the logical consequences of their hypotheses. If the consequence sounds loopy, then they should think anew. The only viable and rational alternative is intelligent design.
Posted by Philip Tang, Thursday, 14 February 2008 6:38:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question 'why should I act morally' should be answered by asking in turn, 'what kind of person do you want to be?' You must choose to be moral, or not.

You cannot prove that you should be moral by showing that it is in your interests, in that God will reward or punish you according to your actions. That is an invitation to a kind of immorality, a supernatural selfishness.

You cannot prove that you ought to do what is good or right by referring to the supposed fact that God made you. For you have to decide whether you should do what your creator wants. And if He wants you to do what is wrong, you ought not to do it. In matters moral, you ought not to engage in a sacrificium intellectus.

A group of adults may agree to an action which affects only themselves, and yet the action be wrong, in that one of them makes a sacrifice which the others ought not to accept.

As far as I can see, any attempt to show why you ought to be moral which attempts to step outside morality will be subject to similar problems.

We can ask a person who is acting wrongly, 'How would you like that done to you?'. And we can ask 'Why do you think that you are special?", if they refuse to accept the first question. In effect, we are asking, 'Doesn't any reason you can give why we should not harm you apply equally to your actions with respect to others?'

But if a person is not prepared to make the first step, of accepting that the characteristics that make him/her matter are characteristics shared by others, and which accordingly make them matter; then there is no way of reasoning them into being moral. It's a matter of choice.

While I have words left. Could we perhaps drop the accusations of arrogance? Unless nearly every sentence begins with 'as far as I can see...', or 'I think that...' or some other form of self-deprecation, philosophical argument always comes over as arrogant.
Posted by ozbib, Friday, 15 February 2008 11:26:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If you were to blindfold monkeys,"

Ah Philip, but we are not talking about blindfolding monkeys.
Do you know the first thing about this subject?

If you look at what happens, when you mix up the chemicals on
earth a few billion years ago, what you land up with is strands
of rna. Rna is not far off dna. Add a few billion years of
selection and you have what we have.

But you won't get far blindfolding monkeys, apart from accepting
the fact that around 98% of your dna is identical to your primate
relatives, chimps and bonobos. Name me a part of your brain that
you have, that they don't have. Even your haemoglobin is virtually
identical.

Perhaps its time to put down the religious books and learn a little
about what is actually claimed and accepted as part of biology,
taught at every major university on the planet
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 15 February 2008 1:42:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby, obviously philip doesn't know the first thing about anything except appealing to authority and praising the lord. don't waste your electrons.

ozbib, i'm sorry but for my part i'm not going to drop the accusations of arrogance. for my own possible arrogance, i'll defend myself or accept the charge as appropriate.

i would distinguish an arrogant attitude with arrogant claims. the former is neither here nor there for me, but the latter really gets up my nose. i'm fed up to the teeth with god fans claiming a monopoly on moral reasoning. this is an arrogant claim of the most mind-boggling level. when it comes in a martin-post accusing others of arrogance, i'm going to damn well attack him for it.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 15 February 2008 2:01:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev I'm totally flummoxed.

If enough adults agree on a course of action the action becomes morally good? If we agree to drive on the left this is a moral act?

Resuscitating a child who cannot give assent and is not fully rational still must deserve our moral approbation. Yet there is no intersubjective agreement between the parties. Is this not a moral act?

What then of decades of masturbation to pornography? The consumer and pornographer both assent to the exchange and the actor and pornographer similarly. Yet common sense tells us that behaving like this deserves moral condemnation.

Do you mean that humans through intersubjective dialogue create objective moral values? Do you also believe physical scientists through dialogue create objective physical laws?

Help me out here, at the moment I'm incredulous.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 15 February 2008 2:02:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phillip Tang,

Thank you for referencing Dr. Francis Collins, co-head of the Human Genome Project, as he is an example of a deist who explicitly rejects "intelligent design".

Contrary to what you say, Dr. Collins did not become an "evangelical Christian" after working on the human genome project. As your own link explains, his conversion to theism occurred whilst dealing with critically ill patients as a doctor and reading the essays of C.S. Lewis.

In "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" (2006) Collins expresses his own theory of Theistic Evolution (TE), which explicitly rejects both Creationism and Intelligent Design.

The key elements of the book include:

a) The universe came out of nothingness c14 billion years ago.
b) Despite the extreme odds, the possibility for life were present and occurred.
c) Natural selected has causes the development of biodiversity over a long period of time with no need for supernatural intervention.
d) Human beings also include aspects independent of scientific evolution (the development of the human spirit is one such example).

You appear to have been misinformed. I hope you can take a leaf from Dr. Collins and accept that your theism does not require you to accept largely well-intentioned fairy tales literally.

It may surprise you, but I actually attend a mainstream church every week and evenly occassionally give services. This does not require me to reject scientific investigation or facts. Please, use the common reasoning powers that Providence gave you - and that includes the ability to realise when you've made a mistake.

PS: I would also double check your statistics. The chance of abiogenesis has been well studied:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Posted by Lev, Friday, 15 February 2008 5:03:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,

I understand that you are flummoxed and incredulous. You are indeed suffering from a formal pragmatic modal confusion. If you don't know what that means, look it up.

Resucitation is an act of raising a person to the point where they can give assent. Moral acts do not just occur "in the instant" but with a spatial and temporal perspective as well.

I have already explained to you that objective reality is not determined by intersubjective consent and nor do moral acts determine objective reality (cf., post on 14 February). I should further emphasise that neither determine aesthetic expressions either; that too is a rational sui generis.

What is true and false is verified by correlation with the external world. What is right and wrong is verified by agreement between participations. What is beautiful and ugly is verified by the individual expression.

Your "common sense" that masturbation and pornography deserved moral condemnation is not something I share. You cannot show objectively why either of these acts in themselves morally wrong. All you are doing is asserting the aesthetic prejudices of yourself and some others on the matter. If you don't like masturbation, don't do it. It's a simple as that. But don't try telling other people what they can and cannot do with their body - because you wouldn't want others telling you what you can and cannot do with yours.

And by thinking about that illustration you might just begin to understand why moral acts require intersubjective agreement.
Posted by Lev, Friday, 15 February 2008 5:09:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for saving me effort of responding, Lev.

Philip Tang,

Had you bothered to check the links I posted before, you could have saved yourself the embarrassment of posting the incorrect statistic.

If you check the last link in my last post, it will explain it very simple and indisputable way.

It amazes me that Creationists continue with the same old rubbish that has been debunked time and time again.

It would only take an hour or so of internet searches for you to find out that everything you think you know about evolution is wrong. The internet contains a wealth of information, and it's all at your fingertips... Use it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 17 February 2008 9:36:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ's fire and brimston muddled thinking is leading nowhere. Let's make it simple for him/her.

Atheists point to the evolution theory to support their view, believing it is scientific.

Agnostics claim that there aren't sufficient data to know for certain whether God/gods exist. Most agnostics subscribe to the evolution theory to explain how life began.

Theists believe in the existence of God/gods. They attribute the origin of life to intelligent design either by (i) spontaneous creation (ii) theistic evolution. Some would like to differentiate between intelligent design and theistic evolution. (Would someone like to explain the difference between ID and TE?)

Eminent scientist who subscribe to theistic evolution is Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, an evangelical Christian according to
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/

Eminent scientist who subscribe to Creation is Australian Dr.Ian Macreadie who has won many prizes. There is a couple of hundred of scientist who subscribe to the Creation theory.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci_macreadie/
http://bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CreationistScientists

THEORY OF THEISTIC EVOLUTION

Between the outspokenness of the Creationists and Evolutionists and, the focus of the coverage of the media on these two groups, it is understandable as to why many people believe that there are only two positions that exist in regard to the creation/evolution controversy. However, there is a middle ground between the two extreme positions, ie Theistic Evolution.
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/does-science-contradict-the-bible/
Posted by Philip Tang, Monday, 18 February 2008 4:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wow! a couple hundred scientists subscribe to creation theory? i'm impressed!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 18 February 2008 4:50:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbasher

There are many more scientists today who believe in evolution.
However, if there is any contradiction between science and religion, there will not be a single 'Creationist' scientist. Many of the 'Creation' scientist are biologists. This is not surprising as it is only the irrational who would believe that you get living things evolving from non-living things.

Historical evidence suggests that atheistic regimes whether 'old' or 'new' is accountable for a few hundred million deaths; many times more than deaths caused by the Bush-inspired IRAQ war.
Posted by Philip Tang, Monday, 18 February 2008 6:08:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phillip,

I have already given you a comprehensive statement of what constitutes theistic evolution from Dr. Collin's book. It's a kind of deism. He will ascribe to theology the fact that the universe appears ex nihilo. He will ascribe to theology that the conditions for life and existence were possible. He is also abscribe to theology (incorrectly) the capacity for moral judgement. Apart from that, as far as theistic evolution is concerned, it is the laws of physics and evolution all the way.

If you'd like a continuum, the following may be of use.

1. Creationism (literal biblical truth)
2. Intelligent Design (some greater being intervened in creation)
3. Theistic Evolution (places "God" in categories deemed unprovable by science - a "God of the gaps" argument, effectively)
4. Scientific Evolution (leaves the unknowns as, well, unknown but potentially solvable without recourse to divine revelation).

I'd also check the figures on your "historical evidence". Both in absolute terms and relative to population, I think you will find that religious regimes are still the prime cause of democide.

Further very few have been killed because the government was atheist. When Stalin killed, it was is in the name of his dictatorship, not in the name of atheism. When the Taliban killed however...
Posted by Lev, Monday, 18 February 2008 6:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Tang,

<<AJ's fire and brimston muddled thinking is leading nowhere. Let's make it simple for him/her.>>

Sorry, Philip. But you are the only one who needs it made “simple”.

Not only have I had this debate many times before, but I used to be a Creationist myself and believe me, I can predict everything you say before you even say it. One of the many reasons I left the Church is because of the deceitfulness of Creationists. I know their arguments; But most of all, I know that everyone of them is complete rubbish. So I'm willing to sit here for the rest of the year if you'd like, and debunk every point you make.

Speaking of muddled thinking though, every time your posts are debunked, you resort to one of the many fallacies of Theists: Stalin was an Atheist, therefore, everything he did must have been in the name of Atheism – the tired old line that has, again, been debunked over, and over, and over.

Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, were Atheists, but they did not do what they did IN THE NAME OF Atheism!

Both Hitler and Stalin had mustaches, but do we assert that they committed their evil deeds because of their mustaches? No.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic. But did he do what he did in the name of Roman Catholicism? No.

Theists claim so often that Atheism too has been responsible for travesties, and use the 20th century as an example – but this couldn't be more wrong.

Stalin used the banning of religion as a method of oppressing the people because the elitism attached to the church back then conflicted with his Communist world-view. But in no way at all did he do what he did in the name of Atheism – and most certainly not in the way that the religious have used their religious beliefs to justify such horrific acts throughout the millennia.

This fatally flawed point is yet another example of the deceitfulness of Creationists/Theists.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 February 2008 10:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

Atheists are independent thinkers; not bound by the absolutist, rigid doctrine of an old book that was used to explain the world before we knew any better. So you can't just categorise them all, and assert that Communism is somehow the result of the Atheist mindset. Doing this just makes Theists look stupid, ignorant and deprived of any rational thought.

Philip, try finding ONE war that was initiated in the name of Atheism – you can't. Even if you could name one, it would be minuscule compared to the thousands of conflicts that have arisen over the millennia because of religion.

Answer this, Philip: If Atheism is so evil, then why is it that the more secular we become, the more moral we become?

Take Hitler as a point-of-reference:

Imagine if someone as evil as Hitler had gained power in a Western country in this day-and-age – he wouldn't last more than 10 minutes. Then compare Hitler to the horrific evil of Genghis Kahn, who admitted to feeling pleasure in seeing his victims bathed in tears. Now compare the death toll of the holocaust and WWII, to the outcry of the relatively small death count of the current Iraq war.

The list of examples of the link between secularism and improving morality goes on and on. I'll be happy to continue if you'd like? The more insignificant religion becomes in society, the more society improves. Therefore, the examples of Theists, comparing Communists to Atheists, is irrelevant and just plain stupid.

Finally, to extend on the link that Bushbasher provided (that put the whole 'number of Creationist Scientists' fallacy into perspective), pointing out that there are Creationist scientists out there means nothing...

Normal Scientists:
"Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?"

Creationist Scientists:
"Here’s our conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?"

The fact that there are Creationist scientists is completely irrelevant when you consider that they themselves admit outright that they reject any evidence that contradicts the Bible (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith).

Proper scientists have not yet encountered any evidence that they have had to deny.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 18 February 2008 10:46:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, you write:

"Hitler was a Roman Catholic. But did he do what he did in the name of Roman Catholicism? No."

There is significant evidence that much of Hitler's actions were inspired by a Christian anti-Judiac tradition, expressed both publically and privately.

cf.,
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 7:03:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev I suspected you were a fraud, now I’m certain.

What you’ve said is that truth corresponds with reality and therefore moral truth with moral reality. Good.

You then said that moral value is verified by groups but that the lived experience of billions represented by the Bible is not authoritative.

I explained that the good is discovered. You seemed to affirm it except that you would like not to have to take into account the lives of any other groups except the ones you like.

Now all this assumes that our moral conclusions correspond with objective reality. So I don’t understand in what sense you dispute the objectivity of moral facts. Your definition of what constitutes a moral act is self evidently preposterous.

Yet your ethical theory seems to propose that there needs to be dialogue before I can determine that torturing and murdering a child is wrong and loving and nurturing one is good.

Or that saving a child’s life is not a moral act until he regains consciousness, acquires language, reaches the age of reason and finally gives assent! (You can talk formal pragmatic modal confusion with the child’s parents)

Or that sadistically injuring an animal is not a ‘genuinely moral act’.

Or that our moral sense is neutral about a man carrying on a sexual relationship with an image on a screen for decades? (You confuse neutralism with tolerance.)

None of this by the way goes to what the foundation of morality is, which is a metaethical discussion, and which dominated my post but elicited a confused verbose reply from you.

It was this that I wanted to talk about and its use as a proof of the existence of God. Atheists who accept objective moral values dispute the theist’s conclusions in this proof.

Now the onus is on you to provide warrant for the belief that the collective moral experience of humanity is really illusory, that only groups with fully rational members can actually have a genuine moral experience!
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 5:26:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for O'Donnell's 'Anti Dogmatists' article:

The reason first and foremost for the rise of these ‘new atheists’ is the amount of evil coming from Islam. If vegetarians were violently intolerant and mass murderers there would be a backlash against them.

The problem is these critics who might ordinarily have no strong opinions about religion think Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all the same. The rise of religiously motivated terrorism is a convenient stick to hit Christianity with. The irony is the militant atheists end up as fanatical as the jihadis they excoriate.

Even fellow atheists and admirers of the authors think they’re fanatics.

Daniel Dennett Hunts the Snark http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5394
Christopher Hitchens http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/03/AR2007050301907.html
Richard Dawkins http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

They sell books because for a generation we have lived in a secular cocoon. The great mass of people have received as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages. This generation are simply buying books that support their brainwashing.

Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture explained the proper application of reason to religious truth claims, and the encyclical Fides et Ratio is the Catholic Church’s official word on the matter but has O’Donnell read either? On any other subject this would be intolerable but when it comes to theology “any shoddy old travesty will pass muster”.

The author seems to have no idea what a dogma is. Yet he centres his whole thesis around the concept. Is he aware that naturalism contains a whole slew of them? It is not dogma per se but the reasonableness of these unprovable starting points that is the issue.

It was atheistic scientism and its dogma that embryos aren’t human life that sought continued destruction of embryos for stem cells research in the face of evidence of the much more successful science on somatic stem cells. Embryonic s.cell research is now being abandoned for the somatic kind.

What happens when our ingenuities are used to avoid the consequences of breaking the natural law http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3541

Don’t even get me started on Sweden or the false opposition of religion v faith
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 5:30:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i think martin has framed the single dumbest proof of the existence of god.

as for why hitchens and co are now selling books. i think martin's right, that it's partially to do with the recent rise of religiously inspired violence. (the christian right in america has done its bit to help). but i'd suggest it also has to do with people sick of the moral superiority of the likes of martin and philip.

it's incredible. martin and philip can go on post after post, thread after thread, pontificating about the glory of god. but they will never ever address the fact that there is simply no foundation for their moral superiority, not a scrap of evidence for the existence of a christian god. they simply repeat and repeat that morality is god-given. it's absurd and it's disgusting.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 5:48:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The problem is these critics who might ordinarily have no strong opinions about religion think Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all the same.*

Martin, I think you forget that the Catholic Church used to have
people like us burnt at the stake. It was only the uprising of
the masses, which effectively neutered them in the end.

Many of us were actually brainwashed by the church as little
innocent kiddies, but luckily became informed about what a corrupt,
controlling organisation that the Catholic Church actually is.

Read your history. Anyone who is not disgusted by the history
of the Xtian Church, frankly deserves to be conned by them.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 6:13:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin,

The lived experience of the Bible, or any other book, is not authoritive because it does not rely on a consensus of participants.

If someone wants to live their life according to their particular interpretation of the Bible, good for them. Just don't force it on to others. That is the most wicked, evil and immoral thing a person can do.

Once again, for the third time, I have to explain to you that moral conclusions do not correspond with objective reality. That is confusing what 'is' the case (factual statement) with what ought to be the case (normative statement).

Further, you seem confused about morals and ethics. The former, as previously explained, represent principles of intersubjective consensus. The latter represent a contextual implementation.

For example, it is not necessarily ethical to save a child until they gain consciousness, or reaches an age of reason and gives assent. If you think the contrary I suggest raise all those born with anencephaly - otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Yes, only fully rational groups can have moral experiences. That is why we do not put animals, children or the insane on trial.

My onus of proof is a very simple test;

I will write a book, which will be divinely revealed (trust me). I want you then to follow it. It will determine who you can have sex with, and how, which nationalities are holy and which can be enslaved, what you can and cannot eat, and what tortures you are to perform on you children to indicate they are part of our special family.

What? You object? But why? BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE?

Well then... so moral principles are validated by agreement between particpants after all?

Yabby,

Right you are. It was only a few hundred years in the recent past, that a member of my religion was burnt at the stake TWICE by his fellow Christians. His crime? He questioned the validity of the Trinity. Such good, righteous, moral people!
Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 19 February 2008 9:11:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've read the article Martin linked and will respond with some initial comments.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3541

"First between adults, then between children, then between adults and children. The last item has not been added yet, but will be soon.."

The distinction between adult and child might be fine-tuned (and the legal equivalents between age of majority and minority) but the secular rational tendency is towards informed consent. To suggest that sex outside of marriage is a slippery slope towards pedophilia is unsubstantiated.

"A colleague tells me that some of his fellow legal scholars call child molestation "intergenerational intimacy": that’s euphemism."

More unsubstantiated rhetoric. "Intergenerational intimacy" refers to, as the phrase says, consensual relations between generations; such as an 18 year-old and a 40 year old - a story which is old as the Bible.

"First we were to approve of killing the sick and unconscious, then of killing the conscious and consenting. Now we are to approve of killing the conscious and protesting, for in the United States, doctors starved and dehydrated stroke patient Marjorie Nighbert.."

And even more! In fact, Ms Nighbert executed a power of attorney and stated that in the event of an incapacitating illness she did not wish to be maintained. When it was claimed she wanted to rescind that request the Judge appointed a court investigator to determine if Miss Nighbert was competent to rescind her prior directive. The investigator reported that she was not.

"Antigone’s claim that this higher law has divine authority can easily be misunderstood, because the Greeks did not have a tradition of verbal revelation."

The author (who is apparently a professor of government and philosophy!) appears to ignorant of Socrate's daimon, Orphic revelation, the Pythagoreans, and indeed the entirety of Hellenic contemplative thought!

Enough.. I could go on, but there's no need. The author calls his prejudices "Natural Law". Yet there is nothing natural about it. What is natural about humans is our capacity to communicate, to reach agreement and therefore - act morally towards each other.
Posted by Lev, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 4:45:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Lev,

Yes, I'm aware of Hitler's divine reasoning for his atrocities.

But most Theists see this as highly debatable, so I use that line to prevent myself from looking too biased towards Atheism.

I probably should have said: "Not necessarily", rather than a straight-out: "No".
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 22 February 2008 7:20:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lev—if you are still reading these posts.

I’m endeavouring to make sense of your metaethical theory. As I understand it, moral disagreement is about the proper application of universally agreed moral principles to the facts of particular case, (and groups of cases). And an agreement is a moral one if rational adults assent to it. Hence Martin Ibn Warriq’s objection about rescuing infants misses the point.

But the driving on the left example strikes more keenly, doesn’t it? How do you distinguish between those universal agreements which are moral principles and those which are not?

You’ll also have trouble finding many moral principles which secure universal agreement—as the principlists have. Maybe ‘causing pain without good cause is wrong’ would secure agreement; but there’d be disagreement as soon as you try and spell out what is an adequate justification. Can you give any examples?

Do you not need to qualify your position further to take account of ignorance and poor reasoning? Thus moral principles will be those which all rational people would agree upon, if they were in possession of all the relevant facts, took account of the fact that the principles will apply not only to themselves but to their children, their friends, and to every rational being (or some such Kant-like statement).

When people agree on some ought statement, but it is not yet a moral agreement because they have not yet secured universal assent, what are they agreeing to?

Finally, the philosophy of science is a bit more complex than any of the participants so far have recognised. Some pragmatists, for instance, argue that truth is what all people in the long run will accept as true. And Hume’s fork (the fact/value distinction) has been blunted by the proofs that empirical and even mathematical claims are value laden.
Posted by ozbib, Friday, 22 February 2008 9:33:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy