The words strawman and silly come to mind.

What the author is saying is we should believe in the supernatural otherwise your life has no real meaning other then what we give it. The author is forgetting that his belief in a particular god/s gives his life meaning. Rather then this meaning coming through a choice that he has made he believes that it has been bestowed on him. That just a trick of self-delusion. He forgets that he really has given his life meaning by shopping for one, he may have done a man shop and bought something from the first peddler he came across. If he chose a different religion his sens of right and wrong would be different. So what this really boils down to is he believes we should believe in a god even if there isn't one simply because it give us a belief that wrong and right are give to us from on high. This is foolish.

yep. straw man describes it exactly. i know no atheist who claims any of these questions are easy.

i have no idea how to marry the sense of meaning my life has to myself and my companions, to the notion that the universe is run by physical laws. i don't know how to think about determinism. i don't know the extent to which moral laws are absolute, consequences of the nature of the animal, or are abitrary.

i think about these things, but i claim no answers. but somehow i live my life with meaning. you want to call that sense of meaning god-given? go ahead. who cares? how does that statement help? how does that tell you at all what the meaning is? if the meaning is telling you there is a god, then the meaning comes first. your sense of meaning gives you your sense of god. you cannot then criticise my sense of morality and meaning because it conflicts with the god you've created for yourself. we can argue about meaning and morality, but your meaning-created god simply cannot help.

i live my life with limited meaning. i just don't pretend it has more meaning than it has, or that difficult questions about that meaning have purportedly simple answers.

Graham Preston does a reasonably good job of describing an atheist worldview, but he gives himself away when he asks "why should anyone care about and abide by moral feelings that happen to be thrown up by the impersonal, uncaring stuff of the universe?"

The answer is of course because they're not. Humans have evolved to develop complex systems of meaning, including religions, spirituality, mythologies etc.

Further, his conclusion that "in the absence of any absolute moral values it is not possible to make moral progress or to even have any genuinely rational moral debate (or indeed rational debate on any other subject since we are unable to control what we think or say", is complete bunkum.

One of the ways in which humans have adapted successfully is in their creation of the societies that sustain them and bestow identity upon them. Every society has developed moral codes and regulatory structures in order that its members can coexist sustainably.

As evolving organisms, humans have created diverse sociocultural forms as adaptive strategies. Some are more successful than others, and they all change over time or die out.

So what?

Silly, silly, strawman indeed!
Has the author ever heard of Buddhism? This is a genuine Athiestic philosophy and much of the morality in traditional religion comes from this tradition.
(The folks who turned it into religion don't get it. Kill the Buddha! Buddah says so!)
God is not a logic concept as creator: Who created God then? Why invoke something *much* more bizarre and inexplicable to explain something? Ochams razor is a lesson that needs to be learned!
God is not logical as moral guidance: Lets face it, Christianity alone allows *any* behaviour to be normalised. Look at US "God hates Fags" movement and the general approval of war and aggression whenever they are threatened. (and are sooo easy to manipulate!)
Christians can't even get "turn the other cheek", let alone stopping powerful old men from harming children. Any other international pedophile ring would be *decimated* in disgust, but not the church!
Atheism has been a major contributor to the success of western civilisation (what little is left of it!). Religion is one of the reasons that civilisation is in decline as it encourages narrow minded, morally superiour attitude as well as self justified aggression.
We are getting used to Jonny Howard style "religiousness": Rude, aggressive, manipulative and deceptively tricky.
At least athiests *have* ideals to aim for these days!

I think the Comments won.

Makes for a good laugh reading the stupid arguments with people denying the obvious (their Creator). The Psalmist summed it up nicely a long time ago when he wrote that a fool says in his heart that their is no God. Dream on! Atheism can't be taken seriously because it is the invention of sinful corrupt man who can't lie straight in bed.

Can the moderators ban runner for annoyingly silly, ranting posts? I can imagine the froth coming out the mouth...

On the article, the author seems to, like other religious commentators, simply imply that atheism makes everything meaningless. Nice respect for people's beliefs, right there. And nice way to miss a lot of shades between black and white.

Wow...thank god I'm aetheist.

The most annoying "need" of those of religious persuasion is their constant desire to the drag others into their particular brand of nonsense.

I was indoctrinated into the Catholic faith as a very young child, but ceased being a practicing Catholic in my mid teens. I lived on the "edge" for many years after which I began to study religion of different faiths in the hope that I may one day find a place where I belong. Eventually, I found much of religion to be totally illogical and dismissed it as such, yet somehow I managed to take some of their principles of living with me.

The Catholic faith showed me how to bash the crap out of kids and get away with it.

The "Proddies" showed me how to hate Catholics.

The Islamics showed me how to hate everybody that isn't of their faith.

The Pentecostals showed me how to annoy people to the point of wanting a better existence ie: well away from evangelists. Ditto for SDA's.

The Buddhists showed me a better way of how to walk the Earth leaving only a small ecological footprint and no, I'm not a practicing Buddhist either. I am me! What I believe at a deep personal level belongs to me and to nobody else. My only great desire is that people keep their religious ideas to themselves. I'm a happy person and I don't need to be drawn into a morass of illogical ideas that will weigh me down.

Just why religious people can't abide by that simple notion is truly the greatest mystery of the entire universe.
Aime.

Graeme Preston

You are taking atheism TOO seriously.

We don't believe in a big daddy watching everything we do.

We do enjoy a sunset, music, making love, dancing, singing, painting, watching kittens play, cuddling our kids, sky-diving, riding motorbikes, helping little old ladies, telling jokes, learning, having an ale or two, jumping in puddles, cooking, reading, walking, running, laughing, throwing a stick for our dogs, in short; we live and we feel.

We are not spiritually empty, in fact my cup is full because I can think for myself, be responsible for my actions all without referring to an text written by a number of men for reasons of their own.

Cheers

I'm so happy I'm an atheist.. now.. no matter what I do.. or think.. the only thing restraining me..is the law.
BUT... I can change that!

I rather like the idea of hating people based purely on their 'race'... thus.. I can do this with absolutely ZERO self criticism..and any dill who challenges me.. has no basis on which to do so...other than his or her own opinion.

I rather like the idea of healthy consenting sex with animals.. and when it comes to humans.. hey.. age cannot possibly matter.. because in the end.... nothing does.

In fact.. my liberation from the 'shakles' of religion have so enhanced my wonderful life style of freedom 'from' moral constraint and now..I am liberated from the very idea of 'morality'.

I'm thinking of joining 'NAMBLA' because they are very active in seeking to change the law about 'man boy love' and in a democracy which is based on 'no moral absolutes' this is just like any other legitimate change. I might open up a local branch.. in the ACT.. as close as I can get to where CJ MOrgan resides :)

Yep.. freeeeedommmmm... I love it. My atheism has done soo much for me.

I'm working on a project too.. so that what the stupid 'conservative right wing religious bigots currently call "XXX" pornography.. will be freely available at kinder and preschools as 'sex education'.. after all..what RIGHT do these wowsers have to stop us educating our children as we see fit....

Other projects include 'full marriage rights' between same sex humans.. and human/animal unions.

and so it goes on.. MIUAUG.

Wow, BOAZ_David, all that hatred and hot air. You're not much of an advertisement for faith, are you? Do you actually have any idea what atheism is? No? Thought not. Never mind, neither does the author of the article.

The arrogance of 'believers' who think that only they can have a moral compass is astounding. The difference is that ours is not imposed on us by, for example, pedophile priests ........

The first lot of comments really give this article all the attention it deserves. The author starts out ok by raising a valid question about the ramifications of materialist atheism for the idea of teleology in life. But then it all goes pear-shaped when he asserts straight-up that this obviously leads to inescapable nihilism, and that this intellectual impasse is met with a lack of seriousness by atheists, where they aren't totally silent about it.

But this is rubbish. Even within the new populist genre of naturalist scientific proselytising, like Dawkins & Hitchens, who do not have a strong background in philosophy, the subject of meaning and purpose in life is addressed, along with the challenge of moral progress. Did he not read them? But more importantly, amongst real philosophers, we can find a vastly richer discussion of the epistemological and metaphysical challenges of secular morality and progress, which is informed by the richness of the Western intellectual tradition going all the way back to the classics.

IMO, it's always a good test of the robustness of a position to see how charitably and fairly it can treat its mainline viable opposition and still argue through to victory. This article falls well short of a considered view of how seriously atheists do actually treat these issues, and what they've actually said about them.

The author shows how much of our common life has to be sacrificed when atheism is followed to its logical conclusion.

We’re urged to accept scientism: the belief that the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind. A claim to knowledge that can’t be proven scientifically and that no one lives their life by. So atheism denies as knowledge almost every precious human experience simply because it cannot be quantified. Trust, honour, love, friendship.

We’re urged to have faith the universe popping into existence is nothing but a brute fact. - a dead planet can come to life contrary to all scientific understanding - the kind of faith that has Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, believing in panspermia!

We’re urged as Prof. Paul Davies explains to simply reject what science is all about:

“I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.”

We’re urged to sacrifice belief that right and wrong is independent of what we wish.

We’re urged to sacrifice Christianity as at best an evolutionary trick, and at worst a gigantic fraud. Yet in confessing atheism we’re persuaded the mind is suddenly trustworthy and somehow atheism avoids this evolutionary trickery. We’re urged by these authorities, this new priesthood, to ultimately mock and sacrifice Jesus of Nazareth. All at a time when society applauds such a thing.

The author invites us to see just how costly sacrificing reason for dogma really is.

different thread, same nonsense.

"We’re urged to accept scientism: the belief that the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind. " by whom? who is suggesting this? give me a name.

"We’re urged to sacrifice belief that right and wrong is independent of what we wish." by whom? who is suggesting this? give me a name.

and on and on. it's not a straw man, it's a straw army.

I wonder how many of the padophile priests that are often referred to are actually priests practicing homosexuality. Of course no honest study would be allowed on this one. Then again its amazing that the ones who hold so strongly to the moral relativism dogma scream when what they consider offends their conscience takes place.

Good to see Chade believes in free speech wanting the Moderator to eliminate opinions being stated on ON Line OPINION. Grow up!

It is intriguing to read the comments made about my article. I would suggest that the critics try to calm down and then read it again.

The article makes a rational assessment of what the actual state of life and the universe is if atheism is correct.

You would never know it from your comments but there is not a single line which advocates or endorses belief in God - please show me if there is.

Pointing out that there is no ultimate meaning and that there is no ultimate basis for morality in a godless universe is to just say that and nothing more. I did not go on to advocate that we therefore have to believe in God.

Instead of attacking me for saying things which I did not say, why, if you don't like the thought that there is no ultimate meaning or basis for morality, don't you defend your position rather than make an unjustifiable attack on comments that haven't even been made? (And I did state very clearly that I acknowledge that people and societies do make up their own meaning and moral codes - but that is all they are - manufactured fictions. One moral code, such as Hitler's, is as 'good' or as 'bad' as another's, such as Mandela's.)

And by the way, no one has been willing to take on the vexed issue of determinism being a logical consequence of atheism. Determinism means we have no control over what we do, say, or think - no matter how much it feels that we do to the contrary. If determinism is true then everything is some weird farce.

Graham Preston

Just for the record, I am a Christian - and have been for most of my life. For me, the most potent arguments against materialism and determinism - are one with the strongest arguments in favour of the exisitence of God.

There simply is no valid argument from a purely materialist perspective that can explain EITHER free will, AND/OR consciousness and sentience. There is no reasonable argument to the effect that even the most complex biological 'machine' could realise these traits. The reference points of free will and sentience are, by their nature, proof of a 'cause without a cause': a transcendent break with the 'chain of causation'.

Sentience and free will are, by their nature, evidence of the 'transcendental'. And this, in turn, provides strong reference points in favour of the existence of God.

Bboy

I wholeheartedly agree. This article is a disappointing contribution to what should be a rich and enlightening conversation about meaning, values and ethics between the secular and religious.

While the non-believers in this forum have understandably focussed on the article’s poor and smug logic, I’m equally concerned with its poor theology.

Of course the assumption that the universe has no ultimate intended goal does not lead necessarily to the conclusion that “nothing that a person or any other creature does is the right or the wrong thing to do in any given situation.”

Equally, what this proposition implies about religion is questionable. God’s purpose for the world is not the reason for Christians to behave ethically. Are we presumptuous enough to think that God’s purposes are achieved though our choosing to behave well? Do we think our place in the final scheme of things depends on accumulating ethical brownie points along the way? And are we really vindictive enough to hope that there is indeed an afterlife in order to ensure that egregious wrongdoers don’t “get away with it”?

Many of the author’s criticisms of secular perspectives are equally true of some forms of Christianity:

Does not Christianity in fact open itself at least as much to the accusation of determinism as does atheism (e.g. Calvin’s view of election, or the author’s own apparent belief that we’re heading to a “particular ultimate destiny”)?

Aren’t Christians as vulnerable as non-believers to the tendency to confuse the legal with the moral (think of all the good, law-abiding Germans attending the government-endorsed Protestant Reich Church in the 1930s and 1940s)?

Bonhoeffer called Christians’ attempts to show that the world cannot live without the tutelage of God as “an attack .. . on the adulthood of the world I consider to be in the first place pointless, in the second place ignoble, and in the third unchristian.” This article seems to me to exemplify the form of Christian apologetics that he so despised.

’The article makes a rational assessment...’

No it doesn’t, it poses an interesting question about teleology then skips the whole modern philosophical enterprise to an unconvincing cul-de-sac nihilism, whilst painting atheist as unserious for not falling over immediately at the obvious conclusion.

’You would never know it from your comments but there is not a single line which advocates or endorses belief in God - please show me if there is.’

Let’s see:
Author is unfamiliar with thoughtful treatment of atheist secular ontology (morality, meta-ethics and epistemology) – check
Author pays only bare lip-service to the seriousness and elucidation of atheists on the challenge of teleology, progress and moral objectivity - check
Author is so convinced of the absolutely certainty that nothing can follow atheism but complete nihilism that he does not bother to even justify the contention, and seem incredulous that this could be objectionable - check
Author has recently equated abortion to murder – check

What exactly is your point? That you really are an impartial commentator whose views aren’t obviously partisan? Please.

’Pointing out that there is no ultimate meaning and that there is no ultimate basis for morality in a godless universe is to just say that and nothing more.’

That’s just it - you seriously see that as beyond discussion because it is received wisdom, and the idea that it might be contestable or even offensively close-minded doesn’t even enter your mind. Any normative system not based on God is morally relative and arbitrary? Please remind me which course you took and which university that allowed you to make that sweeping judgement?

’One moral code, such as Hitler's, is as 'good' or as 'bad' as another's, such as Mandela's.)’

Ah, yes, how very charitable of you to grant us poor meta-ethically challenged atheists that we can have our sham relative morality, but it’s no better than Hitler's. Oh, yes, you’re a well studied and broad minded ‘student of life’ alright. More like student of vacuous ‘cultural of life’ studies and all it annexed moral certainties, paucity of academic rigour and complete lack of humility.

runner: you're killing people's brain cells by writing stuff like that.

"there is no ultimate meaning and that there is no ultimate basis for morality in a godless universe "

Only in your opinion GP - and as an atheist, the opinion of someone who believes in a deity of whom there is no evidence doesn't carry much weight with me, I'm afraid. Morality is not the preserve of the believers - there are good and ghastly people of all belief (and non-belief) systems. As for 'ultimate meaning', why on earth do we need one? We exist, then we cease to exist, what we make of our time here is up to us.

Lets catalogue the negative responses...
1) Claims of a straw man, without referencing any particular atheists who have been able to logical address the argument (we'll call this the scared crows response)
2) Claims that Christians are mean (we'll call these the children's response)
3) Claims that it doesn't matter as the commentators are happy and live full lives (we'll call this one the hippie response)

I'm still waiting for a logical response to Graham's article. For the scared crow's...have you even read the current atheistic ethics philosophers? Singer? Blackburn? Rachels? Taylor (okay..well he's dead now). The best these guys can do is assume some sort of morality exists and so they spend their time trying to work out what it is. Blackburn essentially states there is no basis for morality that they have been able to work out from their atheistic worldview.

For the hippies...if you don't think truth is important, why are you even posting here?

For the children...why are you trying to impose your moral judgements on other people?

Dear_Candide.....

BBOY_said: <<But then it all goes pear-shaped when he asserts straight-up that this obviously leads to inescapable nihilism>>

You can see 'sarcasm' in my post but 'hate' ? aah.. you nail your colors to the mast as a lefist who only sees 'hate' when in fact its just disagreement

BBOY outlined the dilmenna very clearly (but denies it) and you are in denial of the reality of the philosophical ramifications of a godless universe.

I find it astounding that the unending mental gymnastics we endure from atheists is only exceeded by their hysteria about we believers hating them so much....

GODLESS UNIVERSE....leads to 'INESCAPABLE NIHILISM'.....

Yes.. it absolutely does.. as clearly as 2+2-4 not 5.

NO.. it does not.. when people put their philosphical heads in the sands of irrationalism and simply 'deny' that it is the logical, reasonable and inescapable outcome of such a starting point.

They wax eloquent trying to salvage some vestige of a basis for Morality and scrounge around the bottom of the well of ideas for something...ANYthing..which will assure them that "I really DO have meaning.. my life really DOES have a purpose" you can see the anger.. as they defy the knowable God, with emtpy platittudes of disbelief..

NO God.= No right/wrong It's as simple as that.

THUS.. the only thing restraining my behavior (of anykind) is the ..LAW.

Without "Right/Wrong" as eternal principles.. we have MIUAUG and we have 'behavior'...not 'good' behavior nor 'bad' behavior..just pleasant and unpleasant.. threatening and unthreatening.. convenient and incovenient.

To deny something so incredibly obvious is borderline.... *something*.

THE WAY OUT.. is usually (like secular ArchDeacon CJ moaned) "We adapt" er..sure.. but don't whinge when some other group 'adapts' by killing you and taking your wife as a captive sex toy..

What? you protest ? no no Nooooooo... all humans have learned to live in harmony.. cough.. splutter.. choke... gag...barf

You see.. no matter what OTHER peoples behavior is or how it effects you and your family.. you can never say it is 'evil' or 'bad'.....

THAT....is true atheism uncovered.

Very well put Bboy. I sometimes wonder whether these devout believers have ever read any of Hitchens' or Dawkins' work. Their arguments never seem very logical to me. Science and investigation of the universe has never held all the answers, but as further research continues, we begin to understand how we developed rather than inventing some deity to rationalise our progress over the billions of years life has been on this planet. In the same way that television would never have been believed even 150 years ago. I am certain that science, if it is allowed to continue, will provide answers we would never have considered, in the next 150 years. The "believers" in this discussion should always remember that atheism is not a religion because we do not believe in anything supernatural and do not have to draw our morality from anything like it.
The Bible is NOT the word of God. It is the word of man in much of its contradicting and often immoral absurdity.

It's pretty simple to state graham's argument as a quick syllogism

P1) There is no supernatural. Nature (i.e. matter and energy - aka material things) is all that exists (The atheistic claim)

P2) Morality, Purpose, Meaning are not material things.

Conclusion) Morality, purpose and meaning do not exist, thus fictions.

The conclusion is a valid logical conclusion. To defeat it, you have to show the premises are wrong.

P1 is the atheistic claim
P2 is defeated, as soon as you can identify the material substance that makes up these things. No one has even bothered to try.

All the whining in the world doesn't address this simple argument.

FYI, Graham quoted Pojman as an example. Perhaps all you people who think Graham is attacking a straw man should bother to read him.

Chade,

Sorry for this slow response - unusually I have been busy today!

I have clashed with runner many a time, and I think that he and I are pretty much 180 degrees apart in most things. Yet I would not ask for him to be banned. I do not agree with him in any way, but I respect his staunch adherence to his beliefs (although I consider his beliefs to be muddle-headed). I hope your comment was tongue in cheek, but even so it was unsafe. Free speech is, after all, paramount.

Again - how is it possible to understand free will, consciousness and setience on materialist and determinist grounds? How is it possible to explain such phenomena except by resort to the 'transcendent'?

Finally - why do we assume that materialism and determinism necessarily have a monopoly as 'credible science'?

Perhaps, one day, Indian and Jewish understandings of the soul will be able to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

In the meantime, intuitively I think we know we are more than 'complex biological machines'.

I can't take this article seriously. It claims that it is about "Taking atheism seriously" and then states "in the absence of any absolute moral values it is not possible to make moral progress or to even have any genuinely rational moral debate"

On the contrary, it is absolute moral values that put a hold on rational moral debate and progress as history shows time and time again. Try having a debate about morality with a fundamental theist. They cannot change their point of view on the subject because to them, morality is a divine revelation, not something that human beings develop as shared and consensual standards of behaviour.

CJ Morgan,
You have right, human beings have collected so much experiences, know so many things, can do so many advanced things and they do not need any goshes, any fake stories to understand our world and undertake their responsibilities. They are not idiots, they know what is good and what is not good, they know what is useful and what is dangerous, they know what to do and what not to do. We have the schools to teach the basic rules of our society, of our world, we have the courts and prisons for the people who do not like to respect the basic common rules. We can improve and we improve our system from the very begin. Various religious not only are fake human stories but sooner or later they block the improvement of human society and we have to ignore them or their leaders to change the interpretation of their religious. Smart religious leaders use smart interpretations to comply less or more with their civilization and modern sciences. But we know that humans created the gods and of cause humans will demolish them!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

GP: "And by the way, no one has been willing to take on the vexed issue of determinism being a logical consequence of atheism."

Determinism is also the logical consequence of theism. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent god then he will have known everything everyone will do before they do it, and hence people have no free will. If we really do have free will then god cannot know or control what we will do and therefore is neither omniscient nor omnipotent and hence is not a god.

Spinoza once said that the only difference between a man going through life and a stone rolling downhill is that the stone has no illusion it is in charge of its own destiny.

Life does have meaning, the meaning that you give it(as your rolling down the hill). The thing about most athiest is "They know they are living in the illusion that they create for themselves".

They know that it doesn't matter if we kill the last whale or cut down the last tree (Right & Wrong are just collective norms of civil society), but they also acknowledge that if they do, the collection of atoms that temporarily is identified as them will probably disassociate. But the universe(or God)doesn't care.

The truth is that for 99.9% of us, 1000 years from now, nobody will know you existed or cares. Your life path/journey is yours for the making. If you want to rap your life/journey around a 3000 year old fairy tale, who am I to argue between created illussions.

An interesting article.
But I guess it all depends on the individuals perspective on life, if you take Louis Pojman view you would live a life of meaninglessness knowing that nothing really matters in the end. Nick Bostrom put forward a similar view where he said since we live in an infinite universe there is an infinite amount of good and an infinite amount of evil, thus no matter how much good or evil you do it will never change the overall picture.

To conclude that nothing happens to us after death is about as silly as concluding that we go to either heaven or hell after death. The facts are that nobody actually knows and I am 100% sure it’s a whole lot more complicated then what either main stream religious groups champion and what main stream atheist champion.

We cant write the last page of the book of everything until we know the whole picture and I have a nasty feeling that we are only on the first chapter of a multi volumed anthology. Mind you this wont stop those of religious or atheist persuasion from calling the final score after only the first over has been bowled.

I want to see some of the posters above take on the challenge set by Grey. He's shown you the first steps for a rational argument.
Nearly all of the posts so far are just "sound and fury signifying nothing". Read Graham's article again dispassionately and respond to it just as dispassionately.

A long winded exegesis of the now quite common objection to atheism - ie that such a belief takes away any fundamental moral standard from human behaviour, and that in the final analysis the universe is meaningless and none of us gets either punished or rewarded. The author of this piece of claptrap is clearly of the fundamentalist persuasion in that he uses the same basic tactic as did Gish and who knows how many other sunday school teachers, and self styled pastors etc - which is to keep presenting the same tired old argument even though that argument has been routed many times before.
The fact is that the (alleged) lack of an effective morality being available to an atheistic society has been so often refuted that it is pointless to do it again here. I simply refere the writer (or more hopefully the reader) to just about any of the writings of Shermer, Harris, Dennett etc etc (not to mention Socrates, Kant etc) for an intellectually satisfying repudiation of all the tired old cliches in this current essay - I do not have time at this point to argue the matter any further, and it would make no difference to Mr Preston's views if I did so - the essay (slightly re-worded no doubt) would simply turn up somewhere else.
We are then left with the notion of not having that time honoured religious fanatic's virtual 'raison d'etre - ie that punishment will be meeted out to unbeleivers and naughty people in the future, whilst rewards will be available to the good guys - including Mr Preston. I simply comment that the universe is it's own law, and does not adjust itself to any humanised notion of fair play. Get used to it - we are alone and totally responsible for our own comfort in this life - and there is no other life to come, only the oblivion out of which we came prior to birth. Happiness is a human invention - the universe simply doesn't care.

I'll take up the syllogism as summarised by Grey by three propositions.

P1a) Grey's comments are correct in the sense of "as far as we know". However the bracketed elemets are not. Matter and energy (and space-time) are objective facts, but they are not all that exists in the universe (and nor do most atheists claim this).

(P1b) Moral judgements can be formed through mutual consensus of shared norms. This is certainly within our knowledge of the universe, but it it is not a matter of fact, but of norms.

(P1c) Aesthetic expressions expressed through subjective standards of sensuality and beauty also form within the realms of knowledge.

Conclusion: It is not a case of claiming that which is immaterial as belonging to the realm of the theological but rather those things which are pragmatically unverifiable, for example a normative approach to physical world (e.g., "Blue skies are evil"), aesthetic standards to the social world (e.g., "Drink driving laws are beautiful") or factual statements to the personal world (e.g., "You feel 10.5 units")

The following notes, which may assist, come from classes presented at the Melbourne Unitarian Church.

http://melbourneunitarian.org.au/files/philosophy/introphil.doc
http://melbourneunitarian.org.au/files/philosophy/pragmatic.do

OK, I'll have a go at Tristan Ewins' questions (mainly because they're more interesting than the strawman atheism of GP's article).

Easiest first: " why do we assume that materialism and determinism necessarily have a monopoly as 'credible science'?"
(A) Materialism- Because, by definition, science has to deal with the observable. You might as well ask why an apple tree doesn't produce peaches (ie if it produced peaches it would be a peach tree). Science does not deal with the "transcendent", leaving it to theologians and philosophers.
(B) Determinism- I suggest some reading on quantum mechanics and chaos theory before suggesting that all science is deterministic. Much of modern physics is now probabilistic.

"How is it possible to understand free will, consciousness and sentience on materialist and determinist grounds? How is it possible to explain such phenomena except by resort to the 'transcendent'?" By transcendent I presume you mean the agency of God? If so, why do you believe that sentience couldn't arise without divine intervention. I don't believe brain function has anything that distinguishes it from any other physical function of the body (except for its complexity). The brain is a physical organ, though we don't fully understand its workings. Our emotions, language and reason are remarkably well-developed, but where's the evidence that this is the result of theistic interference?

Consciousness and sentience are not "transcendent" they are "emergent".

For all its flaws, The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt http://www.happinesshypothesis.com is a good read, filled with neat observations:

“When the moral history of the 1990s is written, it might be titled ‘Desperately Seeking Satan.’ With peace and harmony ascendant, Americans seemed to be searching for substitute villains. We tried drug dealers (but then the crack epidemic waned) and child abductors (who are usually one of the parents). The cultural right vilified homosexuals; the left vilified racists and homophobes. As I thought about these various villains, including the older villains of communism and Satan himself, I realised that most of them share three properties: They are invisible (you can’t identify the evil one from appearance alone); their evil spreads by contagion, making it vital to protect impressionable young people from infection (for example from communist ideas, homosexual teachers, or stereotypes on television); and the villains can be defeated only if we all putt together as a team. It became clear to me that people want to believe they are on a mission from God, or that they are fighting for some more secular good (animals, fetuses, women’s rights), and you can’t have much of a mission without good allies and a good enemy.

The problem of evil has bedevilled many religions since their birth. If God is all good and powerful, either he allows evil to flourish (which means he is not all good), or else he struggles against evil (which means he is not all powerful).” (page 72)

I think Graham Preston needs to look around and note that everywhere atheists are managing to live worthy lives. Also, “higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.” http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Conversely, atheism may be associated with higher rates of suicide http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

It seems to me that rather than making polemical claims about the moral vacuity of atheists, a more “moral” approach would be to admit that both believers and non-believers can learn much from each other.

A response to Mr. Preston’s view that atheism leads to nihilism.
Some Philosophy:

Not withstanding John Mackie’s (that’s where this view originates) view that moral values must be queer things, there is no persuasive reason for thinking that moral values are anything other than natural features of the natural world. A detailed discussion of why Mackie is mistaken is probably not appropriate for this forum but readers who are really interested might try Russ Shafer-Landau’s book Whatever happened to Good and Evil? In the meantime here is something to think about.
1. Language is a natural property of the universe, it exists among human beings who are themselves a part of the natural universe. Language (in the ordinary sense of the word) does not exist among protons and electrons. Language is a property of entire organisms not their component parts.
2. Language is universal. All human societies have some form of language.
3. Particular languages are not universal. Different societies have different languages despite the fact that all human beings have the same speech-making anatomy.

In other words, there can be characteristics of the natural world that are not properties of the component elements of the natural world (but entire entities) and these characteristic can be universal without invariable generating universal agreement. I am not suggesting that moral value is reducible to language but there is no good reason for thinking moral values are not part of the natural world simply because they don’t exist in electrons etc.

Nor does disagreement about moral values itself indicate that there are no universal moral values or that there has been no progress in gaining agreement on such values.

If one is an Externalist about moral value, disagreement is not problematic. One can simply be mistaken about one’s moral values – because one is mistaken about matters of fact and/or irrational. Given the tendency of human beings to be guilty of both mistakes, it is only surprising that there is not more disagreement.

In short, there is no good reason to believe that an atheist must be committed to moral nihilism

A correction:
"Determinism means we have no control over what we do, say, or think - no matter how much it feels that we do to the contrary." - G Preston.

Err actually, this is not what Determinism means -the logical problem here is the phrase "we have no control" which is entirely ambigious. If it were literally true that I have "NO" control then there would be no differance between a compulsion and ordinary behaviour. But there typically is - a person suffering complusions typically wants not to suffer them. On the other hand - the fact that I cannot will the development of Neurons does stop me identifying with the thoughts that are the product of Neurons (it is not even clear what that would mean)

Again I would suggest that the problem here is the tendency to confuse the what happens at the level of component parts, with what happens to the entire organism. - Hard Determinism is excessively reductive and most likely false. Soft Determinism is probably true and is quite compatible with our ordinary sense of freewill - (although not with some metaphysical understandings)

This will sound very simplistic after all the erudite responses so far but here goes.

My two children are in the unenviable position of having a non-believing father whom feels it is okay to let them both attend a pentecostal church run by his brother-in-law.

The only trade off is that when possible we sit down and read through the bible together and discuss what it reveals.

Last year when wading our way through Genesis (an excellent teaching tool) we talked through the issues posed by Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son to show his submission to God's will. We concluded that sin and morality can be two different things. If their pastor/uncle was to walk past them one day with his son in tow, clutching a knife and voicing the conviction he was off to do God's bidding then what would their response be? If they followed their moral convictions then they would do all within their power to stop him even though this would in effect be sinning if it was indeed God's will.

This is of course an extreme example but thankfully both my children were very firm about being prepared to act morally instead of sinlessly.

When you hold most of the other Genesis figures up to similar scrutiny they are far from being shining examples of piety and one can not help but get the sense that this may well be what the authors intended. Could it be that our religions serve to elucidate human morals rather than the other way around?

Genesis has been a brilliant resource and many nights of meaningful discussion have taken place as we have been making our way through it. I can highly recommend it to those of all persuasions.

csteele

You seem to twist Scripture well in order to confirm your own prejudices. Most honest people are willing to look at the fruit of ones teaching. Out of your friends and family it is far more likely that non bible believers will murder their unborn babies than those who attend your brother in laws church. This scenario is far more likely than your brother in law killing one of his children. Try thinking a bit.

Reynard,
it's always tongue in cheek. Ever seen the meme about arguing on the internet? For more tongue in cheekness: how can a comment be 'unsafe', if there's free speech for all? :D

MATILDA

I don't recall anyone suggesting that Atheists must be 'committed' to Nihilism.

What I DO recall is that 'Nihilism' is the logical philsophical outcome of Atheism.

I doubt many 'Atheists' can stomach an amoral universe, so.. as you are witnessing in various posts, (including your own).. they are grasping for some kind of philosphical life preserver to comfort them in a purposeless universe.

The best an Atheist can do, is set for themselves short term goals which give personal and immediate purpose..but they don't give 'meaning' or any kind of significance to the whole shebang. That....is the issue at stake here.

No one is saying 'Atheists are without morals' what we ARE saying is.. 'Atheists have no basis for the morality they choose' ..perhaps other than happiness and survival. But they too are in the context of the futile, empty meaningless haze of a Creatorless world.

Atheist Group "A" will come up with XYZ morals.
Atheist Group "B" will come up with EFG morals.

If they meet, they might clash. (welcome to history)

Please all you atheists stop missing the point,and some honest reflection might open some blind eyes.. to Him who said "I am the Light of the World"

BOAZ_David: "I doubt many 'Atheists' can stomach an amoral universe"

Actually that's exactly what Atheists are saying, that the universe itself IS amoral. Morals are a human creation.

"The best an Atheist can do, is set for themselves short term goals which give personal and immediate purpose..but they don't give 'meaning' or any kind of significance to the whole shebang."

Isn't a personal meaning the most important kind, and the one most people act on anyway?

As for the rest of your post:

No one is saying 'Theists are without morals' what we ARE saying is.. 'Theists have no basis for the morality they choose' ..perhaps other than ancient myths and stories. But they too are in the context of the arbitrary and contradictory haze of an irrational world.

Theist Group "A" will come up with XYZ morals.
Theist Group "B" will come up with EFG morals.

If they meet, they might clash. (welcome to history)

Matilda - thanks for those comments but I don't see how they get us very far. Okay, even if it should be conceded that moral values are somehow part of the fabric of the universe, that still doesn't tell us why we should act morally even if we should be able to somehow recognise these moral values.

I presume you don't believe that the mindless stuff of the universe intentionally caused universal moral values to become part of the universe. They just happened to come into existence just like rocks happened to. Do you think the mindless stuff of the universe can or does 'care' whether people abide by these purported universal moral values?

If it doesn't and if, presumably, there is no retribution for ignoring or disobeying them, why would a rational person bother about them, especially if they conflicted with his/her desires?

At best your universal moral values would be just be another oddity of nature and one having no significance for our lives.

In relation to determinism, you imply you can make a differentiation between 'compulsions' and 'ordinary behaviour', but don't explain how that is possible. Just because we seem to be in control with 'ordinary behaviour' and not in control with 'compulsions' does not mean it is so. You sound like you believe in some sort of non-physical 'I' that is in control of our clockwork bodies at least some of the time but surely that conflicts with your materialism.

Resorting to 'soft determinism' doesn't help. Just because the initial physical conditions of the universe presumably could have been otherwise does not allow us to escape from the clockwork universe which we actually do inhabit now.

Graham

Gray has given us a simple argument from definition that, again, demonstrates the remarkable hubris of expecting us all to fall over. It takes atheists as not being able to explain or grapple with non-material phenomena, and then pitches that at materialism – game over. But this is to place arbitrary constraints on the domain of the subject. When we talk about morality, purpose and meaning there is no need to concede that they are transcendent or divinely revealed, rather than emergent relational phenomena between subjects of the environment, and this certainly doesn’t exclude their objectivity. There is also no need to conflate non-theism with radical empiricism, as is frequently the tendency, affirming my view that not only are a lot of theists unfamiliar with secular moral philosophy, but they aren’t acquainted with philosophy of science either.

As for the claim that ‘nobody is trying’ - this is a specious accusation which denies the positive character of the theistic position, and pointedly ignores the objections against it one can make without engaging in the one-truth style propositions. Now, anyone claiming one objective system of secular morality which dealt with exhaustive iterations of scenarios would be expected to aggressively defend and explain its minutia. But this is to reverse the scenario here to a non-theist article on objective morality with online comments about that. It’s a fallacy because we’re here dealing with a specific theistic claim, and the theist tendency is to ignore the claim and regress everything to a fundamental demand for a complete alternative. We are here to discuss Preston’s generalised claim, with no evidence, that no possible non-arbitrary normative system can ever exist or will ever exist with theism. For that claim, within an article purportedly ‘taking atheism seriously’, the point is it is blithely indifferent to the ever-expanding literature of moral philosophy, and how that might fit into a naturalistic worldview. In that regard, the existence of many non-theists dealing with moral ontology seriously, and an objection to the argument by definition used here to exclude other conceptions of morality, is a serious answer to the article.

thanks to people above for some great posts. In particular, thank-you bboy for nailing preston's smug disingenuousness.

boaz, your suggestion that the only alternatives are a god-inspired morality or nihilism is unsupported, and incredibly offensive, twaddle. i think you should have a go responding to csteele's excellent post. see if you can do better than runner.

gp, i don't think it makes any sense to ask why we should be moral. morality, whatever its source, carries its own "should".

re the determinism thing, i think matilda is isolating the real issue, how the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. so, i don't think we need to debate morality or meaning, it's enough to discuss consciousness. how does a bunch of atoms get to think? in particular, i think gray's syllogism amounts to "I think, therefore God is".

I am extremely puzzled by consciousness. obviously i mean a lot to me. and i have a morality, which is clearly not arbitrary, but is not clearly settled either. these things puzzle me. but proposing a god is responsible for all this just doesn't mean anything to me. for example, it certainly doesn't tell me what god's morality is. as i said above: the most that is possible is the converse, that ones morality says who god is. you can do that if you like, but to me it seems pointless.

BUSHbasher..

You are quite right.. csteele's post was magnificent. Oh that ALL of us would have a close look at that book. CSTEELE.. regarding Abraham and Lot.. and the clashes over grazing rights.. there are plenty of lessons there also :)


BBOY said:
<< (morals are) emergent relational phenomena between subjects of the environment, and this certainly doesn’t exclude their objectivity.>>

On the first bit..*tick* I totally agree with that description of morality in a Godless universe. 'relational phenomema'.

But then.. you said about 'objectivity' ? *puzzled look* you need to be more specific. I would say that the values most varied cultures adopt are 'survive by all means, fair or foul' Other than this Single value common to all mankind, the responses to the other major rites of passage (Birth, Marriage,Death) tend to fall into the animistic or religious tradition category, but the values are certainly not objective. Even survival is not an 'objective' value..it is simply a reality we all face. In short 'kill them b4 they kill you'

So, I maintain that the absense of God.. definitely excludes any moral objectiveness. We are left with just 'relational phenomena'

DESIPIS.. I had to look twice :)
Theist A and B -quite right. Muslim/Christian/Jew

This leads us to the 'but we are the correct version' situation.
No matter who is actually 'correct' each of the monotheistic faiths, whether 'true' or not, at least they have a 'basis' for their morality. We can fight it out among ourselves with evidence to see who of us is the true faith.
Atheism in the end game.. is just 'existence' and you can give meaning to it by any kind of morality you like..beneficial or harmful.. it makes not difference to any God.. because there is none.. thus, all things are valid, but not all are lawful in such a scenario.
You can fill in those gaps with your imagination.

"As evolving organisms,..."

So when are we going to sprout wings and fly, CJ? If only evolution had endowed CJ with more ....

Taking atheism seriously! There is nothing serious about it, its a state of mind.( hence the name I gave myself) The bible has had holes punched all the way through it, and lets not forget the pain and suffering that its causing today. I feel that christians and alike, cant come to terms with there own demise and its just the fear of death you haven't got yours minds around. I also believe we will all laugh one day at our early beginnings. Atheism-ism is not a religion.

2000 + years ago, man wrote a book, and from that book, the first form of law and order was born. You sheep people just haven't evolved yet, that's all. This belief in the supernatural comes from the oldest part of the brain and from our earliest times, when we were all trying to make sense of our existence. Because of this, and time, evolution has kept this curiosity alive and well today.

Dont feel too bad! we will wait for you.

Fairy tales are very good for teaching children morality. Many of these predate the modern prophetic religions. If that doesn't work then the threat of no presents from Santa might. I think Santa also predates the modern prophetic religions.

On a separate matter, would it be fair to assume that 'Christians' are statistically more likely to drop bombs on Iraqis than the non-superstitious?

One more question: Does a teleology that ends in Armageddon help to give people joy and fulfillment in their life?

Grantnw. Here!Here.

At risk of repeating myself one does not NEED a religion to establish a basis in morality and nor does one need to reject religious edicts.

A universal morality can be established on shared agreement and informed consent between participants.

To give an example, if two men decide to engage in homosexual sex and they both agree, then that's a moral act. If two men decide not too because the book of Leviticus prohibits it, that's a moral act too.

What would be immoral would be one man forcing such an act on another against their will, or telling two men they cannot do it (or punishing them if they do) because the book of Leviticus prohibits it.

Mutual agreement between free and informed actors is the path to resolving this "problem" for everyone.

It's not that hard. Just respect the right of people to control their own bodies and respect their ability to make their own decisions with the agreement of others.

Yes Runner you have outed my deep prejudice about people killing their sons. Do you find this prejudice a problem?

Abraham actually attempted this twice. Once with Isaac but also with Ishmael.

Indeed Abraham's life provided a wealth of moral instruction.

He essentially pimped out his wife to save himself from possible danger and to gain material possessions. Here was a great lesson about the ability some of those whom may profess to love you to use you to further their own self-interest. Can we ever regard this as true love? What might be the warning signs in a relationship?

He then slept with and impregnated a woman slave giving a neat lead into a discussion about sexual harassment in the workplace, the evils of slavery, and the rights of women.

The act of leading the mother and son into the desert and leaving them there to die spoke volumes about facing ones responsibilities instead of disposing of them. “Father Abraham” isn’t going to win any votes for father of the year from me.

His cousin Lot is an interesting character who was prepared to sacrifice his daughters to the mob to retain the safety of strangers who were guests in his house. This gave became a great talking point about how morals evolve, as do societies. I asked if they thought Lot felt that he was doing a moral deed at the time. The answer was a reluctant yes.

But the best discussion was regarding Lot sleeping with his daughters in the mountains. How would we judge a man in today’s society standing up in court having been charged with impregnating his two daughters and trying to defend it by saying it was the grog and ‘I didn‘t realise what I was doing‘? I could see an indigenous person from a dysfunctional community getting very short shrift in your courtroom Runner for exactly this crime. How do you view the actions of Lot?

If ultimately we concede that morals are not static then whose morals are evolving? God’s or humanity’s? Or are they really set in stone…so to speak.

unimaginative tripe

csteele

Your ability to point out the depravity of man is precise. Your ability to learn the lesson of Scripture that we all need a Saviour seems to have escaped you. Events such as that of Lot are still taking place in drug and alcohol affected communities today. A short view of history will show you that wherever the gospel has taken root in a community that instances of abuse and violence decreases. Of course as we have seen the demise of the influence of the gospel we see a great increase in violence and abuse (including abortion and child sexual abuse.

If you are so good at picking out the depravity of man you should also be good at bowing the knee to the Only Righteous Man to ever walk the earth. He died for your sin just as He died for Lot's sin and my sin.

I'm SURE you're just stirring, Runner. " A short view of history will show you that wherever the gospel has taken root in a community that instances of abuse and violence decreases." What, like America?

bennie

You know as well as anyone that in America and the Western world that violence, sexual abuse, and the break down of the family has increased dramatically over the last 50 years or so. As a nation becomes more secular (like the US) and the influence of the gospel diminishes you have an increase in porn, immorality, abuse, more greed, lust etc etc.
Their is however enough of the influence of the gospel left to make it a far more attractive place to live than most of Asia and other nations. You don't see long lists of people wanting to immigrate to India or muslim dominated nations.

runner,

So what if more people are getting divorced. Do you suppose that people should just put up with abusive partners? Of course not. So let them get a divorce. So what if "lust" is on the increase (how you've measured this is beyond comprehension)? What does it matter to you? It's not your body. If you don't like lust, don't express it.

As for migrations, people seek refuge in places where they have religous freedom - that's why America was settled by the Europeans, remember (it's a pity that they didn't apply this notion of freedom to the indigenous people or the slaves they shipped over).

The only matter you raise that's even worth looking at is rates of violence, including sexual violence. It may fascinate you to discover that the more secular a country, the lower the rate of violence. This is - if you bother to do the research - a fact so well studied it is even trivial to sociologists.

The problem I constantly find religious fundamentalists is that they think that only they know what it right and true and that only they have the ability to perfectly interpret their divinely revealed holy books.

Such an approach leads them to deny both the ability of others to come to different conclusions and to deny empirical reality when it conflicts with their beliefs. It leads them to say things which rational people (whether they are religious or not) find abhorrent, bizarre and often downright stupid.

Such as the following:
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1

Lev: "the more secular a country, the lower the rate of violence. This is - if you bother to do the research - a fact so well studied it is even trivial to sociologists"

Quite so, and thanks for saving me from having to point out that sociological truism. Indeed, there are numerous studies around of late that state clearly that most forms of violence in our society are actually less prevalent now than they were in the 'good old days'.

But runner's never let facts or other aspects of reality get in the way of his idiotic fundy rants. It doesn't really matter though, because I'm sure nobody with a functioning brain takes him seriously.

I'm sorry about the clumsily baited hook runner but here you are condemning the actions of Abraham and Lot as depraved even though the Bible itself makes no such assertions about their actions.

You say that Jesus died for Lot's sins but what are they because the Bible doesn't spell them out? Are you not judging his actions with a modern, dare I say evolved, morality?

Do I likewise have the same right to judge lets say your homophobia with my modern morality?

You might note that not once in my previous post did I condemn either man. You did.

I love Genesis precisely because of the human-ness poring out of each verse rather than any perceived righteousness. It is such a marvellously Jewish book and we in the West are privileged to have been able to adopt it.

Go have another read mate, you might be surprised what you find.

Meanwhile can I leave you with the following link;

http://russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/dra-til-helvete.html

so, boaz, just to be clear: you're claiming that there is a "basis" for the morality of the [major?] monotheistic faiths, whether or not those faiths are "true"? and, you're claiming that it is only such monotheistically-origined morality which can claim to have a basis at all?

i don't know how to respond. i think you're your own best critic.

though you are happy to praise csteele's post, as far as i can tell you have entirely missed the implication of that post.

Lev
you write 'So what if more people are getting divorced.' No sane person could think that divorce is good for the children involved. Generally step parents will rarely love and care for children as much as natural parents although as some will point out that their are always exceptions. Look in the prisons and you will find over 90% of people in their have grown up without their natural dad. You can't possibly believe that the breakdown of marriage is good for society. It often ends in welfare dependency and bitter people.
You write
So what if "lust" is on the increase '

Again you can't possibly believe that a society that portrays humans as purely sex objects is healthy. Uncontrolled lust leads to child sexual abuse as seen by many who feed on the perverted pornography industry. Look at the number of State Labour ministers who have been held captive to this and you can see the fruit. The pornography that sets many off in the indigenous communities speak for themselves. We are in an age where God has handed people over to their own lust and destruction where even homosexuality is considered normal.

csteele

The bible does condemn Abraham and Lot and every other son of Adam including you and me. We have all partaken of Adams depraved and fallen nature. They sinned like any other people because they were sinners. They did not sin and then become sinners. That is why none is declared righteous except by faith in the only Righteous One. The good news is that they put their faith in Christ and were made righteous because of it. Lot had many sins but to break God's law once was enough to become a lawbreaker. Abraham is the Father of those who believe in Christ because he had faith in God and His mercy and grace. Though not perfect Abraham's faith was a great example to those who believed. Remember even Abraham told a half truth (full lie) about his wife.

Runner,

Where is your empirical evidence that finds 90% of prisoners were raised without your natural father? Have you sought stronger correlations? What reasons to give that step parents are incapable of loving and caring for children not theirs by nature? Are these just prejudices of yours or do you have something to back it up with?

Why do you presume that an increase of lust must inevitably portray humans as purely sex objects? Are you not capable of imagining that people are capable of lustful and not view humans as purely sex objects? Is it not possible to perceive a person and consider them to be true, good and beautiful or does the observation of one, mean that the others are not possible? Again, is this just a prejudice you have, or do you have something to back it up with?

What is your problem with homosexuality? Why do you consider it abnormal, when it is universal to all cultures, through all history and has been observed in most species. Indeed all species studied have shown homosexual behaviour except for those who have no sex behaviour at all (such as sea urchins, aphis) or those which are hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. Is this cry of "abnormal" just another prejudice, or do you have something to back it up with?

In seeking the truth, the results may sometimes surprise you.

Really runner all our talk about sin and moral lessons to be taken from Genesis has us in the shallow end, a nice diversion. The waters run far deeper when you appreciate this book for what it is, a great love story.

A story about a God falling in love with a people and a people returning that love. To quote Rabbi Kushner again "the Bible tells us that God's love for Abraham and for the Jewish people is, like all love, irrational. It cannot be logically explained or understood. God has at least the same right that we do to fall in love with someone and leave others wondering what he sees in her".

To borrow a notion, for Abraham so loved his God that he was prepared to give his son born from the union with Sarah, the woman whom he loved so much he was prepared to sacrifice his first born. Okay he may have been a little tardy but Christians think that a couple of thousand years later God reciprocated that grand gesture of love.

We see ourselves doing desperately irrational acts when we fall in love and it's a deeply human thing, not complying with any notion of sacred love. What could be more irrational than sacrificing ones child for love, and what does it say about that enormity of that love?

To transgress that love is called sinning and while we are not called upon nowadays to sacrifice our children it seems we are often prepared to sacrifice our morality. God it appears is not immune from this affliction; Jonah 3:10 “And God saw their works, that they had turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said he would do unto them; and he did it not.”

Possibly it is an intuitive understanding by Christians that they really stand on the periphery of this intense love story, gathering 'crumbs from the table' where they can, that is at least partly responsible for two thousand years of persecution of a God's chosen people.

Graham –I don’t really have time for this but it is an interesting conversation.

If one is an externalist about moral value then the question ‘why be moral?’ is indeed a serious philosophical issue. (As a Neo-Kantian I would probably answer that it has something to do with our rational nature – but there are other possible solutions to the problem.)

Rather than address the technical philosophical argument I will instead point you in the direction of some interesting work in the field of psychology where it has been noted that capacity to recognise moral values develops along with the development of imagination and empathy. The absence of either imagination or empathy, is a psychological ‘defect’. The consequences of which can been seen (in varying degrees) in conditions ranging from autism to psychopathy. This seems to suggest that there is probably some deep neurological mechanisms at play. While this is still explanation rather justification (a distinction that seems to escape some in this forum) nonetheless it is suggests that perhaps the question is miscast. In other words, for most people (most of the time) the question is more apparent than real. We simply are moral because its in our nature to be so. In any case not sufficiently threatening to justify nihilism.

This is all quite distinct from the more common problem of acrasia – weakness of the will – where we struggle against our individual desires to do what we believe to be right. The issue in these cases is - why be moral in this particular instance? It presumes a pre-existing acceptance of moral value as a motivation for behaviour. (For the reductivists – this is also why morality is not reducible to self-interest)

(If one is an Internalist about moral value, then whole problem just disappears – and it is possible to be a realist about moral values and an Internalist). ---more

“Does the mindless stuff of the universe care whether we abide by moral values?’ is similarly problematic. The question sounds like a real question but in fact is largely meaningless. MINDLESS stuff is not the sort of thing that can care. The universe doesn’t care about the laws of physics either. But WE care and are part of the material universe – so values matter.. in… the universe but not… to… the universe. Morality might be just another oddity, like lakes and trees and language (and our own existence) but it doesn’t follow that it is of no significance, its of significance to us. We are not nothing, we are something, something to whom moral values matter.

Similarly regarding retribution. (Strictly, it is not true to say there is no retribution. We are surrounded by it) In a materialist universe there is no ‘ultimate’ retribution – no perfect justice where everyone gets their just disserts. But perfect justice is quite unnecessary for the existence of moral values. The fact that there are some evil that will never be punished and some good that is never rewarded cannot be the source of moral motivation because moral value is not reducible to self interest – certainly not in this way. Murdering people is not something I would think good, even if I believed I could get away with it – and the mere fact that some people do get away with it, doesn’t change my views about the immorality of murder. ---more

Tristan, Graham,

1 Just because the truth is unpleasant or uninteresting, it does not follow that it is not true.

2. If we decide to receive our morality from God, how do we judge the quality of that morality. Are we to accept without question the ethics/morality revealed to us from god? Did not Abraham question gods ethics in Genesis 18:22....  
 
"...but Abraham stood before the LORD.  
And Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?" ...
 
Surely we must continue to question god's word if in our own conscience we believe it to be wrong.

3. Free will does not require explanation if it does not exist. Just because we cannot predict a persons behavior or just because we think that we are behaving freely does not mean that a person is acting freely; The most that we can conclude is that we do not have enough information upon which to make a prediction of another person's or our own actions. First prove the existence of free will. But in any case see 4.

4. Consciousness and sentience. Have you not heard of "emergent properties of matter" ("the whole is greater than the sum of its parts").

5. Graham's "vexed issue of determinism". Determinism does not necessarily follow from atheism - see point 4. Even if it does - see 1.

6. OK if we accept for the sake of the argument Tristan's statement that "the reference points of free will and sentience are, by their nature, proof of a 'cause without a cause'", how can we know that God is THE cause without a cause and that God is not one of many gods created by the ultimate cause without a cause. In fact if god was created by this ultimate creator, then could it not be that our god and creator is imperfect just as we, his creation, are imperfect. In fact our god's morality may be imperfect - back to point 2. And why cannot matter be the cause without a cause - see 4.

Kenneth

Lev

One of many studies that come up with similar conclusions as this:
# 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.
# 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.
# 60% of repeat rapists grew up without fathers. Raymond A. Knight and Robert A. Prentky, "The Developmental Antecednts of Adult Adaptations of Rapist Sub-Types," Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, Dec., 1987, p 403-426.
# 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. US Dept. of Health & Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999.
# 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.
# 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. Center for Disease Control.
# 90% of adolescent repeat arsonists live with only their mother. Wray Herbert, "Dousing the Kindlers," Psychology Today, January, 1985, p.28.
# 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.
# 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse canters come from fatherless homes. Rainbows for all God`s Children.
# 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. US Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988.
# 85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections, 199

Source: Where's Daddy? The Mythologies Behind Custody-Access-Support

Face the facts!

Runner,

Selective quoting from partisan sources isn't going to help. Especially when there is a sum total of two peer-revieweed journal articles, one which is twenty one years old and the other is thirty years old - which would mean that papers in question were probably dealing with data between thirty and fourty years ago!

The world has moved on a bit since then. Back in sixties and seventies the attitude towards women working was a bit dodgy, the welfare system was a bit dodgy, and childcare was simply not affordable. There have been improvements.

So, I see your two peer-reviewed studies from between 20 and 30 years ago and raise you thirty from the past decade.

http://members.aol.com/asherah/fatherlessness.html

BTW, I was raised in a "fatherless" home. Turned out just fine, thank you very much. I note that you still haven't answered the question on what a woman (or man) should do if they are living with a violently abusive partner. Put up with it?

The Christian claims to believe that an act is moral if God has ordered it. In reality, though, most Christians refrain from many things that God has ordered them to do -- e.g. stoning witches. Why? Because despite all the lip service to God, in ordinary life they usually act in accordance with their own innate moral systems. It's when the two come into serious conflict that the intolerance and bloodshed starts.

The fact that believers routinely pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore indicates that they DO have an independent moral sense, thank goodness! -- they're just ashamed to admit it.

Lev

I do not think a woman or a child should have to continue to live in a home with an abusive violent husband. Don't forget however that this is how 'stolen generations' are started when kids are removed for these reasons.

Matilda - you state "We simply are moral because its in our nature to be so." But this remains just a descriptive comment (as you seem to acknowledge) - how though do you move from the descriptive to the prescriptive: how do you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?

You seem to be implying with your reference to psychology that we can know what is right from what is 'normal'. I would say that all we can derive from such studies is that some people are different to the majority of the population. But I do not see how you can go from saying some people are different to saying that they are 'wrong' or 'immoral'.

"Morality' in your world seems to boil down to 'might makes right.' If most people happen to agree that a certain behaviour is 'wrong' then they can use their combined force to control the 'wrongdoers'. This does not seem to me to be 'morality' as normally understood.

From your comments: “MINDLESS stuff is not the sort of thing that can care . . . But WE care,” I take it that you believe that humans must have minds. I wonder what you mean by that. But it seems to me that this brings us back to the determinism question. If we have minds that are simply clockwork-operated emanations of our brains, what does it mean to say we ‘care’? Humanoid robots now can be programmed to stroke our heads and say, “I care about you, I really do,” but I doubt any of us would find that satisfying.

If there is no true volition in our thoughts, words and actions then what actually differentiates us from the rest of the mindless stuff of the universe?

You state: “Murdering people is not something I would think good, even if I believed I could get away with it” – but that’s it precisely isn’t it? You happen not to think murder is good but obviously others happen not to agree with you. In a materialistic universe, end of story.

Kenneth – I agree completely with your first point: 1 Just because the truth is unpleasant or uninteresting, it does not follow that it is not true.

Your second point: “2. If we decide to receive our morality from God . . .” is off the topic of my original article which was about an examination of what atheism leads to, so I won’t address it here.

In your third point you challenge me to “prove the existence of free will.” In my article I was making the point that atheism leads to the rejection of free will. I did not make any advocacy for free will or for belief in God. I simply stated that: “In the absence of any non-material beings all there is is matter and since matter operates mechanically that leaves no place for the actions of genuinely free agents.”

However, you seem to be uncertain yourself about what you believe about free will as you state in point 5: “Determinism does not necessarily follow from atheism.” Apart from a brief reference to "emergent properties of matter" (and as far as I am aware no one suggests that these proposed emergent properties have any causal power, they just ‘are’), you provide no grounds for your assertion that - determinism does not necessarily follow from atheism .

Maybe you should read your first point again.

it seems to me i was right: the argument amounts to "I think, therefore God is". I'm no more impressed upon hearing it for the fifth time.

GP
The reference to soft determinism is not to alternate possible states of the universe but to the understanding of the concept of ‘freewill’. The traditional way of conceiving ‘freewill’ is --not “merely” the result of a causal chain. While this SOUNDS plausible it doesn’t actually make much sense. Imagine if our actions were not dependant on our thoughts and our thoughts were not dependant on our brain states, and our brain states were not the product of experiences and our experiences were not the product events in the material world. One consequence would seem to be that I would never know what action I would take next nor WHY I HAD TAKEN IT. My own thoughts and actions would appear to ME as random events. This doesn’t sound very ‘free’.

Typically people do attribute (not very accurately) their actions and thoughts to causal chains. Reasons and experience. Under Soft Determinism ‘freewill’ simply means having ordinary control over behaviour. That is, we have ordinary levels of impulse control, the ability to revise our actions in the light of experience and so on. If we have these, we have freewill in the only way that the concept really matters.

The mere fact that we could (if we were god) trance the path of every process from the big bang to now alters nothing of significance. There is no divine plan in a materialist universe and since our thoughts and previous actions are themselves part of that causal chain – materialism is really saying no more than that we are the sum of our circumstances. Which seems to be a reasonable enough claim.

The current state of play is that “I” refers to overlapping psychological states. It is precisely because we are not a seamless single entity that we can suffer from such things as weakness of the will, impulse control etc. Even so, we must experience ourselves as a single, more or less unified entity – failure to do so is highly problematic) I use of the personal pronoun as a short-hand way of referring to this entity.
M

GP,
Emergent Properties are in essence the idea that an arrangement of matter/energy somehow leads to the creation of something not actually reducible to (or determined by) it's components. In the case of this discussion, free will, consciousness and morality.

It is essentially atheistic voodoo magic, as looking at the various 'moralities' that have supposedly emerged from various societies shows quite clearly, the properties are not fixed or consistent and all the numerous problems in looking at relativistic ethics apply. There is no clear logical argument to support emergent properties, they are merely an ad hoc explanation to try and shore up the massive holes in an atheistic worldview. Unsurprisingly, the same 'emergent properties' can be used to argue for astrology, psychic phenomena and all the other new age rubbish. It is somewhat ironic for atheists to be using a supernatural argument, but there it is.

BBoy, it is not an argument from definition, and it is shows poorly on you to misidentify it as such. I don't remember expecting or writing that everyone would fall over, so perhaps the hubris is really yours.

Atheists, at least the ones prior to recent times, displayed enough intellectual integrity to seriously grapple with the argument. These days, the most that is done is the ad hoc voodoo hand waving of emergent properties, which somehow, whilst not being reducible or consistent are somehow claimed to be objective and ontological.

Lev et al, the question is not whether some people in some place can agree on how they should behave, but whether such a notion has any rational ontological basis, because otherwise it is just an illusion. As your comments about respecting the right of people to control their own body illustrates, you are already trying to appeal to some moral concept as morally worthy. But in reality, if it is just an agreement, why should anyone bother agreeing to it? Why is it considered morally good to help someone in distress now? In other societies, there is certainly an opposite 'agreement'. So what principle beneath these morals are you going to appeal to?

Grey,

I do not see what ontological issue you have. If we are prepared to accept that rational people have sovereign, indeed ontological, rights over their own body (and if you don't accept this, then there's no point continuing the discussion), then is stands by logical elaboration that just agreement comes from the consensus of free acting individuals.

As for helping a person in distress - presumably who cannot engage in a request for help due to being unconscious etc - it is not a moral act (because there is no agreement), but it is an ethical one, grounded on the notion that a good - that is providing the individual the capacity to make future decisions about their status - is being served.

Grey, of course it’s an argument from definition. You can’t deny it. You’re just telling me that if you unpack the 2 simplified premises, it is unrecoverable; but that assumes vast tracts of intellectual territory. Whichever way you restate it, the purported impasse is a chimera created by defining atheism as materialism, and attempting to put it out of reach of grappling with the status of meta-ethical claims and the nature of morality, which, of course, is assumed to transcendent. The point is that non-theism isn’t limited to those definitions

As for my characterisation of your attitude, that much is clear from your failure to credit or respond to the myriad substantive replies littered through the thread, airy declarations that nobody is grappling with the material, and the use of a supposedly impenetrable and peremptory neat syllogism that any phil101 tutor would fail.

I also note you completely failed to grapple with most pressing aspect of the counter-challenge – that of the onus of the claimant parties, and the false standard of having to supply the one true answer, when it is Preston and yourself who are claiming categorically under the generalist banner of taking atheism seriously.

I charge that anyone acting in good faith, claiming a lack of seriousness and answers from the non-theist side, should at least be passingly familiar with non-theist work in this area of meta-ethics, morality and political morality and epistemology, and what form of naturalist and materialist views can be harmonised. Given the breadth of what is being dismissed, I would also expect at least a superficial knowledge of the specific theories that explain non-relativistic norms such as perfectionist schools in political morality, for example, or neo-Kantianism. The only hand-waving here is your deafening silence on these questions.

Graham,

You have said toward the end of your article "Finally, and perhaps most importantly, atheism would suggest that we live in a totally deterministic universe. In the absence of any non-material beings all there is is matter and since matter operates mechanically that leaves no place for the actions of genuinely free agents...."

By "deterministic universe", I assume you mean that given some matter in some particular state at a given time then at some later time this matter will be in some other predictable state as determined by the laws of this materialistic universe (in the absence of any non material essence). This is simply not true!

Matter does have non deterministic properties. A simple example of this is radioactive decay.

It is known from observation that Uranium 235 is unstable and that an atom of U235 will sooner or later undergo radioactive decay. However the time at which this decay will happen is not and cannot be known. it could happen today or it might happen in 700 million years from now. Given a lump of Uranium containing billions of identical atoms, every second or so one of these physically identical atoms will decay while the remainder of these identical atoms remain intact. What determines which of these many identical atoms decays? The answer quite simply is that it is a random event. This random decay of the material Uranium235 illustrates a non deterministic property of matter.

And then of course there is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but that is another story!

Kenneth

It is simply brainwashing that people believe in god and in no way has morality got anything to do with religious beliefs. Morality is social constructs. I believe the act of purposely going out of ones way to harm somebody is evil by my morality Jesus and Mohommed preached evil.

But why am I not convinced by articles such as these and why do I view them as dishonest and mere propaganda?

We have only the author's say so, god does not confirm the article. How did he become an expert on god? Did he meet god? Did God write the article? No, god did not. Why did the author write the article and not god? Because the author knows full well god cant read and write because he does not exist. I could be wrong , if I am then I would like to ask the author , if you are not god where did you get this information from?The only valid source is straight from gods mouth, no convoluted sign language by the arrangements of tumours and bird droppings, did god tell you plain and simple, man to man? Or are you trying to allude to us you are god?

Clearly the information was fiction or you are god.

What you are saying is shamanism

Kenneth - you claim that "the time at which this (radioactive)decay will happen is not and cannot be known". It is true that we cannot predict when radioactive decay will occur but theoretically it may be possible, if we had sufficient information and understanding, to do so.

But that is beside the point anyway. I was saying that there cannot be genuinely free agents in a materialistic universe. Apparently random radioactive decay of particles and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle do not help establish the possibility of there being free agents.

Graham

Matilda,

You suggested that I try to “ imagine if our actions were not . . . the product of events in the material world” and you suggested that if were not so “that I would never know what action I would take next nor WHY I HAD TAKEN IT. My own thoughts and actions would appear to ME as random events.” Yes, if materialism is true that follows.

The problem for the materialist is that you have to abandon the possibility that reasons can influence our behaviour. Reasons are of course non-physical so they cannot have any causal impact upon the universe. So when a person goes to an auction and makes a bid, it is not because they have chosen to do so on the basis that they think this is a good buy, but simply because at this point on the long causal chain of physical events they are compelled to do so.

It is only if we have non-physical minds, or some such thing, that are at least to some significant extent free from the clockwork-driven physical universe that we can genuinely take reasons into account and thus allow rationality to play a part in what happens.

You claim that “we have ordinary levels of impulse control, the ability to revise our actions” and “we must experience ourselves as a single, more or less unified entity” while also claiming “materialism is really saying no more than that we are the sum of our circumstances.” Those claims seem to be fundamentally contradictory to me. How can entities, whose every thought and experience is only the product of prior physical states, be said to meaningfully have control over anything? Or that they “must experience themselves” as anything other than that which they happen to experience?

I am amazed (but appreciative) Matilda that you engage in discussion, but then I have to remind myself that if you are correct then you literally cannot prevent yourself and nor can I, given the state of the universe. (But it is very hard to shake off the feeling that reasons do count!)

GP: "I am amazed (but appreciative) Matilda that you engage in discussion, but then I have to remind myself that if you are correct then you literally cannot prevent yourself and nor can I, given the state of the universe."

You seem to be assuming that "oneself"/"yourself" is not part of the universe. If you're thoughts are in fact material states within the universe then these thoughts can have impact on the universe itself (i.e. one can literally prevent oneself from doing something). There are endless physiological studies that document the influence of external factors on both what & how we think so our thoughts are very much influenced by the universe and so the evidence indicates we do not have completely independent free will.

"Reasons are of course non-physical so they cannot have any causal impact upon the universe."

I see no reason why reason is "non-physical". Reason is just a form of information, which exists in and impacts the physical universe just like other forms of information.

"How can entities, whose every thought and experience is only the product of prior physical states, be said to meaningfully have control over anything?"

Why does control have to come from outside the physical universe to be "meaningful"? You have a circular argument where you say that material things don't have meaning because they're material things. You're using an assumption that there is some form of "extraphysical meaning" while trying to prove that "extraphysical" things exist.

Graham,
You said in your last post.
"But that is beside the point anyway. I was saying that there cannot be genuinely free agents in a materialistic universe."

What you actually said in your article was.
"since matter operates mechanically that leaves no place for the actions of genuinely free agents"

My point was that matter does not operate mechanically and that in fact at the atomic level it acts randomly.

You also said in your last post.... "but theoretically it may be possible, if we had sufficient information and understanding, to do so."(ie to predict the time of decay). I may not have made myself absolutely clear, According to physical theory, it is in not in theory possible to predict the time of decay even knowing all information about an individual atom. Furthermore I should have stressed that given two atoms identical in all respects,the theory says that they will decay at different random times. Since they are identical there is no room for any further information. The only way out of this is to claim that all uranium 235 atoms are different one from all the others. The current theory of physics says that it is not possible according to the theory to predict which of two identical atoms will decay first. The theory does not say that we do not yet have enough knowledge to make a prediction. The theory says that we can never know even "in theory" when it will occur.

Probability and randomness is the foundation stone of modern quantum mechanics. By the way if quantum theory were incorrect then the silicon chips in your computer would not work.

Finally how do you tell the difference between someone acting randomly within parameters predetermined by inborn instinct and environmental conditioning or upbringing versus someone acting according to free will?

Graham,

Furthermore it seems to me a great irony that you should write "atheism would suggest that we live in a totally deterministic universe" while at the same time other people find evolution theory distasteful because it suggests that life evolved through a series of chance mutations. In other words you say that atheists are trapped in a deterministic universe while for creationists the theory of evolution is not deterministic enough ie that the structure of life is not determined by some grand design.

Kenneth

Dave here In 1985 I tried to catch 1.2tonne of steel grid from 3.84 metres while I lay there I screamed to God if ever you were up there & if ever I needed you I need you now that's when my vision cleared & I was able to drag myself to the tractor & call for emergency help & then passed out this kind of convinced me. But I will give you the words of my father No-one can prove God exists & no-one can prove he doesn't if you live your life according to his rules & get to the end of your life & there's no God big deal you've lived a good life then again if you live your life according to his rules & you get to the end of your life & there is a God & he's who we say he is then you may have bought a favour or two & a favour or two in your hip pocket may be worth having. As I said Dad that's buttering your bread both sides & he replied nothing wrong with that you only get a greasy hand & you can always wash it.
Thanks for your time & may your Lord shine on you all well
God Bless Dave

Dear GP
afraid this must be my last post - I've run out of time. The problem is a little like looking through binoculars at one's feet. There is a problem but nearly as large as you imagine. Reasons are most certainly causes for actions but reasons are also a part of the material world - think 'language'. How can sound be meaningful in a meaningless universe? -because there are entities for whom sound CAN be meaningful and they ARE themselves part of the material universe. Hence there is meaning in the material universe just in case there are entities for whom there can be meaning. Same for reasons and values.
cheers
M
p.s - check out David Chalmer's stuff on zombies - for a non-materialist approach to minds - huge fun.

Matilda – just on the off chance you will read this I must make one more reply.

You refer to language – what is ‘language’ in a deterministic universe?

Volcanoes make noise. Do they have language? Volcanoes do not have any control over the noise they make – the noise just happens as a consequence of the past and prevailing physical conditions. I don’t think anyone would suggest volcanoes have language.

People make noise. Do they have language? People, in a deterministic universe have no control over the noise they make - the noise just happens as a consequence of the past and prevailing physical conditions. But unlike with volcanoes people, like you, do believe that people have language.

So we seem to have four options available:
1. both volcanoes and people have language – which seems ridiculous to suggest – of course volcanoes don’t have language
2. neither volcanoes nor people have language – which seems to be equally ridiculous – of course people do have language
3. volcanoes have language but people do not – completely ridiculous
4. volcanoes don’t have language but people do – which seems to fit with our experience of life

But since neither volcanoes nor people can control the noise they make, there is no reason to believe that either volcanoes or people actually do have language, despite appearances to the contrary, and therefore 2. above is true for a deterministic universe.

Absurd? Yes, but that’s determinism for you. As I’ve said before, if determinism is correct then everything is a weird farce. We all live like we have genuine free will but it is all a delusion – how bizarre is it that the mindless stuff of the universe managed to play such a weird trick on us all.

GP,

Whilst language is established through mutual understanding of shared symbolic values between conscious actors (and indeed, the foundation of language is the same as the foundation of moral behaviour - simply replace 'values' with 'actions'), to get back to original article, I fail to see why atheism necessitates total determinism.

I do not seen any reason to suggest that it is not plausible that natural processes themselves cannot give rise to the diversity of languages, especially in those creatures who the capacity of forward planning and (importantly for the moral argument) those which have "mirror neurons".

Okay Kenneth, I’ll take your point that we cannot know when atomic decay will occur. So that just seems to move us from determinism to indeterminism because of the randomness involved with atomic decay. Indeterminism means that I might happen to do (a) or (b). But if I do (a) or I do (b) just because of certain statistical laws of nature then I still don’t have control over what I do. And if I don’t have control over what I do then I cannot exercise free will.

Regarding your last question – it seemed a bit odd that you used the word predetermined instead of undetermined considering what you said earlier, but leaving that aside – I think we all believe we can tell the difference between undetermined behaviour and free will.

Unless a person is exercising genuine free will there is no sense in praising or punishing anyone for their behaviour. But we do praise and punish. And if we believe someone has done something seriously wrong but we do not think that they have been fully responsible for their behaviour we don’t send them to jail but to a psychiatric hospital instead. It makes no sense whatsoever to make such distinctions unless we genuinely believe people do, usually at least, have true free will.

Philosophising is merely a pass time , to pass time. The philosophical approach is meaningless at best and nonsense at worst.

God exists because somebody says so and they know so because they say so. Truth , evidence , reality and fact are meaningless because faith demands unquestioning loyalty to the words of Gurus , fictional like Jesus or real like Joseph Smith , Mohommed , Stalin or Hitler. God is said to save such as one person here called for god , if god then does exist one must accept that same god is evil for all the suffering he has inflicted on people. An example is a child who is starving and orphaned because it happened to be born in Somalia. God only helps those who have the means to help themselves, God will save a farmer who can afford a tractor who was not being saftey conscious but will torture and kill the innocent farmer with a wooden plough with a simple infection.

The only people who say god exists are the very same who put the cart before the horse. They say god exists yet had no proof to base god on. What are they saying then? The answer is as obvious as the belief in ressurection and parting oceans is stupid, obviously they made god up.

The point is god never said he exists. If god existed there would be no need for faith. If god existed there would be no such thing as atheism.

free will is not a puzzle once you accept consciousness. how can a mechanical universe give rise to consciousness? damned if i know. but it obviously has.

so what? what on god's earth does this imply about the existence of a god? you want to credit consciousness to a god? go ahead. then what? who bloody well cares? what does it tell you about your god except that they created consciousness?

we have moral values. are these universal? no. but it's ridiculous to suggest that they are thus arbitrary. the moral codes of humans societies can and need be only that: it is not in the nature of morality that it needs a justification external to the participants. whether innate or cultural, or a mixture of both, it is simply absurd to suggest moral values are arbitrary, just because an old guy with a grey beard isn't around to keep score.

you god guys keep saying the same things, and they keep amounting to nothing. we can't give a sufficient physical explanation to "I", therefore god exists? it's absurd. please, give it a rest.

Just remember all you non believers...GOD LOVES YOU weather you think he exists or not.

I think the good old biblical term "onanism" describes pretty well where this article and thread have begun and progressed.

So much intellectual seed falling on the ground...

Graham,

You said "it seemed a bit odd that you used the word predetermined instead of undetermined"

I use the word predetermined in the sense that it is predetermined that my method of locomotion will be by walking since I have been born with legs. If I was born a bird it would be predetermined that I would get around by flying. Within predetermined parameters resulting from the fact that I have legs and not wings and numerous other such predetermined parameters Including conditioning resulting from environmental influences, my behavior will be random.

You also say "I think we all believe we can tell the difference between undetermined behaviour and free will."

I know of no evidence that points to the existence of free will and in the absence of such evidence I do not believe that there is any such thing as free will.

If anyone can devise an experiment that is able to distinguish between random behavior and an act of free will then I would be very interested to here of it. It is not enough to "know" in your own mind that ones actions are according to free will. This is not evidence.

You also say "Unless a person is exercising genuine free will there is no sense in praising or punishing anyone for their behaviour".

It is precisely because free will does not exist that it is possible to modify someone's behaviour by praise and punishment. How much harder would it have been for Pavlov to train his dog if his dog was possessed of free will.

Kenneth

Niceguy you are quick to tell us what your god thinks without ever gaining this information from your god. This is what I mean by god being the self, you cannot know that god loves or hates anything unless you are god. That god loves anything is simply your opinion , something that you made up, invented and nothing else and it is based on your prejudices or strategic style for debate.

Faith is essentially a form of superstition justified meglamania.