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