Christianity is More Dangerous Than Atheism Because of the Same Reasons I Reject it!
I'm beginning to think that when it comes to the question, "which belief system killed more people, Christianity or atheism,” that the answers given are a wash. There has been evil done on both sides, such that by merely looking at the evil itself we cannot conclude which set of beliefs is more dangerous. The numbers themselves don't tell us the whole story, so continually adding and subtracting which set of beliefs killed the most people doesn't tell us much about which set of beliefs is more dangerous.
Since it's obvious people use religion for their own selfish and evil purposes, and since self-destructive and egomaniacal people who reject religion can kill people in the name of atheism, this debate doesn't show much to us about the truth or falsity of our respective claims, except in one important respect, which is the same one we argue about between us anyway!
Christians have a revelational claim. They do not reason to their specific beliefs (the trinity? Virgin Birth? Incarnation?). They learn about such beliefs from God’s revelation and then they argue these beliefs are reasonable. Even the arguments for God's existence cannot get a person to the Trinity. Non-believers claim to follow reason and science. We have separate starting points.
That difference between us is also the same difference when it comes to which set of beliefs are more dangerous, I think, and it's clear to me which ones are indeed more dangerous. It's the Christian set of beliefs. Why? Because there’s this entity called the Holy Spirit. The Christian claim is that he speaks to them both individually through illumination, or collectively through the Bible. Non-believers have no such belief. What atheists believe is based on reason and science (in various degrees, since there are intelligent and educated ones as well as ignorant ones).
Individually a Christian can claim to have heard the Holy Spirit or God speaking directly to them, and this voice can say “kill people,” or a host of other messages, many benign. Those who claim God told them to “kill people” are the insane people, of course, but an atheist insane person has no such justification if he chooses to kill.
Whenever God’s message is believed based upon this inner voice of God’s, without evidence, Christians are absolutely sure of it and they can do a great amount of evil in God’s name precisely because a belief held without reason is one that cannot be debunked by reason. They can claim practically anything. From “God wants so-and-so elected,” to “I should marry this person,” to “we should have another baby,” to “I should bash gay people and infidels,” to “our church should step out on faith and build a bigger church,” to “so-and-so is an evil person.” These beliefs can do harm, and they are adopted based upon a voice in their own heads.
An Christian individual who hears this voice can influence a church or a nation on a collective level, if that person is a leader. Collectively a church can do great harm in such things as the Inquisition, the Crusades, or by endorsing slavery. A “Christian” nation can endorse such things as “manifest destiny,” or that we should invade Iraq, or support the Jews no matter what, because they are supposedly in Biblical “end-time prophecies.”
So I think these beliefs of Christians are dangerous and do produce greater evil for the very same reasons I reject it. Their beliefs are not based upon reason and science! Any belief not so based can and does lead to great harm.
The question I have posed continually is why God never said such things as “Thou shalt not trade, sell, buy, own, or beat slaves,” and said it as often as needed for the collective church to get the point (this could be done for witch, honor, and heretic killings as well). And if a proper exegesis of the relevant Biblical texts should’ve been so clear in the Bible that Southern Christianity was not getting it right about slavery, then where was the Holy Spirit’s influence? If Christians can repeatedly and grossly reject the influence of the Holy Spirit, then what influence does he really have in the lives of believers?
The fact is that the very claim that Christians make of the Holy Spirit and of revelation makes the Christian belief system more dangerous that atheism, regardless of which belief system killed more people. It's the basis for the Christian claim that makes it ipso facto more dangerous...by far.
87 comments:
John... wow. Where to even begin. First of all any Christian who starts hearing voices in their head telling them to start killing people should probly see a psychologist. And guess what? Thats what any Christian denomination would say as well. You see you are trying to set the rules as to what Christians should and should not to in terms of proper behaviour based on certain experiences, however being a non-Christian yourself that opinion is, frankly, erroneous. Do you know of any churches that would condone that sort of thinking John? No, I didnt think so. Ultimately there are those among us who are very sick in the head (dating a girl who wants to be a psychologist i probly hear TOO much about these things) but they should be able to recognize that God probly isnt telling them those things. If they think that any orthodox Christian will simply say they were mistaken. As for southern slavery, I think God made it clear that if you are going to love your neigbor as yourself, you probly shouldnt beat, starve and rape him. Of course a Christian could also argue that God allowed his very followers to get the message out for him (Quakers, William Wilberforce, British evangelicals etc). Could he have done it faster/more efficiently? Yeah, probly. But he didnt and God may very well prefer us to correct ourselves to a great degree. Thats really all I have to say, I hope ive been fair with what you are trying too get across.
-What atheists believe is based on reason and science (in various degrees, since there are intelligent and educated ones as well as ignorant ones). Yeah... nice save. Trust me, if were basing this on the atheists ive met (and about 1/4 of my freinds fall in this camp) then its complete and admitted apathy that leads them to their conclusions. Other atheists are far more serious however in their truth claims, but that is my experience.
GB, once again you failed to interact with the substance of my post. Just tell us this, does God speak to you? Yes or no?
John, this is why it is impossible to have a discussion with you. Because you cast the debate in a certain perspective and refuse to consider whether that is really how the issue should be cast. You create christianity in your own image and then debunk it, claiming that what you debunk is what we believe. So I throw this question at you, as an athiest, on what basis do you base your faith in reason? If the world happened by chance, why do you try to make sense of it? For what benefit?
I am troubled that you will probably not respond to the following because it will take your post down a different road than you wanted to go down, but if you want to be fair, I think you will have to address it.
The logical outworking of athiesm is nihilism and narcicism. The logical outworking of Christianity is the Christ-life. All of the evil committed in the name of Christ was not in keeping with the teaching of Christ. It was the illogical outworking of Christ's message. Lev Tolstoi took what he believed was the crux of Christ's teaching and created a philosophy of non-violent resistance. Mohatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King were both followers of Count Lev Tolstoi
Your issue with the fact that Christians actually communicate with God stems from your ignorance of God since you actually claim to be 10% agnostic. If Genesis 1:1 is true, the rest of the bible poses no problem for me.
But you want to argue with Christians about the fact that we communicate with God. That is a fruitless discussion since you are ignorant of God and we are not. It is only dangerous the way you see it if we are communicating with someone who isn't there. Then we're loony. But then your claim that Christians are intelligent is your wrong and the whole purpose of this website is fruitless because we're all loony and we all know that the only way to deal with a loony person is the same way that Patch Adams deals with the nut in the hospital who sees squirrels.
Continuing where I left off earlier. As an athiest, where do you derive meaning and purpose? How do you establish a moral basis that is obligatory for everyone? If you don't, than why do you care about evil? Why do you care about genocide? Even Jean Paul Sartre signed a petition condemning apartheid in South Africa? Why? I want to know? Why does it even matter what Christians believe? Is it really because our believe system gives us a morality that is obligatory for everyone and you find that offensive?
Viktor Frankl, holocaust survivor and founder of the Vienna school of Logotherapy wrote in "The Doctor and the Soul"
If you present man with a concept of man that is not true you may well corrupt him. If you present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, you will in any case feed the nihilism to which modern man is in any case prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp auschwitz. The gas chambers of auschwitz, treblinka,and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."
Even Hobart Mauer, one time President of the American Psychologist Association, wrote in an article, "Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils"
"For several decades we psychologists have looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and we have acclaimed our freedom from it as epic making. But at length we have discovered to be free in this sense to have the excuse of being sick rather than being sinful is to also court the danger of becoming lost. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity. And with neurotics themselves, asking, "Who am I? What is my deepest destiny? And what does living really mean?"
You acknowledged in your post, that whether Christian or athiest or something else, we all struggle with selfishness. You accuse christians of using that selfishness to claim God's will. I am sure we are guilty of it at times. But that does not negate the existence of God or even show that Christianity is dangerous as you have asserted it, it merely shows that Christians are just as human as you are and we struggle with all the same things that you do. The difference is that the power of God enables us to overcome those things.
I do agree with you however, that Christianity is dangerous, not for the reasons you described, but because Christianity is a message of liberation and it will transform, has transformed,and will continue to transform entire societies for the good of the people. The velvet revolution in Romania (if that's the right name for it) is a prime example of the power of Christ's message. A message so powerful that it has withstood 2000 years of skepticism such as yours and will continue to be here long after you are gone.
Gordon:
Before I take you on on comments more directly related to John's post -- which might have given too much credit to believers -- I have to challenge one point only slightly off-topic.
In 25 or 50 years, when homo-antipathy is looked on the way racism is today -- as an opinion that immediately takes the holder out of the 'respect-worthy' category -- and when opposition to gay marriage is looked on the way opposition to 'miscegenation' is today, will Gordon Blood III -- your intellectual descendant if not your physical one -- be arguing that THIS change too, is due to the working of the Holy Spirit? Will he point to Christians like the Rev. Troy Perry and Mel White as the Wilberforce-equivalents? Will he say how dumb Christians were for not listening to the Holy Spirit, calling the Dobsons of today the equivalent of the Kludds (spiritual advisors) of the KKK, and be getting annoyed at people who argued that today's Christians were merely obeying the Bible? (As the pro-slavery Christians were in following the direct approbation of Leviticus which tells the Israelites where they should get their slaves.)
If so, how can anyone argue with this position, which simply takes any positive moral advance and 'writes it back' into the Bible? How can anyone argue with it, or take it seriously?
Tsheej, we have answered your questions many times here at DC [read questions 31-35]. Suffice it to say that just as there is no complete justification for the scientific method, there is no complete justification for morals either. And yet science still progresses just in the same way as our morals have progressed in history.
And Prup is indeed correct. Any advance in morals is read back anachronistically in the Bible, so the Bible is not your source of morals. Just look what's in store for you in the future, here.
Dear John Loftus,
You are a tenacious, persistent force. I am not surprised at this, of course, merely awed. It is a pleasure seeing such discipline in action.
ON STARTING POINTS
I have to disagree with you that Christians and "non-believers" have different starting points. You claim the former begin with "revelation," the latter begin with "science and reason." Actually, I think could argue that you've got things inverted. But I will ignore the totality of that point for now; I will explore it hastily and peripherally.
Christians start with the Resurrection, and a more reasonable starting point one could not find. The very first Christians were not confronted in the empty tomb with some sort of irrational mystery, some sort of vision. They were confronted with something utterly Either/Or, something that followed the confines of the law of non-contradiction: either Christ was raised or He wasn't; His body was stolen or it wasn't; His resurrection was legitimate or it was a scam, etc. Surely you see the utter simplicity of it all in logical terms: the disciples were confronted -- entirely -- with the rules of reason and they deduced from the evidence before them. Moreover, when confronted with the risen Christ, they remained confronted with the forces of reason -- Jesus is standing here or he is not -- and they were met with all things empirical, i.e., they were confronted with the evidence of their senses.
So for you to suggest that the starting point of Christianity is shrouded in revelatory superstition is not only strange but it is simply inaccurate. Moreover, at the very least, Christians respond today -- but only in part -- to what they believe is not some revelation in toto, but is a historical event reported reliably and rationally: either the reports are accurate or they are not, either the Church's testimony is true or it isn't, etc. In other words, there is nothing unreasonable at all about the Church or its starting points.
However, as I have shown in my essay, "A Letter to Christopher Hitchens," the starting point of all knowledge is not what you really assert here, at least for atheists. You have not yet shown me the courtesy of even reading that essay, though I have referred to it several times.
Christians, I will not deny, do have a revelational claim. But you suppose that this is all that they have, that it is not reasonable, and that it is not open to scientific analysis. You have not shown this to be true, though you might have elsewhere. But the more important point, I think, is that your starting point is NOT in "reason and science."
ON THE 'REAL' REALITY
I think there is a huge problem for someone like yourself; and if not yourself, surely there is a problem for someone like Richard Dawkins. Recall that Dawkins' recent and popular book is called The God Delusion. I am sure you've read it. I would not presume to doubt that you found it informative. But I wonder if you've really thought about the title; I wonder if you've fully thought about to whom it MUST refer.
Let us not forget that in Dawkins' worldview there is no God; God does not exist, nor can He exist. There is absolutely no God, and anyone who thinks there is, well, that person is deluded. Of course, this all begs a powerful question: WHO is deluded? Well, there is only one answer: ATHEISTS are deluded, namely, those atheists who are deluded by the idea of God. After all, there is no God, so all people ultimately must not only know this -- which is the basis on which they can be deemed deluded -- their delusion is somehow damnable, at least to Dawkins.
Let's face it: If there is no god (as nearly every atheist asserts), then the world is littered with atheists: those atheists who know there is no god with all clarity of mind and force of will, and those who are deluded that their atheism is a lie and that there is, indeed, a god.
So, what does this leave us? It leaves us with something like this: every religious crime in history has been committed by an atheist that is deluded. Moreover, even non-deluded atheists commit grotesque crimes against humanity; the amount of dead systematically murdered by atheism's great states in the 20th-century knows no bounds.
Of course, I admit that this argument of mine is hastily sketched and rather flimsy, but it hawks a powerful truth: if there is no God, then the universe and its occupants -- atheists all, deluded or not -- are responsible for the atrocities you find repugnant. And it also presumes that the atheists who behaved like theists, men and women who succumbed to a lie, were deluded by something intrinsic to the godless universe (it matters not that the people deluded themselves, since the universe "created" these people; their existence is contingent upon something that made them, even if what is made is defective, neurotic or psychotic).
In the end, all the human atrocities committed on this planet could have come from only one source: psychologically-disturbed atheists.
ON GOD'S VOICE, OR LACK THEREOF
You may very well be right that Christians claim to hear God's voice, that He speaks to them. But I have a question for you that is akin to what you asked Gordon Blood: How do you KNOW that the voice you hear in your head is not God's, but yours?
A simpler question could not be asked.
As I said once before, you don't have to accept any of this; you may discern that it is all so much bunk. I am ready to believe that it is. I laugh at my own lunacy half of each day.
And I, just like you, simply love this stuff! I can't wait for your reply.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
Tsheej: Your comment was posted while I was writing mine, but it is definitely worth responding to.
It is Christianity that inherently leads to narcissism, by locating morality in the intersection between an individual and God. Yes, Christianity teaches, supposedly, 'love thy neighbor,' but only AFTER it argues how inherently unlovable, depraved, and sinful that neighbor is.
And what Christianity argues is 'love your neighbor because God wants you to.' (And I don't care if the argument goes on "...and God should be obeyed because he is god," or "and God will send you to hell if you don't." The result is the same.)
And the same with the more specifc 'thou shalt nots.' The good ones, on stealing, on lying, on murdering, don't argue 'don't steal because your neighbor deserves as much right to his property as you have.' They don't say 'don't lie because honesty, truth, and trust are necessary to human society and human existence.'
No, all they say is 'don't do it, because God tells you not to,' and they put it in the same category as 'don't eat pork,' 'don't have sex with your own gender' or 'don't masturbate.'
(What's worse, many Christians argue that 'all sins are equal, since they are all infinite affronts to an infinite God' -- which brings us back to the depravity of the neighbor you are supposed to love, as well as bringing theft down to the level of masturbation.)
It is only atheism, humanist atheism, that dares say that you should love your neighbor because he is lovable, because he deserves love for himself, and because he is a fellow human being, just like you -- and tells you you are equally lovable, not depraved.
It is humanistic atheism that says 'morality is located at the intersection between man and man,' that a 'sin' is wrong, not because it offends whichever God you believe in, but because it hurts your neighbor, yopur fellow human being, or hurts the society ypu are all part of.
Now it is true some Christians preach these lessons as well, but not because of the lessons they learned from Christianity, whatever they claim. They too have learned the humanistic lessons of the past five hundred years. And, see my comment above, Christians are very talented in 'back-writing' their new lessons into the Bible, and claiming they were there all the time.
Dear Prup,
Forgive my intrusion, but I think you've made a mistake.
Christianity does not teach that we are to "love our neighbors as ourselves." That idea, the Golden Rule, is inherited from Judaism, and it is imperfect. Jesus recognized and affirmed its place in "the Law," but "the Law" is not what Jesus taught. For you must see immediately that the Golden Rule sets the self as the standard: Love your neighbor as your SELF. That this leads to, or could lead to narcissism, is very likely.
The thing you forget is Jesus' Maundy Thursday statement, His mandatum, His mandate: "Love each other as I have loved you." THIS is Christ's "NEW commandment." THIS is Christianity's ethical basis. Hence, loving each other as Christ loved us is the exact opposite of the narcissism you claim Christians ultimately teach. Looking Christ-ward is to look away from the self. Christ is the standard; the self is not.
I hope this helps as you reason your way through all of this.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
An atheist insane reason has no justification for killing...I quite agree.
But Lenin and Trotsky, to give two leading examples, prided themselves on their use of reason and their "committed atheism" as Hitchens describes it on page 273 of his Not So Great book.
You place great stock in your use of reason, and yet philosophers who also pride themselves on their use of reason...Decartes, Spinoza, Leibnez, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Russell, etc....have come up with diametrically opposed views of the the nature of reality.
Whatever reality is...the quantum world, Stings, multiverses?
"reason" has justified all kinds of atrocties, from Sartre's advocacy of terrrorism to Galton's and Sanger's Eugenics views.
Further, in your own book...at least in the edition I have...you conclude that "everything came from nothing, for nothing, and by nothing.".
And THAT is quite a claim.
I await your proof.
From the post. What atheists believe is based on reason and science (in various degrees, since there are intelligent and educated ones as well as ignorant ones).
Do ignorant atheists base their beliefs on reason and science? That is a highly debatable point. I think we should consider Stalin as an ignorant atheist, and conclude quickly that he did not base his beliefs on reason and science. Atheists can also have education and be ignorant; note the nihilist professors threej cited. I would also say the same about the Christians who murder because they are not basing their beliefs on faith in God and the Word.
The line that is crossed in mudering someone is universal, with the rare exception of indisputable self-defense, in that the murderers are claiming for themselves the ultimate authority. The murderer is revealing their belief in themselves as the God. Christians would argue that this violates their belief system.
How does this action violate the atheist belief system? You boast that atheists have no such belief, but what belief in atheism would keep a non-believer from seizing this ultimate authority for himself and killing his enemies?
This is where the "danger" lies, not in believing in the virgin birth! Your example of a Christian who hears God's voice to "kill people" is transparently weak. They would be insane if they acted on such a delusion, they would never be "justified". Again, my question is, what is the atheist's justification NOT to kill? Is it always unreasonable to murder? If so, then we are back where we started; the murderer is an outcast of both atheism and Christianity. Last, Christians have a clear advantage in that they have a central and authoritative written code that they can use to cast out these murderers.
Bill said…You are a tenacious, persistent force. I am not surprised at this, of course, merely awed.
Call me a pit bull with regard to beliefs I think are dangerous! That’s me. Saying so is a compliment!
Bill…I have to disagree with you that Christians and "non-believers" have different starting points.
I think Stephen Law’s essay makes the proper distinctions. I made a lengthy comment there.
Bill…Christians start with the Resurrection, and a more reasonable starting point one could not find.
The larger the claim is, the harder it is to defend. Claim that you saw a man fishing in the Chesapeake Bay and your testimony alone would be sufficient for people to believe you, since this occurs often. Claim that a great sea monster of the deep swallowed you alive for three days and nights, and you would have a near impossible time convincing anyone. That’s because extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. In an age when a picture can be touched up on your computer, not even a photo of this supposed sea monster would convince people you were swallowed alive. I’m not even sure what would convince people, short of seeing it for themselves, or in being the very person swallowed alive. And even I was that person, I still might wonder what tricks my mind may have been playing on me through a dreamlike state, the result of sleep deprivation, alcohol, or prescription drugs. Even our memories of events are malleable and can be untrustworthy.
I have come to reject the large and extraordinary claims of the Christian faith about a snake that talked, an axe head that floated, a man who was swallowed by a great fish, and a God-man who purportedly was resurrected from the grave. There is not enough evidence to believe these tales even if the miraculous stories in the Bible took place. That’s right, even if they took place! Just as I wouldn’t believe a tale that someone was swallowed by a sea monster and lived to tell about it, I cannot bring myself to believe in the miraculous tales of the Bible. At least liberal Christians do not take such stories literally, to their credit, but it also undermines attempts by them to defend what they believe and still call themselves Christians. What can it really mean to say they believe in the “Easter event,” for instance, and not be able to tell us what happened, or why anyone should believe reports about this “event” if it was only known by means of “visionary” experiences?
John- This all depends entirely on what you mean. Have I ever heard an audible voice that I thought was God, no. Now whether or not God influences my behaviour, and when that is, really is not up to you or I to say. As A Christian I would say yes. However, you know just as well as I do that I cannot prove that empirically just as you cannot prove that God does not move you to do certain things, so with that said we need to go further then thus, I would argue. Its a tricky subject, I readily admit. However, I do feel that, over time, my own behaviour has been changed by God, but of course that is purely subjective but your argument "well how do you know it isnt you doing that" I think completely misses the boat on this issue.
Prup- Prup first of all comparing slavery to homosexuality is apples and oranges. Now I recognize that you are a gay man and as such il try to treat this issue amicably. As you well know the slavery advocated in the Old Testament was a very different thing then the slavery advocated in the Southern United States, that is clear to any person who has even browsed the ancient world. Now I will admit readily that these issues are tricky. However, we have good reason if we are going to take Jesus's words seriously that slavery is not a very good way of loving your neighbor. However, we have very good reason also to believe that the oppositions to homosexuality (which we all know warranted the death penalty in ancient Israel) as far as it being a moral act are concerned, are still in place. So its a tough issue I recognize. But again, comparing one changing moral standard to another does not necessarily mean progression. For example, our modern society largely condones, even amongst Christians, pre-marital sex. Noone is going to argue though that you can read the new testament and conclude that pre-marital sex is a moral act as such. With that said Prup I view gay acts (its technically not a sin to be gay as such) as being just as sinful as those who practice pre-marital sex or other such things. I dont hate or even dislike homosexuals. Do I disagree with homosexual behaviour. Yes. But I also disagree with pre-marital sex, with lying, with theft, with bigotry etc. Ultimately they are all sins but slavery (at least the sort that was practiced in the american south) is so much worse in that it affects many more lives than an individual. I know ive barely (if at all) cracked the surface on this issue but those are my thoughts on the subject as it stands.
So many comments, so little time, and the 'real world' is getting ready to summon me. But I HAVE to respond to one point of Gordon's.
SLAVERY, IN ANY FORM, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER IT IS PRACTICED IS WRONG. The idea that a human being can be so dehumanized that he becomes the property of another human being, that he can be bought and sold is evil, is, perhaps, the ultimate evil. (Yes, worse than murder, since you can kill someone without dehumanizing them.)
The cruelty with which is was practiced in the South -- in parts of the North, in Jamaica, in other places as well -- is also an additional evil, is also begging to be condemned, demanding to be fought. But if all slaveowners had been as 'benevolent' as, in fact, some of the best of them were, this would NOT in the slightest degree ameliorate the evil that slavery is in and of itself.
And the Bible sanctions this. It does not merely 'fail to condemn it,' it specifically says that slaves can be bought and sold.
I am aware of 'benevolent' slavery, specifically of the slave status once given to 'captured enemies' in war. (Josephus is a fine example.) This does not ameliorate the evil. (And the Bible does not say 'you may take your slaves from those captured in war.'
It DOES say (Leviticus 25:44-46)
''Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.'
AND THAT IS UNFORGIVABLE, and any person who claims a book with that statemrent in it is 'the Word of God' (whether it was later changed or not)
is only lucky that his God does not exist.
Because if his God existed, surely such a liar would be destroyed.
John, that is not true. Morals is a concern of every society, Christian, Hindu, Bhuddist, Muslim, athiest, whatever. If I took a baby and cut it in half in front of you,would that not bother you. It is real to human experience. And yes, it is absolutely necessary that you understand why science makes sense. If you don't, then you have absolutely no justification for approving science over and above irrationalism because it is all in essence, meaningless. I am sure, you have addressed the questions I have raised many times, but I have found nothing compelling and convincing in anything you have said so far. In fact, i find it intellectually impoverishing.
A chief criticism I think you would level at Christianity is that it uses God to explain things otherwise unexplainable. But it seems to me your position is even worse, "I'm agnostic, I don't know." In the recent debate between Richard Dawkins and Allister McGrath, Dawkins said to Allister, "your a scientist, do you mean you actually elevate scripture over science, you actually believe in the virgin birth." McGrath said, "there are levels of explanation that go beyond mere science. Science is very limiting. And in the absence of God, you do bear the burden of proof as to why you choose to believe in science. Otherwise, your belief in science and reason is just as irrational as you assert my belief in God is.
Wow Prup, usually you tend to avoid the hyper-charged polemics that permeate this blog but youve certainly entered into those waters today. First lets just pre-suppose that God actually condoned the passages you elucidated and so on. The fact of the matter is that in the ancient world slavery was not viewed the way we view it, namely because we are tainted with the horrific ideas in the African slave trade which would have been anathema to the Jews. You seem to like to quote Leviticus but 19:34 makes it pretty clear that when these persons are brought into this relationship they must be treated with respect and compassion. So whats the meaning of all this? I suppose that God felt that slavery, at the time, was simply going to happen. If that was the case better to ensure that it was done with humanity and kindness, exactly what we didnt see in the slave trade of the "enlightenment". Of course it must also be stressed that the life of a slave and the average persons life wasnt that much different. Think about it Prup, in the ancient world what would be the big difference between laboring for a person who wasnt your master and laboring for a person who was? Yeah today thered be huge differences. But back then... not so much, I wouldnt think. This is especially the case when you remember that a person who was going to own a slave of any sort had to feed and take care of that slave. With all this said that is just a possibility. God could have other reasons for condoning it or he could have allowed Moses to condone it as it may have been viewed as simply a necessity of the culture. The bible makes itself clear that God gave the Jewish people some freedom in the law and how it was practiced. You are pre-supposing out of hand Prup that for the people involved in the relationship slavery was dehumanizing. Unless you want to suggest there is a univeral way human beings are supposed to relate with each other in all contexts. Thats rediculously hard to argue for but you may wish to try. However, the bible again makes it clear that the Jews were slaves and should remember that (Yes I know you dont believe in an exodus, namely because of Dever's arguments, however many scholars do and for good reason)
I recognize that this isnt an easy topic. Obviously im not advocating slavery in todays society or even saying that it was necessarily a good thing in the ancient world. God could be justified in seeing it as a necessary evil however. That is, at least, a possiblity. There are other ones that I havent even touched. But if God wishes us to discover, to a great degree, moral truths then he is certainly warranted in allowing that to happen, I think, so long as he makes clear that those individuals are to be treated with kindness and not cruelty, which he did.
Tsheej,
I know you addressed your comments to John, but if I may, I would like to attempt to answer some of your objections to John’s statements.
1. You asked. “…as an atheist, on what basis do you base your faith in reason?”
Well, first of all, I wouldn’t call it faith (at least under the common definitions of faith involving believing in something without or, in many cases, despite empirical evidence). I base my belief that best path to understanding the truth of the universe (at least as close to truth as humanly possible) is through the scientific method of empiricism on the overwhelming evidence that it has established. It has consistently proven itself as a superior epistemology by magnitudes of difference over any other “way of knowing.”
2. “If the world happened by chance, why do you try to make sense of it? For what benefit?”
Mine and humanities. If may present some examples (this will also reinforce the point I made in (1.) above.
During the Middle Ages there were several outbreaks of plaque that killed millions of people. Common attempts to alleviate these outbreaks ranged from prayer to folk cures. These all failed miserably to stop the determined little microbes. After the enlightenment, medicine adopted the scientific method. All supernaturalism was taken out of the equation and reason and empiricism replaced them. We now have the germ theory of disease, antibiotics, inoculations and a general uplifting of the human condition. Many other examples could be given here from Curie’s studying radium resulting in cures to cancer to quantum electromagnetism giving us the joy of blogging. Nowhere can it be shown that supernaturalism has even come remotely close to solving such such great problems facing humanity.
As for the world happening by chance, it didn’t. It was the result of natural matter and energy following the natural laws of science (although there are some fascinating quantum events which do as far as we can tell act quite randomly on the individual basis). Which answers another aspect of what benefit I get out of it – understanding the universe the way it is. I find it absolutely fascinating and intriguing, everything from the inner workings of stars and pulsars to biological development and evolution. The science allows mankind to explain the universe in such excruciating detail and make predictions of the future so accurate that the ancient prophets, if they were alive today, would be astonished beyond belief.
3. You wrote, “The logical outworking of atheism is nihilism and narcissism.”
First, I deny this as a-priori and ask that you provide a logically connected series of premises that show this to be the case. Secondly, by writing this you have committed yourself the very fallacy you accuse John of, i.e. creating atheism in your own image and then attempting to debunk it.
4. “But you want to argue with Christians about the fact that we communicate with God. That is a fruitless discussion since you are ignorant of God and we are not.”
As hard as I might try, I myself can come up with no better debunking of this argument than biology professor PZ Myers, so instead I’ll offer this link: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
5. In the rest of your paragraph you commit the logical fallacy of bifurcation or “the denied middle”. It comes down to either God exists or everyone who believes in him is totally delusional.
There is a middle course and I encounter it every day. I’m willing to bet you do to. People are superstitious about black cats, the number thirteen, ghosts, alien abductors, etc., etc. But, in their daily lives they still, for the most part, make well-reasoned decisions about the world around them. It is called compartmentalization. Had you been born in classical Greece or Rome you would have most likely been speaking to Zeus or Athena. Does that make every one who lived in classical times totally delusional?
6. “As an atheist, where do you derive meaning and purpose?”
Again, I know this was addressed to John, and I am not answering for him. But I will answer for me. My life has a purpose for me in achieving those things that I desire. Some of those things include: A happy and healthy family, the enjoyable company of friends, a successful and rewarding career, a better understanding of the world I live in and helping and teaching others as well as learning from them and being helped. I don’t know you Tsheej, but I would be willing to bet that at least some of things on my list would on yours too.
7. How do you establish a moral basis that is obligatory for everyone?
Ah yes, objective moral truths. Well, for me personally, I’m not sure there is such a thing. But there have been many moral philosophers who have made the arguments for them without ever invoking any supernatural deities. Please read “Good Sense” by Baron Paul Henri D'Holbach, available freely on line, the moral philosophy of David Hume, Spinoza’s Ethics, or Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice.” I myself follow a morality that follows desire utilitarianism and social contract obligations.
8. “Is it really because our believe system gives us a morality that is obligatory for everyone and you find that offensive?”
Not hardly, because it doesn’t. If Christianity gives absolute moral truths then why is it that to Catholics the use of contraceptives is morally prohibited but to Protestants it’s not. Baptists and Mormons have a moral prohibition against ingesting alcohol but Methodists do not. Additionally, and here we get back to John’s original post, if through Christianity, you are morally obligated to do whatever God commands, and God, being omnipotent can command what ever he desires, is this not the most relativistic moral theory in existence? For example, I would generally consider killing the innocent wrong, but if God commanded me to do so, I would. The only way to reconcile this is to say God would never do this (although the Bible would contradict that statement) because an objective moral truth exists outside of God that he must follow.
9. “… it merely shows that Christians are just as human as you are and we struggle with all the same things that you do.”
I couldn’t agree more.
10. “The difference is that the power of God enables us to overcome those things [selfishness].”
I almost found the implications of this statement to be offensive as if you were implying that atheists therefore must be unable to fight off their selfish impulses and be totally immoral beings. The only reason I used the word almost is because there is good chance you know a lot of atheists who are very moral people, but you probably don’t know that they are atheists. But just in case you don’t, let me give a couple of quick pieces of evidence showing that without gods you can still control selfish impulses. The prison populations in the U.S. show no greater representation of atheists than US population as a whole. Approximately 93% of the scientist who make up The National Academy of Sciences posses no belief in a personal god, yet we see no murders, rapists, thieves or perjurers amongst them. For a further study of the affects of non-religiosity on society please see http://ffrf.org/timely/Religion&Society.pdf.
Hmm I realized one more thing on my slavery post that I should have mentioned. While it is true that the form of foreigner slave owning allowed for the master to keep his slave for life it rarely worked out that way. We know that Israelite slaves (as well in other places) slowly became members of the persons family and so over time would gain more and more freedom, eventually being released. Remember, this is not like African slavery, which usually (but not always) placed a great schism between the master and the slave (or servant)
m tully, I really appreciated your response and I will take the time to respond well.
Blessings to you!
Dear M. Tully,
Here is my response. I greatly appreciate your response. I come across passionate because I am an intense person and have wrestled with these things very deeply and I hope that my passion does not communicate as hostility because I truly enjoyed your writing. So without further ado...
1. You asked. “…as an atheist, on what basis do you base your faith in reason?”
Well, first of all, I wouldn’t call it faith (at least under the common definitions of faith involving believing in something without or, in many cases, despite empirical evidence). I base my belief that best path to understanding the truth of the universe (at least as close to truth as humanly possible) is through the scientific method of empiricism on the overwhelming evidence that it has established. It has consistently proven itself as a superior epistemology by magnitudes of difference over any other “way of knowing.”
my response:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.” I do not base my belief on a lack of evidence, empirical or otherwise. I apply three tests to everything I believe: empirical adequacy, rational consistency, and experiential relevance. Everything I believe must pass all three of these tests.
2. “If the world happened by chance, why do you try to make sense of it? For what benefit?”
As for the world happening by chance, it didn’t. It was the result of natural matter and energy following the natural laws of science (although there are some fascinating quantum events which do as far as we can tell act quite randomly on the individual basis). Which answers another aspect of what benefit I get out of it – understanding the universe the way it is. I find it absolutely fascinating and intriguing, everything from the inner workings of stars and pulsars to biological development and evolution. The science allows mankind to explain the universe in such excruciating detail and make predictions of the future so accurate that the ancient prophets, if they were alive today, would be astonished beyond belief.
my response:
“Are you saying, in the beginning was science, and now I am here?”
3. You wrote, “The logical outworking of atheism is nihilism and narcissism.”
First, I deny this as a-priori and ask that you provide a logically connected series of premises that show this to be the case. Secondly, by writing this you have committed yourself the very fallacy you accuse John of, i.e. creating atheism in your own image and then attempting to debunk it.
my response:
Sure, I will sustain this and I will use Nietzsche as well as other sources. I have not created atheism in my own image, because it was the atheists who said it. Existentialism says, for example, that whatever you choose to do legitimizes you existence. So whether I choose to help someone or kill someone there is no significant difference. I legitimize my existence both ways. Both Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre would agree with this philosophically and yet, it is not a livable philosophy and so Sartre signed a protest against apartheid in South Africa, even though he had no moral grounds to base it on.
As Dostoevsky said, “if there is no God then everything is permissible. Put another way, if there is no God, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no reason to justify one way of doing things over and against another. Please understand I am not saying that all athiests choose to go this way, I do know people who are athiests and caring. What I am saying is that atheism logically lends itself to this route of despair and certainly leads to a narcistic outlook on life. And if an athiest chooses not to go this way, he is living inconsistent with his belief system because as an athiest you have no basis on which to tell me it is wrong for me to rape, torture, pillage, murder, etc...
The Marquis de Sade (1740-1814) wrote in “La Nouvelle Justine,” “As nature has made us [the men] the strongest, we can do with her [the woman] whatever we please. I don’t know for sure, but he may well have been the source of our development of the word sadism. His starting point was “no god” and he logically followed that there was nothing in nature that gave reason to prevent him from doing whatever he wanted to achieve his personal highest pleasure.
In the famous debate between Bertrand Russel and Frederick Copleston, Copleston asked Russel, “how do you differentiate between right and wrong?” Russel replied the “same way I differentiate between red and blue, on the basis of feeling, how else?” This is the struggle of the atheist, being unable to root anything in moral accountability. As Ravi Zaccharias has said, “in some cultures they love their neighbors, in others they eat them, do you have a preference in the matter?”
Nietzsche wrote the following:
“Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: I seek God I seek God ---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed.
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. Whither is God? he cried; I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the grave diggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. I have come too early, he said then; my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.
It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God? ”
Nietzche really believed as you seem to, that he had killed God with his philosophical knife. But the key is this. When you reject God, you assume his place. You elevate yourself to “godhood.” Nietzsche said that because “man becomes the measure of all things” in the absence of God, the 20th Century would become the bloodiest century in history. He said this because he understood that there was no morally obligatory reason to help people verses kill people. Stalin, Hitler, Mao were all athiests and they obliterated millions of people.
Viktor Frankl, founder of the Logotherapy School of Psychology, and holocaust survivor, wrote in his book, The Doctor and the Soul, “if you present man with a concept of man that is not true, you may well corrupt him. If you present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives, and reactions you will feed the nihilism to which modern man is in any case prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the belief that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment, or as the Nazis liked to say, ‘of blood and soil.’ The gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared, not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
But what people fail to realize is that the pursuit of the “superhuman,” was not isolated to Hitler and the Nazis. Before they rose to power, we were pursuing it here in America in the name of Eugenics. Eugenics arose out of naturalistic philosophy and seemed harmless to people until the holocaust happened. That jarred our national senses. In 1927, in Buck vs. Bell, Cary Buck was forcibly sterilized against her will to prevent her degenerate offspring from being born. She was believed at the time to be mentally challenged and they wanted to prevent her from having degenerate offspring. The Nazis used this in the Nuremburg Trials as their precedent for what they did in the Holocaust.
As hard as I might try, I myself can come up with no better debunking of this argument than biology professor PZ Myers, so instead I’ll offer this link: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
my response:
There is really no point in discussing this matter, since it hinges on my singular assertion that if Gen 1:1 is true, the rest of the bible poses no problem. This assertion will stand or fall with the assertion that God exists. If God exists, quibbling about my personal experience is pointless for both of us. That is where you have to take the argument. Once you grant the existence of God, then we at a point where we can communicate about why in particular the Christian God as opposed to the hindu god or muslim god etc...
5. In the rest of your paragraph you commit the logical fallacy of bifurcation or “the denied middle”. It comes down to either God exists or everyone who believes in him is totally delusional.
There is a middle course and I encounter it every day. I’m willing to bet you do to. People are superstitious about black cats, the number thirteen, ghosts, alien abductors, etc., etc. But, in their daily lives they still, for the most part, make well-reasoned decisions about the world around them. It is called compartmentalization. Had you been born in classical Greece or Rome you would have most likely been speaking to Zeus or Athena. Does that make every one who lived in classical times totally delusional?
my response:
Sure, and you and me and everyone else consider those superstitions ridiculous. All that it shows is that they are inconsistent between belief and practice. For a belief system to be true, it must be empirically adequate, rationally consistent, and experientially relevant. None of the examples qualifies, nor does atheism for that matter because it is impossible to live your life consistently on a negation. John understands that liberal Christianity is a ridiculous position. That is why he focuses on real Christianity because it is actually substantive. There is no reason, for example, to justify liberal Christianity over against Hinduism or Taoism or atheism for that matter since it is not grounded in reality but simply in what you choose to believe.
6. “As an atheist, where do you derive meaning and purpose?”
Again, I know this was addressed to John, and I am not answering for him. But I will answer for me. My life has a purpose for me in achieving those things that I desire. Some of those things include: A happy and healthy family, the enjoyable company of friends, a successful and rewarding career, a better understanding of the world I live in and helping and teaching others as well as learning from them and being helped. I don’t know you Tsheej, but I would be willing to bet that at least some of things on my list would on yours too.
my response:
Sure, those are all great things and many many people bank their existence on them. Its not enough. The philosopher’s termed it the “angst” of existence. If that was wholly sufficient, why is it that you can be in a crowd of your friends, and/or family and find yourself terribly lonely? If a friend or family member dies, does your world really come to an end? Why not if they’re the reason for your existence? If they are what make you tick? If everybody you ever knew was on a plane that crashed and were killed, would that make life no longer worth living? Is that what really makes you tick?
7. How do you establish a moral basis that is obligatory for everyone?
Ah yes, objective moral truths. Well, for me personally, I’m not sure there is such a thing.
my response:
You had better figure it out because atheism’s inability to ground objective morality is precisely what makes it unlivable.
8. “Is it really because our believe system gives us a morality that is obligatory for everyone and you find that offensive?”
Not hardly, because it doesn’t. If Christianity gives absolute moral truths then why is it that to Catholics the use of contraceptives is morally prohibited but to Protestants it’s not. Baptists and Mormons have a moral prohibition against ingesting alcohol but Methodists do not. Additionally, and here we get back to John’s original post, if through Christianity, you are morally obligated to do whatever God commands, and God, being omnipotent can command what ever he desires, is this not the most relativistic moral theory in existence? For example, I would generally consider killing the innocent wrong, but if God commanded me to do so, I would. The only way to reconcile this is to say God would never do this (although the Bible would contradict that statement) because an objective moral truth exists outside of God that he must follow.
my response:
Two comments here: First, you are committing a mistake in ethical theory. You are extrapolating a norm from exceptions. Can you then say it is okay at any time to rape under certain circumstances? Like it or not, Christianity as well as other religions do lay out a morally obligatory system. There are certain things that all christian denominations agree with across the board.
Secondly, the best response to your second part is something C.S. Lewis placed into the mouth of his character, “Aslan” in the Narnia Chronicles. Aslan says, “did you really think I would not follow my own rules.” You see, the moral code of christianity is not based on God’s whims, as if God suddenly thinks one way and changes his mind. It is based on his character, who he is in his essential being. That moral code is laid down explicitly in scripture and when a person says, “god told me such and such” to justify murder for example. They are in direct violation of scripture so it is very clear that God has not spoken to them. Now I realize there are a lot of these kinds of situations that are not as cut and dry, but their existence doesn’t say anything about Christianity but about the people that claim these things. As G.K. Chesterton said, it is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it is that Christianity has been found difficult and left untried.
10. “The difference is that the power of God enables us to overcome those things [selfishness].”
I almost found the implications of this statement to be offensive as if you were implying that atheists therefore must be unable to fight off their selfish impulses and be totally immoral beings.
my response:
Again, your use of “fight off their selfish impulses” assumes a moral code of some kind. You are measuring the athiest against a code of some sort. If there is no god, how can you even assert the existence of selfishness? On what basis?
Allow me to clarify:
We are all immoral beings. We are all sinners. The uniqueness of the Christian message is that no matter how hard I try to be good, I cannot be good enough. In the New Testament, Jesus made it clear it wasn’t just about actions, it was about what was in the heart. I could be saying very nice things to people and be seething inside and I would still be wrong. Christ sets me free both from the penalty of sin (death) because He died on the cross to pay that penalty because he obeys his own rules. He also set me free from the power of sin in my life when he rose from the dead. This assertion that the power of God enables me to overcome sin does not make me special, it is given by God’s grace to anyone that would receive it.
Gordon:
I stand by my 'hyper-charged polemic.' Slavery, in any circumstances, regardless of how well-treated the slaves are, is WRONG! To repeat what I said, and you ignored, the evil ways that ante-bellum slavery included are an entirely separate evil.
Human beings are not property and can not be treated as such.
Does this mean I am saying 'there is a univeral way human beings are supposed to relate with each other in all contexts'? Perhaps, in certain areas, that is EXACTLY what I am saying.
Unlike others here, I have never shied away from the idea that there are certain universal rules of morality, derived not from some 'Divine revelation' but
a.) from the 'social contract,' -- the fact that man only exists in societies
b.) from those specifically evolved features that make humans what they are (communication -- particularly of abstract ideas -- cooperation, and an ethical sense), and
c.) from the scientific method -- which shows humanity at its most human and most sane.
The three principles I argue are universal are 'respect for each individual' (which, if you think about it, includes most of the universally considered crimes such as theft, murder, and slavery;
freedom of communication (which includes honesty);
and responsibility (both in the sense of 'acting responsibly' and in the sense of 'taking responsibility for your own actions).
To briefly touch on another of your points -- I wish someone would start a thread on the ugliness of Christian sexual morality so we could explore it more deeply, and I could defend pre-marital sex as more moral and beneficial to society than pre-marital virginity -- do you realize how new the argument is that 'homosexuality is wrong simply because it is a form of pre-marital sex.'
I don't think you would find this argument made anywhere in pre-Stonewall days, and in fact it is an example of just the sort of 'back-writing' I mentioned. Biblically and theologically, homosexuality has always been condemned for itself, not because it is pre-marital sex.
In fact, pre-marital sex, for males is NOT condemned in the Bible -- which, at least the OT, was written for a polygynous society where concubinage was acceptable. (No, this was NOT an exception for the patriarchs. The sexual laws in Leviticus make it plain -- as does the much later writing of Josephus -- that the whole society was polygynous.)
Equally, while Jesus does not mention homosexuality -- at least in the small percentage of his words we have -- Paul condemns it for itself.
I could go on, but there are other comments here and on other threads I want to get to.
Oh, just to clarify things, I am bi-sexual and, in fact, while I enjoy physical sex acts with both, emotionally I seem to be close to totally straight, only wanting relationships with women so far.
Btw, is there any person here who can explain the societal attitude that liking sex with either gender means you shouldn't enjoy it with the other? Particularly for males, both gays and straights keep saying you 'have to' make a choice I've never seen any reason for making.
But this is getting really off-topic. Maybe we can bring it up on a thread where it is more relevant.
Bill: As usual, an excellent post. I may disagree -- get ready, that's what I'm gonna be doing -- but I too "love this stuff' and love having people like you and Gordon here.
Where do I start? I suppose with your comment to me. (Of COURSE I read them first. What else?)
Bill, you say 'but "the Law" is not what Jesus taught.' But then, why did he say the following -- less than a year before the Crucifixion that Christians would have us believe he fully anticipated:
"For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18, I use the Douai-Rheims version because of your Catholicism).
He doesn't say, in this and many similar quotes, 'Until I die and am resurrected.' (And if this is what he 'really' meant, it strikes me as silly for him to spend as much time on the Law as he did. Sort of like spending time demonstrating 'how to get the best from analog tvs' today when the law is already in place that will require all broadcasting to be hd and digital in a couple of years.)
Can you show me the passage that says 'oh, I was just wasting the people's time telling them about The Law, teaching and interpreting it, since in a couple of days all that won't matter'?
Even in Luke's delightful story of the 12-year old Jesus in the Temple, there is no doubt he was talking about The Law. Is it imaginable that had he not been affirming it that he would have gotten the favorable reception he is supposed to have received.
And in Matthew's gloss on the Sermon on the Mount, the people are reportedly amazed that he taught the law as one with 'power' or 'authority,' NOT that he taught it was to be swept away in less than a year.
Bill: Another response to your comment to me. You entirely missed my point when I said that Christianity teaches narcissism. (And I make a great distinction between what Jesus reportedly taught and what Christianity teaches. Jesus, at least in the synoptics, rarely speaks about punishment or hell.
(Of course there is the contradiction in the Sermon on the Mount -- a good support for those who contend that it was not, in fact, delivered as one speech but was the editing together of many remembered remarks of Jesus. How do YOU reconcile Matthew 5:19
"He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
with Matthew 7:21
"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The first implies that sinners shall enter the kingdom, the second denies it. (And 'the will of my Father in Heaven' -- whatever Jesus 'really' meant by it, had to have been interpreted as 'following the Law' by his hearers, an impression he didn't correct. Could Jesus -- if he is who you think he is -- deceive by omission? -- Which was, btw, the question, in other contexts, that first started me out of the Church.)
I can't spend much more time commenting now -- my wife wants more of my time -- so I'll just respond to your 'Christianity's starting point is the Resurrection' by asking you to comment on an article of mine in another blog that was edited from four comments I made here, particularly the final section. It's my argument on the 'Problem of Communication,' it's at http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2007/11/jim_benton_on_christianitys_pr.php
and my title was the much more simple 'Four Bullets,' but Martin always lists the name of guest bloggers in his title.
(For everyone, it should also be part of this Sunday's Carnival of the Godless. I do hope that the believers here will read and respond to it.)
Gordon, tsheej, and the rest, I'll try to get to you soon -- including, Gordon, a response to your reply to me about Zoroastrianism in another thread. But thanks to all of you. After months of dealing with Calvinists, Creationists, and 'Live'n'Grace' boy are you all a breath of fresh air.
Tsheej, I'll just say that it is not a contradiction to say someone is both inteligent and wrong. (And it is the intelligence that they show that makes it worth discussing with them. Hopefully whichever of us is intelligent and wrong can be shown the error of his ways and become both intelligent and right.
Prup I havent even read everything and I noticed a misunderstanding. I was saying homosexual acts (one type of sin) are just as bad as sexual pre-marital acts in a heterosexual context (seperate type of sin). I myself would want to say that societies with slavery are less civilized then societies without slavery. However, if we take it for granted that ancient Israel was a society WITH slavery, what is God to do. First of all God does not demand slavery in Leviticus at all. He says they may do this, but most of the text involved concerns taking care of their slaves in a humane manner. Slaves were not considered peoples property in the way my lamp or remote control is my property, if that were the case then it would be clear that people could do what they wished to their slave. As I have repeatedly said, slavery in ancient Israel was not necessarily a bad thing for the person enslaved. In an ancient society life was primarily built around survival, and Jewish masters had to ensure the safety and well being of their slave (or, again, servant). While I awaited your response on the slavery issue I took a trip to the library and at least according to the Oxford Companion to the Bible slavery was never considered divinely ordained as such but rather the text seems to simply stipulate how, if you are going to have a slave you must treat him/her. While you are certainly right that in the Old Testament marriage and such was different but Jesus himself makes it very clear (im not going to find the passage but I can if you want me to) that Moses decided that to be the case as the people would not obey that law. I look forward to your response on Zoroastrianism, its something I invested alot of study in and ive always found the SERIOUS intermingling of the two an interesting but ultimately unproblematic/improbable event.
Gordon:
I know my post wasn't one of my best, and okay, it's Friday night, but this was the weakest argument I've seen in a long time. "Israel was a society WITH slavery, so what was poor, meek God to do but put up with it."
Israel was a society with idol worship too, and it seems like every other chapter you'd find the Israelites starting up with the brass cows and golden heifers. Did God -- assuming, arguendo, that the Pentateuch was by God and not the product of the editing of King Josiah's scribes -- say, "Okay, have idols, but no sacrificing people to them"? Did he say "Keep your idols, just don't give them bigger sacrifices than you make to me"? How about "okay on idols, but they can't be more than half a cubit tall"? Or, 'no idols for you guys, but if you run into another people, let them keep them'?
No, it was
"NO IDOLS, NO WAY, NO HOW, PERIOD!!!
This is not a meek God who considered people's feeling. This is a God who said disobedient children should be killed. A God who ordered a woman put to death if her husband claimed she wasn't a virgin when they married unless her parents could come up with the bloody sheets from the wedding night.
This is a God who ordered a husband and wife put to death if they had sex during her period.
But saying "Thou shalt not enslave another person, Jew or Gentile," that was going too far.
(Maybe if he'd okayed slavery of prisoners of war, okay, you could argue it was a risk soldiers knew they were taking. But 'here's where it is okay to BUY your slaves, and okay, you can pass them on in your will to your sons.' NO! THAT is inexcusable.)
As for the marriage question, what you were thinking about was one thing -- the only thing Jesus said about sex other than the 'lust in your hearts' bit -- and that was the question of divorce. THAT's what God allowed to Moses and Jesus condemned. But again, not allowing a husband to divorce his wife WAS a little different if he had a number of them. And yes, since Josephus was born about when Jesus was preaching, polygyny still existed among at least the Jewish aristocracy. (And I still insist you can't interpret 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 as saying anything but that polygyny was permitted in the early Church, but not for deacons.)
Btw, I agree that homosexuality and pre-marital sex are equally bad, since I don't consider either bad at all.
G'night, I'll get to Zoroastrianism in the morning -- but if you have a list of good books on the subject, can you e-mail them. You'll find the address in the profile.
Tsheej- I know that your comment was addressed to m. tully, but I hope neither of you objects if I jump in. You say:
As Dostoevsky said, “if there is no God then everything is permissible.["] Put another way, if there is no God, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no reason to justify one way of doing things over and against another. Please understand I am not saying that all athiests choose to go this way, I do know people who are athiests and caring. What I am saying is that atheism logically lends itself to this route of despair and certainly leads to a narcistic outlook on life. And if an athiest chooses not to go this way, he is living inconsistent with his belief system because as an athiest you have no basis on which to tell me it is wrong for me to rape, torture, pillage, murder, etc...
Sorry, I will have to disagree with you and Dostoyevsky. As others here and I have said over and over, atheists can, and do, have morals without God. Morals start in our nature as social animals, and are refined by our reason. True, there's no carrot-and-stick wielding God behind them, but somehow atheists manage to not rape and pillage any more than believers do. And while it's true that some atheists have been led to despair and narcissism, there's no "logical" necessity for it: I don't know anybody personally who feels that way because of their atheism. In fact, the stories of atheistic despair I've heard come overwhelmingly from the imagination of Christians.
M. tully said:
Ah yes, objective moral truths. Well, for me personally, I’m not sure there is such a thing.
tsheej replied:
You had better figure it out because atheism’s inability to ground objective morality is precisely what makes it unlivable.
And yet, we atheists somehow manage to live with our morals, despite this assertion. What does "unlivable" mean?
Nietzche really believed as you seem to, that he had killed God with his philosophical knife. But the key is this. When you reject God, you assume his place. You elevate yourself to “godhood.”
Nietzsche was undoubtedly brilliant, and like many brilliant people was more that a little arrogant. So you will have to excuse me if I don't sympathize with his characteristic huffing and puffing about godhood and superiority and such. True, we modern people have more power than any god, since gods are just ideas, but to think of ourselves as being gods, or having God's favor for whatever we choose to do, is dangerous. Voltaire had it right: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". This is not to say that there aren't atheistic absurdities as well, and atrocities commited by atheists. But atheism per se does not necessarily lead to being more, or less, moral than religious belief does.
Dear Zilch,
No objections at all. Everyone is free to join.
Sorry, I will have to disagree with you and Dostoyevsky. As others here and I have said over and over, atheists can, and do, have morals without God. Morals start in our nature as social animals, and are refined by our reason. True, there's no carrot-and-stick wielding God behind them, but somehow atheists manage to not rape and pillage any more than believers do. And while it's true that some atheists have been led to despair and narcissism, there's no "logical" necessity for it: I don't know anybody personally who feels that way because of their atheism. In fact, the stories of atheistic despair I've heard come overwhelmingly from the imagination of Christians.
You are mistaken on several counts. Of course the atheist will disagree with my premise that if there is no god, everything is permissible. The problem is no matter how hard you struggle to anchor morality, you will be unable to anchor it. My former statement stands; in some cultures they love their neighbor, in others they eat them, do you have a preference in the matter. How are you going to make something morally obligatory for everyone and who is going to decide that? If you say, "social contract" it will inevitably fall on the "illuminati" or "people in power" in a particular culture to define law. If that's true, the law changes based on who is in power. After all, who can say then that the Taliban is wrong for suppressing women. It is you who do not seem to understand the ramifications of your belief system. Tell me where you plan to anchor it. Prior to Nazi Germany, there was free speech and free belief, but when the Nazi's came to power they rewrote the laws. On what basis would you condemn them?
It is not my imagination. Read "The Stranger" by Albert Camus or Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre. What are they if not works of despair? You could even go to "The Theater of the Absurd." Or even "The Living" by Any Rand or "Sophie's World" by Josten Gaardner.
And yet, we atheists somehow manage to live with our morals, despite this assertion. What does "unlivable" mean?
Unlivable goes back to my assertion that for a world view to be true it must meet three criterion; it must have empirical adequacy, rational consistency, and experiential relevance. Unlivable means that the atheist does not live the outworking of their belief system because it is not experientially relevant and leads to nihilism and despair. My example was Jean Paul Sartre who, even though he said there was no reason to justify helping someone as better than hurting someone, he felt compelled to condemn apartheid because his human experience told him it was wrong. Yet his philosophical conclusions gave him no rational way to condemn it. It was precisely for this reason that Hegel decided to redefine the way logic is done. Because he could not anchor morality on the basis of logic without God, he decided to redefine logic with his concept of thesis and antithesis forming a synthesis.
Nietzsche was undoubtedly brilliant, and like many brilliant people was more that a little arrogant. So you will have to excuse me if I don't sympathize with his characteristic huffing and puffing about godhood and superiority and such. True, we modern people have more power than any god, since gods are just ideas, but to think of ourselves as being gods, or having God's favor for whatever we choose to do, is dangerous. Voltaire had it right: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". This is not to say that there aren't atheistic absurdities as well, and atrocities commited by atheists. But atheism per se does not necessarily lead to being more, or less, moral than religious belief does.
You must be careful before you assert that you know more than your intellectual forefathers. I don't expect you to be sympathetic. But Nietzsche was right and he understood the ramifications of what he was teaching. Essentially Nietzsche taught that "man is the measure of all things." This is not lofty imagination, this is the logical conclusion of a naturalistic world view of life. All of sudden you have taken a finite, limited being and made him the measure of all things; you have made him "god," like it or not.
Probably we will simply have to agree to disagree, tsheej. But I'll try at least to present my position as clearly as possible.
You say:
Of course the atheist will disagree with my premise that if there is no god, everything is permissible. The problem is no matter how hard you struggle to anchor morality, you will be unable to anchor it.
Well, I wouldn't try to "anchor" morality in the first place. In fact, as Raymond Smullyan pointed out, you can take the theoretical position that there are no morals at all, and still behave quite nicely. After all, we are social animals, and we got where we are, warts and all, starting with only our genetic traits. Of course, for cultures to work, there must be some "anchoring" as a practical matter: laws must be made, norms observed. But from the starting point of our genetic nature, plus what we have learned from history, philosophy, and yes, religion, we can and do cobble together moral systems that work well enough to bring us together in cyberspace, for instance.
Note: since I don't believe that God exists, I would say that religious people don't have objective morals any more than atheists do. If you disagree, tell me exactly what "thou shalt not kill" means, and exactly how it should be enforced.
My former statement stands; in some cultures they love their neighbor, in others they eat them, do you have a preference in the matter. How are you going to make something morally obligatory for everyone and who is going to decide that?
In the first place, Jeffrey Dahmer aside, not many people eat people nowadays- it's not a pressing moral problem any more. Even in New Guinea, the last stronghold of ritual cannibalism, it's pretty much died out. In the second place, I wouldn't want to make all morals obligatory for everyone: I don't consider it immoral, for instance, to eat the brains of deceased relatives. It doesn't appeal to me especially, and it's not a good idea because of kuru, but it's not immoral to me. But if someone wants to regard it as immoral, it's no skin off my nose.
If you say, "social contract" it will inevitably fall on the "illuminati" or "people in power" in a particular culture to define law. If that's true, the law changes based on who is in power.
Who gets to decide on laws, and how, are indeed tricky problems. But religion doesn't seem to help at all in this regard. Otherwise, one might expect that especially religious countries, say the United States, would have fewer social problems than less religious ones, say Sweden. The opposite is true. Now, I know this is oversimplified, and leaves out many other variables, but it is simply not true that more religion leads to more justice, or fewer social problems. And religions have "illuminati" too, of course, and their laws also change, or at least the application does- adulterers are no longer stoned in the United States, for instance.
Prior to Nazi Germany, there was free speech and free belief, but when the Nazi's came to power they rewrote the laws. On what basis would you condemn them?
On the same basis you would, I imagine: human rights. Actually, though, I don't remember anything in the Bible supporting free speech or free belief. Could you cite chapter and verse, please?
Read "The Stranger" by Albert Camus or Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre. What are they if not works of despair?
I've read them, and they are indeed works of despair. But so what? I am not Camus, or Sartre, and I'm not bound to agree with them or emulate them. I could just as well say to you that since Martin Luther hated Jews, that you must also hate Jews.
You must be careful before you assert that you know more than your intellectual forefathers. I don't expect you to be sympathetic. But Nietzsche was right and he understood the ramifications of what he was teaching. Essentially Nietzsche taught that "man is the measure of all things." This is not lofty imagination, this is the logical conclusion of a naturalistic world view of life.
Again, why do I have to accept what Nietzche thought? Sure, he was probably smarter than I am, but so was Aristotle, and he thought that women have fewer teeth than men. Nietzsche also came to the "logical conclusion" of eternal recurrence:
This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything immeasurably small or great in your life must return to you-all in the same succession and sequence-even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over and over, and you with it, a grain of dust.
Do I have to accept this, too? If not, why not? Accepting something based on authority is the way religion works, but not rational thinking. I have a naturalistic view of life, and I have not come to the conclusion that "man is the measure of all things". Besides, wasn't it Protagoras who said that?
Prup I am beginning to get dissapointed at how you are playing right into the fundamentalist atheist perspective on looking at Old Testament scripture. Afew examples-
1. The source behind killing disobedient children- That has always been read by Jews in a way very different from just not cleaning your room. This was a rule for sons who were very clearly a threat to the community at large. This wasnt modern society Prup, people couldnt afford having prisons and the like. Of course it should also be noted that, to my knowledge, we have no sources on this rule ever being practiced anyhow.
2. Virginity- Again, this had to be decided by rabbis. This would rarely if ever be an issue at all however, most girls were married quite early and pre-marital sex was very taboo for a number of reasons (Yes I know of concubines, but that is a seperate issue to this one)
3. Slavery- Again Prup you seem to make a huge presupposition here and that is that people wouldnt want to be slaves. However, this is not the case in the ancient world. Being a slave in Israel ensured you would be fed, watered, sheltered, clothed and protected. Of course there is also Deuteronomy (Il quote a scholar from John Hopkins who is quoted in an essay from Glenn Millers site
"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution." When I was doing reading on this in the library I found similar statements in the commentaries and so on so I consider that fairly reliable. Again comparing idol worship to slavery is apples to oranges because slavery as practiced in the ANE was a fairly "you scratch my back il scratch yours" relationship. With all this said I am pre-supposing that all these verses have some sort of original nucleus that was straight from God. As an Anglican however I fully admit and recognize that the bible is not inerrant in the way some would try to make it and for all i know these were laws that were editted in the Old Testament by the Jewesh community as a whole, especially the issue about virginity and so on. Im not sure on what the truth of the matter is and, honestly, its not too paramount to me. Im a Christian because of what I know, not because of what I dont know. Oh one other thing Prup... on the issue of pre-marital sex I think it would be incredibly hard to argue that God would not be justified in condemning it. Given the massive amount of STD's, many of them deadly, a God who demanded people to have the sort of sexual relationships they do today would be quite odd, far odder then what you seem to think is unacceptable (not outright vanquishing slavery). Yes I know there are condoms and such now, but those are not terribly avaiable in the third world (and it is, at least according to my professors, economics and not religion that stems that tide). Nevermind the fact that many persons who are involved in casual sex are apt to describe it as absolutely unsatisfactory (I myself wouldnt know, unfortunately I have many freinds who certainly do)
Well, I wouldn't try to "anchor" morality in the first place. In fact, as Raymond Smullyan pointed out, you can take the theoretical position that there are no morals at all, and still behave quite nicely. After all, we are social animals, and we got where we are, warts and all, starting with only our genetic traits. Of course, for cultures to work, there must be some "anchoring" as a practical matter: laws must be made, norms observed. But from the starting point of our genetic nature, plus what we have learned from history, philosophy, and yes, religion, we can and do cobble together moral systems that work well enough to bring us together in cyberspace, for instance.
Note: since I don't believe that God exists, I would say that religious people don't have objective morals any more than atheists do. If you disagree, tell me exactly what "thou shalt not kill" means, and exactly how it should be enforced.
my response:
of course you can behave quite nicely, but in a naturalistic world view, there is no rational justification for behaving quite nicely as opposed to say, as opposed to say beating your wife with a machete (my friend's husband did this to her). My point is precisely this, that your belief system is not rational. In order to condemn religion you have to invoke a moral order in order to condemn atrocities committed and that necessarily invokes a moral law which invokes a moral law giver. For the atheist, the accusation of religious evil in the world completely dissolves unless you have an objective way to measure good and evil.
In the first place, Jeffrey Dahmer aside, not many people eat people nowadays- it's not a pressing moral problem any more. Even in New Guinea, the last stronghold of ritual cannibalism, it's pretty much died out. In the second place, I wouldn't want to make all morals obligatory for everyone: I don't consider it immoral, for instance, to eat the brains of deceased relatives. It doesn't appeal to me especially, and it's not a good idea because of kuru, but it's not immoral to me. But if someone wants to regard it as immoral, it's no skin off my nose.
On the same basis you would, I imagine: human rights. Actually, though, I don't remember anything in the Bible supporting free speech or free belief. Could you cite chapter and verse, please?
my response: Ok, on what basis are you going to condemn racial hatred? In a naturalistic world view, the "survival of the fittest" is the code. Who is to say one race is not over and above another race if they can flex their military and intellectual superiority? On what basis do you condemn kidnapped marriages (they happen all the time and I have friends who have been forced into marriages), forced prostitution, the kidnapping of children, physically harming them and placing them out on the street to beg in begging syndicates (this happens all over the world). Are you really going to condemn this on the basis of human rights? On what basis do you establish human rights in a naturalistic world view?" The naturalistic world view says that we are an "automaton of reflexes, a mind machine, a bundle of instincts, a pawn of drives and reactions," what rational justification are you going to give for any such thing as human rights?
For the record, I don't believe in human rights, as a Christian I believe life is a gift and everything we have is a gift. I believe in human obligations. So does most of the world. ref. "Why the Rest Hates the West: Understanding the Roots of Global Rage" by Meic Pearse
Who gets to decide on laws, and how, are indeed tricky problems. But religion doesn't seem to help at all in this regard.
my response: Good, we agree on that point. I am not talking about religion here, I am talking about a moral law giver. There is a huge distinction between religiosity and God as someone kindly brought up in the McGrath-Dawkins debate. I am talking about the person of God. Prior to our going into Iraq, Saddam Hussein called his country a democracy. We would hardly characterize it that way. Changing labels on an empty bottle still leaves the bottle empty. What democracy is by nature doesn't change because everyone abuses it, the essential idea of "democracy" stands pure and unadulterated and it is a matter of people adhering to its principles. The laws of the universe work much the same way. I may believe with all my heart that I can fly but when I jump off that building gravity will go into action. God is not corrupted because of all the people that do ridiculous things in his name. It is not that God has been tried and found wanting, but that he is found difficult and left untried. I do not reject Islam on the basis of how Islamic terrorists behave, I reject Islam on the basis of whether it is true or not, as I do atheism, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
Read "The Stranger" by Albert Camus or Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre. What are they if not works of despair?
I've read them, and they are indeed works of despair. But so what? I am not Camus, or Sartre, and I'm not bound to agree with them or emulate them.
my response:
First, I only threw those works out there for you because you said that the atheistic works of despair were mainly imagined up by Christians. I was only pointing out that they truly exist. But since we are here, you are not bound to agree with them of you are okay with being irrational. But if you want to be rational, which seems to be the whole basis of your atheism, you will have to reach similar conclusions as they have.
Again, why do I have to accept what Nietzche thought? Sure, he was probably smarter than I am, but so was Aristotle, and he thought that women have fewer teeth than men. Nietzsche also came to the "logical conclusion" of eternal recurrence:
Accepting something based on authority is the way religion works, but not rational thinking.
Nietzsche was not always sane. He spent the last months of his life, as I understand, completely insane and suffering from excruciating disease. I am not saying you must accept Nietzsche on the basis of his authority but on the basis of the logical argument. That is, if you want to be rational as you claim you are. This goes back to why you have to accept Camus and Sartre if your going to be rational.
I have a naturalistic view of life, and I have not come to the conclusion that "man is the measure of all things". Besides, wasn't it Protagoras who said that?
Okay, tell me if I assume too much in what you mean by a naturalistic worldview?...
The world happened by chance, you would, I presume assign darwinian evolution as the mode of this world's origin. In that case, the survival of the fittest would be a predominant factor.
You may not like my terminology "man as the measure of all things" but you would agree that man is the highest ordered being in the universe as you can currently perceive it. ie...top of the food chain. In essence, man is "an automaton of reflexes, a mind machine, a bundle of instincts, a pawn of drives and reactions." Is this not a summation of how naturalistic theory would apply to humanity?
Dear Zilch,
Please understand my goal is not to drive you to despair. Its simply that as a logical thinking person, what you believe really does not add up as far as I can tell unless you can give me some new insight that I am missing. I am also willing to explore why what I believe is empirically adequate, rationally consistent, and experientially relevant. In order to do that however, so we actually have a point of communication, I have to ask you to grant the existence of God, at least hypothetically so you can think inside that framework. As I stated before, giving me Gen 1:1 and the rest of the bible poses no problem for me. I have only focused on the moral argument for the existence of God. Naturally, that is not adequate. Perhaps, we must also engage the ontological argument before you will be willing to grant me the hypothetical existence of God. But until you are able to do that, you will never be able to truly understand what I actually believe. Please understand, for me this is not about winning or losing an argument. That is dumb. People are so much more important than that. Its about truth and having the ability to live a meaningful and significant life.
I am grateful to you for enduring with me.
Dear John,
Thanks for the partial reply. I appreciate it. I know you are busy defending many fronts.
You state re: Christ's Resurrection:
The larger the claim is, the harder it is to defend. Claim that you saw a man fishing in the Chesapeake Bay and your testimony alone would be sufficient for people to believe you, since this occurs often. Claim that a great sea monster of the deep swallowed you alive for three days and nights, and you would have a near impossible time convincing anyone. That’s because extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. I THINK you are saying that if humans came back to life from confirmed death on a regular basis, the frequency of such events would place them under the heading of 'ordinary;' if resurrection happened 40,000 times a day, the phenomenon would be considered mundane, banal, ho-hum. But if I say I saw a man fishing from a boat on the Chesapeake Bay -- and no one had EVER seen or reported such a thing -- then this sort of phenomenon would be deemed 'extraordinary.' Am I right so far?
Now, let us assume that Jesus did rise from the dead and it was entirely singular and extraordinary. What counts as extraordinary evidence if, as you claim, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence?" For I would think that your assertion is demonstrably false: I just need evidence, I don't need "super-evidence." Why? Because you've just conceded (haven't you?) that if resurrections were commonplace, we'd need no more evidence than mere familiarity. One wonders how many instances of ANYTHING -- be it a fisherman baiting a hook or a person rising from the dead -- must occur before we call such events ordinary? Two, ten, ten thousand? I suspect you must know the transition point between the ordinary and that which is extraordinary, or you would not have made this distinction. But even if you don't know that defining line, you must know what extraordinary evidence -- or at least the nature of it -- the disciples must present to validate Jesus' resurrection, no? As I said already, part of me is tempted to state that they don't need to present ANY evidence: He either is alive or he's dead. But surely there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence, is there? What does it look like? Is it convincing? I am even tempted to wonder if you are dividing evidence into curious categories: on this side, we have the "convincing" data, while over on this side we have the "super-convincing" data. Plus I am wondering whether "extraordinary" evidence would convince skeptics; if not, why bother even collecting it?
(Also, if extraordinary claims are supernatural claims, is extraordinary evidence supernatural evidence? If so, then are you open to supernatural evidence; and would your openness not also suggest you are decidedly open to the supernatural?)
I hope you are well.
Peace,
Bill Gnade
Dear Zilch,
I happened to come across this. Perhaps it will help clarify what I am trying to say to you. Richard Dawkins wrote it:
Here it is...
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: `For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." (Dawkins R., "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," Phoenix: London, 1996, p.155.)"
Dear tsheej,
As I've already said, I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree. But here are my responses anyway, starting back to front:
Yes, I know this quote from Dawkins. It is a favorite of Christians because it sounds full of atheist despair. But notice that Dawkins is talking about the Universe, not about people. He does not say that people are blind and pitiless. If you had read any of his books (I recommend Climbing Mount Improbable, for instance), you would know that Dawkins is far from despairing. Here's a quote, almost at random, from The God Delusion:
We are staggeringly lucky to find ourselves in the spotlight. However brief our time in the sun, if we waste a second of it, or complain that it is dull or barren or (like a child) boring, couldn't this be seen as a callous insult to those untold trillions who will never even be offered life in the first place? As many atheists have said better than me, the knowledge that we have only one life should make it all the more precious. The atheist view is correspondingly life-affirming and life-enhancing, while at the same time never being tainted with self-delusion, wishful thinking, or the whingeing self-pity of those who feel that life owes them something.
Anyone who claims that Dawkins is despairing does not know him or his work. Taking your quote out of context is akin to quoting Darwin's misgivings about the evolution of the eye (a favorite Creationist ploy) and not going on to quote his conclusion that the eye must have evolved after all.
tsheej, you say
Please understand my goal is not to drive you to despair. Its simply that as a logical thinking person, what you believe really does not add up as far as I can tell unless you can give me some new insight that I am missing.
Not to worry- you will not drive me to despair. While my life has its ups and downs, like everyone's, I am quite happy with my worldview, and find it logically consistent. So far, you have merely asserted that atheism must logically lead to despair, without any demonstration of why this must be so, except pointing to despairing atheists. That is not a proof of any kind.
I am also willing to explore why what I believe is empirically adequate, rationally consistent, and experientially relevant. In order to do that however, so we actually have a point of communication, I have to ask you to grant the existence of God, at least hypothetically so you can think inside that framework.
I would be curious to hear what "experientially relevant" means, as I don't understand it. And I'm also perfectly willing to grant the existence of God, for the sake of argument, but I don't see what it will accomplish, except perhaps to give me more insight into the arguments of believers.
Perhaps, we must also engage the ontological argument before you will be willing to grant me the hypothetical existence of God.
I don't quite see why we have to engage the ontological argument, or any other, if we're just being hypothetical. I can just say "okay, I believe in God for the purposes of this argument". The ontological argument, at least Anselm's formulation of it, is pretty silly.
Please understand, for me this is not about winning or losing an argument.
For me it is- I'm out for blood. Just kidding...
of course you can behave quite nicely, but in a naturalistic world view, there is no rational justification for behaving quite nicely as opposed to say, as opposed to say beating your wife with a machete (my friend's husband did this to her).
Sorry to hear about your friend. But my worldview, based as I said upon our genetic nature as social beings, and augmented by reason, would not allow me to do something like this any more than your worldview would.
My point is precisely this, that your belief system is not rational.
So you say, over and over. But you have yet to demonstrate this.
In order to condemn religion you have to invoke a moral order in order to condemn atrocities committed and that necessarily invokes a moral law which invokes a moral law giver. For the atheist, the accusation of religious evil in the world completely dissolves unless you have an objective way to measure good and evil.
In the first place, I don't condemn religion as such. I happen to think that believers are mistaken, but I'm quite willing, and even happy, to live with them as long as they behave themselves. It's bad conduct that I condemn. And as I said, it's quite possible to behave nicely, and condemn evil, without having "objective" morals. Perhaps you should answer my previous question so I can see what you mean by "objective": Do you believe that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is objective? If so, please explain exactly what it means, and how exactly should it be enforced.
my response: Ok, on what basis are you going to condemn racial hatred? In a naturalistic world view, the "survival of the fittest" is the code.
This is a big topic, but I will say that even if there is a natural predilection for fearing strangers, it is one that can and should be fought. This is where reason comes in: I don't, and most people don't, want to live in a world with racial hatred. Saying that "survival of the fittest" is "the" code for a naturalistic worldview (if, by "naturalistic", you simply mean without God) is an example of the "naturalistic fallacy", the idea that "is" should be "ought".
More in a bit- lunchtime.
Mmmm... spinach soup: the best thing for a sore throat.
Okay, where was I? Ah yes- tsheej, you say:
For the record, I don't believe in human rights, as a Christian I believe life is a gift and everything we have is a gift. I believe in human obligations.
If you don't believe in human rights, this is the right place to repeat another question from above: do you support free speech and freedom of religion? If so, how do you justify this objectively? Does God give us an objective moral law about them? If so, please tell me where in the Bible you find this. Otherwise, I might be tempted to think that you are playing fast and loose with Scripture, or even worse, reasoning about moral positions, just like us evil atheists do.
I am not saying you must accept Nietzsche on the basis of his authority but on the basis of the logical argument. That is, if you want to be rational as you claim you are. This goes back to why you have to accept Camus and Sartre if your going to be rational.
Again, you merely assert that I "must" accept Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre, without demonstrating how their positions are logically compelling. I don't find their despair to be "rational" at all. And as I said before, I don't know any atheists personally who take such a dim view of life as Nietzsche & Co. But even if there are some, and even if they are famous, intelligent, and sexy, that still doesn't mean I have to accept what they say. Despair is, to me, an emotional response to life, not a reasoned one. And I, like most atheists, and most believers for that matter, refuse it.
If you can't imagine being an atheist without despairing, it's probably just as well that you're a Christian, if that makes you feel better. That's fine with me, as long as you behave nicely.
Drop me a line if you're ever in Vienna, and we can discuss this over a beer, or your choice of refreshments. Cheers, zilch
Okay, before I go any further I would like to clarify some things so I make sure I am not assuming.
Naturalism necessarily leads you to a subjective view of ethics because on the basis of naturalism there is no way to condemn evil, hence dawkins statement that there is "no evil and no good." In fact, for naturalism evil does not exist. If evil does not exist, good does not exist. Life is meaningless except for meaning that you give yourself? Would you agree with all of these statements? If not, on what basis do you disagree?
Once you clarify this for me, I will try to clarify what I am trying to communicate.
As for my response on human rights, here goes.
If you don't believe in human rights, this is the right place to repeat another question from above: do you support free speech and freedom of religion? If so, how do you justify this objectively? Does God give us an objective moral law about them? If so, please tell me where in the Bible you find this.
For the theist, life is a gift. That means that every aspect of life is a gift including freedom of speech and freedom of belief. This is true for all theistic positions, not just Christianity.
For Islam it logically follows; because of the kind of god they believe in, that freedom of speech and belief should be controlled and even subjugated to the truth. People become slaves to Islamic belief.
For Christianity, God did not want robots. He gave them free choice in the garden of Eden because he wanted his creation to follow in obedience not out of necessity, but out of love and personal decision. This is the foundation for freedom that Christianity brings to the world that culminated in God manifesting himself in the human form of Christ.
At the practical level, it would work itself out like this. I do not have a right to life. That is God's jurisdiction. But because man is made in the image of God, I have an obligation to protect life. I have an obligation to lift up the oppressed, to care for the sick and dying, and to free those in bondage etc...this is actually the way most societies think.
This mentality would certainly free us from all the ridiculous lawsuits out there and teach people to be more selfless and caring for their neighbor.
tsheej- I can only respond briefly at the moment. If I get more time tomorrow, I'll see what I can do. You say:
Naturalism necessarily leads you to a subjective view of ethics because on the basis of naturalism there is no way to condemn evil, hence dawkins statement that there is "no evil and no good."In fact, for naturalism evil does not exist. If evil does not exist, good does not exist.
You will have to tell me what you mean by "subjective" before I can answer completely. However, I can most certainly condemn evil (if, by "evil", we don't mean "sinful" but rather "bad")- say, causing unnecessary suffering. Good exists too: chocolate is good. And freedom from pain. So I guess I don't agree with your definition of "naturalism".
I will also point out once again that Dawkins said that the Universe was not evil or good, not that people were not evil or good. As I suggested, try reading some of his books rather than isolated quotes. He's quite good at explaining evolution in an understandable and entertaining way, also.
Life is meaningless except for meaning that you give yourself?
I would rather say, that the universe was meaningless before life evolved. Meanings evolved with life, and now there are lots of them: mine, yours, and everyone else's.
And now: you didn't really answer my question about the objective morality of free speech and freedom of religion. You said
For the theist, life is a gift. That means that every aspect of life is a gift including freedom of speech and freedom of belief.
Now, I find that an admirable sentiment, and would say that I too consider life a gift. But you claim that atheists have no objective source for morals, and you have none here either. Where does it say in the Bible that free speech and freedom of religion are God's wish, or law, or command, or desire? You are making a subjective interpretation that many Christians disagree with. In fact, ideals of free speech and freedom of religion (or no religion) are actually rather modern, and owe more, in my humble opinion, to the Enlightenment, than to the Bible.
For Christianity, God did not want robots. He gave them free choice in the garden of Eden because he wanted his creation to follow in obedience not out of necessity, but out of love and personal decision.
Another interpretation. Not only that, but look what happened to Adam and Eve when they excercised their freedom. This doesn't seem like a supporter of free speech and freedom of religion to me. In fact, aren't there a couple of other occasions when God got rather upset with upstarts who said the wrong things or worshipped the wrong gods?
Arriving so late to a post has its benefits.
First some compliments:
JWL, if only more saw as clearly as you "There has been evil done on both sides, such that by merely looking at the evil itself we cannot conclude which set of beliefs is more dangerous."
bill – I thoroughly enjoyed the weave of your arguments - awesome reasoning! who can add to it!
I will contribute but a simple observation. The thrust of JWL's argument (if I read it correctly) is that because Christians have revelation in some form or another in their religion it frees them to do harm – the “God is on our side” rationalisation syndrome - therefore Christianity is more dangerous than atheism.
This position assume that only Christians can rationalise their negative behaviour, clearly a flawed premise.
JWL’s requires us to accept that an absence of moral teaching is better a moral teaching which can be misconstrued to suit individual purposes. Christianity does preach a morality as Bill quoted in Christ’s "Love each other as I have loved you." Atheism teaches no morality.
Which is more dangerous - Love each other as I have loved you … or atheism’s if it works for you. I see no reason to opt for an absence of moral teaching as preferable.
Without contradicting itself atheism cannot present any code of conduct as right in absolute terms. Atheism of necessity has to hand the decision of what is moral or not over to the individual in every individual circumstance, with no frame of reference. So in every situation we see an individual faced with a choice – the Christian’s choice is to follow "Love each other as I have loved you."; and they may choose to disregard the teaching and do what the hell they like – the atheist is faced with a choice of doing what ever works for them or following what they have to regard as an arbitrary norm of society; again they may choose harm over good.
We cannot escape the role of individual choice, but I for one find an absolute code a preferable guide to one that is acknowledged as arbitrary.
But atheists do make moral choices - why? Perhaps, in the western world at least, they live in a society whose norms are largely based on the Christian ethic of respect for others ahead of oneself? Perhaps it is only a fear of negative consequences (getting caught) that may outweigh a possible pleasure? Perhaps deep down they know there is an absolute difference between right and wrong?
Hamba kahle - peace
JWL I think you misrepresent liberal Christians in saying “I cannot bring myself to believe in the miraculous tales of the Bible. At least liberal Christians do not take such stories literally, to their credit,” You cannot dismiss the whole of the miraculous tales so easily – nor should you avoid Bill’s point regarding extraordinary evidence so lightly.
Earlier this year newspapers and television reported wide ranging numbers (1 million, 4 million whatever) of spectators who turned out to watch the start of the Tour de France. Literally they are all wrong, but does that mean there was no tour?
akakiwibear, thanks for the compliment. I assume you share my stated position as well, so compliments to you too.
When it comes to an atheistic morality I've deal with it briefly here.
But I can also turn your whole case against the God you believe in. Where does God get his morals? I'm not inclined to write my arguments out here. Happy reading.
But the bottom line is that morality is difficult to account for whether you start with human beings or with God.
Here's an analogy: Even though there is no complete justification for the scientific method, and yet science progresss, so also while there is no complete justification for morality, we act morally. [No one as yet has done so in science; Paul Feyerabend even agues against the possibility in his book, Against Method.
----------
And with regard to your second comment, I do not dismiss the claims of all miracles out of hand. But I do need evidence for them that overcomes my initial skeptical control beliefs...beliefs that you share with such claims...and I do argue that even if they took place among ancient people that we have no reason to believe that they did.
Dear Zilch,
Another interpretation. Not only that, but look what happened to Adam and Eve when they exercised their freedom. This doesn't seem like a supporter of free speech and freedom of religion to me. In fact, aren't there a couple of other occasions when God got rather upset with upstarts who said the wrong things or worshipped the wrong gods?
my person:
A person is free to drink while he is drinking he is not free still to be dry. I can choose to jump off a building, I am no longer free of the consequences of gravity.
But you claim that atheists have no objective source for morals, and you have none here either.
my response:
I do, it is anchored in who God is as a person. For the Christian, all of creation necessarily reflects the creator. God is the definer of life and morality.
However, I can most certainly condemn evil (if, by "evil", we don't mean "sinful" but rather "bad")- say, causing unnecessary suffering. Good exists too: chocolate is good. And freedom from pain. So I guess I don't agree with your definition of "naturalism".
I will also point out once again that Dawkins said that the Universe was not evil or good, not that people were not evil or good.
my response:
You have no basis for asserting evil unless you are irrational because human beings are subject to the same naturalistic laws as everyone else...Dawkins did talk about people, or did you not notice??? "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice."
Darwin didn't say people were good or evil, he said you cannot call anything in the universe good or evil, it is simply the way things are because morality doesn't exist.
You cannot assert evil logically without asserting good. You cannot assert good and evil without asserting a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil. You cannot assert a moral law without asserting a moral law giver.
Your intellectual predecessors dissolved into despair precisely because they were intellectually honest. You have asserted numerous times that you can condemn evil but you provide no basis for your condemnation. Unless of course you are invoking a moral law and thus a moral law giver? The holocaust, the gulags, and the cultural revolutions of china have shown the logical outworking of atheism. I am troubled that you have not addressed Viktor Frankl's words because they encapsulate the essence of what I am saying.
Dear Zilch: if you cannot see this truth I am truly sorry for you. You will never be able to understand other world views until you really understand the ramifications of what you believe.
my response on experiential relevance from a previous post:
You asked what I meant by experiential relevance?
my response: experiential relevance is the fact that you want to condemn evil. It shows that despite your philosophical beliefs you intuitively know there is evil in the world. Naturalism simply cannot explain heinous evil anymore than it can explain acts of great nobility--like the parents in a ferry accident who held their wheelchair bound, mentally challenged child up out of the water, saving her life at the expense of both of theirs. That is what I mean by experiential relevance. What I belief must logically line up with my experience.
You are making a subjective interpretation that many Christians disagree with.
my response:
Actually, Christians agree with me. They primarily don't understand what I am saying and think I am just making a play on words that is ultimately meaningless. But I have never had a Christian disagree with me with whom I could walk it through logically.
By the way, please don't joke with me about terminology. You just used the word "subjective" in referring to my comments. It surely doesn't take a genius to figure out what I mean when I use the word "subjective." I'm pretty sure you and I have close enough definitions of the same word.
On a lighter note...
If I am ever in Vienna, I doubt we could have a useful conversation about this, but I would certainly enjoy getting to know you personally. I don't drink liquor. Ever since I got jumped by 4 drunk russians in Nizni Novgorod who wanted to start a brawl, the smell of alcohol, and vodka in particular is rather nauseating to me. But I am up to any number of other things.
Dear Zilch,
Just for kicks, I wanted to throw this out to you cause you made a comment about "unnecessary suffering."
I want to point out that
"meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain, it comes from being weary of pleasure."
Tsheej said...You cannot assert evil logically without asserting good. You cannot assert good and evil without asserting a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil. You cannot assert a moral law without asserting a moral law giver.
Take the Debunking Christianity challenge and read my book where I thoroughly deal with this in the problem of evil chapter.
Suffice it to say, I can indeed say suffering is bad, especially intense suffering, horrific suffering, the law of predation type of suffering. Why? Because it's painful. And no amount of recompense in heaven will ever justify why so many people had to suffer in here on earth or in hell later, lest the same reasons could justify someone who wanted to torture us and then reward us afterward. The reward cannot justify the torture. The torture must be justified on its own terms, and that, my friend, cannot be done even if there is a God.
Dear John,
I don't need to read your book. The logic of my statement is undeniable. In a naturalistic world view, how can you even say pain is bad? Just cause you don't like it, whose to say that it is a negative thing. In a naturalistic world view, pain is completely neutral. You cannot do so unless you invoke a moral doctrine of some kind or unless you choose to assert it in the face of contradicting logic.
Tsheej your question to me is this, "how can I say suffering is bad?" If you have experienced as much suffering as some people do around the globe every single hour of every single day most of their lives, you wouldn't be asking the question.
My question to you is this, "how can you say your God is good?" Read through the link in an earlier comment I made to akakiwibear. I'm not prone to copy and paste it here. Two can play this game, for that's what you're making it.
Dear John,
It saddens me that you think I'm playing games. Millions of people have died because of the crass nihilism of naturalism. I will happily talk about the goodness of God but first you must concede my point, for if you do not understand your own world view, you will never understand others. My point is that the atheist does not even have the right to talk about good and evil. In order to talk about the problem of evil, you can only do so with God in the picture.
Dear John,
I just realized I missed part of your response and so I wish to clarify. We both agree on the reality of evil and suffering. That is what I call experiential relevance. Its a no brainer.
What I am saying is that philosophically there is no rational way for the atheist to admit the reality of evil and suffering. For an atheist to be rational (philosophically consistent), he will have to deny the clearly apparent existence of evil and suffering in the world OR he will have to take an irrational leap and assert the existence of evil and suffering with out any logical justification within the atheistic world view.
For the atheist there are only two logical positions. The first is the one that Dawkins, Sartre, Camus, and many others have taken...that there is no such thing as evil and suffering OR cease to be an atheist and bring a "moral law giver" into the equation. God is an intellectual necessity, not an option from which people can choose. You can only address the problem of evil within the framework of the existence of God. Only there can it be raised and only there can it be resolved.
I hope I have clarified my position for you.
tsheej- when I pointed out that the Bible says nothing about free speech and freedom of religion (or does it?), and said that you thus had no objective moral standard to justify defending them, you replied:
I do, it is anchored in who God is as a person. For the Christian, all of creation necessarily reflects the creator. God is the definer of life and morality.
How is this an "objective standard? It's just what you imagine God wants, and seems pretty arbitrary to me. Just because most Christians nowadays support free speech and freedom of religion says nothing about the source of their ethics: most atheists do as well. This was not always the case: in the Middle Ages, you would have been hard pressed to find a Christian who believed in freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Culture has moved on in many parts of the world, however, even if religion hasn't.
About that Dawkins quote: I repeat, he was saying that good and evil don't exist as part of the universe. And I ask you again: have you read anything by Dawkins other than isolated quotes? If you had, you would not claim that Dawkins is in despair, or that he does not believe in good and evil.
tsheej, here is where my naturalistic self must differ with your logic:
You cannot assert evil logically without asserting good.
Okay so far, again supposing that "evil" does not mean "sinful" but just "bad".
You cannot assert good and evil without asserting a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil.
Sure I can. Good and bad were not present ab initio, but evolved as means to survival with living things. At first they were not conscious: for a flower, we can see that sunlight and water are good, being eaten is bad, although the plant has no concept of good and bad. Further along, you get animals who think and react to what we would call good and bad: my guinea pigs come running when I call them, because they know they will get something good to eat. They run away if I try to pick them up too quickly, because they are afraid something bad will happen to them.
Humans have extended these animal notions of good and bad into amazingly complex structures in the ideosphere: governments, moral stories, religions, fads, fashions... Our ideas of good and bad have evolved in many directions: some of them more or less capriciously (such as how long men's hair should be) and some of them in ways that help structure human societies: laws and ethics.
But the whole structure of good and bad still rests on the ground of our evolved nature. This is not to say that we take our morals directly from our genes: that doesn't work, if we want to live peaceably in large, complex societies. And that's the problem we all face, atheist and believer alike: finding morals that work is a balancing act, an art work. There are no easy answers- or as Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." No matter what system of morals you follow, there will be hard choices to make.
You cannot assert a moral law without asserting a moral law giver.
Depends. As I said, good and bad evolved with life. Human ideas of good and bad are based in our genes, but greatly complicated, modified, or suppressed by our reason and cultural heritage. Some of the development of moral laws is certainly unconscious, but of course much of it has been conscious as well. Each of us has his or her own reasoned outlook on morals, and some of us try to spread our morals further: politicians, priests, philosophers, and even bloggers are all moral law givers. So I would agree that there are moral law givers, but not one single law giver.
The holocaust, the gulags, and the cultural revolutions of china have shown the logical outworking of atheism.
I could just as well say that the Holocaust was the logical outworking of Christianity. Better, in fact, because whatever strange mixture of Christianity, Norse mythology, and just plain megalomania Hitler subscribed to, the vast majority of his followers were Christians. Not only that, but Hitler idolized Martin Luther, and got a great deal of his anti-Semitism from him:
"Luther war ein großer Mann, ein Riese. Mit einem Ruck durchbrach er die Dämmerung, sah den Juden, wie wir ihn erst heute zu sehen beginnen."
"Luther was a great man, a giant. With one blow he broke through the twilight and saw the Jew, as we are only today beginning to see him."
-from a speech in 1923, my translation.
And about the gulags and the cultural revolution: tyranny is tyranny, and there's no reason to believe that tyranny by atheists is any better or worse than tyranny by believers. If the Crusaders had lived in the twentieth century, they would probably have given Hitler and Stalin a run for their money in numbers of killings. But this is idle speculation.
I am troubled that you have not addressed Viktor Frankl's words because they encapsulate the essence of what I am saying.
What should I say? I disagree with him. As I pointed out, Hitler was inspired by Martin Luther (among others, to be sure), and most of his followers were Christians. And please don't tell me the Nazis weren't "real" Christians, for that is just begging the question. You might as well say baldly that Christians are Christians when behaving nicely, and when they behave badly, they're atheists. I have known some Nazis here in Austria, and they all considered themselves good Catholics.
experiential relevance is the fact that you want to condemn evil. It shows that despite your philosophical beliefs you intuitively know there is evil in the world. Naturalism simply cannot explain heinous evil anymore than it can explain acts of great nobility--like the parents in a ferry accident who held their wheelchair bound, mentally challenged child up out of the water, saving her life at the expense of both of theirs. That is what I mean by experiential relevance.
Thanks for the explanation, but I'm still not sure what you mean by "experiential relevance", unless it simply means something like "conforming to the evidence". And I don't "intuitively" know there is evil in the world: I know there is evil in the world because I can see it. The existence of evil does not conflict with my philosophical beliefs. And while I would not claim that naturalism, in its guise as science, can explain acts of good and evil completely, it can certainly give us some insight into them. Not to detract from the nobility of the parents saving their handicapped daughter, but parents sacrificing their lives for their children is rather common among animals: passing on the genes is what counts in evolution, and behavior that aids our genes to go on will tend to be selected for. But as I said, that doesn't make it any less noble, especially in modern society, where many of our instincts are overridden by our culturally evolved morals.
By the way, please don't joke with me about terminology. You just used the word "subjective" in referring to my comments. It surely doesn't take a genius to figure out what I mean when I use the word "subjective." I'm pretty sure you and I have close enough definitions of the same word.
I trust you will know when I'm joking, and when I'm not. You are right: I was careless. I should have said "your opinion" rather than "subjective", because I find that philosophical discussions, especially ones about morals, often founder on the definitions of "subjective" and "objective". If you want to continue this discussion, then please tell me what you mean by "subjective" and "objective", because I find that taking their meanings for granted leads to problems. I believe that drawing a hard and fast line between "subjective" and "objective" when describing real-world phenomena is misleading. Here's a response I posted to a Christian at another blog who insisted that there was an absolute difference between subjective and objective:
"Suppose I drop a hammer on my toe. This has happened once or twice, and it's not something I would want to repeat again. Luckily, I haven't dropped my 10 kg sledgehammer on my toe so far. Following your definition, the fact that I dropped the hammer is objective, but my thinking, shortly after my toe was squashed, that it was probably a bad idea to hammer with wet hands, is subjective. True? If so, where exactly does objective become subjective?
The hammer hits my toe. Nerve impulses carry the bad news to the spinal chord, which initiates a withdrawal reflex of my foot even before I'm consciously aware of it. When the impulses reach my brain, they trigger a sense of pain, and I might shout a bad word, still before I'm fully conscious of what has happened. Eventually I figure out what I've done, and think about how stupid I am, or how I have to put more value on being careful in the future.
Now, all of these things I described are physical events: hammers accellerating at 32 feet per second per second, insulted nerves, electro-chemical impulses, discharging synapses. Can you really tell me that there is somewhere here that you can draw a meaningful line between "objective" and "subjective"?"
tsheej- if you come to Vienna, there's all sorts of other things to drink besides alcohol. Coffee and milk are very good here.
cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch
About that Dawkins quote: I repeat, he was saying that good and evil don't exist as part of the universe. And I ask you again: have you read anything by Dawkins other than isolated quotes?
my response:
No, I have not read his books but I have heard him speak and I know he asserts the existence of evil as you do. But like you he has no philosophical basis for his assertion that evil exists. There is nothing in naturalism that can justify that assertion and he says it himself.
Okay so far, again supposing that "evil" does not mean "sinful" but just "bad".
my response:
Sure, I have no interest, for the purpose of this argument, to argue about what is evil and what is not. We're both agreed that evil exists.
Sure I can. Good and bad were not present ab initio, but evolved as means to survival with living things. At first they were not conscious: for a flower, we can see that sunlight and water are good, being eaten is bad, although the plant has no concept of good and bad. Further along, you get animals who think and react to what we would call good and bad: my guinea pigs come running when I call them, because they know they will get something good to eat. They run away if I try to pick them up too quickly, because they are afraid something bad will happen to them.
my response: First you tell me that dawkins is referring to the universe and not to man when he is talking about the meaninglessness and arbitrariness of the universe and then you turn around and use nature as your source of good and evil. Again, you are making completely arbitrary assertions that do not jive with the reality of your philosophical position.
I could just as well say that the Holocaust was the logical outworking of Christianity. Better, in fact, because whatever strange mixture of Christianity, Norse mythology, and just plain megalomania Hitler subscribed to, the vast majority of his followers were Christians.
my response:
Prior to our invasion of Iraq Saddam Hussein called his country a democracy but we would hardly characterize it that way. Changing labels on an empty bottle doesn't remove the fact that the bottle is empty. What happened in Nazi Germany was not in keeping with Christ's teaching, it ran against the grain of Christ's teaching. You and others on this website have repeatedly asserted your distaste for Christianity on the basis of people's behavior, rather than on what Christianity teaches. And you make these assertions from a philosophical position that will not even allow for the existence of evil.
Atrocities throughout history committed by Christians were in violation of Christ's teaching, not in support of it. I can certainly assert that they were not Christians who were following Hitler. As for Martin Luther, his antisemitism was in violation of the teaching of Christ, not in keeping with it. The church you describe as supporting Hitler set aside the bible when they went over to the Nazis. The Nazis required it. Its about time you started being intellectually honest here and stopped calling things what they are rather than what they are not. On the gas chambers at Auschwitz is a quotation of Hitler that reads:
"I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel."
Conscience is a purely theistic concept.
I highly recommend you watch Sophie Scholls: The Final Days. You may have since it was extremely popular in Germany. My understanding is that the producer is an atheist but scripted it that way because of the trial documents it is based on.
tyranny is tyranny, and there's no reason to believe that tyranny by atheists is any better or worse than tyranny by believers.
my response:
I completely agree with you. My point is not that there is one kind of tyranny that is worse than another. My point is that the logical outworking of your belief system will inevitably lead to tyranny.
I know there is evil in the world because I can see it.
my response:
of course, and if your like most human beings, you've experienced it personally as well. That is the nature of the world we live in.
please tell me what you mean by "subjective" and "objective
my response:
objective is when the proposition is certainly true in itself, and subjective is when we are certain of the truth of it.
And when I am using those words in this conversation it is that you subjectively know the reality of evil but you have no objective basis for that subjective knowledge.
I see that you want to root it in the fact that you feel pain, that you have nerve impulses that tell you what's bad. But in a world of blind random chance, how do we know that pain is bad and pleasure is good. What if pleasure is bad and pain is good, or maybe they work together equally--that seems to be what the Marquis de Sade concluded. Your assertion is based purely on your feeling, it is completely subjective and has no anchor in objective reality.
How is this an "objective standard? It's just what you imagine God wants, and seems pretty arbitrary to me. Just because most Christians nowadays support free speech and freedom of religion says nothing about the source of their ethics: most atheists do as well. This was not always the case: in the Middle Ages, you would have been hard pressed to find a Christian who believed in freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Culture has moved on in many parts of the world, however, even if religion hasn't.
my response:
You are right in so far as I need to provide justification for my position on the basis of God's revelation. The existence of God in itself does not necessitate that he is good. People believe in all kinds of gods that keep them bound in various forms of bondage. The problem is that the skeptic plays an unfair game; at least skeptics such as you who claim to be logical yet are unwilling to face the logical conclusions of your own beliefs. And so you assert that my original answer in which I anchored my response in the book of Genesis was completely subjective on some objective basis that you refuse to reveal. Essentially, you must acknowledge the ramifications of your own belief system like your intellectually honest predecessors. The problem is you cannot do that because once you do, you have to deny the existence of evil and your whole argument dissolves. The other alternative is your irrational assertion that evil exists but then you lose your footing in claiming that you are more rational than the theist. The only way you can criticize the concept of God is from within the God framework. This is why as G.K. Chesterton put it, "the skeptic is practically useless for all purposes of revolt, by rebelling against everything, he has lost his right to rebel against anything."
BTW, do they have fruit smoothies or great hiking trails, I must be real difficult, I actually don't drink milk or coffee.
Tsheej:
Let's try and move this on. As long as the question gets stuck on the question of 'was there a Creator who produced
a. the Universe
b. the scientific rules that govern the Universe or
c. the ethical rules inherent in that Universe
the discussion will be bogged down on "I think so" vs "I don't think so."
So, even though I am of the "I don't think so" group, I'm going to concede -- for the moment -- that yes, these ethical laws may require a Creator.
Now prove to me that the God you choose to believe in is that Creator.
Can you demonstrate that the laws of the Old Testament lay down a moral structure both necessary and sufficient for man's existence?
Can you show me the New Testament doing the same?
If your argument is based on a mystical/personal experience of the presence of God, show me that what you experience is the same as the Christian God, when other religions claim the same for their God.
If your argument is based on a philosophical reasoning starting from 'the Creator must have certain characteristics' demonstrate two things
a)that such philosophical arguments -- which were originally constructed for a cosmology of one planet and a bunch of lights in the skies that had existed for a couple of thousand years -- are still valid for a Universe of a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, which has existed for billions of years, and which would continue for the billions more even if the Earth were destroyed to make way for an interstellar highway.
b)then demonstrate the God that these arguments make necessary is the same as your Christian God.
In short, and to repeat, if I grant you "goddunit" it's up to you to take it to 'mygoddunit.'
Bill, Gordon, want to answer this as well?
Let's also try and end the permanent badminton game with Hitler as the birdie and the atheists and theists trying to land him in the others' court.
In the first place, there was an old comment about either the Greek or Roman gods -- it probably was used for both at some time:
"To the people they were all equally true, to the philosophers they were all equally false, to the rulers they were all equally useful."
I thin that the best definition of Hitler was that he was 'secular,' that he simply neither thought about nor cared if religion was true. He'd use religious imagery, non-religious imagery, would conclude a concordat with the Vatican, say things that would get the Protestants viewing him with favor, and also encourage Rosenberg's neo-pagan religion, all because each of these would help him. (I would say the same about Stalin, who, when it was desireable -- during the War -- would encourage the Orthodox Church, but who would also encourage Marxian atheism. In fact, I would argue that Stalin's Marxism was equally 'useful' rather than something he, in fact, believed in. Marxism is wrong, yes, but Stalinism was not in any way Marxism.)
I would suggest -- and will defend later -- that the appropriate 'sides' in the badmonton game are the 'rational/scientific/evidence-based' side and the 'mystical/authoritarian' side.
And in THAT game, Hitler and Stalin (and probably Mao, though I know less of his actual position) wind up at the feet of the mystics on every volley.
b)then demonstrate the God that these arguments make necessary is the same as your Christian God.
In short, and to repeat, if I grant you "goddunit" it's up to you to take it to 'mygoddunit.'
Dear Jim,
Your absolutely right as far as I have to show why the Christian God in particular.
I want to make sure before I proceed you understand what you are conceding.
A.) You are conceding that the atheist position is irrational unless it denies the existence of evil. At which point, if it does deny it, it has no question to ask of the theist in regards to the problem of evil.
B.) You are conceding that the problem of evil makes theism an intellectual necessity.
C.) You are conceding that the problem of evil can only be resolved within the framework of theism.
D.) You are also conceding that science is very limited in scope and is not the "end all" of knowledge.
E.) You are conceding that there are levels of knowledge and rational experience that fall outside the scope of science.
As for the Hitler, Stalin, Mao part, I must apologize. I made a grave error in my communication.
Those three people can hardly be held responsible for what they did in and of themselves. They could not have done it if an entire society was not ripe for it. And Frankl's point is that naturalism so pervaded society's thought process that the holocaust didn't happen as a result of Hitler's whims in power, but because the majority of society had been taught to think in a naturalistic worldview and were thereby in support of Hitler's actions and made it possible.
Tsheej:
I am conceding NONE of the above. The most I am conceding, and that just for the sake of the argument, is the existence of a Deistic god who has never interacted with the Universe, but who 'wrote certain rules into the game.'
My argument is only that, if such rules exist independent of humans, that humans have 'discovered' them, on their own, entirely without any interaction from the supposed Creator, entirely absent of any 'revelation.' I am also contending that the human-authored supposed revelations of various religions, in which human beings, to give their authority weight, have claimed their ideas were from a god, have, in every case, presented man with abominable ethical systems.
I have, elsewhere in the many threads here, argued that humanity, in its continuously evolving moral understanding -- or, in the hypothetical above, in their continual discovery of the ethical rules the Deist Creator wrote into the programming of the game -- have far surpassed the primitive and occasionally abominable morality of the Testaments (or the Qur'an, or the Avesta) and that believers, swept along in the moral discoveries or development of humanity have, in fact, back-written the new moral discoveries into their 'sacred books.'
Rather than make 'theism' a necessity, the problem of evil disproves all theisms currently existing. Either it proves Deism, or it proves that morality is inherent in our social structure, in our communication and cooperation, in our own, non God-directed discoveries about ourselves. (And the latter is far more provable in that our moral development has proceeded so rapidly and exponentially so that the last century -- despite the last gasps of authoritarian mysticism like Nazism and Communism -- has involved more moral progress than all the preceeding ones combined.
I am contending that the scientific METHOD is the only means of understaning the Universe that has, in fact, worked. (To quote the wonderful Greta Christina: "The number of times a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a scientific one, thousands. The number of times a scientific one has been replaced by a supernatural one, ZERO!
As for the other concessions you think I've made, you are as deluded in them as you are deluded in your view of science. I have not and do not make them, and, as I repeat, the most concession I make is to the possibility of a deism -- a deism which is operationally indistinguishable from a self-existent non-Created universe.
It is not a delusion, it is completely rational that as an atheist, you cannot anchor your assertion that good and evil exists on any objective grounds, and until you can you have lost the argument. I have worked in circles with you guys for a long time and I am tired of the tediousness of your blindness. My argument is thoroughly rational and logical and you guys have repeatedly not provided an objective rational reason for the existence of evil in an atheistic framework. Until you do, or until you concede my point, i really have nothing more to say on the matter
As for your comments on Hitler and Stalin, you have everything 180 degrees wrong, as seems to be a habit of yours. It was, in fact, the religious background of the two societies that made both of their reigns possible -- and the idea that they can in any way not be held responsible is disgustingly false.
It Hitler's case. he was aided not merely by the mystical influence of the various predecessors, Wagner, Nietzsche, Father Jahn, but by the structure of the German language, perhaps the best suited for the expression of pompous, high-sounding emptiness. "The Leader, being the embodiment of the 'soul' of the Germanic people, is always right, and must be followed without question." (And how did Germans know that he was this embodiment? He told them he was, in the same way they knew the Bible was the Word of God, because it said it was.)
For Stalin, he rode on the Caesaropapism and Divine Right Monarchy of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, in precisely the way the Tsars did. "The Leader can do no wrong because he is chosen by God, and if we are suffering, it is merely because of his evil subordinates. Once the Leader discovers what is being done in his name, he will correct it." (And like most religiously-based expectations, this too was empty.)
Tsheej:
Did it ever enter your mind that the reason we keep telling you you're wrong is because you ARE wrong. It is possible that you could consider that the reason we deny that "as an atheist, you cannot anchor your assertion that good and evil exists on any objective grounds," is because we can?
However, you have convinced yourself. I suppose that's all you were trying to do in the first place.
ok, Jim, on what objective grounds d o you anchor morality as an atheist? I am curious because I have been asking this question throughout our dialogue and no one as yet has been able to anchor it. What new revelation are you going to bring to the fore that gives you that ability? Stop asserting and simply provide this evidence.
prup- I usually agree with you one hundred percent, but I am going to have to take exception to one remark you made here:
It Hitler's case. he was aided not merely by the mystical influence of the various predecessors, Wagner, Nietzsche, Father Jahn, but by the structure of the German language, perhaps the best suited for the expression of pompous, high-sounding emptiness.
Now, I will be the first one to admit that the German language is pretty annoying in lots of ways. For instance, if one wants to write in a dense, recursive style, which is de rigeur in some philosophical circles, I daresay German is a better vehicle than English for impenetrable prose. But as someone who speaks German and English fluently, I assert that one can be just as pompous and empty in English as in German.
Perhaps German seems high-sounding and pompous to English speakers because it is recognizably related to English, but sounds archaic. This is of course true in a way: the German language has not changed as much as English has since both evolved from Proto-Indoeuropean roots, for various reasons, and thus, in some ways, resembles English at an earlier stage of its development. This might well make modern German sound, to modern speakers of English, old-fashioned and thus (perhaps) pompous.
But for people immersed in the language, there's really no difference: one can express all kinds of sentiments just about equally well in both English and German, and probably in any other human language.
tsheej- you say:
First you tell me that dawkins is referring to the universe and not to man when he is talking about the meaninglessness and arbitrariness of the universe and then you turn around and use nature as your source of good and evil. Again, you are making completely arbitrary assertions that do not jive with the reality of your philosophical position.
You are obviously not reading carefully: I said, clearly enough I think, as did Dawkins, that the universe as a whole is not good or bad. I then said that good and bad evolved. In the beginning, there was no good or bad. As life evolved, good and bad evolved with life. What doesn't jive here?
I suspect the reason we're talking in circles is this: you seem to believe that if good and bad exist, they must have some sort of "objective" existence apart from existing in the worldly beings that hold them. Of course, if you believe in God, this makes sense, but it doesn't hold for me. This would account for why you don't seem to grasp the difference between the Universe being good or bad, and people being good or bad. Your definition of "subjective and objective" corroborates this:
objective is when the proposition is certainly true in itself, and subjective is when we are certain of the truth of it.
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. This is the crux of our disagreement, and the source of your conviction that atheists have no ground for their morals. As I said, in real life and in the absense of God, there's no hard and fast line between "subjective" and "objective"- they are only degrees along a continuum, as I illustrated with my hammer story. A proposition can only be "certainly true in itself" in systems of formal logic, such as mathematics. And while it can be useful to say that moral laws are "more subjective" or "more objective", along various scales such as conformity with our genetic heritage, or consensus, or common traditions, it is a mistake to say that there are absolutely "objective" morals.
Of course, this is all assuming that there's no God, as I do. But even if there is a God, I don't understand how there can be absolutely objective morals in any sense meaningful to us. As I asked you before, tsheej, and you still haven't answered: is "thou shalt not kill" an objective moral law? If so, what exactly does it mean, and how exactly should it be enforced? I submit that the only thing "objective", that is, "certainly true in itself", that can be said about this commandment, are trivial statements such as the number of words and letters it possesses (assuming even that can be said, lacking the original texts).
The disagreements among believers about what this commandment, and others, "really" mean, renders the idea of "objective moral laws" nonsense, in my humble opinion. Sure, you could claim that "thou shalt not kill" is objective in God's mind, but the fact that it must be interpreted and implemented subjectively renders it no more objective in human practice (following your definitions of "objective" and "subjective") than my ideals of living, loving, and learning. That is, unless you can prove that you have a hotline to God and understand his moral laws perfectly. Of course many believers do claim to have this knowledge, and that is the source of a great deal of human misery. But no one is logically bound to believe that you or anyone else has such inside information.
Thus, atheist and believer are on equal footing with morals, at least as far as their "objectivity" is concerned.
So here we are. I'm an atheist, I'm happy with my morals, they are not logically inconsistent, and I am not despairing. Tsheej, you have not demonstrated that my moral stance is illogical, merely asserted so repeatedly; you have not demonstrated how you can "objectively" ground your support for free speech and freedom of religion; and you have not demonstrated how the logical outworking of atheism is tyranny.
All you have done is quoted Christians who decried atheism, and atheists who despaired. That is not enough to prove your point. Unless you can come up with a demonstration that either God exists, or that good and bad exist outside of evolved living things, there's nothing more to talk about.
Of course, my invitation still stands. They do have good smoothies here in Vienna, and there are some nice hiking trails in the Vienna Woods: rather tame, but close by. A litte further outside the city there's lots of good hiking, in the Alps. They are very much like the Sierra Nevada: sharp, young mountains, mostly granite. But the south of Austria is also very beautiful: my wife and I hiked from the Krimml Waterfalls (the largest in Europe) into Italy last summer, and it was incredible.
cheers from cold and clear Vienna, zilch
I should really leave this alone, but I can't pass this up. tsheej, you say:
I see that you want to root it [good and bad] in the fact that you feel pain, that you have nerve impulses that tell you what's bad. But in a world of blind random chance, how do we know that pain is bad and pleasure is good. What if pleasure is bad and pain is good, or maybe they work together equally--that seems to be what the Marquis de Sade concluded. Your assertion is based purely on your feeling, it is completely subjective and has no anchor in objective reality.
How do we know that pain is bad? "Bad", as I said, is an evolved concept, not something existing in the ether somehow. Pain is our evolved response to damage, and it means "avoid!". The concept of "bad" had its start in pain, and has since evolved to be much more complex; but to ask if pain is bad and pleasure good presumes that good and bad are absolutes, which I deny. Good and bad are concepts that evolved from pain and pleasure. They are not independent concepts, so to ask whether pain might be good is meaningless, unless you define what you mean by "good". And by the way- since you mention de Sade, I imagine Torquemada might agree with him about pain being good, but in a rather different sense.
On the gas chambers at Auschwitz is a quotation of Hitler that reads:
"I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel."
This piqued my curiosity, since I can't imagine even Hitler being so transparent. He was more wont to say stirring patriotic things like "In der Hingabe des eigenen Lebens für die Gemeinschaft liegt die Krönung allen Opfersinns", that is, "In the laying down of one's life for the community is the crowning of all self-sacrifice". A friend of mine made a documentary about Auschwitz- I'll ask him if he saw any such quotation. The only source I was able to find in the internet was in Ravi Zacharias' address to the UN. Do you have another source? I tried translating it into German and came up with nothing.
Dear Prup,
I missed your response to me RE: The Law. Forgive me. I am not trying to ignore you.
Because Jesus gives a NEW commandment, we can see that He is not then basing his morality on the "Second Great Commandment."
That the Law will not pass away means only that: it will not pass away. It is an enduring, unforgiving and relentless force; there is no way for us -- once fallen -- to ever fulfill the unappeasable Law. Christ -- or so it is told -- is the Law Fulfilled; as Fulfilled, the Law Incarnate is rejected by humanity: the Law is subjected to our capital punishment and is crucified. (The paradox is noted.)
And yet, it endures. There remains no freedom for those who seek to attain perfection through the Law since they've already broken it. The Law continues, hauntingly, reminding us always that we can never say, "I have not broken a single rule." It is a most interesting existential fact: even if there is no God, no one can say they've not broken the moral law. Once a person has broken any law, that person cannot boast. Once a person has broken any law, that person can never fix the resultant damage.
I have never known a person who has boasted that they've never broken even their own personal moral code. I know people who "believe in themselves," defining morality for themselves. And everyone of them has sinned against their own rules. How do they atone for that; how do they justify that, how do they fix that?
When Raskolnikov stands over two bludgeoned and dead bodies in a Russian apartment in Crime and Punishment, he is brutally made aware of one fact: He can NEVER say he has not murdered someone.
You see, the law endures forever.
(And yet, Christianity says there is another way, another law, so to speak: the New Covenant.)
Peace.
Bill Gnade
A lot of comments including some directed my way. Zilch, possibly I could defend my comment about the German language, but even if I could, it would take more time than it is worth. (And possibly my defense would fail, of course.) I'll withdraw it.
Bill, I am not ignoring you. Your comment deserves being looked at in some detail. I hope to return to it, but Tsheej's comment demands first priority and will take considerable time. (And, of course, other comments on this and other threads will almost certainly get me involved.) If I haven't replied in a couple of days, please remind me and demand a response, because I really want to go into this with you.
But first I need to start my response to Tsheej.
How do we know that pain is bad? "Bad", as I said, is an evolved concept, not something existing in the ether somehow. Pain is our evolved response to damage, and it means "avoid!". The concept of "bad" had its start in pain, and has since evolved to be much more complex; but to ask if pain is bad and pleasure good presumes that good and bad are absolutes, which I deny. Good and bad are concepts that evolved from pain and pleasure. They are not independent concepts, so to ask whether pain might be good is meaningless, unless you define what you mean by "good". And by the way- since you mention de Sade, I imagine Torquemada might agree with him about pain being good, but in a rather different sense.
my response:
This is precisely my point. If there is no objective good and bad, you have no basis on which to asser t something as good or bad. Your concept of bad could be someone else concept of good. (Who is Torquemada?) Furthermore, as far as pain goes, if a child sticks his hand on the stove, he feels pain. That could be bad but it also could be good because it prevented him from burning his hand worse. Again, you have not rooted good and evil in anything objective and as such you have no way to condemn one kind of good or evil over against another kind.
A friend of mine made a documentary about Auschwitz- I'll ask him if he saw any such quotation. The only source I was able to find in the internet was in Ravi Zacharias' address to the UN. Do you have another source?
I don't have another source. I too would like to know if it is accurate. I figure all you have to do is look on the gas ovens. I have noticed that Ravi sometimes attributes his quotations to the wrong people. For example he attributed a particular quote to Dostoevsky that actually came from Oscar Wilde. He doesn't do it on purpose but sometimes he forgets where he got something from.
Tsheej:
Obviously, since truth is observed or discovered, not revealed, I do not have a 'new revelation.' (Of course, in the past, particularly in traditionalist societies that questioned innovation, writers who were good observers hid their observations by claiming they were 'revelations,' but this is no longer necessary.)
And, again of course, since my position is that morality and ethics are continually evolving, I have no idea exactly what path they will take. I can assume, with reasonable certainty that, just as the movement from the supernatural to the scientific does not reverse itself, it is unlikely they will double back, but which way they will move forward, which new ideas will be formulated ten, a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand years from now remains to be discovered. (Certainly seventy years ago no one had an idea of how things would evolve or what we would now view as immoral that they accepted.)
Two more preliminaries before I attempt to answer you. Morality is not a black-white thing, but involves constant balancing, even if certain principles are, I'd argue, consistent. And many subjects -- including some which the religious make into moral dilemmas -- in fact have no moral factor, or if they do, and simply under the same moral compulsions that -- I would argue -- should be involved in all our choices. (On the other hand, I might argue that some things that the religious don't discuss from a moral point of view do have a strong ethical component. Thus I would argue that refusing to take part in politics -- at least at the level of voting, more deeply where possible -- is an immoral action.)
Okay, let's get to the main questions. (None of these answers are simple, they all interreact, and I can only begin to do them justice here, but I can at least get started. *offstage voice "So do it! Get started awready"*)
One anchor is the observable fact that man exists as an individual, within society. (In fact, within a large number of nested socities, from family up through tribe, neighborhood, 'activity group' -- DC, a bowling team, or a party is also a society -- city, state, and the overall society of all humanity.) It is the balancing and interrelation of the various requirements of that individuality and the various societies that determines morality.
And it is not a simple either-or decision. An action can benefit (or harm) the individual AND the society or societies at the same time. I've used the example of discovering a cure for cancer. A person can do this from a combination of motives, because he wants the society to benefit from it, and because he wants the wealth, fame, status, and Nobel Prize from the discovery. Even if his motives are almost entirely the 'selfish ones,' this does not lessen the benefits society receives from his actions.
The same could be said about creating a work of art. Or -- for the 'bowling team' society -- rolling a 300 game. All of these benefit both the individual and society.
The important thing is that it is not possible to speak meaningfully of the individual outside of society, because such an individual doesn't exist. (I am excluding the rare example of a truly feral human, if such do exist.)
The key to this is the human ability to 'time-bind' to communicate across time, to affect the future and to be affected by the past. A human who has a language is, by that fact, part of the society that develope such a language, and is affected by the people, frequently long dead, who developed the language.
All of this is why I insist that morality is located at the intersection between individuals, or at the intersection between the individual and a society he is part of.
Again, it is a balancing act. I would reject both the objectivists over-emphasis on 'selfishness as a virtue' and the various communalists, including many religions, who would over-emphasize self-abnegation and unselfishness. (One condemnation I have of religion in practise is when it describes pride as 'sinful' rather than virtuous.)
Ethics requires balancing of the needs, but it also requires not seeing conflicts where none exists. The ideal ethical act benefits both the actor and the society (or societies) it affects.
The person who cures cancer should appreciate both the rewards that brings to society and to himself. The writer should take pride both in his skill and the entertainment or information or new perspective he brings to the reader. The person who hits a grand slam should celebrate both the advantages he receives and the team's victory.
In fact, the ideal sex act brings pleasure to both (or all) participants, and the person involved should enjoy both his pleasure and his partners.
This is already long, and I'm just getting started -- and some of the ideas I've put forth might seem to have little to do with 'morality' -- yet.
I'm going to close this post with the mention of those 'certain principles that are consistent' that I mentioned way earlier. Then, in the next post I'll ground them in humanity's evolution and in the ethics of the scientific method and discuss them in *sigh* even more depth. (That next post may be later today, or tomorrow morning at the latest.)
The four principles are
a) 'respect for each individual as a member of a society, or as a fellow human being' (which sounds weak, but I consider murder and theft, for example, as immoral because they are extreme examples of failure to respect the individual)
b) freedom of communication -- which includes freedom of thought but mostly includes honesty -- since dishonesty disturbs that freedom of communication
c) responsibility -- which includes both 'acting responsibly' and 'taking responsibility for one's actions'
d) the principle that -- while coercion may be necessary for the protection of society -- convincing is better than coercion -- which includes education and practicing democracy.
Okay, Tsheej, if you can work your way through the jungle ofd my prose -- someday I'll rewrite this to make it clearer, now I'm just getting my ideas down -- you have an idea of where I am starting from.
prup- you needn't withdraw your claim about German, since there are no "objective" measures of pomposity (as far as I know). I just wanted to give you a viewpoint from within the language, so to speak. Plenty of Germans are pompous- at least, that's what the Austrians say...
tsheej- I'll ask Xandl about the ovens. I'd be curious to see Auschwitz myself, but since it's way the heck and gone in Poland somewhere, I don't know when I'll ever get there.
You say:
This is precisely my point. If there is no objective good and bad, you have no basis on which to assert something as good or bad. Your concept of bad could be someone else concept of good.
True enough, but as I said, there's enough overlap in what most people consider good to build societies, even if agreement is not, and never can be, perfect.
(Who is Torquemada?)
Tomás de Torquemada was the first Inquisitor General of Spain, a "good" Catholic, and an enthusiastic torturer of witches and Jews.
Furthermore, as far as pain goes, if a child sticks his hand on the stove, he feels pain. That could be bad but it also could be good because it prevented him from burning his hand worse.
Again, true enough. But this is a very general problem in defining what is "good" and what is "bad", and it is insoluble. Was it good that the reactor melted down at Three Mile Island? Well, it irradiated a lot of people and almost certainly caused sickness and death; but it also raised consciousness about the dangers of nuclear power, and resulted in more stringent safety standards, which may well have saved many lives. Was it good that the Americans nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Same problem- many died horribly, but it ended the war with Japan, which might easily have gone on to cost many more lives than were lost in the bombing; and the horror might also have restrained the US and the USSR from ever dropping the bomb on each other in the sixty years since then. Who can say what is "bad" or "good"? For whom? In the long run? For building character? Prup goes into some more detail in his comment above this one about the difficulties of establishing what "good" and "bad" are.
Again, you have not rooted good and evil in anything objective and as such you have no way to condemn one kind of good or evil over against another kind.
And nor have you. Or can you tell me, objectively, whether a child burning its hand is good or bad? No matter what code of ethics you follow, no matter what God you believe in or not, there is no "objective" moral law that will tell you absolutely what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. Why not? Because there is no absolute good and bad.
Luckily, we can get along pretty well without absolute right and wrong. You can defend free speech even though the Bible says nothing about it, and I can do volunteer work for handicapped people, even though they're just collections of atoms. No absolutes, but enough overlap.
We often get into trouble when we put things into words. Sometimes it's worthwhile to realize that the word is not the thing, and that we are quite capable of living without words (not that I'd want to for any length of time!). This discussion is a good example.
There was pain, and pleasure, and social behavior, long before there were any words to describe them. Chimps exhibit what can only be called moral behavior: they groom one another, remember those that help them and those that cheat, and in at least one experiment I read about, a chimp would hand an object to a man who was obviously trying to reach it but couldn't. Chimps have no problems (as far as I know) with logical inconsistency; they just do as they do.
We humans do as we do as well, but we also like to name things, catagorize them, and toss the names, catagories, and relationships around in big word stews. This is very useful behavior for us, as it enables us to build models of the world that give us our science, and power to generalize. But we should not forget that things do not always behave in the real world as the words describing them behave in our heads.
Good and bad are especially tricky words, with many meanings, and strong passions involved with them. I too have my ideas about what is good and what is bad, but in the end, they are just practical guidelines for which I claim no absolutes. Like Raymond Smullyan, if pressed to be logically consistent, I would say I have no morals. But I still behave pretty nicely, I hope.
bill- not that I want to overly complicate things, but I must respond to this:
It is a most interesting existential fact: even if there is no God, no one can say they've not broken the moral law.
Only in the trivial way that someone, somewhere, has probably made up some moral law that I have broken. But I can most certainly say that I have not broken "the" moral law, since there is no such beast.
cheers from starry Vienna, zilch
Dear Prup,
Greetings and salutations!
I may be misunderstanding you in this thread with tsheej re: morality and its bases. And I may be misunderstanding tsheej. Oiks!
Would you agree that some things that were once moral are now considered immoral? And would you agree that the new and old morality both evolved within the context of society?
I think you would, but I am not sure.
I wonder if you would agree with the following:
Prosecution of homosexuals was once considered moral. It no longer is. Modern society has evolved beyond that: moderns accept homosexuals. So, what was once moral is now deemed immoral. But -- since societies evolve, it is possible that prosecution of homosexuals will someday in the future be considered moral.
Do you think this at all accurate with what you are saying here: Societies evolve over time and with them so does morality?
Peace.
Bill Gnade
Thanks Zilch, I would like to here the results. I have always wanted to visit Auschwitz...maybe enroute on a Vienna tour or something.
As far as I can tell you practically agree with me without really understanding what I am trying to say. You agree that there is no way to anchor a logical basis for good and evil from an atheist perspective.
My point is that that anchoring is essential and if a worldview cannot anchor it, not only does it have nothing to say to that problem, it is not a livable worldview because evil clearly exists.
Once you can concede this point, which it seems to me you are conceding without understanding that you are conceding it, then we can enter into a discussion about what worldview would enable us to anchor good evil philosophically that would jive with the experiential reality of the evil and good that we see around us every day.
tsheej- I'm glad to hear from you that we practically agree about everything. Indeed, I suspect we probably do, and would get along just fine.
Alas, I cannot concede to you that it is essential to anchor a logical basis for good and evil, for as I have explained, the basis of good and evil is in our biology, which consists of blood and bones, not words. Good and bad are, at the beginning, not logical: they are what worked for survival. So we will have to agree to disagree after all.
And I must differ with you about atheism not being a liveable worldview. And of course I recognize evil, otherwise I wouldn't be voting Democratic.
Not that it will make any difference, but I still feel it would help you understand my position if you were to answer the questions I put to you quite a few posts ago: is "thou shalt not kill" an objective moral law? If so, what exactly does it mean? Bend your head around that for a while, and let me know what you come up with.
cheers from bedtime in Vienna, zilch
I cannot concede to you that it is essential to anchor a logical basis for good and evil, for as I have explained, the basis of good and evil is in our biology, which consists of blood and bones, not words. Good and bad are, at the beginning, not logical: they are what worked for survival. So we will have to agree to disagree after all.
my response:
It is if you want to condemn the theist's position because in criticizing the theist in regards to evil, you are invoking a moral law (standard) you claim doesn't exist. Furthermore, you said, "I recognize evil otherwise I wouldn't be democratic" or something like that. That you recognize evil is clearly not in dispute. You are thoroughly human for doing so and I applaud you for that.
But because you cannot ground your assertion that there is evil objectively in a naturalistic world view (you yourself have said that there is no objective good and bad), you have no rational backing for your claim that evil exists. It is an inconsistency between your philosophical beliefs and the reality of evil which shows that your philosophical beliefs must change to embrace reality.
As for the verse you are referring to, its says, "thou shalt not murder." But for us to talk about this at this time is really useless because you refuse to admit that your world view provides no standard by which to measure good and evil since you consider all good and evil situational and yet you invoke some unnamed standard to criticize what you call "religious atrocities" and thus name Christianity more dangerous than atheism. If we cannot find a common standard by which to measure all world views (a standard that is philosophically logically consistent with your world view) our discussion will be fruitless because we will be talking about completely different measurements. Furthermore, I find the atheist unfair because by refusing to lay down a standard of measurement he can play hop scotch and change his position based on what is convenient rather than on what is really true.
Ah zilch, it’s been awhile, and I have been watching this thread with fluctuating interest but you have again tweaked it up.
You say as I have explained, the basis of good and evil is in our biology, which consists of blood and bones, not words. Good and bad are, at the beginning, not logical: they are what worked for survival. and Good and bad were not present ab initio, but evolved as means to survival with living things. and more on the same theme.
From all of this I take it you believe and by implication would like us to believe that less harm will come from a moral/behaviour code based on cold reason driven by evolution, programmed into our ‘blood and bones’. This has to be responded to.
Do you agree that:
i) Evolution has required us to place our survival above all other considerations
ii) As atheists we have only this life so we should make the best of it we can
iii) Once our survival needs are satisfied we will seek to satisfy higher order needs, including that which gives pleasure (Maslow et al)
iv) Placing the needs of others ahead of our own needs is contrary to all of the above and we should not do it.
I have not spent much time working on the wording of these rules (not sure if I need (iv) or not) so don’t be tempted to play semantics with them – it would at best provide you with a petty victory.
The above produces in day to day practical terms a fine balance of co-operating with society only in so far as it does not jeopardise our survival or our pleasure. Now we are smart enough to take a long term view and recognise that we may need to sacrifice our pleasure now to maintain a society that will enable us to satisfy our needs in the future. I trust you agree that this is what is in our ‘blood and bones’? We come first – right?
Now the above works and explains a lot of our day to day conduct and substitutes for what some people would call morality … … but it does not explain the behaviour of millions of people who make personal sacrifices, even to the point of death for the benefit of others. Why under rules (i) to (iv) above would anyone die for another.
You would have to consider them insane – there is no other logical explanation. Would you even die for a loved one on the assumption that life without them would be unbearable? Most likely not because life = survival is more important than pleasure.
So either those who take on suffering/death for others are insane or … ?
1) They are behaving contrary to the laws of nature – which does not happen in an atheist world - or
2) The rules are wrong, survival is not in their ‘bones and blood’ – and
3) There is a higher value than survival – a morality that transcends ourselves – unthinkable in atheist terms, but not for theists.
While ‘mental illness’ is often an atheist response to evidence of people who have religious experiences I don’t think it will wash here – it is 1 or 2 or 3!
Now since we have the evidence that people sacrifice their lives for others – strangers even – so we should accept (3. There is a morality with its origins outside of evolution.
We should also agree that those who are motivated by this morality are likely to be far less dangerous to society than those driven by rules (i) to (iv) or their more carefully thought out and worded variants.
I think that settles it … ?
Finally a quick comment, zilch said: And I must differ with you about atheism not being a liveable worldview
It seems zilch must also differ with Sam Harris who stated the exact opposite in his address at the Atheist Alliance International. While I normally disagree with Harris he does seem to having problems with experiences and motivations that can’t be explained in purely rationalist terms, morality and transcending experiences included. The text of his address is available on his site.
Hi akawikibear! Glad you joined in here! I'll tackle your post starting from back to front, if I may. I said (to tsheej):
And I must differ with you about atheism not being a liveable worldview
You said:
It seems zilch must also differ with Sam Harris who stated the exact opposite in his address at the Atheist Alliance International. While I normally disagree with Harris he does seem to having problems with experiences and motivations that can’t be explained in purely rationalist terms, morality and transcending experiences included.
I know (from reading The End of Faith) that Sam Harris does recognize transcendental experiences, and doesn't seem to know how they fit in with his rationalistic worldview. That's fine with me- I would also not claim that we understand everything. As far as I know, though, he doesn't attribute morality to a supernatural being or force. If he does, then I disagree with him. And if he finds atheism logically inconsistent, then I disagree with him also.
But as I said, logic will only take you so far: the basis for our morality is our social animal heritage, and while that can be explained, it cannot be justified by logic all the way down, because it came before words: it evolved before morals, and is thus a given, not something reasoned.
And logic fails at the other end too, at some point, as I said to tsheej. There is no logical answering of questions such as: is it good that a child burns her hand? But if one does not insist on absolutes, there is no problem of inconsistency.
akawikibear asks: I think that settles it … ?
My answer: nope. I hope you understand why after this post, starting from the front now. I said:
as I have explained, the basis of good and evil is in our biology, which consists of blood and bones, not words. Good and bad are, at the beginning, not logical: they are what worked for survival. [etc.]
You replied:
From all of this I take it you believe and by implication would like us to believe that less harm will come from a moral/behaviour code based on cold reason driven by evolution, programmed into our ‘blood and bones’.
No, that's not what I said at all. Please reread carefully: I said that the basis of good and evil is in our biology, not that they now consist of our biology. And which moral code causes less harm (whatever that means), is another question. Here is my position again, from another post:
As I said, good and bad evolved with life. Human ideas of good and bad are based in our genes, but greatly complicated, modified, or suppressed by our reason and cultural heritage.
And here's the crux. You ask:
Do you agree that:
i) Evolution has required us to place our survival above all other considerations
ii) As atheists we have only this life so we should make the best of it we can
iii) Once our survival needs are satisfied we will seek to satisfy higher order needs, including that which gives pleasure (Maslow et al)
iv) Placing the needs of others ahead of our own needs is contrary to all of the above and we should not do it.
My answers:
i) No. Evolution doesn't "require" anything of us. What happens is this: genes which have phenotypical effects that lead to differential reproductive success tend to be passed on. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to unpack that for you. If you want to know more about evolution, there's lots of info on the net. You can start with TalkOrigins.
ii) Agreed. I would add, that believers only have this one life as well, but they don't know it.
iii) Partial agreement. One must keep in mind that things which give us pleasure include things which are, or were, good for our survival.
iv) This is ambiguous and cannot be answered, except for that gratuitous "should": if there's no God, where does the "should" come from? Sounds like the naturalistic fallacy again, that "is" should be "ought". The ambiguity is here: if it pleases me to do something for someone, say buy a rose for my wife, or volunteer to help handicapped people, is that placing the needs of others above my own needs or not? As I said, our ideas of good and bad, while based on our genetic heritage, are now augmented by reason and tradition, and we can and do feel needs that go beyond passing on our own genes. Luckily.
Moving on. You say:
I trust you agree that this [these four rules] is what is in our ‘blood and bones’? We come first – right?
Not quite. What's bred in the bone is the desire to pass on our genes, so the "we" means "my genes". But as I said, there's more to good and bad than that. In fact, now that sex can be decoupled from reproduction, and now that culture creates minds filled with all kinds of outlandish and wonderful ideas and ideals, the original raison d'être of good and bad is largely engulfed by bigger ideas: we no longer attempt to merely pass on our own genes, but also to make the world a worthwhile place to live for all life, now and in the future. We are now able to set goals that have nothing to do with the propogation of our personal genes.
Now, as you see, I do not accept your four points, so I do not accept your conclusions. Here's why in detail. You say:
So either those who take on suffering/death for others are insane or … ?
1) They are behaving contrary to the laws of nature – which does not happen in an atheist world - or
2) The rules are wrong, survival is not in their ‘bones and blood’ – and
3) There is a higher value than survival – a morality that transcends ourselves – unthinkable in atheist terms, but not for theists.
People who sacrifice themselves for others are not necessarily insane (they could be incidentally insane, of course, if one could define "insanity" "objectively", which I doubt).
1) I trust that I have explained enough for you to realize that the "rules of nature", if, by which, you mean our genetic heritage, are only part of what we think and do. Do you, or does anyone you know, wear glasses? That's "contrary to nature", but it somehow happens in the atheist world.
2) Yes, the rules are wrong, as I explained: survival is not everything.
3) Yes, there are other values than survival. Is there a morality that "transcends ourselves"? Yes, in the sense that I can work for the betterment of a world I will not live to see. No, in the sense that this morality exists anywhere outside ourselves: morality is from us, from our genes and from our ideas. And no, such a morality is demonstrably not unthinkable in atheist terms. I think about such things as the pain and suffering of those in need now, and in the future, and do what I can about it. And I'm an atheist. Lots of atheists do the same.
Now you reword number 3:
Now since we have the evidence that people sacrifice their lives for others – strangers even – so we should accept (3. There is a morality with its origins outside of evolution.
No. As I said, morality has its origins in evolution. But it has been modified since then in our minds, by reason and cultural evolution.
We should also agree that those who are motivated by this morality are likely to be far less dangerous to society than those driven by rules (i) to (iv) or their more carefully thought out and worded variants.
I don't know any atheists who subscribe to your reasons (i) to (iv). This is not to say that there are none. But in any case, the proof is in the pudding. Which philosophies are dangerous to society can only reasonably be judged by their fruits. This is no easy matter to settle, and endless are the arguments about which philosophies, moralities, or religions are the most peaceable, or whatever criterion of "goodness" one chooses. My humble opinion: the most important factors for peace are freedom from want, freedom from fear, and education.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
K.-bear:
I wish your argument was valid, because I can think of few arguments that would be as totally devastating to Christianity.
The most your argument could prove is that the existence of an unselfish morality demonstrates that there is A 'lawgiver God.' But the next step is to ask if the Christian God could possibly be that 'lawgiver.' And that is impossible. given that the only evidence we have for the existence of this God is the Testaments.
I'll grant you all sorts of concessions. Okay, the books do not need to be taken literally. Okay, the genocides were mere stories written into the OT, and were not the 'command of God.' I'll even -- for this argument -- accept that the OT acceptance of slavery was based on 'economic necessity,' that a society that abjured slavery would have been so weak it couldn't have survived against societies that had the 'advantage' of using slave labor -- as dubious as that proposition is.
We are still left with a God who is, by your argument, the 'Creator of morality, of a Universal stand ard of right and wrong' but who in his 'inspired book' preaches a moral code not only is more primitive than ours today -- by light years -- but was unnecessarily so even for the times. Levirate marriage -- see the story of Judah and Tamar -- was a primitive arrangement that even the Deuteronomist had to reject, but it is in there. The teaching that 'one's responsibility to a guest, a traveler' supercedes all other morality -- see Lot and the angels -- is not a Universal principle, but one that only applies in desert societies -- but it is in there. The idea that a husband and wife should be executed for having sex during her period is hideous, but it is also totally unnecessary as part of any moral structure, but it's there in Deuteronomy. Fining a husband more for falsely claiming his wife was not a virgin than for raping a virgin -- and paying either penalty to the girl's father -- is indefensible, but again, you can read it.
And as for NT morality, you have too many conflicts to accept that this too came from the 'great lawgiver.' Paul's teaching is as relatively primitive as is that of the Old Testament, with much less excuse. By now there was no excuse for his acceptance of slavery, his subordination of women. (In fact, some writers have argued that, because he does commend women and use them as messengers and teachers, that the 'women should not be allowed to preach' statement must be a later addition from someone like Tertullian.)
If you just take Jesus' teachings, some are wonderful, yes -- though I would argue his statement about the impermissibility of divorce is highly immoral. But others are valid only if we accept the obvious, that he was arguing that there would be an imminent apocalyptic event and that people should begin living in preparation for that.
And, of course, you still have him affirming 'every letter' of the Old Testament law. And the argument that this was valid only until his death is nonsense. He knew -- by Christian belief -- that this would be occuring within a year. What posssible reason would he have had for continually affirming something that would be invalid in that short a time, why did he waste his and his hearers' valuable time with that many affirmations of something that would be invalid in a few months?
So, to return to my original statement, your argument is devastating for Christianity, if it is valid.
But it isn't. And hopefully I can show this, and even return to my argument with Tsheej before domestic responsibilities drag me from the computer.
Dear Zilch,
Where, from your point of view, does the rational basis for this morality that transcends selfish genes come from?
K-bear:
Your basic position, your 'four laws' are simply invalid, and fortunately this is one case where evidence, not merely reasoning, shows it.
Again I repeat that evolution has created man as a member of society, that the idea of a human apart from society is an absurdity.
Yes, a man may reject society, may land on a desert island, may spend 26 years on a pillar, may climb to a high mountaintop. But -- and this is the basis of the idea of 'time-binding' -- before he does this he has already been a member of a society -- if only the society of his parents or whoever raised him.
He has learned a laguage, created by the society of the past, embedded with ideas that came from there. He has been taught skills, not, in most cases, discovered them for himself, and those skills and techniques come from the past. He has, at first, interacted with other members of humanity, even if, for some reason, he has chosen to avoid future interactions -- and even those reasons are based in what he has been taught and phrased in the language which he has been taught.
But I said I have evidence, not merely logic. I think you will agree that a person acting 'instinctively' -- I don't like the word, but I'm sure you understand what I mean -- will, more often than not, act to save another person in danger, even at the risk of his own life.
The likelihood is greater if the person in perceived danger is a child or is elderly, but the reaction is very common for any perceived danger.
The second most likely response is for the person to 'freeze' and be unable to act.
The least likely way for a person to respond is to save himself at the direct risk of another -- again if the first person is acting instinctively. The more time he has to think, the more likely he will respond that way, but, also relevant, a person who acts that way is likely to be condemned by his fellow humans -- whatever their religious beliefs or training is, or whether they are in fact, strictly secular.
(And don't give me the 'parental instinct' response. You argue that a person will act to save himself, first, and only when his preservation is assured will he act to save others. In most cases a person can have more kids, but not get another life. And saving someone else's kids or an unrelatedly elderly person is even more 'against selfishness.'
Tsheej:
You asked zilch, but my reply is simply, as I have repeated many times, that man exists only as a member of society, and evolution has conditioned him to respond as such.
I can expand on this, and will, if I get a chance to write more, but my society (family) gives me domestic responsibilities that outweigh my selfish pleasure in writing, or my unselfish pleasure in teaching.
Dear Jim,
I appreciate your loyalty to your family. I would much rather you have a strong family than that you add to this voluminous work of comments. We have enough broken families out there, its about time we have people like you showing what real family is about.
It still seems to me my questions remain unanswered. I don't know if anyone can ad anything new, but I don't want to carry on this conversation infinitely since my time is finite.
I find atheism philosophically unlivable or irrational depending on whether you turn to nihilism or make a philosophical leap to establish a basis for morality. I do recall someone mentioning something about science being eternal but I'm not sure if you actually believe that. If you did it seems to me that would be your answer but it would also be your god, since god is that which is infinite and eternal in a very simplistic sense
Zilch I have to be brief,
1) I said "I have not spent much time working on the wording of these rules (not sure if I need (iv) or not) so don’t be tempted to play semantics with them – it would at best provide you with a petty victory." - I concede the "victory". You have generally not responded to the thrust of the argument, only the semantics.
2)In reply to my Now since we have the evidence that people sacrifice their lives for others – strangers even – so we should accept (3. There is a morality with its origins outside of evolution.
you said "No. As I said, morality has its origins in evolution. " that is not an argument it is an assertion which I challenged with my hastily complied rules ... see (1) above.
Peace
prup, again I have to be brief.
1) your example for self sacrifice is sated in "I said I have evidence, not merely logic. I think you will agree that a person acting 'instinctively' --".
a) evidence - I don't see it - nice try or I need new specs.
b) I understand the significance of your instinctive response good point - but I was referring to deliberate decisions rather than spontaneous or instinctive ones
2) The most your argument could prove is that the existence of an unselfish morality demonstrates that there is A 'lawgiver God.' - no that is not what it sets out to prove - if accepted it would prove the existence of a morality that does not have it's origin in evolution, a morality that transcends ourselves - my argument does not imply a "lawgiver God" only a morality in which we place others ahead of ourselves.
One small step at a time.
3) " You argue that a person will act to save himself, first, and only when his preservation is assured will he act to save others. In most cases a person can have more kids, but not get another life. And saving someone else's kids or an unrelatedly elderly person is even more 'against selfishness.' " - I sort of think you are agreeing with me here - that is selfless behaviour and ones own expense ... ...
neither you (or zilch) have demonstrated an evolutionary source of deliberate self sacrificing behaviour.
Hamba kahle - peace
tsheej asks:
Where, from your point of view, does the rational basis for this morality that transcends selfish genes come from?
Now that is a good question. The rational basis for the morality that transcends (in the sense of "building and elaborating upon the basis of") selfish genes comes from the ideosphere. The ideosphere is the ideas that we concoct in our minds, and spread to other minds, by expressing them in stories, arguments, social contracts, music, films, customs, religions, you name it: the sum total of human culture.
Cultures need morals to work, morals that go beyond what our selfish genes tell us. So morals evolve with cultures. Some morals are consciously, or rationally, designed: people think about what rules will help structure the kind of society they want, or they look at existing rules and see which ones work. Some morals are accepted without considering their effects: people do what they do because their parents did it, or because it was written down in some holy book. Of course, most morals develop in a complicated way, a mixture of design and evolution.
Some of the selection of morals is obviously practical: the Golden Rule, for instance, has evolved repeatedly, and its utility is obvious. On the other hand, some morals seem capricious: for instance, the injunction against linsey-woolsey. On the other hand, perhaps this and similar laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were intended, or evolved as an effective way, to inculcate a general sense that one should not mix like with unlike, which might have served to warn the Israelites against dabbling with foreign gods or peoples. But that's just my wild speculation.
So what is my rational explanation for morals that transcend genes? It is this: we want to build societies, partly because we are social animals and it's in our genes, and partly because we see what culture gives us. Not only does culture help spread our genes by enabling us to feed ourselves and reproduce more successfully that we do without it; but the fruits of culture help satisfy our native curiosity (science), our love of patterns (art), and our desire for companionship (love).
Culture enables us to be much more than any other animal, so it's no wonder that we desire it. But societies are superorganisms that require the individual parts to give up some of their individuality for the whole, to achieve the order that makes them work. Morals are strictures for structure, orders for order.
And as to what morals are the "best" ones: as I've said, there are no absolutes, but there's lots of overlap. I'm an instrumentmaker, so I will use violins as a metaphor for culture. I find them appropriate because they are also a human invention which is a combination of rational thought, art, and tradition.
Societies are like violins: there are many different styles of violins, and people argue about which ones sound best and are the most beautiful, but there is no "best" violin: it is a matter of taste. On the other hand, there is enough agreement that most people will agree that violins made of porcelain, for instance, sound bad: porcelain is not as resonant at the appropriate frequencies as wood. So in practice, there is a great deal of agreement about which violins are good, and which are not so good, even if the agreement is not perfect.
Morals are like rules for building violins. Every violinmaker has different ways of doing things, and there are arguments about which methods work the best. But there is no "best" way of building a violin. On the other hand, most people will agree that gluing them together with epoxy, for instance, is a bad idea: a violin glued with epoxy is next to impossible to repair. So while everyone builds violins differently, there is a great deal of similarity in how all violinmakers proceed.
akawikibear: you say (to prup):
neither you (or zilch) have demonstrated an evolutionary source of deliberate self sacrificing behaviour.
For the evolutionary roots of altruism, check out this. I'm sorry for not explaining it in my own words, but I too am pressed for time, and it seems not unreasonable to me that people making claims about what evolution can or cannot do should do some research on their own.
And as I explained above, hopefully clearly, all kinds of morals can evolve above and beyond what our genes urge us to do, because they work to build societies, and because they evolve in the ideosphere: in our minds, in our books, in our shared cultures.
I hope that helps explain my position. Cheers from sunny and cold Vienna, peace, zilch.
Dear Zilch,
Been held away by the call of responsibilities.
In regard to your post, I struggle with the dichotomy between your statement that there are no absolutes and your assertion for rational atheistic morality using the illustration of the violin. It seems to me your illustration is flawed in that you are starting your illustration with an absolute; the violin? There is distinct definition that makes a violin a violin. If you alter its essence, it is no longer a violin.
Going back to culture, in Western culture we respect women, in many cultures around the world, they beat them and they tend to have a lot more children than we do so it definitely has no influence on the benefit of passing on there genes, it seems to me you could say you do not like the way they treat their women, but you could not condemn it? This is very personal to me because most of my friends were married by 15, kidnapped into marriage, and/or regularly beaten.
Dear tsheej,
I can sympathize with you about the call of responsibilities. If only the day were longer than twenty-four hours...
You say:
I struggle with the dichotomy between your statement that there are no absolutes and your assertion for rational atheistic morality using the illustration of the violin. It seems to me your illustration is flawed in that you are starting your illustration with an absolute; the violin? There is distinct definition that makes a violin a violin. If you alter its essence, it is no longer a violin.
This is precisely why I chose the violin as a metaphor for morals: the violin is not an absolute. Sure, there are definitions of violins, something like this: "a four-stringed bowed instrument, tuned g-d'-a'-e'', developed in Italy in the mid-sixteenth century from the viola da braccio, with f-shaped soundholes, a body length between 30 and 31.5 cm", etc. I get instruments in my workshop every day that I have no trouble calling "violins".
Yet all of the characteristics are variable, and there's no line that can be drawn exactly where the "essence" of the violin is transgressed. For instance: violins can be tuned differently: Stravinsky, for example, calls for a violin tuned in tritones (the dissonant diabolus in musica) for the Devil in L'Histoire du Soldat. Or they can be smaller: there are so-called 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, etc. violins for children. Or bigger: there is a smooth gradient between "big" violins and "small" violas, with the tuning being moot or interchangeable. There are jazz violins with five strings. There are old violins with C-holes. And on and on: there is no characteristic of a violin which is inviolate.
You get the point: while there is a fuzzy middle of the definition for "violin", there are no distinct boundaries. In practice, this is not a problem: the name is not the thing, after all. It only becomes a problem if you're an overzealous taxonomist, who insists on drawing lines and frets (yes, there are violins with frets too) over the flowing boundaries.
I submit that morals are analogous: there are kinds of behavior that are good, and kinds that are bad, even though there are no absolute standards for good and bad. Being kidnapped into marriage at 15 and regularly beaten is pretty clearly in the "bad" zone for me, and I can condemn it, even though I can't give "absolute" grounds for condemning it. In practice, one can behave quite nicely, even if one is, strictly speaking, amoral: that is, not recognizing any absolute basis for good and bad. Thank goodness.
Oh, and this is too good not to share. My daughter Rozzle raved about a clip she'd seen last night, and I just checked it out.
My question: the guitar is a fretted instrument, plucked and fingered by the hands. Is this a guitar? Whatever it is, it's delightful.
I will have to rave about that spoon guitarist as well. Lovely.
As to violins...
yes, but clearly those general parameters whatever they may be clearly distinguish a violin from a piano or a guitar or a brass instrument. And that which distinguishes it from all other instruments I would call the absolute.
As to your statement that though there is no absolute (I prefer to use "objective")you can condemn beating women as clearly bad...it seems to me that without an objective basis you have no way to make it morally obligatory for anyone else. In other words, its fine for you to say, that's clearly in the bad zone for me, but as soon as you try to make it into a law for all nations to follow, "thou shalt not beat women" you have no objective grounding for that assertion. You can make it and apply it, but not on a rational basis of your belief system.
tsheej- Glad you liked the spoon guitar man. Here's another musician bending traditions of what can be done with the instrument.
Yes, in practice, it's not hard to distinguish between a violin and a piano, even if you're not sure about the borders of violinhood. But this is just because there doesn't happen to be any instrument between the violin and the piano. Or is there?. The "viola organista" is an instrument invented by Da Vinci, and realized in the sixteenth century, with strings bowed by wheels and controlled by a keyboard.
It's true that there are no existing instruments between horns and violins, although I could imagine a series of weird hybrids. But in any case, it is still impossible to draw objective lines defining what exactly is, and what exactly is not, any one of these instruments. Platonic ideals work nicely for such abstract entities as, well, Platonic solids, but they are less than ideal for such fuzzy categories as musical instruments- and morals.
About beating women: I would say that you and I condemn it for the same reason, because it causes pain unnecessarily. We just have different justifications for our condemnation. And my justification is just as rational; it is rational to accept that some things are not objective. As I've said in earlier posts here, I don't believe that objective morals are even theoretically possible, even for the religious: there are always differences in interpretation and application that make them subjective. So the only real difference between religious and secular morals, ceteris paribus, is that religious morals have a carrot-and-stick wielding God to enforce them, and secular morals have mere humans to enforce them. And as God does not exist, even religious morals must be enforced by people.
A crazy person who hears God telling them to kill someone is insane and not a Christian. There is a Holy Bible to compare our actions and see if they are moral. If Christians get led astray and commit immoral acts they are not being consistent with God's word which is to be our plumb line. When Hitler was killing and conquering it was perfectly logical according to his scientific beliefs and logical reasoning. Also scientific data is often misunderstood (case in point is the "hole" in the ozone the fact is there was never a hole we just didn't understand how ozone is made nor how convection currents carry it) and is miss represented, plus every year we prove that the previous scientist where wrong. So atheist are using scientific data the will later be show false or worse yet the use a relative pragmatism which may or may not work and have unknown ripple effects.
John, tell me this: How do you determine what is an evil act? Does DNA determine universal morality? If you are saying there is such a thing as evil, then there must be such a thing as good. If there is good and evil then there is a universal law to be able to differentiate between good and evil. If there is a universal law, there must be a law giver. So if there is no God, there is no moral law, no moral law, no good, if there is no good, there is no evil. So many things heinous have been done in the name of many things. I am a Christian, but do not tie myself to man-made religious traditions. Jesus himself and the early church did no such thing. Christianity at its core is a relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. People still have free will to perform evil. That does not make Christianity bad or God non-existent.
Post a Comment