***QUOTE***
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
What I don't understand about this is why Christian apologists feel they even feel the need to assert that non-Christians can't be good people in the ethical/legal sense. This isn't the claim of Christianity, that without Christ, civilization will break down.
Look at Japan. Manifestly non-Christian, in origin and contemporary constitution, and yet, one of the most honor-bound, socially restrained societies that ever was. Does that mean they get to go to heaven when they die? No, but it does make arguments from Christians claiming that without Christ the only outcome is widespread murder and mayhem.
Christianity claims that good civic behavior is *not* enough, eternally and temporally. It does not claim one cannot lead an outwardly "good" life without Christ. Instead it claims one cannot be *righteous* on the inside of one's own accord.
So the "debate-stopper" seems to be more of a "reflex-trick" to see who will bite on straw man arguments like Steve did. In his zeal for the faith, he figured he had to commit Christianity to being the sole source of all *ethical* behavior.
That ain't the case. It's not hard to find law, abiding, ethical people all over the world who are not Christians.
What Christianity claims is that while that's true, it's not what's really important, for works and ethical uprightness are not sufficient to satisfy God. They do not make up for one's sin, for one's unrighteous attitudes and actions.
This just makes Christianity look really stupid. Anyone who is familiar with modern Japanese society will laugh at a paragraph like this. Steve, do you know what the murder rate is in Japan vs. the US? How can that be if what you say is true?
***END-QUOTE***
Speaking for myself, what is more likely to make Christianity look really stupid are intellectual joy-riders like Touchstone. I offered an 8-point argument for my position. Did Touchstone make the slightest attempt to interact with my 8-point argument?
No, all he did was to launch into a knee-jerk screed that was completely unresponsive to my actual argumentation.
Since he lacks the mental discipline to follow any argument he doesn’t already agree with, let’s lay down a few breadcrumbs and see if he can follow the trail:
1.Shermer (along with Dawkins, et al.), raised both a de jure and a de facto challenge to the Christian. What *would* an apostate do? And what *should* an apostate do? I answered him on both counts.
2.Did I ever say that unbelievers in general, or apostates in particular, are law-breakers? No.
What I said, rather, is that, is that, given a chance, unbelievers generally legislate according to their value-system, such as it is.
You can be a law-abiding killer because the law gives you a license to kill (e.g. abortion, infanticide, euthanasia).
You can be a law-abiding rapist because the law lowers or abolishes the age of consent.
Depending on the country, the authorities sanction a child sex trade, or child marriage, or child pornography.
Depending on the country, gang-rape may be part of the honor-code or rite of passage.
You can be a law-abiding robber because the law canonizes certain forms of extortion (e.g. eminent domain).
So an unbeliever doesn’t need to be lawless to do his own thing. He simply exacts legislation that makes rape, robbery, and murder a civil right.
3.What about Japan?
i) Notice that he talks about modern Japan rather than imperial Japan. No discussion of the Shogunate. Modern Japan, beginning with MacArthur, is obviously influenced by modern American culture.
But what about the cult of pederasty under the Shogunate? What about the cult of violence under the Shogunate? What about the feudal economic system?
Yes, in a military dictatorship, everyone knows his place. Very law-abiding. But what about the morality of the law they abide by?
iii) What about modern Japan?
What about pornography in modern Japan? What about kiddy porn in modern Japan? What about prostitution in Japan? What about sodomy in Japanese culture—both ancient and modern?
What about the abortion mill in modern Japan?
Since its all legal, then, by definition, it never figures in the crime stats.
It’s remarkable how quickly you can lower the crime rate by decriminalizing crime. All it takes is the stroke of a pen.
What about organized crime? What about the Japanese Mafia?
We could go right down the list.
It’s an excellent illustration of Touchstone’s moral blindness that he cites Japan as a counterexample to my thesis.
Sure Steve...unlike the christian nation you guys envision.
ReplyDeleteYou know, the one where you legislate the murder of homosexuals. The one where you legislate the taking of the rights of 'heretics'. This of course is defined by you.
You are a blazing hippocrite, and your writings above reflect your intolerance and general assholiness.
:::SNIZZZAAA!!!:::
ReplyDeleteMore Manata raps please!
Scraped this article up.
ReplyDeletehttp://skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html
Touchstone also seems to have missed one of the main points, that regardless of whether an unbeliever behaves morally, one of the overarching questions is whether or not his worldview provides him with an adequate basis for doing so. That's been touched on several times at this blog, though.
ReplyDeletemathetes said:
ReplyDelete"one of the overarching questions is whether or not his worldview provides him with an adequate basis for doing so. That's been touched on several times at this blog, though."
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
just because a question is asked doesn't mean it is important or relevant or meaningful.
so again,
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
"just because a question is asked doesn't mean it is important or relevant or meaningful."
ReplyDeleteRemember that the next time you ask a Christian a question, mkay?
Anyway, what we see here is the fruit of atheism. They can't answer the questiosn, so the questions become unimportant. Forget that these are standard questions philosophers have asked for millennia.
It's like, "what my net don;t catch aint fish."
Or, its like traveling. You pack a suitcase and have the sleeves and pant legs hanging out. You could re-pack (change and fix your worldview), or you can just cut off all those bothersome pieces (ignore the tough questions).
It like this this is anonymous' route. This is the fruit of Witmer's article. Thanks Gene!
Violent deceiver, Paul Manata, stated above:
ReplyDelete"these are standard questions philosophers have asked for millennia."
yes...and philosophers are so wise....
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/essays/futlty_philos.html
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Sure Steve...unlike the christian nation you guys envision.
You know, the one where you legislate the murder of homosexuals. The one where you legislate the taking of the rights of 'heretics'. This of course is defined by you.
You are a blazing hippocrite, and your writings above reflect your intolerance and general a**holiness."
Wow, what a pathetic and overblown attempt at a personal attack on Steve. He carefully identifies the errors in Touchstone's comments, breaks them down masterfully like an intellectual neurosurgeon, and sets the record straight (as usual).
There is an obvious reason why you are so upset at Steve, he correctly refutes all the attempts to debunk Christianity, and you can't stand it. He's right, and provides an overabundance of evidence to support his views, while you are wrong but desparately want to cling to that which you currently believe, even though there is plentiful evidence to show otherwise.
I don't see Steve posting any mean and nasty replies on this Blog, do you?
No, you don't. He doesn't have anything to be angry about, but you do. No one likes to be proven wrong, it stings our ego, and you have obviously been stung.
mathetes said:
ReplyDelete---
Touchstone also seems to have missed one of the main points, that regardless of whether an unbeliever behaves morally, one of the overarching questions is whether or not his worldview provides him with an adequate basis for doing so
---
Which was what I was trying to allude to in my comment on the previous post, before the wonderful contribution that is known as "anonymous" showed up. Non-Christian religions do have some basis for morality, even if ultimately this is incoherent with other aspects of their religion; atheism cannot even pretend that.
Calvindude,
ReplyDeleteDo you think you sound even a little bit credible to an atheist who has developed his own morals and ethics that he does not have any basis for them? I have atheist opponents in conversations going on right now that are hard at work regaling me with the depth and quality of Utilititarianism, the arguments of John Stuart Mill, and other forms of secular morality.
Are they just making this stuff up?
I'd be interested to see how you define what qualifies as a "basis" for morality. My Japanese friend doesn't believe in any god -- even the Shinto gods are nothing more to him than Santa is to the average American. Death is the end, in his view. There is no coming judgment upon death, other than death itself, in his belief system.
So, how is *that* a valid basis for a moral system, but the ideas of Hume or J.S. Mill are not?
It seems you're committed to denying atheists that which you easily grant for yourself -- the ability to base moral and metaphysical arguments on whatever you want. An atheist reads your words and *easily* identifies the *real* message you have to offer as a Christian apologist: unfairness, disngenuousness, hypocrisy to the core.
You can call me what you will, but Christianity is bigger and better, stronger and truer than the petty little vicious cartoon you portray it to be. Christianity doesn't need lies or self-serving cheats in the dialog to acquit itself. If you believe you have the truth of the Gospel, as I believe I do, that man has fallen, God became man, suffered unto death as a sacrifice for the sins of all men, then rose on the third day, to return again one day, then you don't need play dishonest games in talk to others -- believers or no.
The reason I object to this kind of apology is that, as a believing Christian, the kinds of arguments put forth often make a much better case for the atheists than they do themselves. It's great that you are a believer, I praise God that all of the T-Bloggers claim the blood of Christ (and you too, even if not a T-Blogger here), but the fact remains that much of your "defense of the faith" comes across to me like a false-flag operation for atheist side.
You can question my motives all you want, but know that my claim here is that the Gospel, because it is absolutely real, because it *is* absolutely true, deserves more than you're willing to give in terms of defense.
Honesty. Charity. Clarity. Humility. Truth. Faith.
The Gospel isn't served by trying to deny atheists something *everyone* agrees they have -- a morality of their own. I think it's a wholly inferior morality, as is Buddhist morality. Everything else is corrupt that isn't of Jesus Christ.
But truth is truth, and it's dishonest to pretend that an atheist does not, and cannot develop their own moral systems. By claiming such, you, Steve, and whoever else wants to jump on that bandwagon are just broadcasting to the world that you don't in fact value the truth enough to affirm it when it's presented.
We can argue back and forth (and should!) about the merits and implications of a Christian moral framework vs. an atheistic moral framework. That's a discussion I'm quite comfortable with.
But to suggest that an atheist can't *have* a moral framework, that's just ignorant and purely hostile.
So when I see what appears to be thoroughly and manifestly ignorant and needlessly hostile, all offered as "apologetics" for the Gospel, for the absolute truth, I object, and give my reasons for objecting. The Gospel deserves better representation than that.
-Touchstone
PWNED by Touchstone.
ReplyDeletePsuedo-Atheist Touchstone said:
ReplyDelete---
Do you think you sound even a little bit credible to an atheist who has developed his own morals and ethics that he does not have any basis for them?
---
Let me ask it differently:
Would I sound the least bit credible to a schizophrenic who thought his dog spoke to him if I told him he had no basis for his epsitemology?
Of course not. So why should I care if someone who is willfully self-deluded doesn't think I'm credible?
Secondly, at some point the atheist needs to actually justify his morality that he claims to be able to justify. Where, I ask, is that justification?
You said:
---
I'd be interested to see how you define what qualifies as a "basis" for morality.
---
It must be something that can provide a justification for one's moral beliefs. So, for instance, if you say that murder is wrong, what reason is wrong? That reason will be your justification.
Now, you can say, "But they have a justification." My question: is their justification consistent with their morality? That is, if someone is to argue, "It is my opinion that murder is wrong" then what is the basis by which we should care what another person's opinion is? What is the justification for us having to agree with another person?
Atheism has yet to provide any kind of justification for why any behavior is actually right or wrong in the first place. Behavior is simply chemical reactions. If you shake up a Coke and it explodes, it's not evil; it's just a reaction. In the same way, if you shake up and explode and kill your neighbor, it's not evil; it's just a reaction.
There is no way in such a system to quantify "right"- or "wrong"-ness. These terms are meaningless in atheism. There is no "right", there is no "ought", there is no "should."
Now, what could provide a basis that would require an objective, transcendent right or wrong? Some object that is objective and trascendent: namely, God. (Note: I haven't yet defined which God at this point; but already you see that non-Christian religions are in better footing than atheism because they have this to fall back on; Atheism doesn't.)
You said:
---
So, how is *that* a valid basis for a moral system, but the ideas of Hume or J.S. Mill are not?
---
It's not.
Once again, I'm not surprised that you can't read. I said that non-Christian religions at least have a claim to a basis for morality. You reply, "This guy who doesn't believe in any god would be in the same boat as atheist." Well, duh. Wasn't that my point?
You said:
---
It seems you're committed to denying atheists that which you easily grant for yourself -- the ability to base moral and metaphysical arguments on whatever you want.
---
I don't base my moral arguments on "whatever I want." I base them on a specific thing: Biblical teaching.
You said:
---
An atheist reads your words and *easily* identifies the *real* message you have to offer as a Christian apologist: unfairness, disngenuousness, hypocrisy to the core.
---
Yes, because we all know that atheists who hate God are in the prefect position to pass judgment upon whether His laws are just....
By the way, if you want a definition of hypocrisy, look in the mirror. I am being consistent with my beliefs here. I am holding to an objective standard of right and wrong and saying, "This is true period." That's not hypocrisy: that's consistency.
You, on the other hand, are whining and complaining that I'm being intolerant, and yet you are being intolerant of me.
My worldview doesn't require me to accept other people's views as valid. My worldview doesn't require me to say that the atheist is just as entitled to some imaginary morality as mine--these are your views, not mine. Therefore, you are the one being hypocritical here, Touchstone.
You said:
---
Christianity doesn't need lies or self-serving cheats in the dialog to acquit itself.
---
Document where I have lied or cheated. If you cannot do so, then you are lying and cheating right now, Touchstone.
You said:
---
The reason I object to this kind of apology is that, as a believing Christian, the kinds of arguments put forth often make a much better case for the atheists than they do themselves. It's great that you are a believer, I praise God that all of the T-Bloggers claim the blood of Christ (and you too, even if not a T-Blogger here), but the fact remains that much of your "defense of the faith" comes across to me like a false-flag operation for atheist side.
---
A) I'm not a member of Triablogue.
B) You are claiming that atheists have a better abiltity to see who is a Christian and who isn't than Christians do. (This from the same person who once said that someone who wasn't a Mormon couldn't know what Mormons would say on a subject... HEY, more hypocrisy! Whatdoyaknow!!!!)
C) The Gospel is inherently offensive. It can't not be. It tells people what they truly are: sinners. It tells them their true position: utterly helpless. And I will not take away the offense that is inherent in the Gospel simply to appease your ludicrous demands that I be more "atheist" friendly. Atheists don't make the rules. I don't live and die by what atheists think. I live and die by what the Bible teaches, and I am fully comfortable putting myself there even if you don't like me because of it.
You said:
---
The Gospel isn't served by trying to deny atheists something *everyone* agrees they have -- a morality of their own.
---
And yet the very fact that I deny they have a morality of their own disproves this claim.
They don't. They have a morality they've stolen from others who have an actual basis for their morality.
It would be really simple for an atheist to prove me wrong here: he could give me his basis for his morality; a basis consistent with his atheism. So why doesn't any atheist ever rise to this challenge?
You said:
---
So when I see what appears to be thoroughly and manifestly ignorant and needlessly hostile, all offered as "apologetics" for the Gospel, for the absolute truth, I object, and give my reasons for objecting.
---
Prove it.
Indeed Touchstone, you are writing what is thoroughly and manifestly ignorant and needlessly hostile in your attacking me, all offered as "apologetics" for the Gospel, for the absolute truth. *I* am merely objecting, and I give my reasons for my objecting.
To second Calvin Dude's position, I'd add that I've often posted arguments by important secular thinkers who explicitly endorse moral relativism.
ReplyDeleteSo this isn't just the way in which Calvin Dude or I characterize their position. Among the more candid and clear-headed secular thinkers, they say the very same thing.
So.. Calvindude, or Steve,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think guys like Hume and J.S. Mill were talking about then? Baking cookies?
Calvindude, you're laboring under the assumption that unless someone's moral framework somehow pleases you, it isn't a moral framework. I certainly understand saying that you think it's inferior. But that's quite different than supposing that which you disagree with just doesn't *exist*.
Do Hume and J.S. Mill present moral frameworks, or not? I'm not asking whether you agree with them, but whether they exist as moral rationales.
Thanks!
-Touchstone
The issue isn't whether or not atheists have some kind of ethical system. It is whether or not every atheistic attempt at an ethic will deteriorate into either personal or societal preferences or simply be incoherent.
ReplyDeleteChristians of course have a different ethical system. In Christian ethics, love for God is the primary ethical concern and love for our neighbor is a secondary expression of that primary duty, so really, by definition according to a Christian understanding, an atheist defines themselves as an immoral person.
Any philosophy that claims that we are nothing but the accidental collocation of atoms in the void and so have no inherent meaning or value is of course an incredibly dangerous philosophy, because it can proscribe nothing, or everything, and needs little reason for either.
But of course human nature as created by God places certain demands upon men, even if they deny Him, that cause them to act with restraint and often for the common good, if they find it to be in their personal self interest to do so (Augustine).
That a Christian would say that that actually makes the actions good, or that this makes those that deny God good people, is a strange claim for a Christian to make.
Christopher
'christoper' said:
ReplyDelete"The issue isn't whether or not atheists have some kind of ethical system. It is whether or not every atheistic attempt at an ethic will deteriorate into either personal or societal preferences or simply be incoherent."
And how is a person that subjectively chooses Christianity (personal preference) different than a person that chooses another ethical system?
'christopher' said:
"by definition according to a Christian understanding, an atheist defines themselves as an immoral person."
Whoop dee do.
'christopher' said:
"Any philosophy that claims that we are nothing but the accidental collocation of atoms in the void and so have no inherent meaning or value is of course an incredibly dangerous philosophy, because it can proscribe nothing, or everything, and needs little reason for either."
Any philosophy that claims to be the words of a God, written by the hand of man, and full of silly things such as talking snakes, plants, and donkeys, is a dangerous thing as well.
BBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT!!!!
next!
Touchstone said:
ReplyDeleteSo.. Calvindude, or Steve,
What do you think guys like Hume and J.S. Mill were talking about then? Baking cookies?
Calvindude, you're laboring under the assumption that unless someone's moral framework somehow pleases you, it isn't a moral framework. I certainly understand saying that you think it's inferior. But that's quite different than supposing that which you disagree with just doesn't *exist*.
Do Hume and J.S. Mill present moral frameworks, or not? I'm not asking whether you agree with them, but whether they exist as moral rationales.
*******************************************
The Marquis de Sade was a secular ethicist. He had a moral framework. Ditto: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Herbert Spencer, and Peter Singer.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether their theory of value is true or false.
This is a normative issue, not a descriptive issue.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Any philosophy that claims that we are nothing but the accidental collocation of atoms in the void and so have no inherent meaning or value is of course an incredibly dangerous philosophy, because it can proscribe nothing, or everything, and needs little reason for either.
I agree. My argument is that that morale rationale is a good one -- it's clearly to the Judaeo-Christian framework, in my view. But Calvindude, and now Steve, have taken to saying that such a rationale doesn't exist!
Or, as Calvindude claims, the Japanese have a moral rationale, at least in part, but pure atheists don't. From which I can only conclude that according to Calvindude, in order for a moral rationale to exist, it must believe in supernatural beings of some kind. Not supernatural beings in authority, or that have judgment roles over man, but... just something supernatural.
But, while take a dim view of atheistic moral rationales, I do grant that they have been formulated and advanced. I've read entire books on the subject, even, as part of a college syllabus long ago.
As for restraint making individuals good, I don't suppose that makes one good in the spiritual or righteousness sense. But in the civic sense, as opposed to indulgence in the crime of murder, rape, robbery, or mayhem, I would definitely say that refraining from these acts is "good".
If an atheist (or a Christian) down at the local bar decides too have a few more beers, then proceeds to get in his pickup truck, and crosses the median on the way home, killing my wife in a horrible car crash, I'd say he'd have done a good thing by showing restraint earlier in the evening, and not getting drunk. He doesn't need to be a Christian, or regenerate to do a good thing in this sense (although that should have been sufficient to avoid the problem). He merely needed to exercise some civic responsibility, do "good" in the civic sense, in order that I might see my wife return safely home from her homeschool meeting.
Wouldn't it have been a "good" thing for the atheist to have just one beer rather than ten? I'd be dismayed if you said they were morally equivalent, as one leaves my wife dead on the roadside.
-Touchstone
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
The Marquis de Sade was a secular ethicist. He had a moral framework. Ditto: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Herbert Spencer, and Peter Singer.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether their theory of value is true or false.
This is a normative issue, not a descriptive issue.
The atheist says his secular moral framework is true. You say the Christian moral framework is true. I say the Christian moral framework is true.
Is it true because there's two of us, and one atheist? Hope not, or he'll go get two atheist buddies.
But what do you mean by "normative"? Is Steve Hays now normative? Why isn't Hume normative?
I don't see how saying this is a "normative issue" is anything more than begging the question.
If the Christian God exists as we claim, then the atheists are wrong, and their morality is founded on a lie. If no god exists, then the Christians are wrong, and our morality is based on a lie. Or it could be neither of these ideas is right, and they are *both* based on a lie.
But that's the Big Question, isn't it. It seems Calvindude is convinced that his pronunciation pretty much settles the matter, for Christian, Buddhist, atheist and Zoroastrian. Are you claiming the same here.
Is Steve Hays "normative" like Calvindude? Let's just lay our cards on the table!
-Touchstone
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
The Marquis de Sade was a secular ethicist. He had a moral framework. Ditto: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Herbert Spencer, and Peter Singer.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether their theory of value is true or false.
This is a normative issue, not a descriptive issue.
The atheist says his secular moral framework is true. You say the Christian moral framework is true. I say the Christian moral framework is true.
Is it true because there's two of us, and one atheist? Hope not, or he'll go get two atheist buddies.
But what do you mean by "normative"? Is Steve Hays now normative? Why isn't Hume normative?
I don't see how saying this is a "normative issue" is anything more than begging the question.
If the Christian God exists as we claim, then the atheists are wrong, and their morality is founded on a lie. If no god exists, then the Christians are wrong, and our morality is based on a lie. Or it could be neither of these ideas is right, and they are *both* based on a lie.
But that's the Big Question, isn't it. It seems Calvindude is convinced that his pronunciation pretty much settles the matter for once and for all be they Christian, Buddhist, atheist and Zoroastrian. Are you claiming the same here?
Is Steve Hays "normative" like Calvindude? Let's just lay our cards on the table!
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
ReplyDeleteOkay, you are continuing to miss the point, so let me simplify it for you:
See Spot.
(Okay, a little too simple.)
My argument is not that one must believe in the supernatural in order to have a basis for morality (although that could be an inevitable inference). My argument is that in order to have a basis for morality, one must have an objective, transcendent, universal grounding of that morality. Furthermore, since morality is what ought to be done or what ought not to be done, this objective, transcendent, universal grounding must be personal.
Consider it. What is the basis by which an atheist can say that I ought to do a behavior? It can be any behavior. What is the compulsion by which I am required to actually do (or not do) any single action?
What is an atheist left to point to? Who establishes "right" or "wrong"? Himself? If so, he is not objective, universal, or transcendent. Society? If so, that is likewise not objective, universal, or transcendent. We can also add that none of these things are consistent.
A specific example: was it wrong for Nazis to murder Jews? The Nazis didn't think so. Why were they actually wrong? What objective, universal, transcendent reason causes this to be the case?
The only thing that might be considered objective, universal, or transcendent in the atheists case (and this will depend on a great deal of other things) would be the universe itself. But the universe itself does not dictate behavior because it is impersonal. The universe doesn't say "you ought to do X"; it simply is the structure in which such actions can occur.
Now, contrast that with the Christian worldview. Christians believe that there is an objective, universal, transcendent grounding for morality: God's nature. God Himself is a personal being. This gives us a grounding for morality.
Now at this point you may argue "But you haven't proven God actually exists." But that is not the point of this argument. The point is really simple:
Which of the two has basis, consistent with it's own presuppositions, for stating that there actually are moral and immoral behaviors?
The answer is clear. The Christian is consistent if he claims morality (even if ultimatley he is wrong); the atheist is not consistent if he claims morality--EVEN IF ATHEISM WERE RIGHT!
So we have this conclusion: even if Christians are wrong in their starting point, they are consistent with it when they say there are such things as universal morals; but even if atheists are right they cannot consistently say there are any universal morals at all.
Can you at least see this?
Calvindude:
ReplyDeleteYou said:
My argument is that in order to have a basis for morality, one must have an objective, transcendent, universal grounding of that morality
First off, I don't know where you get this list of attributes. What's this based on? Is this just off the top of your head? On what grounds do you assert these requirements? I'm no expert on secular morality, but from people I've debated, they'd say you are simply "arguing by definition".
You might as well just say: Morals can only be based on the Christian God. and be done with it, no?
Second, even accepting your necessary attributes, it seems that Utilitarianism per J.S. Mill and friends can lay claim to some level of objectivity -- evaluation of morals empirically, based on outcomes and observations -- but Christian morality is based on subjective belief. Belief in the Christian God is a subjective axiom required for it, and would seem to be make Christian morality fail your own test.
In any case, your argument reads like this:
Morality requires that those things that atheism denies (transcendent authority mainly). Therefore, atheist *by definition* can't be moral.
That's an airtight piece of logic, I'll agree, but I'd be surprised if atheists thought your requirements were useful at all. That is, I'm sure, given your post here, that you can define morality in such a way as to rule out secular morality. But that's just an exercise in your being "normative", isn't it? If not, then what would be the basis for your requirements?
Or is the atheist expected to agree that "objective, transcendant, and universal" are simply *obvious* attribues of a moral framework?
-Touchstone
Touchstone, you are renewing my hope that tolerant, thoughtfull christians that will challenge these cretins do indeed exist.
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff, and 'god' bless you, whatever that means to you.
Touchstone said:
ReplyDelete---
First off, I don't know where you get this list of attributes. What's this based on? Is this just off the top of your head? On what grounds do you assert these requirements? I'm no expert on secular morality, but from people I've debated, they'd say you are simply "arguing by definition".
---
Way to ignore all the evidence I put forth. You make the anonymous atheists happy at any rate. (Congrats on "winning" them over to you meaningless concept of "Christ." With friends like you, who needs apostates?)
Here's a concept for you to grasp though: Words have definitions.
WHOA! How can THAT be? Words actually mean stuff?
Yes, Virigina, it is true. And I know this is hard for you to understand since you want a meaningless Jesus with a meaningless morality. But then you try to use words as if they have meaning to demonstrate they don't. So again:
If you are going to say that morality is not objective, transcendent, and universal then I don't have to follow your morality and you cannot make me do so. Thus, if you disagree and claim that I ought to follow your morality, you are contradicting yourself.
This is so basic it's pathetic you miss it.
But since apparently you are that pathetic, let me put it in simpler terms for you: Give me a reason to care what an atheist's morality is. Give me a reason from their perspective that I ought to do anything.
You said:
---
Second, even accepting your necessary attributes, it seems that Utilitarianism per J.S. Mill and friends can lay claim to some level of objectivity -- evaluation of morals empirically, based on outcomes and observations -- but Christian morality is based on subjective belief.
---
So you claim. Where is your evidence of any of this? Show me how Mill's concepts can possibly be objective? By the way, how exactly do are you able to have "some level of objectivity"?
You say that Christian morality is based on subjective belief. But this is simply not the case as I have laid it out. Christian morality is based on a Bible that transcends the individuals who read it. In short, there is a method for self-correction for each Christian, both in the fact that he can always return to the Scripture and in the fact that other Christians can point out other things from the same Scriptures. All Christians have the same source documents.
Since the Bible is not subjective (although I'm sure you'll claim the interpretations of it are), there is an objective appeal that Christians can make. We can point to the Bible. We can defend our statements on the Bible.
And that's the same reason why the "subjective" interpretation ultimately fails. Our interpretations are limited by Scripture already. Add to that the method of correct hermanutics and logical induction and "subjective" interpretation becomes as self-correcting as possible to. In short, there is no less possibility to interpret Scripture as there is to interpret anything.
Finally, none of this addresses the most damning evidence against your claim. Once again: If Christians are wrong, they are still consistent in claiming a universal, trascendent, and objective morality; if atheist is right, they are still inconsistent in doing the same.
So stop fillibustering and provide some evidence that atheists have a morality that I should care about.
You said:
---
That's an airtight piece of logic, I'll agree, but I'd be surprised if atheists thought your requirements were useful at all.
---
Atheists were the ones who were hijacking the term "moral" there, Touchstoned. If they don't like what the term means they ought not use it.
You said:
---
Or is the atheist expected to agree that "objective, transcendant, and universal" are simply *obvious* attribues of a moral framework?
---
In a word: yes. Moral frameworks mean something. If the atheist claims to have one, the atheist must show how his view fits the definition.
Now I know that the meaning of words is difficult for you to grasp, Touchstone. If it makes you feel better, why, just think of this as my recipe for clam chowder.
Unless, of course, you agree you're expected to understand the meaning of words in order to engage in meaningful conversation....
Calvindude:
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Finally, none of this addresses the most damning evidence against your claim. Once again: If Christians are wrong, they are still consistent in claiming a universal, trascendent, and objective morality; if atheist is right, they are still inconsistent in doing the same.
But atheists don't *make* such claims for their moral frameworks, at least so far as I've heard. I believe they'd say you have a faulty standard by which to measure it by.
You said:
So stop fillibustering and provide some evidence that atheists have a morality that I should care about.
I don't claim they *do* have a morality you should care about. According to the rules you've set for yourself, nothing outside your little box even *registers*. It seems a fool's errand for me to even contemplate such a thing. Given the way you operate, there's no reason to even *consider* such a thing. So, I'll freely concede you shouldn't care, based on your operating guidelines.
You said:
In a word: yes. Moral frameworks mean something. If the atheist claims to have one, the atheist must show how his view fits the definition.
OK, if that's true, then what's "the definition". If I look up "moral" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, I get this:
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL [moral judgments] b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior [a moral poem] c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment [a moral obligation] e : capable of right and wrong action [a moral agent]
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL [a moral certainty]
3 : perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect [a moral victory] [moral support]
- mor·al·ly /-&-lE/ adverb
For "morality" I get:
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE
Is that too "neutral" for you? If so, what "normative" authority are you pointing at for your definition. It seems you're simply arguing with self-serving definitions, here. I think that would be cleared up if you would tell us where you draw your authoritative definition of "moral", "morality", or "moral framework" from.
Thanks,
-Touchstone
touchstone,
ReplyDeleteYou simply need to read up on TAG a bit more...its in the New Testament, in the book of Van Til, chapter 4, verse 7. Or, you can find it in 1 Bahnsen chapter 2.
Duh.
Touchstone pwned you all. The idiocy of claiming that "atheism has a morality" in the first place reveals you dunderheads for what you are. Atheism has nothing besides disbelief in deities.
ReplyDeleteAll you presuppers do is say, "Something is good if the ultimate authority says so..." and on the other hand, deride ethical relativism. But your own fairy tales in your own book espouse that exact relativism -- that some actions were right for some peoples at some times, but not now. It was *good* then to stone homosexuals and heretics. It is *not good* now. It was *good* then to make sacrifices. It is *not good* now. Consequentialism renders ethics reasonable and objective, while your revelatory ethos is subjective and petty and rather outdated.
It is whether or not every atheistic attempt at an ethic will deteriorate into either personal or societal preferences or simply be incoherent.
Kind of like how the Hebraic "societal preferences" were to stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, but in modern Israel, and in "Christian nations", that isn't the preference?
Kind of like how God can command people to take the life of certain tribes of canaanites, but those people can't go and do it without dad's approval? The action, in other words, is only moral relative to hearing a voice from the sky. It isn't that the *consequences* of what we do determine the *rightness* of an action. Instead, it's whether the person telling us to do it is an authority or not. Instead of saying that "if X causes harm, then X is not good for the person it causes harm to," you say, "it doesn't matter what X is, only if God said to do X." You remove any moral grounding from yourself and from reality. And that makes you scary creatures. I hope you never abandon your faith.
My argument is that in order to have a basis for morality, one must have an objective, transcendent, universal grounding of that morality.
ReplyDeleteFunny, sounds exactly like God to me.
And even funnier, how is it that morality ever depends on transcendence or ultimacy? How is it that an action I take at a particular time, with particular consequences, has to be evaluated as a transcendent ideal?
Consequentialist ethics are so much better than your silly assertions.
Calvindude,
ReplyDeleteYou're being quite a tallywhacker.
Notice how all Steve does is move the goalposts from his original assertion that "So, yes, Mr. Shermer, left to our own devices it’s only a matter of time before rape, robbery, and murder would become public policy. Indeed, that prospect has played out to one degree or another whenever an unchristian regime has been in power for long."
ReplyDeleteNow he's saying, "Nevermind that X (rape, murder, robbery playing out when 'left to our own devices') well, uh, it still isn't MORAL even if it isn't a CRIME to do Y and Z..."