THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
Daryl was obviously a sociopath, like roughly 5% of the general population (though the vast majority of sociopaths enever kill). I commend a reading of Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door for those interested in this kind of behavior.
Daryl is a calculating rationalist. He begins with a popular secular premise, then conducts himself accordingly.
Premise: This life is all there is, so make the most of it.
So he’s prepared to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to achieve that objective so long as he can get away with it.
But if you wish to treat atheism as synonymous with psychopathology and sociopathology, who am I to differ?
What can an atheist say to convince Daryl that he did anything truly and objectively evil? Well, most of us (i.e. the non-sociopaths) would tell him that what he did was nasty. But the key is that we would be making our own moral judgment based on our evolved instincts and learned moral judgments.
i) Evolutionary ethics is fraught with philosophical problems:
ii) At best, evolutionary psychology fosters the illusion of right and wrong:
What you Bibleists fail to realize is that even if you decide to follow the moral precepts of some holy book or priest, you are still making your own judgments. Each individual has inevitably to rely on their own individual moral compass - their own sense of right and wrong - in weighing up to whom they should listen and whether to accept the moral advice they are given: Law (ibid, p. 79).
I already dealt with that objection in my review of The Christian Delusion, where Hector Avalos trots out the same lame argument. Try again.
I don't not profess to have any expertise in Calvinism but Maharashi Rauser wrote on his blog today that: Not only did God predispose human persons to behave in certain ways, but he is the primary cause of their acting the way they do. based on this view, Daryl should either blame lordy for his nasty predispositions or, better yet, just sincerely repent on his deathbed and receive a metaphysical "get out of jail free" card.
I’ve frequently dealt with moralistic objections to predestination. Either present a counterargument or shut up.
Also, don’t bother to come back here unless and until to you can tackle the problems with evolutionary ethics in the linked material. No free lunch for infidels.
Before I respond to the substance of this post, I would like to respond to a larger theme that is incessantly parroted on this site: the suggestion that atheism necessitates moral relativism. The importance of applying reason to moral problems clearly involves the rejection of moral relativism. How do we figure out right and wrong? By the application of reason. Will that result in unanimous conclusions? Doubtfully. However, theists can't even get past the Euthyphro dilemma without borrowing sophisms from the like of Glenn Peoples to the effect that rightness is the effect of something being willed by god. Of course, that kind of nonsense allows you to be boxed into a corner that whatever your god directs (eg. kill your firstborn) is "good".
ReplyDeleteI am not an evolutionary biologist or moral philosopher but I will gladly take a stab at the questions posed in the article you cited:
How can a trait that was developed under the pressure of natural selection explain moral actions that go far beyond reciprocal altruism or enlightened self-interest?
Although Richard Dawkins' credentials when it comes to theological criticism are arguably suspect, his credentials in evoltuionary biology are superb. As a result, to answer this question I will reproduce some notes I took at a lecture he gave at MSU on March 2, 2009 to address this very question:
The purpose of wild animals is to survive and propagate their genes. Now let's look at ourselves .... We appear to be the exception. Hedonistic thrill and pleasure seeking. Contraception. Adoption. Why are sperm donors paid? Why don't they pay for the privilege?
Archi-purpose is the appearance of design in the suitability of animal traits. Neo-purpose is the use of the human brain to design things (i.e. a guided missile). Dawkin's thesis is that neo-purpose (the human capacity to set up and achieve goals) is itself an evolved adaptation.
Neat analogy - a bat is a guided missile. Insects display similar sophisticated guidance systems to those designed by human engineers.
Why do humans seek goals that do not appear aimed at propagating their genes? Dawkins - our goal seeking capacity is an immensely useful tool. Our minds are flexible enough to pursue goals such as the welfare of the country, faith, etc. However, our minds are inflexible in that we allow ourselves to be subverted. Subversion of desire for sweets (i.e. junk food). Subversion of parenting instinct (i.e. caring for pets) Subversion of sexual desire (i.e. the lure of pornography). Subversion of kinship: in-group loyalty in opposition to out-groups.
Subversion of in-group loyalty - "my country right or wrong."
Not all subversion of our natural urges is bad. There is hope that our species will not destroy itself. [although I must say that I was left with a decidedly pessimistic view on that point].
In summary, natural traits can be subverted and reproductory fitness need not explain everything.
Could not human beings have moved beyond their biological roots and transcended their evolutionary origins, in which case they would be able to formulate goals in the pursuit of goodness, beauty, and truth that “have nothing to do directly with survival, and which may at times militate against survival?” (O’Hear, 1997: 203).
ReplyDeleteSee above. Enough said.
Morality is universal, whereas biologically useful altruism is particular favoring the family or the group over others. “Do not kill” does not only refer to one’s own son, but also to the son of strangers. How can evolutionary ethics cope with universality?
I recommend a reading of Robert Wright's The Moral Animal for a fulsome discussion of this issue.
The fact that we favor our kin is so obvious that it hardly merits stating. If you have children, I assure you that your enthusiasm to rush into a burning building to save its occupants will be increased a hundred fold if your own kids are in there. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be willing to save those unrelated to you and Wright goes into the reasons for this at some depth (don't have the book with me right now).
I view the universality of morality and, in particular, the universal aversions to murder, lying and incest as good evidence in favour of evolutionary morality. Of course, you are free to dismiss this by suggesting that your lordy breathed these senses into heathens like me.
Normative ethics aims to be action-guiding. How could humans ever judge an action to be ensuring long-term survival? (This is a practical rather than conceptual problem for evolutionary ethics.)
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is difficult and, from my perspective, a mug's game because humanity will eventually become extinct just like 99% of all the other species that have inhabited the earth to date.
Hume’s “is-ought” problem still remains a challenge for evolutionary ethics. How can one move from “is” (findings from the natural sciences, including biology and sociobiology) to “ought”?
Much more brilliant minds than I have tried to tackle this problem. The approach that makes the most sense to me is desire utilitarianism as advocated by Alonzo Fyfe. A short article outlining the theory is available here: http://www.alonzofyfe.com/article_du.shtml and an online book can be accessed here: http://www.alonzofyfe.com/desire_utilitarianism.shtml
Similarly, despite the length of time that has passed since the publication of Principia Ethica, the challenge of the “naturalistic fallacy” remains.
See Fyfe's response but I am not wedded to naturalism. Just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I think there are fairties in my garden.
THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Before I respond to the substance of this post, I would like to respond to a larger theme that is incessantly parroted on this site: the suggestion that atheism necessitates moral relativism.”
You act as if this is a Christian caricature of atheism. But I have quoted many prominent infidels who espouse moral relativism. Are you so ignorant of atheistic literature that you don’t know your own side of the argument?
“However, theists can't even get past the Euthyphro dilemma…”
I’ve addressed that objection on many occasions. If you wish to retain the privilege to post here, don’t raise canned objections as if these had never been dealt with before.
Quoting Dawkins evinces your intellectual inability to even grasp the nature of the problem. To explain the origins of a belief does nothing to justify said belief. Are you so dim-witted that you can’t figure that out?
The question is not how certain moral beliefs (allegedly) arise, but whether or not those beliefs are warranted.
“The fact that we favor our kin is so obvious that it hardly merits stating…I view the universality of morality and, in particular, the universal aversions to murder, lying and incest as good evidence in favour of evolutionary morality.”
Once again, you’re too obtuse to realize that you just made two mutually contradictory statements. Love of kin is in-group love. In-group love is consistent with murdering members of the out-group. Therefore, you can’t extrapolate from in-group love to a universal aversion to murder, &c. And, historically, your claim is demonstrably false.
“The approach that makes the most sense to me is desire utilitarianism as advocated by Alonzo Fyfe.”
But he rejects intrinsic values. So that’s moral relativism through the back door.
“Just because I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I think there are fairties in my garden.”
An argument from analogy minus the argument. Cutesy one-liners are just a cop-out.
“The approach that makes the most sense to me is desire utilitarianism as advocated by Alonzo Fyfe.”
ReplyDeleteBut he rejects intrinsic values. So that’s moral relativism through the back door.
Exactly. Ask him how he knows what desires should be preferred and he'll just repeat himself. Turtles all the way down.
It's amazing that this seems to be the most-preferred ethical system among Internet atheists these days. Fads are fads.
TAM also seems to forget that if evolution formed morality, it also formed the "delusion" that morality comes from a higher being, seeing as how at least 95% of humans are (and have consistently been throughout all history) theistic.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to forget that natural selection works for the survivability of the species as a whole, and therefore the simple fact that humans are inherently religious is proof, under his own views, that atheism kills.
Steve asks: Are you so ignorant of atheistic literature that you don’t know your own side of the argument?
ReplyDeleteAre you so ignorant of atheism that you think atheists agree on everything?
Steve asks: To explain the origins of a belief does nothing to justify said belief.
I'm not attempting to "justify" morality - I'm just trying to provide a rational explanation for why it exists without playing the god(s) card.
The question is not how certain moral beliefs (allegedly) arise, but whether or not those beliefs are warranted.
If by "warranted" you mean necessary, I contend that human morality (eg. golden rule, kin preference, reciprocal altruism and a universal aversion to murder, lying and incest) tend to favor reproductive fitness as opposed to immorality. I presume you are familiar with the effectiveness of tit for tat in gaming theory.
Peter wrote: TAM also seems to forget that if evolution formed morality, it also formed the "delusion" that morality comes from a higher being, seeing as how at least 95% of humans are (and have consistently been throughout all history) theistic.
I agree that religious delusions may have offered a survival advantage to our primitive ancestors. See Lewis Wolpert's Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast for an interesting discussion of this issue.
THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Are you so ignorant of atheism that you think atheists agree on everything?”
As usual, you can’t follow your own pitiful argument. You were the one who insinuated that Triablogue imputes moral relativism to atheism, contrary (according to you) to what atheists actually believe. I’m countering you on your own terms. Try not to be so dense. It’s a poor witness to the intellectual superiority of atheism.
“I'm not attempting to ‘justify’ morality - I'm just trying to provide a rational explanation for why it exists without playing the god(s) card.”
i) Once again, you can’t follow your own pitiful argument. You denied that atheism implies moral relativism. So, yes, you need to justify the existence of objective moral norms given atheism.
ii) You also equivocate over “morality,” perhaps because you’re too obtuse the grasp the issue. The question at issue isn’t the existence of social mores or moralistic sentiments, but whether these correspond to objective moral norms.
“If by "warranted" you mean necessary…”
You really haven’t a clue. By “warranted” you need to show that moral beliefs are true. Are there objective moral facts to which they correspond. Discussing the origin of a belief, even if you’re analysis was correct, does nothing to validate the belief. Are you just too thick to figure that out?
Someone born in 15C China may believe the world is resting on a cosmic turtle. You could explain the origin of his believe in terms of social conditioning. But that would do nothing to justify the resultant belief.
“I contend that human morality (eg. golden rule, kin preference, reciprocal altruism and a universal aversion to murder, lying and incest) tend to favor reproductive fitness as opposed to immorality. I presume you are familiar with the effectiveness of tit for tat in gaming theory.”
i) Which ducks the question of whether reproductive fitness is good.
ii) In addition, altruism may often collide with individual self-interest. So, if this life is a one-shot deal, then why should an atheist sacrifice himself for the common good?
iii) You also continue to posit contradictory morals. Kin preference is in tension with the golden rule. Likewise, kin preference is in tension with a “universal aversion” to murder.
Why don’t you learn how to think instead of blindly reciting whatever you read in Dawkins, et al.?
The Euthyphro dilemma? That's simple. You just define goodness itself apart from God and then determine God's relationship to the good.
ReplyDeleteThe Atheist Missionary doesn't deal with our counter-arguments to his "arguments." He just gets back on his hamster wheel to tread out the next canned response.
ReplyDeleteHis modus operandum from the beginning has been, first, to troll our combox with usually off-topic Dawkinsian quips and the like. When we offer a reasoned response, he doesn't deal with our response but rather parrots someone else similar like PZ Myers or Jerry Coyne. Once we not only point this out to him but often also respond to whomever he's parroting (which we don't have to do), he dumps another one of his prooftexts gleaned from the pages of the secularist du jour in the attempt to give some semblance of rationality to his secular position. Then he lurks till the next post.
I don't recall him admitting his many illogical and unreasonable arguments, which we've pointed out to him time and time again. Rather, after we offer counter-arguments, he just sits and waits, silently biding his time till he can troll the next post.
We should probably stop feeding the troll.
Then again, The Atheist Missionary is a useful foil.
Nick said:
ReplyDeleteThe Euthyphro dilemma? That's simple. You just define goodness itself apart from God and then determine God's relationship to the good.
Nick, Christians have historically rejected that position because it would mean that there are absolutes outside of God.
Annoyed. Note that I said that you see the relationship goodness has to God. I believe in the defining of goodness apart from God to understand it, but I don't believe goodness can exist apart from God.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. The answer to Euthyphro is to grasp one of the horns of the "dilemma" - things are good b/c God commanded them.
ReplyDeleteThen explain - He commanded them b/c good is grounded in His nature and He always acts in accord with His nature.
Then you grasp the other horn - God commands them b/c they are good.
Then you say "So what?"
Atheism contradicts moral realism, as has been demonstrated above, as is blindingly obvious to anyone who has thought about this for more than 2 seconds.
ReplyDeleteI'm dismayed so much time keeps getting wasted on this idiotic discussion, ad nauseum. Atheists should stop trying to defend this, and theists need to stop thinking that scoring easy points on this somehow supports their position.
When theists like Craig bring this up, it's like a game of chicken:
ReplyDelete"Is moral realism really important to you? Are you prepared to give it up, punk?"
If an atheist buckles under and tries to assert it while maintaining his atheism, he is just demonstrating his personal inconsistency, he is not scoring a point for theism. Personal inconsistency may be compatible with the theistic notion of depravity, or compatible with evolution. It doesn't advance your cause any more than a pure passage of exhortation ("do unto others", etc.) supports Arminianism, since exhortation passages are neutral, being compatible with both Arminian or Calivinist systems. Same with this inconsistency. It's neutral.
Thnuh,
ReplyDeleteIt shows that atheism is unliveable.
That it reduces entirely to meh. That there is literally no reason to believe atheism.
Nick, that doesn't seem to solve the Euthyphro Dilemma. The question it asks is what grounds morality. The following is my understanding. I've said these things before and anyone can skip reading my posts because my comments are also usually "canned" and usually basic level stuff. To continue...Socrates asked whether the "good (or pious/holy)" is loved by the gods because *IT IS* good, or whether it is good *BECAUSE* loved by the gods. OR as it's been phrased in modern times, "Is what God commands good because *it IS good*, or good BECAUSE God commands it"? If the former, then goodness exists, and can be identified/defined/described apart from God or gods. If the latter, then what if the gods disagree among themselves what things or virtues (etc) are "good".
ReplyDeleteFor example, if the goddess Aphrodite claimed that love was the highest virtue while Ares thought it was war, which would be right? Appealing to multiple gods to answer questions of morality would lead to the same problem of relativity we find in humans. However, if the question is asked of a monotheistic religion, then either:
i.morality exists apart from God and can be known (even by atheists) apart from God. This would mean that God wouldn't be needed for morality (specifically objective and transcendent). OR
ii. WHATEVER God commands would be "good". Which would imply that God could arbitrarily choose and decree that acts and attitudes like revenge, betrayal, hate, matricide (etc.) are virtues.
In the Christian theological tradition, this problem has been framed by asking whether God is 1.) sub lego (under law) 2.) ex lex (above or apart from law) or whether God is 3.) "a law unto Himself". #1. is usually rejected because it's usually believed that there are no absolutes apart from God. #2. is usually connected associated with divine voluntarism and Divine Command Theory (DCT). #3. is often associated with divine essentialism which teaches that what is good is derived from God's nature. A minority of Calvinists opt for #2, while most opt from something like #3.
I don't think #2 and #3 are contradictory. I like the term William Lane Craig uses to merge them; viz "Divine Command Essentialism". Moral virtues are grounded in God's nature, while our moral duties (as His creatures) flow from his commands and will. So, it's not either God's nature or God's will, but both. Of course, I don't agree with everything WLC would teach about morality since he rejects Calvinism as being morally objectionable.
@Pinoy
ReplyDeleteNick, that doesn't seem to solve the Euthyphro Dilemma. The question it asks is what grounds morality.
Reply: Actually, it seems the dilemma is all about asking what piety is. What makes something good? I say something is good by virtue of what it is. Note I am not talking about the grounding of goodness itself, but the knowledge of goodness.
Pinoy: But my position is not the former. I am not saying it is good because it is loved by God. I'm also not saying it is good just because God says it is. Of course, I say if it is good, God loves it and if it is good, God will say it is good, but that is not the basis of its goodness.
Pinoy: i.morality exists apart from God and can be known (even by atheists) apart from God. This would mean that God wouldn't be needed for morality (specifically objective and transcendent). OR
Reply: This is not my position. My position is that morality can be known without knowing God, something the Bible I believe teaches, but it cannot exist apart from God. It's the same approach to the rest of reality. An experiment in the lab can be done the same way whether it is a Christian or an atheist that does it. I believe one can know reality without knowing God, but that reality will not be a complete version. Still, it is enough that one can live in the world.
Also, for the Bible saying this, I believe that's shown in Romans 2 and by the fact that pagan nations were condemned because of what they should have known was right and wrong by virtue of being human. I also don't believe when God said "Don't murder" for instance in the Ten Commandments, that he was giving them a new command. They already know that. The Ten Commandments are not just a set of rules, though they are that, but more along the lines of God making a treaty with Israel, akin even to a marriage proposal.
Pinoy: ii. WHATEVER God commands would be "good". Which would imply that God could arbitrarily choose and decree that acts and attitudes like revenge, betrayal, hate, matricide (etc.) are virtues.
Reply: Correct.
Pinoy: In the Christian theological tradition, this problem has been framed by asking whether God is 1.) sub lego (under law) 2.) ex lex (above or apart from law) or whether God is 3.) "a law unto Himself". #1. is usually rejected because it's usually believed that there are no absolutes apart from God. #2. is usually connected associated with divine voluntarism and Divine Command Theory (DCT). #3. is often associated with divine essentialism which teaches that what is good is derived from God's nature. A minority of Calvinists opt for #2, while most opt from something like #3.
Reply: I would opt for something more akin to #3. I don't accept #1 at all for nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God and if God went out of existence (He cannot, but for the sake of argument) then everything else would as well.
Thus, I say we define what goodness is and then when we understand goodness, I believe we can make a deduction from the existence of goodness to the existence of God as the ground of all goodness and the ground of all being. This would be akin to the fourth way.
But I am in no way saying that anything can exist apart from God.