Third-rate atheists emulating second-rate atheists

Some more feedback to my post from the peanut gallery at the Rational Skepticism Forum:

Here's the original post for reference:

http://triablogue.blogspot.fr/2012/07/funeral-for-atheism.html

Moonwatcher » Sep 25, 2014 11:35 pmExactly. The article is just a slippery slope argument…

If he imagines that my post was a slippery slope argument, then he doesn't know what a slippery slope argument is. My post was about the logical implications of atheism (e.g. moral/existential nihilism), and not a prediction about how atheists behave. 

…that has nothing to do with whether or not any religious beliefs are true. 

Another confused atheist. I don't have to present an argument for Christianity to present an argument against atheism. I don't have to prove the alternative to disprove something else.

As to his revered fiction of objective morality, suppose the "real" god turns out to be one that demands human sacrifice and orders murders (hmm, who could that be?). 

i) To begin with, if morality is objective, then there are some things God would not or (in a sense) could not command or demand–since that would be at odds with his nature.

ii) The only time the Biblical God demanded human sacrifice was in the counterfactual case of Isaac. But that was never really in the cards. To say the Biblical God orders "murders" simply begs the question.

iii) Since, however, "moonwatcher" regards objective morality as fictitious, why does he think his counterexamples have any traction? He acts as if that would be an unacceptable consequence of Christian ethics. Yet by denying objective morality, he's forfeited the right to lodge that complaint. 

I got the idea he was somehow saying that if morals are subjective, so is everything. So facts and evidence are somehow immediately subjective?

I didn't make that argument in my post. But since he brings it up, atheism undermines our access to "facts" and "evidence." It comes down to what our brain interprets as facts and evidence. A brain that's the byproduct of an unintelligent biological process. 

As someone else said, the guy is a f****wit because you can't just shut off or change your biological reactions.

My post never suggested otherwise. To the contrary, my post took that for granted. When physical determinism pulls the string, the dolls cries. Point is, our "biological reactions" (e.g. grief) have no moral or existential significance if atheism is true. 

You're not going to go on a killing spree or become a monster because the Magic Man in the sky doesn't exist…

i) Another muddleheaded objection. My post didn't make a prediction about atheist behavior. Rather, I made a normative point. Mind you, atheists do go massive killing sprees (e.g. abortion, euthanasia). 

ii) As a Classical theist, I agree with him that "the Magic Man in the sky doesn't exist." 

But suppose I did suggest that consistent atheist will be sociopaths. Since he repudiates objective morality, why is he so defensive on that point?

…UNLESS the only thing stopping you was the belief that he'd smack you down if you did and now you don't believe he exists.

So believing some things are intrinsically evil is never a deterrent? 

Believing in objective morality and gods doesn't stop people from committing atrocities or rationalizing away that morality, making it relative.

Since he repudiates objective morality, what's his problem with committing atrocities?

Shrunk » Sep 26, 2014 3:24 pmYes. It's like saying if the desire for food or sex is reducible to biological functions, then people are just going to stop eating and f***ing.

Another clueless atheist who can't follow the argument. For so many atheists, it's all about image and attitude. 

Among the questions begged are that a metaphysical motivation for an action makes the it more justifiable.

And why would that not be the case? Is his point that atheists are illogical? They just act randomly? No doubt that would explain a lot.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo  by » Sep 28, 2014 1:40 pm
I don’t need to demonstrate it. He believes that God is the ultimate source of “objective” morality, so did the devout Muslims who hijacked passenger planes and flew them into skyscrapers. So too does that nutjob who hacked off his co-worker’s head the other day. Whether it’s decapitating people, flying planes into buildings or advocating for the bombing of abortion clinics “after hours”, all of these people share a belief that their morality derives from an almighty all-knowing god.

His response suffers from gross intellectual confusions:

i) To begin with, grounding objective morality in God doesn't entail a divine command to fly hijacked passenger planes into skyscrapers or decapitate coworkers. Rather, that supplies the general basis for morality. That, of itself, doesn't specify what the objective moral norms will be. The identity of the moral norms is a distinct question from their metaphysical foundation. 

Indeed, only if there is such a thing as objective morality would it even be possible for beheading coworkers or flying passenger planes into skyscrapers to be truly blameworthy.  

Woo's reply is like saying that if mathematical realism is true, then 2+2=5. But mathematic realism doesn't, of itself, yield a particular set of equations. That's something to be discovered. And it hardly justifies contradictory equations. How mathematical realism unpacks is something we have to find out over time. 

ii) He also equivocates over the identity of "God," as if the "God" of Islam and Christianity share the same referent. Woo might as well say that since endocrinologists and aromatherapists both believe in medicine, that puts endocrinologists on the same side as aromatherapists. But, of course, they don't mean the same thing by medicine.  

iii) God doesn't command me to decapitate coworkers, bomb abortion clinics, or fly planes into buildings. Woo might as well blame the multiplication tables if I make a mistake in short division. But, of course, my mathematical practice may be diametrically at odds with mathematical truth. How does my belief that math derives from objective mathematical truths warrant me in miscalculating a column of figures? It doesn't. 

When did I say anything about ecoterrorism, and what does it have to do with atheism?? 

Understandably he'd like to duck secular varieties of terrorism. He only wants to tar Christianity with terrorism. But that tactic cuts both ways. And ecoterrorism is motivated by a secular worldview. Nature is all there is. Humans are animals. Save the planet. 

So what?? Argument From Authority may wash with credulous religious types, but in the real world it’s known as (yet another) fallacious form of argument.

No, not an argument from authority. Secular philosophers like Michael Ruse, Joel Marks, Alex Rosenberg, Quentin Smith, J. L. Mackie,  and Massimo Pigliucci make a reasoned case for why atheism and moral realism are incompatible.

What it means is that it becomes that much easier to rationalise a destructive act because it isn’t as bad (by what criteria btw?) as some other act which it supposedly works against or replaces. 

Really? So if I think setting a dog on fire is less evil than setting a man on fire, that makes it much easier for me to torch dogs? 

That’s the start of a very slippery ethical slope. 

So he's resorting to the slippery slope fallacy. As far as that goes, what about the "very slippery ethical slope" of…atheism? 

Moreover, all his talks about “less worse” and “far worse” acts sounds an awful lot like a relativistic moral framework! 

Is he really that ignorant? Does he even know what moral relativism means? For instance:

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.  

http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/ 

Polygamy is morally wrong’ may be true relative to one society, but false relative to another.  

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/#ForArg

Notice that on this definition or example, what is relativistic is not the claim that one action may be better or worse than a different action, but that the same action has no fixed moral value. 

The author has also handily evaded confronting the fact that he has essentially admitted that the only thing stopping him from hurting others is the fear of retribution from his invisible sky-tyrant. 

Notice that he doesn't quote me "essentially admitting that." And since I don't believe in a "sky-tyrant," that's clearly not my deterrent. 

The author may or may not be aware of the fact that the brain is capable of analysing itself and the world around it. It might also be worth the author’s while to acquaint himself with the concept of an illusion.

A brain that's high on LSD can indulge in self-analysis. But that's not terribly reliable, is it. A psychotic can engage in self-analysis. But is his diagnosis trustworthy?

If the very organ that's conducting the self-review is deluded, then it will lack the objectivity to distinguish reality from illusion. 

Since when do we need to bridge a gap to some “moral ontology”?

He puts moral ontology in scare quotes as though he's ignorant of the category. Moral ontology concerns itself with the question of whether there are moral facts–independent of what people may believe or feel. 

If some behaviour presents a threat to the survival and/or well-being of the community then the community agrees to discourage and punish it, and the converse is true for behaviours which promote that community’s survival and well-being. This is all the “moral ontology” that human societies need.

i) Why should an atheist care about the survival/wellbeing of "the community" rather than looking out for Number One? 

ii) Likewise, if promoting your community's wellbeing is "all the moral ontology that human societies need," then that justifies imperialism. Let's conquer and colonize another society that has natural resources which will promote the wellbeing of our particular in-group. 

So is the author in fact saying that he is NOT worried that deconstructing his own thinking process will invalidate his thoughts and emotions?

Since I'm a Christian rather than an atheist, deconstructing my own thinking process will not invalidate my thoughts and emotions. That's only a threat given atheism.

Now he’s trying to use an argument devised by an atheist philosopher (Daniel Denett [sic]) against an atheist! You gotta love the irony.

i) It's ironic that atheism is self-refuting. Yes, I love the irony. 

ii) In addition, it's perfectly legit to cite concessions by serious representatives of the opposing position. In a way it's even more significant when the other side admits weakness in its own position. 

There is no “me” distinct from the activity of my brain.

i) Which is why the brain is in no position to conduct a self-evaluation. The brain can't assume an objective, third-person perspective from which to assess its reliability. The brain can't step back to see itself for that it really is. The brain can't compare itself to reality. The brain can't tell what the brain is really like. 

He acts as if a man can argue with his own brain. But if physicalism is true, that's nonsensical. 

ii) That would be less of a problem if there was a some presumption that the brain is trustworthy. If, however, the brain is the byproduct of an unintelligent process (i.e. naturalistic evolution), then cognitive defects will be indetectable.  

What the author evidently fails to grasp is that this input data can include abstract concepts, including one’s sense of self.

As card-carrying physicalists like the Churchlands would be the first to note, "one's sense of self" is folk psychology. Woo needs to get with the program. 

If the process is in fact a causal process driven by the forces of selection and adaptation, then how is it meaningful to call it “blind”? 

The "forces of selection and adaptation" are unintelligent. 

Evidently the author is under the misapprehension that “blind” means “not micromanaged by some invisible sky-fairy”. 

i) He's ignorant of textbook evolution. Evolutionary biologists routinely say evolution is "blind." That's not my Christian characterization. Rather, that comes straight from the horse's mouth. 

ii) In addition, he and "moonwatcher, with their "Magic Man in the sky," "sky-tyrant," and "sky-fairy" epithets, are examples of third-rate atheists parroting the rhetoric of second-rate atheists. As a classical theist, I don't believe God lives in the sky. Are they just too ignorant of Christian theology to even know what they're shooting at? 

iii) BTW, what's his beef with invisible entities? Does he deny the existence of invisible entities like abstract objects and subatomic particles? 

At any rate, his dice analogy is not an adequate description of brain evolution: a more apt analogy would be a betting program which makes its decisions by using past data to 1) give relative weightings to certain relevant parameters, and 2) hypothesise and test new parameters which are then weighted according to their relevance.

A betting programmed is designed by an intelligent engineer to perform a purposeful activity. That's the antithesis of naturalistic evolution. That's why my dice analogy is more accurate. 

The end result is that the ant colony finds the most efficient path to the food source without needing any sort of overarching intelligence to guide the process.

i) That fails to distinguish between internal and external intelligence. A remote control toy plane is unintelligent. It is, however, guided by an intelligent agent.

ii) Insects can also be lured into traps–like carnivorous plants. They are too dumb to tell the difference between a food source and a trap.  

iii) Apropos (ii), finding pathways to food using chemical trails doesn't select for true beliefs. 

Once again, that's why my dice-throwing example to pick winners is a better analogy–where the outcome is the result of a mindless process. 

So the author isn’t satisfied with a “thoughtless process”, but is quite happy to assert the existence of some Primal Grand Thinker whose thought processes…

Thought is not a process for a timeless God. 

…are fundamentally indiscernible (i.e. ‘mysterious’) to us. 

Divine thought is discernible through its natural effects or verbal revelations. 

I said quite clearly that the emotional effects are real, and if the author has ever been emotionally moved by a fictional story or movie then he will be able to appreciate this.

Real emotional effects of fictional causes. He unwittingly sabotages atheism.