I wish Christians would stop saying that atheism entails the rejection of objective moral value. It entails the rejection of God. But non-theistic theories of objective moral value (at least qua the theism of Judaism/Christianity/Islam) have been around since the ancient Greeks.— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) July 7, 2019
Rauser is such a bootlicker. His tongue is black and brown from shoe polish.
Yes, there are secular theories of moral realism. That doesn't mean they are successful.
Rauser's Tweet has only two possible logical implications:
ReplyDelete- He believes that any idea that was propounded more than a certain number of years ago, should be accepted as true.
- Or, Rauser accepts these non-theistic theories as successful, and thus himself accepts a definition of morality independently of God; which is to say, he personally repudiates the Christian doctrine.
Which is it, Randall? Teasing isn't necessary, you can just explain yourself.
God existed prior to the Greeks, so I'm not sure what his point is. Morality only started existing when the Jews and Christians showed up?
ReplyDeleteRauser says that objective moral values have been around since the ancient Greeks. Well the simple answer is based on the fact of Romans 1 and God's law written on the heart.
ReplyDeleteSecond he says that atheism entails the rejection of moral values, this is in fact true when you read the writings of Sartre, Nietzsche, Nagel, Camus etc. Has he even bothered to read those writings?
Notice too that he wrote "I wish that Christians would stop saying that..." Does he equally wish that atheists would stop saying it? Is it only a problem if Christians agree with atheists?
DeleteI wonder if he is also not poking at the common straw man that we believe Atheists cannot be moral. When the fact is we are simply saying secular theories fail to account for it.
DeleteI'd kind of like him to define what he means by "objective." Just because atheists call something "objective" doesn't make it actually objective.
ReplyDeleteAtheism does in fact entail the rejection of objective moral value. On what basis does the atheist assert there is a universal, objective morality? Does Rauser think one inch below the surface on any topic?
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to Rauser, sometimes he thinks two inches below the surface of a topic. :)
DeleteAlex Rosenberg would disagree with Rouser:
ReplyDelete“Is there a God?
No.
What is the nature of reality?
What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe?
There is none.
What is the meaning of life?
Ditto.
Why am I here?
Just dumb luck.
Does prayer work?
Of course not. Is there a soul?
Is it immortal?
Are you kidding?
Is there free will?
Not a chance!
What happens to us when we die?
Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad?
There is no moral difference between them.
Does history have any meaning or purpose?
It’s full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing. “
I tweeted these to Rauser et al:
ReplyDelete1. True, non-theistic theories of objective moral value have been around since ancient Greeks. Also true that criticisms of these theories have been around since ancient Greeks. In short, mere existence of theories doesn't imply their success.
2. Nah, Craig didn't lose the debate to Kagan. A tie at worst. First, it wasn't a formal debate. Veritas asked it to be a friendly dialogue. Both Craig and Kagan held back their best. Also this atheist's review: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1810