Sunday, December 09, 2007

The Ethical Atheist

We have an atheist troll ("Mason") who drops links to web sites (without offering any comments) that, apparently, he takes to offer something of a substantive challenge to Christian theism. Here is the link:

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ethical_atheist.html

I'll just cut, paste, and then respond. You will be appeared to in a red way by the Ethical Atheist's words. He has headings for his points, I'll follow his lead:

HOW CAN YOU HAVE MORALS AND BE ETHICAL WITHOUT GOD?

"For centuries, religion has attempted to hijack morality. They claim it is impossible to live a moral and ethical life without God. They claim that the Bible (or Koran, or Book of Mormon, or whatever book they are using at the time) defines morality and sin. Therefore, if you don't believe and live by their book, you are immoral, sinful and unethical."


i) For centuries, non-religion has attempted to hijack morality.

ii) Notice the old canard that "atheists cannot be ethical" is dusted off and pulled out. This claim is vague and ambiguous. For example,

a) I haven't heard a theist, especially in any published literature, claim that an atheist cannot be ethical where this means, "Atheists will necessarily eat your young children, bathe in their blood, and howl at the moon," or some such unethical activity.

b) In fact, I've heard the opposite. One such example can be found in W.L. Craig's debate with W. Sinnott-Armstrong. In clarifying his moral argument he tells us what is not being claimed: "The question here is not: 'Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?' I am not claiming that we must" (p.18). In fact, I have found this to be the standard and agreed upon position by whoever I have read.

c) So where does this oft repeated claim come from? I'll wager a couple of guesses: [1] From misunderstanding what theists have said. I once read Dan Barker's conversion testimony. He relayed a story about what his old pastor told him as Barker confided in him about his losing faith in faith. Barker said that the pastor said, "Dan, if it weren't for Jesus, I'd reach across the table right now and choke you to death." Interpreted charitably, I think the pastor just meant something like this: "Dan, if God didn't exist, there would be nothing objectively wrong with me reaching across this table and choking you to death." Interpreted thusly the claim is something like this: "Atheism cannot account for the grounding (metaphysically or epistemologically) of objective, normative, ethical principles that serve as action guides for moral behavior. [2] From atheists themselves. It is well known and documented that atheists, Nietzsche for example, have claimed that with the death of God, there are no rules. But even this doesn't imply that atheists can't live moral lives (but 'morality' is a construct, not an objective reality). In fact, since man is the master of his own ship, the only rule is that he live according to his rules that he has set for himself (yet Nietzsche couldn't justify making this rule an inter-personal normative rule). Or, take a Dawkins: "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." But again, all this means is that there are no objective, normative moral principles floating about. This doesn't mean that man can't be moral because perhaps man decides to form a contract, make "moral rules" and live according to them so we do not revert to a Hobbesian state of nature. We make rules so that we can flourish, and to follow those rules is to be moral. Now, I'm sure that there has been a theist or two who has made the claim that atheists can't be moral where this means that they, of necessity, must be eating children and such. But certainly the honest debater doesn't pick on the claims made by a few, especially when the majority of their own side has dismissed this claim.

iii) At the risk of sounding contradictory, there is a sense in which the atheist cannot be a good person, an ethical person, a moral person. This would be because many Christian ethicists recognize more than a deontological constraint on your ethical theory. If my theory is true, for a person to be considered good, or ethical, he must meet three criteria. That is, there is a deontological, a teleological, and a virtue (which includes intent, motive, etc.,) constraint. So if Christian theism is true, it is not enough that you do the right act (say, honoring your parents), you must do it for the right goal (honoring God), and the act must flow from a virtuous character (desire to please God, to glorify him, etc). Much more could be said about these three, I was just emphasizing enough to make my point. Now, Christian theism teaches that only the regenerated person can do something from the virtuous character. Since atheists are not, much to the readers surprise, regenerated, they will not be able to meet at least one (almost certainly two) of these criteria. In that sense, they cannot be moral.

But, this point isn't simply a Christian one. Non-Christian virtue ethicists have made similar points. They point out that it is not enough to simply do one's duty (following a Kantian maxim), they must do it from a good character. If someone S does a duty for the sake of duty, they will claim this is not enough to make what S did, good. Surely, they claim, there is a difference between these two cases:

[C1] You are in a hospital and recovering from injuries sustained in a car accident and your friend, Tom, stops by to visit you. After a while chatting Tom gets ready to leave. You thank him for stopping by and Tom confesses that he did so because it was his duty. He wasn't moved to visit you out of concern, or love, but simply because he felt that it was a duty to visit your friends and family if they are in the hospital.

[C2] Same situation, but Jill visits you out of real and sincere concern for her friend. Her act is motivated by a virtuous character.

Surely there is an ethical difference between [C1] and [C2].

With [C1] the deontologist would say that your act was more moral the more you didn't want to do your duty. You did duty, for the sake of duty, nothing else. The virtue ethicist notes, rightly I think, that this misses out on a major factor in judging moral actions. The point here, though, isn't to debate virtue ethics. I'm simply pointing out that secularists (say that they combine virtue and deontic ethics) have also made the same basic claim that I have made. That is, there is more to judging an act right, or a person good, than mere duty doing.

iv) The cash value of (iii) is that there is a sense in which we can say that atheists cannot be moral. Now, certainly we don't mean that they can't (or don't) follow moral norms (but there are some norms that they do not follow, e.g., praying), we mean that they cannot meet all the requirements needed for us to judge them as "good" people. Thus in a minimalist sense, atheists can be moral. That is, they can follow (many of) the right standards. Of course this was recognized far before these contemporary debates (cf. Romans ch. 2). My more qualified sense is something that the atheist can accept since it depends on theism being true. Thus if theism is true, the atheist cannot be "good" where "good" means more than merely following your duty, or even exhibiting a couple of good character traits (though this would have to be defined biblically, and so it would be hard for the atheist to really have these. Perhaps he can have them in a minimal way. I leave that open for discussion). But, I take it that in this debate, and the sense the Ethical Atheist meant it in, the claim that "atheists can't be moral" is usually intended to connote the idea that atheists cannot adhere to some basic, fundamental, paradigm cases of morality according to a normative model. That is, atheists can refrain from murdering, lying, stealing, etc. (Of course, even here, qualification could be made, for there is much more to following those commands than ordinarily thought. But again, I'm speaking in a very minimalist way. Perhaps a way in which the atheist can accept as what constitutes following moral precepts.)

v) Thus I think the question isn't, "Can atheists act morally?", the question is, "Can atheists provide an account for objective morality?".

I hope that is a helpful analysis of his quote.

Moving on...

"'Sin' is a very subjective concept which varies among religions. Religious books contradict themselves, and each other, on the definition of sin. They often define sin, only to have major religious figures commit these precise sins. In the Christian tradition, we are told "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Yet, many followers of the faith did exactly this and were often directed by God to do so. Moses was a murdering and raping machine... a sinner by religious definition. So much for 'sin'. Morality and ethics, on the other hand, are terms we accept and use regularly."


i) Sin isn't a subjective concept. If Christian theism is true, sin is something like any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. That the concept varies among religions does not prove that it is relative or subjective. From disagreement does not non-objectivity follow.

ii) Notice that no texts are cited to back up his claims. Furthermore, his claim, if true, provides empirical conformation of Christian theism. Christian theism predicts that men, even the most religious (sometimes, especially the most religious!), will sin. So, to point out one of them sinning is to confirm what the theory predicts.

iii) Since no one is perfect, then every person who claims to hold to an ethical theory has violated (sinned against) the principles espoused in that theory. Since I assume that The Ethical Atheism is not perfect, then his point is self-refuting. For if he has violated his own precepts, then he must, on pain of inconsistency and arbitrariness, claim: "So much for my moral principles."

Continuing...

"Many religious followers often refer to examples of morality and ethics in religious people (e.g.. Mother Teresa, volunteers helping poor farmers in third world countries, people helping the poor in our own country, etc.). They use this as their justification that you must be religious to be moral and ethical. This is an argument which fails basic logic. It ignorantly assumes that moral and ethical individuals do NOT exist outside of religion. Yet, there are many non-religious people who help the poor, help educate our children, strive for peace in the world, and so on. Just as morality and ethics is not solely owned by religion, corrupt and abhorrent behavior falls on both sides as well. Religious individuals are guilty of discrimination, raping our children, stealing funds from the Church, covering up crimes, murdering others in our society and abroad, etc. Yet, so are non-religious people. Both sides are guilty. It is not our intention to prove which side is more guilty of these actions. We only emphasize that their is good and bad behavior on both sides. Therefore, morality and ethics are concepts that exist within religion AND in the absence of religion."


i) No, that's not the argument. The argument is, how do you objectively decide between what Mother Theresa did and what Hitler did. The argument from moral saints is that if there can be people who are "more" moral than another, then what is the standard by which this is judged. How is it accounted for. Furthermore, the moral saint argument can be used to bolster an argument for an ethic of virtue, which in turn can be used to argue for theism since teleology seems more at home in theism than in naturalism (or, atheism). Just as a properly-functioning cognitive faculty seems to assume a theistic worldview, so does a properly-functioning moral faculty.

ii) His comment assumes moral realism, this must be accounted for given his assumptions.


DEFINE "ETHICS"

"ethics (eth'iks): 1. a system or set of moral principles. 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or governing a particular group, culture, etc: medical ethics. 3. the branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of actions and the goodness and badness of motives and ends. 4. moral principles, as of an individual.

Now, did we see anything in this definition confining ethics to religion? No. Just as our discussion above states, ethics is not confined to, or from, religion. Yet, we never seem to get beyond this in discussions with religious people. Why is this? Because they have been taught from birth that morality and ethics are meaningless unless spoken of in the context of religion. We believe this to be completely wrong."


i) Do I need to point out that citing a dictionary definition doesn't prove or disprove anything other than to verify a historical fact about how a term has been used?

ii) One would say that we find this that, if taken normatively and objectively, are incompatible with naturalism (or, atheism): moral principles, right, wrong, good, bad, ends.

iii) Those things seem right at home in a theistic universe, it is not clear that they do in an atheistic universe. Thus Mackie, "If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe." (Inventing Right and Wrong, p. 38)

Moving along...

"Where do 'ethics' come from? Are we born with them? In some cases, yes. In others, no. It is probably safe to say that the desire to murder or kill other living creatures is NOT something we possess from birth. Without the influence of violence in the media and that 'learned' after birth, most children would not have a desire to kill - for religious reasons or otherwise. This is a learned behavior in some people. However, an opposite learned behavior also exists - the desire not to kill."


i) That someone learns some X does not logically imply that X is not innate. Many philosophers have argued that we are born with innate mathematical knowledge, yet we are still taught math.

ii) There is no evidence to back up any of his assertions, we're just supposed to take his word for it. has he studied all of the anthropological data? The pro and the con?

iii) The above can be fully consistent with a theistic worldview where all men are born with the law of God written on their heart. This could also explain the desire to refrain from murder. Thus his evidence can be fully consistent with a Christian worldview. It should be therefore obvious that his claims cannot serve to refute that ethics need a theistic (or, religious) grounding (whether metaphysical or epistemological, or both).

iv) Does he think murders only started after "the media" reported violence? Seems to me that even atheists have noted that "in a state of nature" the desire is to kill since that state is an egoist state. Hobbes thought we needed a social contract with rules outlawing murder precisely because we would revert back to our natural, killing selves. I shouldn't have to point out that the social contract theory is a popular theory with atheists. So, not everyone would agree with the Ethical Atheist on this one.

v) If murder is a learned behavior, how did anyone ever commit the first murder? Who did s/he learn it from?

vi) Is it a "learned behavior" in "some people?" If so, is it an "innate behavior" in "some other people?"

vii) I don't see how any of this shows where "ethics came from." It seems all over the map. Some are learned. Some are innate. Some that are innate in some are learned in others. And some that are learned in some are innate in others. Some ethics "come from" being born with them, and others, not.


ETHICS IN EDUCATION

"In general, we believe ethics to be solely the product of education. Education is a broad term and this term was used here precisely for that reason. Children learn from a wide variety of resources. They learn in school, from their parents, from the behavior of those around them, from the mass media, etc."


i) But above it was stated that only some ethics were the product of education.

ii) This answer doesn't seem to provide a good account for what makes an action right or wrong. Mark Timmons identifies 6 standards (though he allows for more) for evaluating moral theories. One of them is the explanatory power standard. According to Timmons (Moral Theory, p. 15), a moral theory attempts to provide principles that explain what makes an action right or wrong. That is, a moral theory should not only tell us what actions are good or bad, but why such actions are good or bad. It is certainly hard to see how if moral principles are the "products" of education, this explains what makes said principles (by which we judge people or actions) good or bad; right or wrong. Indeed, some people have educated their students according to contradictory moral principles.

iii) This theory is certainly not the accepted view of atheists and naturalists. Some would say that moral principles are necessary truths expressed as conditionals (cf. Shafer-Landau). Some would say that ethics are the products of social contracts (cf. Hobbes). Some would say that ethical principles are the product of virtues (cf. Aristotle, Mill, etc). Some would say that ethics are supervenient facts, products of the natural world (cf. Brink).

iv) It doesn't follow that if someone S is taught something X, that X is the product (brought into existence by) of the teaching. Take mathematics. Most sensible people are realists about mathematical entities and truths. That we are taught mathematics, then, in no way shows that they are the product of such teaching. His argument is a non-sequitur, then.

Moving on...

"The ethics of our children, and thus the ethics of future societies, is completely in our hands. Children do not know hate at birth. They do not know Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Palestinian, East or West, Baptist or Mormon, our country or their country. They know love, yet do NOT know hate. Whether you know it our not, you are giving your children these faculties."


i) This assumes that concern for posterity is a justified ethical activity on the Ethical Atheists standards. Many theories cannot account for this (e.g., Egoism, Kantianism).

ii) I'd suggest this guy spend some time around children. He's also making a statistical claim without any evidence to back it up. He gives us no reason to accept it.

iii) How do infants know "love" at birth? Has he read the psychologists report on the cognitive abilities of infants?

iv) Being born all cute 'n cuddly may be, on his worldview, a survival trait which staves off attack from other members of the society. But, when the child is older and more developed, he jumps right into his role as hater.

v) Egoists like Hobbes would disagree with the above claim he makes. All men are born "in a state of nature."

===============

"Taken together, these plausible descriptive and normative assumptions yield a state of nature potentially fraught with divisive struggle. The right of each to all things invites serious conflict, especially if there is competition for resources, as there will surely be over at least scarce goods such as the most desirable lands, spouses, etc. People will quite naturally fear that others may (citing the right of nature) invade them, and may rationally plan to strike first as an anticipatory defense. Moreover, that minority of prideful or “vain-glorious” persons who take pleasure in exercising power over others will naturally elicit preemptive defensive responses from others. Conflict will be further fueled by disagreement in religious views, in moral judgments, and over matters as mundane as what goods one actually needs, and what respect one properly merits. Hobbes imagines a state of nature in which each person is free to decide for himself what he needs, what he's owed, what's respectful, right, pious, prudent, and also free to decide all of these questions for the behavior of everyone else as well, and to act on his judgments as he thinks best, enforcing his views where he can. In this situation where there is no common authority to resolve these many and serious disputes, we can easily imagine with Hobbes that the state of nature would become a “state of war”, even worse, a war of “all against all”.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/#4

===============

vi) What does it mean to say that "ethics is in our hands?" This seems highly subjective. Is it us who make actions right or wrong? If so, we have an admission of guilt - the atheist cannot provide an account for the objectivity of morality.

Continuing...

"If you teach your children to hate and to be intolerant of conflicting religions: they may grow up to be suicide bombers; they may become murders of Planned Parenthood workers; they may discriminate against their neighbors; they may promote overthrowing the government in bloody coups (e.g.. Pat Robertson); and they may become the next Hitler. If you let your children grow up watching violent television, your children may grow up to have little regard for life; they may kill others or promote war; they may torture animals; and they may have no concept or desire for peace on Earth."


i) So atheists can be moral because of psychological programming?

ii) They might also become Stalins and Pol Pots too. Let's not leave out secular tragedy.

iii) None of this is an account for what grounds the normativity and objectivity of morality.

iv) Also, note the atheist trying to censor what people watch. How enlightened.

v) If we were all born so "loving" how'd we wind up here? Who did the first person learn immoral behavior from?

vi) Are the above moral absolutes? Say that your neighbors are child rapists. Say that your government is Hitler's.

vii) The above seems to appeal to a consequentialist account of what makes an action right or wrong. Of course this is fraught with problems, as the standard literature will show. For example, if we could stop a riot which was killing thousands of innocent lives by framing an innocent man (if we knew this would stop the riots, and we would never be found out, etc.,), would this make it right?

viii) Notice that murdering Planned Parenthood workers is deemed "immoral," but our country's murdering of millions of unborn human beings every year isn't mentioned. Perhaps if the secularists are so concerned with life, and stopping violence, they shouldn't allow women to slaughter their children with impunity.

ix) What of those who educated their children that blowing up buildings was the right thing to do? If this doesn't "produce" said actions as "right," then how does education "produce" ethics? Perhaps he means that there are true principles to teach, and false ones. If so, how does he account for such truth and objectivity?

Moving on...

"On the other hand, if you raise your children to understand morality and ethics; and to live by these rules, the world just might be a better place. If more truth and honesty existed in educating our children around the world, we believe that chance would exist for peace and reconciliation. If you teach your children to accept their neighbor, chances are they will. They will be subjected to other influences, but the role of the parent should not be underestimated."


i) This is all fine and dandy, how is such accounted for?

ii) What is the norm or standard by which we can say that the world is getting "better?"

iii) It has been known for quite some time that the mere teaching of rules doesn't provide the necessary motivation for a person to do right acts. Virtue ethicists have long pointed out that virtues without rules are blind, but rules without virtues are motivationally impotent to inspire us to action. But getting into "proper" character introduces teleology (or other normative notions) into the discussion. What grounds this?

iv) How does man become a better person? Try harder? Is that all the secularist can tell us? Empirical observation should show that this is a pipe dream. Christianity teaches that men need a new nature.

v) To speak of "the role" of the parent smacks of something like Aquinas Natural Law theory. As if there was a "proper" or "natural" role parents should play. How is this defended given evolutionary assumptions? Why not seed as many flowers as possible?

vi) He speaks as if he thinks the way the world is isn't the way it "should" be. Something has gone terribly wrong. The theist has an answer here, what is his?

"What is the biggest contributor to hate and intolerance in our world? The answer is simple: religion. More conflict is generated by religious beliefs and actions than from any other source. And, this not only applies to conflict between countries and societies; but to conflict within individual countries and societies."


That is his answer - religion is to blame.

i) Ah, yes, the vague and undefined scapegoat - Religion!

ii) When one deals at the level of such abstract notions as "Religion," we can cite any numerous concept that can easily take its place. In common with almost all wars and mass violence has been, "Politics." Or, how about, "Man?" Some atheists have noted that "man" is the problem. Rather than Hitchens' "How Religion Poisons Everything," one could equally point out "How Man Poisons Everything."

Well, is "religion" the cause of our problems? If "religion" (notice these terms are never defined) was gone, would wars follow them? David Livingstone Smith, professor of philosophy at the University of New England, and an atheist, has written a book called "The Most Dangerous Animal: Human Nature and the Origins of War." In it he claims to analyze war as a philosopher and a researcher. He puts in some serious time looking at "war." As an atheist, and an ardent evolutionist (co-founder of the Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology), what has his hard thinking and long hours of research led him to find?

"War can be approached from many angles. We can consider it from the standpoint of economics, politics, history, ideology, ethics, and various other disciplines. All of these are important, but there is one dimension that underpins them all: the bedrock of human nature." (p. xiii)

"Historically, there have been two broad, sharply polarized views of the relationship between war and human nature. One is that war is human nature in the raw, stripped of the facade of contrived civility behind which we normally hide. In most recent incarnations of this ancient theory, the taste for killing is said to be written in our genes. The other is that war is nothing but a perversion of an essentially kind, compassionate, and sociable human nature and that it is culture, not biology, which make us so dangerous to one another. In fact, both of these images are gross oversimplifications: both are true, and both are false. Human beings are capable of almost unimaginable violence and cruelty toward one another, and there is reason to believe that this dogged aggressiveness is grounded in our genes. But we are also enormously sociable, cooperative creatures with an elemental horror of shedding human blood, and this, too, seems to be embedded in the core of human nature. Strange as it may sound, I believe that war is caused by both of these forces working in tandem; it is a child of ambivalence, a compromise between two opposing sides of human nature." (p. xiv, emphasis original)

"What evidence was that these people [who cased wars or acts of terror or brutal slayings] were insane? There is usually none. The psychologists who painstakingly sifted through the data on the senior Nazi officer brought to justice in the Nuremberg trials found that ‘high-ranking Nazi war criminals … participated in atrocities without having diagnosable impairments that would account for their actions.’ They were ‘ as diverse a group as one might find in our government today, or in the leadership of the PTA.’ If the Nazi leaders were not deranged, what about the rank and file who did Hitler’s dirty work? What about the members of the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile killing units that committed atrocities like the mass killing at Babi Yar, where 33,000 Jews, as well as many gypsies and mental patients, were machine-gunned to death during two crisp autumn days in 1941? Do you think these men must have been psychopaths or Nazi Zealots? If so, you are wrong. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they were anything other than ordinary German citizens. ‘The system and rhythm of mass extermination,” observes journalist Heinz Hohne, “were directed by … worthy family men.” The men of the German Reserve Police Battalion 101, a killing squad in Poland who were involved in the shooting of at least 38,000 Jews and the deportation of a further 83,000 to the Treblinka death camp, were ordinary middle-aged family men without either military training or ideological indoctrination. ‘The truth seems to be,’ writes psychologist James Waller, ‘that the most outstanding characteristic of perpetrators of extraordinary evil lies in their normality, not their abnormality.’ Purveyors of violence, terrorists, and merchants of genocidal destruction are, more often than not, people who fit the profile that Primo Levi panted of his Nazi jailers at Auschwitz: ‘average human beings, averagely intelligent, averagely wicked … they had our faces.’ To Hannah Arendt they were ‘terribly and terrifyingly normal.’ They could be your neighbors, parents, or children. They could be you.” (p. 4)

“Wars are purposeful. They are fought for resources, lebensraum, oil, gold, food, and water or peculiarly abstract or imaginary goods like God, honor, race, democracy, and destiny” (p. 7)

“Hobbes thought that antagonism simmers beneath the surface of all human interactions, constantly threatening to erupt into lethal violence, and the problem lay in human equality.” (p.9, ).

And so on the one hand we have those in the New Atheist camp that wish to blame wars on religion, or religious belief, and on the other hand we have philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and myriad researches who point out that wars are fought for an abundance of reasons - belief in God being only one of the contributing factors for some wars - but the underlying cause is human nature. It is man that causes war. Man is the problem. And, these so-called butchers are just like you and me.

It seems to me that Christians have been saying this for a long time. Man’s sinful nature is a major cause of the world’s problems. Southern Presbyterian R.L. Dabney says that when we speak of man being sinful by nature we mean, “the evil quality which characterizes man's natural disposition and will. We call this sin of nature original, because each fallen man is born with it, and because it is the source or origin in each man of his actual transgressions.” What is needed, then, isn’t books by The New Atheism telling people that religion (again, a word they always fail to define) is the root of all evil. As shown above, even if religion was removed, war would still rage. And, man would still be here. There would be something else to fight over. There always is. The New Atheists have done us a disservice in their sloppy overgeneralizations. They have made those atheists (mainly the young and impressionable militant types who live in cyber-space) who have trotted out their arguments look like uneducated, sloppy thinkers. Rather than carefully think through these issues they have, as David Livingstone Smith says following Plato, failed to “carve nature at its joints,” but have opted to hack off parts “like a clumsy butcher” (p. 15). So, not only have they been sloppy in their generalizations, failing to note the abundant causes of war and violence, the more careful thinkers in the atheist community have noted that they haven’t even needled the correct problem, the underlying source of war and violence - man.

Now, Smith argues that man can get around this genetic problem by lifting himself up by his own bootstraps, so to speak (p. 27). Man is the problem, and paradoxically, man is the solution to the problem! Man is the Messiah. We will save ourselves. But we will still be man. But this Messiah is a false Messiah. Smith only has what Dawkins would call blind faith in man’s ability to save himself. Smith ends his book by saying this of war and killing: “Both are deeply rooted in human nature, and neither can be extirpated. If I am right, we will never stop men from enjoying war, and trying to do so is a fools errand. The most that we can hope for, in the end, is for men to detest it more than they enjoy it, and the only way to shift the balance is to expose the self-deception that makes killing bearable” (p. 215). And so on the one side we have anti-intellectual men who have not done their homework and thus cannot hope to provide a solution having failed to grasp the problem, on the other side some atheists have drawn close to the problem, but there is no solution other than that of faith, mere hope.

This hope seems totally blind given that normal, intelligent, seemingly emotionally stable and compassionate men like, say, Winston Churchill could claim “I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering thousands every moment - and yet - I enjoy every second of it.” And “philosopher-soldier” J. Glenn Grey describes man’s thoughts about killing in WWII: “Happiness is doubtless the wrong word for the satisfaction that men experience when they are possessed by the lust to destroy and kill their kind.” And, take the words of Henri de Man, a soldier in WWI who later became leader of the Belgian Socialist party. He was a cultivated and intelligent person, but he says that after he secured his first hit on an enemy position and saw pieces of men’s bodies fly up in the air, and listened to the screams of the wounded, he “experienced such extreme pleasure that he wept for joy.” And, Vietnam veteran Philip Caputo says that his experience in war was “like getting screwed for the first time,” and it was an “ache as profound as the ache of orgasm.”

Smith thinks the above is the “delusion” that we must escape. He does not tell us how except to say that we can “use nature against nature” (p. 215), like how we use our desire for a long-term companion to ward off our desire to sleep with anything that breathes. But of course if you’re smart, like most men think they are, they‘d rather become good liars and end up sleeping with everything that breathes, while also keeping their wife in the dark. Have their cake and eat it too. Maybe like the formation of the atheist universe, it will just happen. Perhaps given Smith’s worldview, the above is no delusion. Perhaps the delusion is shaking your fist at Mother Nature. At transcending your genes. This is what Bertrand Russell thought:

“Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.”

Thus the desire to shake your fists at The Law of Nature is the delusion. But some like to live in a delusion. In the Christian worldview, we teach that man needs a new nature. He is still man but his old, sinful nature, needs to die. We need new natures. This is called regeneration. B.B. Warfield expresses regeneration thusly: “Regeneration (from Lat. re-, again + generare, beget) is a theological term used to express the initial stage of the change experienced by one who enters upon the Christian life. It is derived from the New Testament, where the ‘new birth’ (1 Pet. i. 3, 23; Titus iii. 5; John iii. 3 f.) is the beginning of that ‘renewal’ which produces the ‘new creature.’” Man doesn’t contradictorily save himself, he needs a savior. This savior is Jesus Christ. This regeneration is only the start of the new life. We still have vestiges of an enemy within. So, the war to be fought is against our old self (for those hawks who love a good fight, try battling against your old self day in and day out), not necessarily against an Osama Bin Laden (there is still a place for defense, but that goes beyond the scope of this entry). Even a regenerate man will still sin. But that is looking at things in a short-sighted fashion. This is the beginning of the process. (Though the here and now would change tremendously if more people were truly regenerate and looked to the principles of peace-making to solve problems.) Eventually, we will come to the place where the Prince of Peace rules. Indeed, the new heavens and earth is described in Revelation 21:25 as a city with open gates. In it’s historical context, this means safety. Cities would protect their inhabitants against attacks by closing its gates. In Isaiah 2:4 we read, “and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

On the other hand, to reject this salvation, means an eternity of war. The Nazis carried out their atrocities under the umbrella of God’s restraining grace - while he waits for all his elect to come to him. This will be removed. Some soldiers have described war as hell. This might be closer to the truth than you think. Reading the above comments about the love many men left in an un-regenerate state have for war and killing, what might a place where these men - you included - were un-restrained - you included - from committing the kind of evil they are really capable of be like? So, trusting in the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and even the more level-headed Livingstone Smith, will only get you, eventually, to a more violent place, where the wars we see will seem like a day at Disneyland.

People who makes claims like the above seem out of touch with reality, and blind to the violence their own systems could (and have) caused. Also, empirical tests have been done of things like "suicide bombing." McGrath comments that, "As Robert Pape showed in his definitive account of the motivations of such attacks, based on surveys of every kind of suicide bombing since 1980, religious belief of any kind is neither necessary nor sufficient to create suicide bombers -- despite Dawkins's breezy simplifications. (Remember, the infamous suicide vest was invented by the secessionist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka back in 1991.) Pape argues that the fundamental motivation is political: the desire to force the withdrawal of foreign forces occupying land believed to belong to an oppressed people who have seriously limited military resources at their disposal. This isn't what Dawkins will want to hear, but it is an important element in reflecting on how this phenomenon arose and what might need to be done to end it" (McGrath, the Dawkins Delusion, p.80).


SO, WHAT'S AN "ETHICAL ATHEIST"?

It actually quite simple. An Ethical Atheist is someone who lives by a personal desire to do good things in their limited life on Earth.


i) And this provides an account for the objectivity and normativity of ethics how, exactly?

ii) We grant that atheists want to do good things. This doesn't mean that they can account for that behavior. It appears that the Ethical Atheist is simply a subjectivist.

iii) Also, it might look as if he's a virtuist here. But this has problems in and of itself too. Aren't we all familiar with people who constantly screw things up but have "good intentions?"

iv) This sounds fine formally, but where's the material? What is "the good" and how is it accounted for?

Continuing...

We believe in living in peace with our fellow man. In fact, to us, there is no better calling. You have to understand that, to us, it is all we have. Without a belief in the afterlife, this life is all we have. We cherish it and are grateful for our time alive on this planet.


i) And some have noted our plight and have concluded that they should grab for all the gusto they can get. There's no ultimate justice or meaning (or than what you make of each moment), so why not molest as many children as possible and if caught swallow a cyanide tablet?

ii) Or, take the ring of Gyges. Why be moral if you found a ring that made you invisible? You could get away with anything. This life is all you have. You could seal billions and live a life of luxury. Have the fastest cars, the biggest houses, the finest women, the most expensive clothes. If this is all you have, and you could get away with the actions, why be moral?


SHOULDN'T THE RELIGIOUS QUESTION THEMSELVES?

"Religious people should ask themselves the question, "Why have atheists given us most of the greatest scholars and scientists we've ever known?" Or, "Why did Christianity proceed with the Inquisition?" Or, "Why did we murder, torture and imprison scientists that were helping us understand the world in which we live?" Or, "Why did Christianity carry out the Crusades?" Or, "Why does our Koran teach us to kill the infidels?" Or, "Why do we believe that our most recent 'Book of Mormon' is best? What about the Bible? What about the New Testament? What of all the other religious books claiming to be the 'True Word of God'?"


i) I find his first question laughable.

ii) Or, why did atheism proceed with the gulags?

iii) Or, why did atheists imprison scientists: "Although no great theoretical contributions or insights came from it, neither were there any apparent errors in Stalin's understanding of linguistics; his influence arguably relieved Soviet linguistics from the sort of ideologically driven theory that dominated genetics.

Scientific research was hindered by the fact that many scientists were sent to labor camps (including Lev Landau, later a Nobel Prize winner, who spent a year in prison in 1938–1939) or executed (e.g. Lev Shubnikov, shot in 1937). They were persecuted for their dissident views, not for their research." SOURCE

iv) Or, why did Christianity give us the modern University? The printing press? Institutions like the Red Cross. Massive literacy so that people could read their Bible's for themselves? We could go one and on. The point is that none of the above proves anything either way. And, as I argued above, to point out sin (immorality) on behalf of Christians (and everyone, really) is just what we would expect to find. The Ethical Atheist needs to get his head out of "this life." Christianity never was a religion that said all of out troubles in this life would be over. The Social Gospel is a false gospel.

CONCLUSION

All we've been treated to was a truck load of assertions and a pie in the sky bye and bye "what if" story. Telling people "just do better" isn't going to work. Man can't save himself. A drowning victim needs a lifeguard. A falling man needs a parachute. Looking to ourselves to get us out of our problems, when we are the problem, is the height of irrationality.

42 comments:

  1. Heh heh.

    What he said about children being born knowing only love and not hate is just classic.

    Ever wonder why you don't have to teach children to hog all the wooden blocks, to hit other children when they try to take them back, to lie about what they've been doing, etc. etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I want to know why Moses is supposed to have been a "raping machine". My guess is that the author confused Moses with somebody else, but won't want to admit it. If he attempted to justify his claim, we'd probably hear something like "Moses commanded people to do such-and-such, which is somewhat similar to rape, so that makes Moses a raping machine." But, as Paul notes, this atheist hasn't given us a reason to think that there's anything wrong with rape from an atheistic viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Humans are simply pack animals with higher cognitive abilities. This blog is prof of that (at least the pack animal aspect). You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news
    /2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jason, I suspect the reference was to Moses commanding his men to take wives from the women of the tribe they defeated. Of course, I don't know where that can be found in your religious book. However, Moses himself was not a "raping machine," and the social reality of those women probably was nothing like a modern woman would view the situation. So the comment missed the intended target, imho. Regardless, Moses' behavior would have been considered unethical by moderns, religious or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Mason!

    Let's start off small. Since you're trying to expplain what it is that makes actions right or wrong by referring to them being products of social norms, you're basically giving us cultural relativism. So, first off, would you mind defining "culture" for us (or "group")? Is the Western word my culture? America? My Itialian American community? My church community? My family? Just what is it that counts as the culture (or group) which makes actions right or wrong and persons good or bad?

    After we discuss that for a bit, then we can see if you can defend relativism from the stronger critiques.

    Paul

    P.S. I should add: nice rebuttal to my post. I think you've just undermined the "higher cognitive ability" aspect fo your claim, or, perhaps, you're not a man. Did they finally get that gorilla to type a semi coherent statement?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul,

    I'm not up to date on gorilla's verbal progress as of this date. I keep leaving phone messages, but it won't return the call.

    Nonetheless, I think a culture is the behavior of any group of people (focusing on humans here) that have a shared number of behavioral patterns that they learned from others, usually their parents, elders, caregivers. That's probably not a very scientific answer, but I'm hoping to make up the grade on extra credit.

    Mason

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul,

    And before we go to far, I believe there are practical limits to all behavior, and biological ones too. Relativism appears to be your term, but I see limits. In the end we all end up pragmatists or dead.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, and before the word police arrive, we all end up dead anyhow. Sorry to spoil it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. P.P.S. I'd like to add that Mason has argued that atheists can be moral if they follow the codes of their group/culture. Okay, but note the rpice: this makes moral reformers, like a M. L. King for example, immoral for going against the codes. Surely an ethical system that says that someone like King (or Wilberforce) was immoral for trying to end racismj (or slavery) bears a big burden.

    I'd also note that Mason contradicts the Ethical Atheist. The Ethical Atheist says that we can make this world "better." But if the group/culture is the standard of what is right or wrong, then there is no "better." Maybe "different," but not "better." "Better" is a realist term. Indeed, the Ethical Atheist is immoral on Mason's terms. He just condemned the mores of our group or culture. (But perhaps the Ethical Atheist can be his own group. There are arguments by people that show that Ethical Relativism leads to solipsism. But we can leave that for later.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mason originally stated:

    "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    I then asked this question:

    "Let's start off small. Since you're trying to explain what it is that makes actions right or wrong by referring to them being products of social norms, you're basically giving us cultural relativism. So, first off, would you mind defining "culture" for us (or "group")? Is the Western world my culture? America? My Itialian American community? My church community? My family? Just what is it that counts as the culture (or group) which makes actions right or wrong and persons good or bad?"

    Mason responds:

    " I think a culture is the behavior of any group of people (focusing on humans here) that have a shared number of behavioral patterns that they learned from others, usually their parents, elders, caregivers. That's probably not a very scientific answer, but I'm hoping to make up the grade on extra credit."

    Uh, Mason, not only isn't that a scientific answer, it's not even a good answer. I have "shared behavioral traits" with the Western world. Americans. My Itialian American community. My church community. My family. WHat counts as a culture, and if they all do, which one is the relevant one for determining the deontic question.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nah, "better" can have an empirical and objective reference. For example, if no stress is better than stress then behaviors that lead to lifestyles that avoid stress are preferred. They are preferred because they lead to a more pleasing life. For example, I could steal, yet the stress caused by those around me looking down upon me keeps me from that behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  13. mason said...

    Jason, I suspect the reference was to Moses commanding his men to take wives from the women of the tribe they defeated. Of course, I don't know where that can be found in your religious book. However, Moses himself was not a "raping machine," and the social reality of those women probably was nothing like a modern woman would view the situation. So the comment missed the intended target, imho. Regardless, Moses' behavior would have been considered unethical by moderns, religious or otherwise.

    *******

    Marrying someone isn't raping them.

    Regardless, a principle of cultural relativism is "tolerance>' You're not supposed to judge other cultures for their mores. To consider them "unethical" is just an unenlightened and arrogant attitude to take. According to your position, if they acted according to their own code, you would have to say that they were ethical. Once you start judging other cultures you are acting like a realist. Acting like there is a standard that all cultures can be compared too. All you can say is that if they were members of your culture, they would have done something unethical. But as members of their culture qua standard of right and wrong, they were ethical.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Paul, your "group" is made up of those with which you identify. Hence the pragmatism to which I referred earlier. We need to learn the group's rules to get along.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Paul,

    If you defeat a tribe a pick whatever woman you want to be your wife and you copulate, you can call it whatever you like. You don't have to call it rape. That's up to you, but how it looks to modern society is another issue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. mason said...
    Nah, "better" can have an empirical and objective reference. For example, if no stress is better than stress then behaviors that lead to lifestyles that avoid stress are preferred. They are preferred because they lead to a more pleasing life. For example, I could steal, yet the stress caused by those around me looking down upon me keeps me from that behavior.

    12/10/2007 8:39 AM

    **********

    Well, you can change goal posts if you wish. But the *culture* is what is the *standard.* It's like if you went to the universal meter bar and asked how you could know if it was a meter, maybe there'd be a better meter bar. But, if everyone agreed upon the bar before your eyes as being "the standard" then your question makes no sense.

    Likewise, if "culture" agrees that X is the good, then to say that X isn't the good, is to deny your original claim.

    Just so you know, there are naturalist moral realists who would agree with what you just wrote. There are simply *facts* about man that we can discover empirically which make some actions "better" (or, right/wrong) than others.

    In fact, if "better" can have "obejctive reference" then ethical principles *can't* be *made* right or wrong depending on what *subjects* (culture) think! An "objective" truth is true 8regardless* of what any one, or any culture, thinks about it.

    Lastly, we're not talking about *you* feeling "better", we are talking about the *ethical principles* being better. There's a difference. So, to claim that ethical principles could be *better* is to admit of realism in ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  17. mason said...

    Paul,

    If you defeat a tribe a pick whatever woman you want to be your wife and you copulate, you can call it whatever you like. You don't have to call it rape. That's up to you, but how it looks to modern society is another issue.

    12/10/2007 8:46 AM

    ***********

    You have no information regarding consent, Mason. Speculation isn't a good form of argument. or, are you a relativist about laws of logic too?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Paul,

    Good point. I have no proof that they women didn't want to copulate with just any man that had killed all their relatives and wanted to have sex. For all we know, they helped plan the attack and it wasn't recorded. Then they invented the first hydroelectric dam and lost the plans.

    ReplyDelete
  19. mason said...

    Paul, your "group" is made up of those with which you identify. Hence the pragmatism to which I referred earlier. We need to learn the group's rules to get along.

    12/10/2007 8:44 AM


    **********

    Mason, you keep repeating yourself. I identify with ALL those gorups I just listed.

    Now, if my mafioso "culture" says that it is right to extort money from people, then if I do so, why am I punished for being moral? Isn't the law supposed to punish immoral actions? Why impose your morality on other cultures? That seems intolerant. It seems as if you're judging what I did as a mobster to be "wrong." But it's moral for me to do it. And, to say, "we just punish according to our culture" fails to answer the explanatory power question I asked. There is no content, no matter, to your ethical theory. It thereforer doesn't provide a very good action guide. Indeed, it looks as if you coud get punished for being moral! A counter-intuitive proposition if there ever was one.

    Or, what if, as members of American culture -influenced by that culture via T.V. exetra- a woman gets preganant and debates about getting an abortion, which would be moral. If she is also a member of the Roman Catholic community, this would be immoral (a violation of natural law). Does your position lead to the contradictory conclusion that an action can be both immoral and moral at the same time?

    ReplyDelete
  20. mason said...

    Paul,

    Good point. I have no proof that they women didn't want to copulate with just any man that had killed all their relatives and wanted to have sex. For all we know, they helped plan the attack and it wasn't recorded. Then they invented the first hydroelectric dam and lost the plans.

    12/10/2007 9:00 AM

    *********

    Apparently you're not familar with the situation. Read up on some of the cultures the Israelites destroyed. See if you think the women were all that up in arms over being conquered by a nation with laws like Israel. I mean, even in our times we have had American soldiers being swarmed by the women of the men they kill.

    Secondly, refutation by joke making isn't a good argument either. Just becauyse you throw morals down the drain doesn't mean you need to do the same with your critical thinking skills.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In case I wasn't clear above, to appeal to "betterness" is to say that there is a standard *other than* culture/group *in terms of which* the culture/group is judged.

    If culture/group *is* the standard, then one cannot have a transculteral standard in terms of which culture/group is judged.

    At best, Mason could say that he is calling culture to live up to their stated codes, that they can be "better" at following their stated codes, but the codes *qua* standards can't be said to be right or wrong. The unfortunate outcome here is that we can never say that culture's principles are wrong - we can just say that they are failing to live up to their codes. But surely it makes sense to say that some principles of cultures *are* wrong. The Rwandan genocide, for example. Hitler's Germany, for example.

    So the ethical principles of Hitler's Germany cannot be said to be wrong. But the Ethical Atheist clearly implied that they were. So, Mason contradicts his own link. That is an interesting turn of events.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If we're all just the product of cultural conditioning, then why is Mason trying to tar ancient Israel with "rape." If they are just living up to their accepted cultural standards, who is he to impose his modern standards on them? What makes his better? Why should I accept them?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul,

    Apparently you're not familar with the situation. Read up on some of the cultures the Israelites destroyed. See if you think the women were all that up in arms over being conquered by a nation with laws like Israel.

    Maybe you should read up on it and tell us about it. If Moses said that the women were getting lined up, then you’ll certainly tell me about it, right? Frankly, it’s up to you to demonstrate that. Every woman that was left was herded up and taken by any man that wanted them. You go some 'splinin' to do.


    I mean, even in our times we have had American soldiers being swarmed by the women of the men they kill.

    Yeah, like the Americans are killing all their relatives and the virgins are hoping someone will tell the soldiers to go and take any woman they want.

    So the ethical principles of Hitler's Germany cannot be said to be wrong. But the Ethical Atheist clearly implied that they were. So, Mason contradicts his own link. That is an interesting turn of events.

    My argument is that those ways of living are, logically, not the best way to live. In general, we will live better lives when not threatened by torture or death. Resources spent defeating others or defending ourselves are best put to use making our lives better, if and when possible. Of course, that’s not always possible.

    Now, if my mafioso "culture" says that it is right to extort money from people, then if I do so, why am I punished for being moral? Isn't the law supposed to punish immoral actions? Why impose your morality on other cultures? That seems intolerant. It seems as if you're judging what I did as a mobster to be "wrong." But it's moral for me to do it. And, to say, "we just punish according to our culture" fails to answer the explanatory power question I asked. There is no content, no matter, to your ethical theory. It thereforer doesn't provide a very good action guide. Indeed, it looks as if you coud get punished for being moral! A counter-intuitive proposition if there ever was one.

    Your mafioso culture isn’t who would punish you, and I suspect that they would say what they are doing is immoral, in general, but probably not in every case.

    It is an imposition of values when we force others to behave how we want them to behave. Those with the power to do so will dominate. Hopefully they will study and learn what’s best for everyone in society. Most people, for example, would rather live in a Western country because it offers the best hope of life for every individual, and their children. It would behoove other countries to consider whether or not they should change. Islamic countries are backwards for failing to learn this lesson.

    Gene,

    If we're all just the product of cultural conditioning, then why is Mason trying to tar ancient Israel with "rape." If they are just living up to their accepted cultural standards, who is he to impose his modern standards on them? What makes his better? Why should I accept them?

    I’m not doing that. I said that anyone who wants to do that can do that. There’s a difference. If someone calls it “rape,” then to them it is “rape.” Given the perspective of most of the world, they would be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul,

    Secondly, refutation by joke making isn't a good argument either. Just becauyse you throw morals down the drain doesn't mean you need to do the same with your critical thinking skills.

    On the contrary, the joke demonstrates the flaw in your argument.

    At best, Mason could say that he is calling culture to live up to their stated codes, that they can be "better" at following their stated codes, but the codes *qua* standards can't be said to be right or wrong. The unfortunate outcome here is that we can never say that culture's principles are wrong - we can just say that they are failing to live up to their codes.

    Indeed, they haven't lived up to their own moral codes. Ironically, you've tried to make an argument that the tribes Moses defeated had different moral codes, thereby justifying Moses' behavior.

    To me, "better" is with reference to whatever societal change would most likely improve the lives of it's members. We could compare communism with capitalism, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I’m not doing that. I said that anyone who wants to do that can do that. There’s a difference. If someone calls it “rape,” then to them it is “rape.” Given the perspective of most of the world, they would be correct.

    Apparently, you can't follow your own argument. You're the one who pointed us to the "ethical atheist." It's part of the ethical atheist's argument that "Moses was a raping machine."
    You then told us that this behavior was to be considered "unethical" by moderns. You are living in the modern period. So, on what non-arbitrary basis can you call this behavior "unethical?" If we're all just products of our cultural conditioning, then you are in no position to label this behavior "unethical." You're trying to give an argument for "ethical atheism," but you're making an argument for ethical relativism.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Mason,

    Let's see....

    "Maybe you should read up on it and tell us about it. If Moses said that the women were getting lined up, then you’ll certainly tell me about it, right? Frankly, it’s up to you to demonstrate that. Every woman that was left was herded up and taken by any man that wanted them. You go some 'splinin' to do."

    Just to let you know, you're the one who made the positive assertion about rape. Apparently you don't think you shoulder the burden. Anyway, I have read enough about the practices of the Canaanites et al to know that it wasn't the best environment to live in. This is pretty standard knowledge. So, I'm still waiting for an argument which supports your assertion.

    "My argument is that those ways of living are, logically, not the best way to live. In general, we will live better lives when not threatened by torture or death. Resources spent defeating others or defending ourselves are best put to use making our lives better, if and when possible. Of course, that’s not always possible."

    Let's try and stay consistent, Mason. You said it was "the group" or "the culture" which give us our norms. In case you forgot: "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    So, ethics are "nothing more" than "group/social" norms. That was *your* claim, not mine.

    You're now trying to place a trans-cultural constraint on "ethics." You're trying to say that "logic" provides us with the "norms" that are ethical principles which serve as action guides.

    You are therefore inconsistent with your original assertion. If ethical principles are the principles that logic gives us, then they are not "nothing more" than "group or social norms."

    If it is "the group" that establishes "the norms" then they can establish whatever norm they want to and you cannot question it because to question it is to question the normative granting standard *itself,* which is illogical. If X supplies the norm, and there are no universal standard by which X can be judged, then to ask what norms X is to ask a nonsense question.

    So, get your story straight. You started off a cultural relativist - groups give the norms - and are now talking like a realist - universal laws of logic supply the norms regardless of what the group says. So, you're not going to make an obvious blunder and then try to chastise me for not critiquing your argument.

    Next, if ethics has the purpose or goal of allowing humans to flourish, you're going to need to justify this teleological move. What accounts (on purely secular grounds) for the notion that human flourishing is objectively valuable (axiological normativity) or that flourishing is an objective goal for humans(teleological normativity)?

    "Your mafioso culture isn’t who would punish you, and I suspect that they would say what they are doing is immoral, in general, but probably not in every case."

    You're falling behind at a rapid pace. I'm asking you to define what a "group or culture" is as used by you. Ethical principles are supposed to be action guides that normatively prescribe how one ought to act in a given situation. So far, your ethic is impotent to tell us anything. I don't know which "group" to listen to. Who provides my action guides? Your theory, so far, leads to being ethically petrified - i.e., not being able to move.

    "It is an imposition of values when we force others to behave how we want them to behave. Those with the power to do so will dominate.

    Where does our culture make this norm? And, why have a problem with what the terrorists were doing on 9/11? They were imposing their norms on us. If one is morally justified in doing that, it would appear that you must grant that what they did wasn't immoral, even on your own terms. they had the power, the ability, and so they did it. Why have a problem with "the church" imposing its "values" on homosexuals? Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that you're totally arbitrary here? What about the Ethical Atheist's paper? They said that parents and society doesn't have the right to impose religious values and dogma on children. But according to you, they do. So, again, why did you point us to a link that you have, over and over again, contradicted? Try and stay within the confines of the context of dialogue. Quite trying to fallaciously avoid the burden of proof. If you want to stop this debate, and get into a new one, then say so. But as it stands, your original linking, and your original comment here, has framed the nature of this discussion. I'm just holding you to your own commitments.

    "mason said...
    Paul,


    [Paul Said] 'Secondly, refutation by joke making isn't a good argument either. Just because you throw morals down the drain doesn't mean you need to do the same with your critical thinking skills.'

    On the contrary, the joke demonstrates the flaw in your argument."

    Mason, my argument was that you were arguing from ignorance. You're asserting that they raped the women. Rape needs, by definition, unconsensual sexual violation. You made the assertion that this took place. There is no info telling us that this happened. So, I'm asking you to back up your claim. I didn't say it did or it didn't. I'm saying that you haven't made your case. Shoot, you said you didn't even know which passage in the bible talked about this. Surely you can see that this is shoddy, incompetent work, even for an atheist?

    "To me, "better" is with reference to whatever societal change would most likely improve the lives of it's members. We could compare communism with capitalism, for example."

    Oh, then you take back your original claim:

    "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    ???

    If X culture imposes Y norm, and what makes the ethical principles valid is "nothing more" than X decreeing Y, then it doesn't matter if Y is contrary to human flourishing. If human flourishing F is a cross-cultural norm, then if X doesn't have F, then X has the *wrong* ethical principles. This would, necessarily, refute the claim that whatever X norms are the correct ethical principles.

    So, as it stands right now, you've offered two competing, and contradictory, ethical systems.

    Tell ya what, why don't you take some time, think about your position a while, get it all clear, and then come back here and we'll talk. I'll hit a bull’s-eye if you stop moving. Or, I'll nail your position for you if you want. But, presenting two targets as if they were one, and then asking me to hit a bull’s-eye, is an illicit move. Or, putting forth a cup of jell-o, and then asking me to nail it to the wall, is an illicit move. Surely you can see this?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Gene,

    Apparently, you can't follow your own argument.

    Apparently, you are having problems following the discussion. For example, you asked this:

    If we're all just the product of cultural conditioning, then why is Mason trying to tar ancient Israel with "rape."

    When I had already said this:

    If you defeat a tribe a pick whatever woman you want to be your wife and you copulate, you can call it whatever you like. You don't have to call it rape. That's up to you, but how it looks to modern society is another issue.

    In other words, if it’s not rape to you, then that fine. Who cares? I didn’t accuse Israel of rape. I said that modern society views it that way. I agree, but you don't have to agree.

    You're the one who pointed us to the "ethical atheist." It's part of the ethical atheist's argument that "Moses was a raping machine."

    And what comments did I make about his argument? I said he missed his target. Apparently you can’t keep up.

    You then told us that this behavior was to be considered "unethical" by moderns.

    The author of the article is a modern, hence my comment.

    You are living in the modern period. So, on what non-arbitrary basis can you call this behavior "unethical?"

    I don’t. Rather, I say it is better not to have a society in which that is allowed.

    If we're all just products of our cultural conditioning, then you are in no position to label this behavior "unethical."

    If I speak from the perspective of society, I will indeed call it that.

    You're trying to give an argument for "ethical atheism," but you're making an argument for ethical relativism.

    Not at all, since my argument was empirical and even biologically based. See my first comments concerning “limits” and what’s “better” regarding lifestyle/standards of living.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Paul,

    Just to let you know, you're the one who made the positive assertion about rape. Apparently you don't think you shoulder the burden.

    No, I did not make a positive assertion, even though I agree that it is the case. Here’s what I said:

    Jason, I suspect the reference was to Moses commanding his men to take wives from the women of the tribe they defeated. Of course, I don't know where that can be found in your religious book. However, Moses himself was not a "raping machine," and the social reality of those women probably was nothing like a modern woman would view the situation. So the comment missed the intended target, imho. Regardless, Moses' behavior would have been considered unethical by moderns, religious or otherwise.

    Anyway, I have read enough about the practices of the Canaanites et al to know that it wasn't the best environment to live in. This is pretty standard knowledge.

    Yeah, well why not share this knowledge? I’m sure it’s going to come as a huge insight to most people that those women were eager to marry any man that had killed their families. Please do share that.

    Let's try and stay consistent, Mason. You said it was "the group" or "the culture" which give us our norms. In case you forgot: "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    Of course.

    You're now trying to place a trans-cultural constraint on "ethics." You're trying to say that "logic" provides us with the "norms" that are ethical principles which serve as action guides.

    Ideally, yes. In other words, the norms will change, hopefully for reasons that advance the survival and lifestyle of the members. Norms aren’t always maintained due to logic.

    You are therefore inconsistent with your original assertion. If ethical principles are the principles that logic gives us, then they are not "nothing more" than "group or social norms."

    I didn’t say they were. You’re making that connection. I said that people groups may have any number of possibilities regarding what their norms are. Hopefully they will use logic to change those norms, with a goal of maintaining the health and welfare of the group.

    If it is "the group" that establishes "the norms" then they can establish whatever norm they want to and you cannot question it because to question it is to question the normative granting standard *itself,* which is illogical. If X supplies the norm, and there are no universal standard by which X can be judged, then to ask what norms X is to ask a nonsense question.

    See my last comment.

    So, get your story straight. You started off a cultural relativist - groups give the norms - and are now talking like a realist - universal laws of logic supply the norms regardless of what the group says.

    Again, they may have any number of norms. Ideally, logic will guide the development of those norms as knowledge progresses.

    So, you're not going to make an obvious blunder and then try to chastise me for not critiquing your argument.

    If you accurately describe it, you might possibly do so.

    Next, if ethics has the purpose or goal of allowing humans to flourish, you're going to need to justify this teleological move. What accounts (on purely secular grounds) for the notion that human flourishing is objectively valuable (axiological normativity) or that flourishing is an objective goal for humans(teleological normativity)?

    I didn’t say that it WAS the goal of ethics, but that it should be. In order for members of a group to flourish and be happy, norms will always need to be instituted.

    You're falling behind at a rapid pace.

    Yeah, but you’re walking in circles, so I’m pacing myself. You’re not really going anywhere.

    I'm asking you to define what a "group or culture" is as used by you. Ethical principles are supposed to be action guides that normatively prescribe how one ought to act in a given situation. So far, your ethic is impotent to tell us anything. I don't know which "group" to listen to. Who provides my action guides? Your theory, so far, leads to being ethically petrified - i.e., not being able to move.

    See above.

    Where does our culture make this norm? And, why have a problem with what the terrorists were doing on 9/11? They were imposing their norms on us. If one is morally justified in doing that, it would appear that you must grant that what they did wasn't immoral, even on your own terms.

    No, I must grant that what they did was immoral on THEIR terms. Of course, on my society’s terms, they were immoral.

    they had the power, the ability, and so they did it.

    Errrrr……so?

    Why have a problem with "the church" imposing its "values" on homosexuals?

    Did I say I do? What power do they have?

    Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that you're totally arbitrary here?

    I assumer that’s a rhetorical question.

    What about the Ethical Atheist's paper? They said that parents and society doesn't have the right to impose religious values and dogma on children. But according to you, they do.

    I said the greatest power DOES impose. Whether they should or not is another issue.

    So, again, why did you point us to a link that you have, over and over again, contradicted? Try and stay within the confines of the context of dialogue. Quite trying to fallaciously avoid the burden of proof. If you want to stop this debate, and get into a new one, then say so. But as it stands, your original linking, and your original comment here, has framed the nature of this discussion. I'm just holding you to your own commitments.

    You’re confused. See above.

    Mason, my argument was that you were arguing from ignorance. You're asserting that they raped the women. Rape needs, by definition, unconsensual sexual violation. You made the assertion that this took place. There is no info telling us that this happened. So, I'm asking you to back up your claim. I didn't say it did or it didn't. I'm saying that you haven't made your case. Shoot, you said you didn't even know which passage in the bible talked about this. Surely you can see that this is shoddy, incompetent work, even for an atheist?

    Again, you can call it what you like. What does society call it when you kill all the relatives of a couple thousand women and tell your soldiers to take any woman they want? Perhaps you have a comparable example. Bosnia, perhaps? You’re doing a lot of posturing here, but you just look puffed-up.

    If X culture imposes Y norm, and what makes the ethical principles valid is "nothing more" than X decreeing Y, then it doesn't matter if Y is contrary to human flourishing. If human flourishing F is a cross-cultural norm, then if X doesn't have F, then X has the *wrong* ethical principles. This would, necessarily, refute the claim that whatever X norms are the correct ethical principles.

    See above. I never said that ethical principles are logical. I said that logic should guide them. Very often this has been done, so appealing to Hitler evokes such norms.

    So, as it stands right now, you've offered two competing, and contradictory, ethical systems.

    Nah, you’re standing in the wrong place.

    Tell ya what, why don't you take some time, think about your position a while, get it all clear, and then come back here and we'll talk.

    Chuckle.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Correction in bold:

    Where does our culture make this norm? And, why have a problem with what the terrorists were doing on 9/11? They were imposing their norms on us. If one is morally justified in doing that, it would appear that you must grant that what they did wasn't immoral, even on your own terms.

    No, I must grant that what they did was moral on THEIR terms. Of course, on my society’s terms, they were immoral.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mason, can you see when you've lost?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Scott, is that an elephant behind you?

    ReplyDelete
  32. mason said...
    Paul,

    Just to let you know, you're the one who made the positive assertion about rape. Apparently you don't think you shoulder the burden.

    No, I did not make a positive assertion, even though I agree that it is the case. Here’s what I said: [snip his quoting himself]

    ***********

    No, here is what you said:

    "Regardless, Moses' behavior would have been considered unethical by moderns, religious or otherwise."

    Oh, and why is that, Mason,

    "If you defeat a tribe a pick whatever woman you want to be your wife and you copulate, you can call it whatever you like. You don't have to call it rape. That's up to you, but how it looks to modern society is another issue."

    So, you made the positive assertion. Your intellectual dishonesty in our discussion is grounds for comment moderation. You're free to comment here, not slander the facts of the discussion.

    I SAID: Let's try and stay consistent, Mason. You said it was "the group" or "the culture" which give us our norms. In case you forgot: "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    MASON SAID: Of course.

    I SAID: You're now trying to place a trans-cultural constraint on "ethics." You're trying to say that "logic" provides us with the "norms" that are ethical principles which serve as action guides.

    MASON SAID: Ideally, yes. In other words, the norms will change, hopefully for reasons that advance the survival and lifestyle of the members. Norms aren’t always maintained due to logic.

    MY REPLY: Uh, Mason, get with the program. You're applying a norm that *stands over* all cultures. This contradicts your claim that CULTURE provides the norms. If your culture says X, you can't say that ~X is "better." get it? That's *your* position.

    I SAID: You are therefore inconsistent with your original assertion. If ethical principles are the principles that logic gives us, then they are not "nothing more" than "group or social norms."

    MASON SAID: I didn’t say they were. You’re making that connection. I said that people groups may have any number of possibilities regarding what their norms are. Hopefully they will use logic to change those norms, with a goal of maintaining the health and welfare of the group.

    MY REPLY: Again, to say that they need to "change the norms" to something "better" is to contradict yourself, Mason. If my "group" says X, then *that's* what makes it right. To imply that X is wrong, or in need of improvment, is to deny that *culture/group* code is what *makes* the ethical principles right or wrong. get with it, Mason. Even your own side grasps my points. I'm not telling you anything different than your fellow atheists will tell you. Furthermore, if a "norm" is justified or made right by *logic* then it is true *regardless* of what anyone thinks about it, Mason. Can you "get" this? A principle deduced by logical laws isn't relative to culture. It is true *regardless* of what culture thinks, Mason.

    I SAID: So, get your story straight. You started off a cultural relativist - groups give the norms - and are now talking like a realist - universal laws of logic supply the norms regardless of what the group says.

    MASON SAID: Again, they may have any number of norms. Ideally, logic will guide the development of those norms as knowledge progresses.

    MY REPLY: You're talking like a realist again, Mason. If X is true or better regardless of what culture thinks, then culture doesn't make the principles.

    And, how does logic justify the principles? Typical ethical reasoning applies a norm to a fact to a conclusion. Where do you get the norms? Not logic alone.

    Lastly, let's remember your claim: "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    If "ethics' are "nothing more" than "social norms," then you can't say ~X if culture says X.

    I SAID: Where does our culture make this norm? And, why have a problem with what the terrorists were doing on 9/11? They were imposing their norms on us. If one is morally justified in doing that, it would appear that you must grant that what they did wasn't immoral, even on your own terms.

    MASON SAID: No, I must grant that what they did was immoral on THEIR terms. Of course, on my society’s terms, they were immoral.

    MY REPLY: Boy, you're slow. They are only immoral IF THEY ARE A MEMBER OF YOUR CULTURE. And, notice that your position says that an action, X, is BOTH moral and immoral. So, it doesn't provide action guides. And, what if you moved to the Middle East? Then would you engage in flying planes into the buildings? Wouldn't want to be immoral, would you?

    So, they are not immoral. At best, you can say, IF THEY WERE WESTERNERS then what they did would have been immoral.

    Furthermore, surely what they did was wrong, regardless. Your position grants that their actins were MORALLY JUSTIFIED on their terms. But it seems like something like that - or, torturing children for fun - can NEVER be morally justified...ever.

    I SAID: What about the Ethical Atheist's paper? They said that parents and society doesn't have the right to impose religious values and dogma on children. But according to you, they do.

    MASON SAID: I said the greatest power DOES impose. Whether they should or not is another issue.

    MY REPLY: If your culture says that they can, or are obligated to, do that, then they SHOULD. Get it, Mason? You really can't be this dense, right?

    If ethics are "nothing more" than "social norms" then if a society says that it is right to braishwash children, THEN IT IS RIGHT...REGARDLESS.

    You're like a little leaf blowing and twisting in the wind. Go study your own position some more. Offering incoherent babble, and then saying, "Nah, it's both" just makes you look ignorant, like a 6-day creationist, fundy, appalachian mountain snaker dancer.

    "Again, you can call it what you like. What does society call it when you kill all the relatives of a couple thousand women and tell your soldiers to take any woman they want? Perhaps you have a comparable example. Bosnia, perhaps? You’re doing a lot of posturing here, but you just look puffed-up."

    tell you what, so I can know you're not a total ignoramous, a complete hack, why don't you present the standard and contemporary orthodox explanation of this situation rather than your revisionist and clumsy handeling of the facts. If you can't, then don't bother responding. I don't have time to debate someone who just writes something for the sake of getting an answer back. Non-substantive responses will be deleated.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Paul,

    Just to let you know, you're the one who made the positive assertion about rape. Apparently you don't think you shoulder the burden.

    No, I did not make a positive assertion, even though I agree that it is the case. Here’s what I said: [snip his quoting himself]

    ***********

    No, here is what you said:

    "Regardless, Moses' behavior would have been considered unethical by moderns, religious or otherwise."


    No, someone else made the assertion and I agreed with it according to modern ethical standards, but not those of Moses’ time. In other words, it was ethical at one time according to one people, but not now, according to our standards.


    No, here is what you said:

    "Regardless, Moses' behavior would have been considered unethical by moderns, religious or otherwise."

    So, you made the positive assertion. Your intellectual dishonesty in our discussion is grounds for comment moderation. You're free to comment here, not slander the facts of the discussion.


    See above.

    I SAID: Let's try and stay consistent, Mason. You said it was "the group" or "the culture" which give us our norms. In case you forgot: "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    MASON SAID: Of course.

    I SAID: You're now trying to place a trans-cultural constraint on "ethics." You're trying to say that "logic" provides us with the "norms" that are ethical principles which serve as action guides.

    MASON SAID: Ideally, yes. In other words, the norms will change, hopefully for reasons that advance the survival and lifestyle of the members. Norms aren’t always maintained due to logic.

    MY REPLY: Uh, Mason, get with the program. You're applying a norm that *stands over* all cultures. This contradicts your claim that CULTURE provides the norms. If your culture says X, you can't say that ~X is "better." get it? That's *your* position.


    Of course. Ideally speaking, given enough time, all cultures would come closer and closer to total agreement on what is ethical. In the meantime, there are different standards.

    I SAID: You are therefore inconsistent with your original assertion. If ethical principles are the principles that logic gives us, then they are not "nothing more" than "group or social norms."

    MASON SAID: I didn’t say they were. You’re making that connection. I said that people groups may have any number of possibilities regarding what their norms are. Hopefully they will use logic to change those norms, with a goal of maintaining the health and welfare of the group.

    MY REPLY: Again, to say that they need to "change the norms" to something "better" is to contradict yourself, Mason. If my "group" says X, then *that's* what makes it right. To imply that X is wrong, or in need of improvment, is to deny that *culture/group* code is what *makes* the ethical principles right or wrong. get with it, Mason. Even your own side grasps my points. I'm not telling you anything different than your fellow atheists will tell you. Furthermore, if a "norm" is justified or made right by *logic* then it is true *regardless* of what anyone thinks about it, Mason. Can you "get" this? A principle deduced by logical laws isn't relative to culture. It is true *regardless* of what culture thinks, Mason.


    See above.

    I SAID: So, get your story straight. You started off a cultural relativist - groups give the norms - and are now talking like a realist - universal laws of logic supply the norms regardless of what the group says.

    Every group has its own norms. Ask any group what its norms are and they will tell you.

    MASON SAID: Again, they may have any number of norms. Ideally, logic will guide the development of those norms as knowledge progresses.

    MY REPLY: You're talking like a realist again, Mason. If X is true or better regardless of what culture thinks, then culture doesn't make the principles.


    The culture does make the principles they live by. What principle is best is a process of discovery.

    And, how does logic justify the principles? Typical ethical reasoning applies a norm to a fact to a conclusion. Where do you get the norms? Not logic alone.

    Of course not logic alone. Sheesh. There are many influences on norms, not just logic.

    Lastly, let's remember your claim: "You may attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    If "ethics' are "nothing more" than "social norms," then you can't say ~X if culture says X.


    I can’t disagree with social norms? How does that work? I refuted that claim from the very beginning.

    I SAID: Where does our culture make this norm? And, why have a problem with what the terrorists were doing on 9/11? They were imposing their norms on us. If one is morally justified in doing that, it would appear that you must grant that what they did wasn't immoral, even on your own terms.

    MASON SAID: No, I must grant that what they did was immoral on THEIR terms. Of course, on my society’s terms, they were immoral.

    MY REPLY: Boy, you're slow. They are only immoral IF THEY ARE A MEMBER OF YOUR CULTURE. And, notice that your position says that an action, X, is BOTH moral and immoral. So, it doesn't provide action guides. And, what if you moved to the Middle East? Then would you engage in flying planes into the buildings? Wouldn't want to be immoral, would you?


    Talk about being slooooow. I corrected the comment immediately below and said I had made a mistake and I meant “what they did was moral on THEIR terms ” (11:20 PM –emphasis original).

    So, they are not immoral. At best, you can say, IF THEY WERE WESTERNERS then what they did would have been immoral.

    Glad you finally agree.

    Furthermore, surely what they did was wrong, regardless. Your position grants that their actins were MORALLY JUSTIFIED on their terms. But it seems like something like that - or, torturing children for fun - can NEVER be morally justified...ever.

    Not according to their norms.

    If ethics are "nothing more" than "social norms" then if a society says that it is right to braishwash children, THEN IT IS RIGHT...REGARDLESS.

    It is right according to that society.

    You're like a little leaf blowing and twisting in the wind. Go study your own position some more. Offering incoherent babble, and then saying, "Nah, it's both" just makes you look ignorant, like a 6-day creationist, fundy, appalachian mountain snaker dancer.

    Aw shucks.

    "Again, you can call it what you like. What does society call it when you kill all the relatives of a couple thousand women and tell your soldiers to take any woman they want? Perhaps you have a comparable example. Bosnia, perhaps? You’re doing a lot of posturing here, but you just look puffed-up."

    tell you what, so I can know you're not a total ignoramous, a complete hack, why don't you present the standard and contemporary orthodox explanation of this situation rather than your revisionist and clumsy handeling of the facts. If you can't, then don't bother responding. I don't have time to debate someone who just writes something for the sake of getting an answer back. Non-substantive responses will be deleated.


    Oh, I’d fall over if you can keep yourself from deleting this post. I mean, after such humiliation you guys usually delete comments other have made, and even your own articles. But, we’ll see…..

    Mason, my argument was that you were arguing from ignorance. You're asserting that they raped the women. Rape needs, by definition, unconsensual sexual violation. You made the assertion that this took place. There is no info telling us that this happened. So, I'm asking you to back up your claim.

    So rape is “unconsensual sexual violation”?

    Deut. 21, from Moses’ own pen:

    10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

    Wow, she’s been taken captive for sex, shaved and dishonored(after killing her parents and other relatives). Now what do you call taking someone captive for the purpose of sex against their will? Rape?

    “If you believed Moses, you would have believed me.” John 5:46

    ReplyDelete
  34. MASON SAID: Of course. Ideally speaking, given enough time, all cultures would come closer and closer to total agreement on what is ethical. In the meantime, there are different standards.

    MY RSPONSE: Right, and I've caught you backtracking. You originally stated:

    "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    See that? First, you put ethics in scare quotes. Second, you intimate that ethics do not have an objective existence, they are "nothing but" social norms. But, you now state that there are such things as "ethics" that have independant existence which cultures will, eventually, come closer to.

    Now, if you don't mean that, but you mean that we will all be one giant culture, sharing one ethic, then this doesn't answer my many critiques I've leveled. For instance, at *this point* would moral reform be possible? If so, then culture wouldn't set the standard. There could be *objective* truths about the matter regardless of what ony culture thought. So, you've still not been able to escape my arguments, even with all the backpedaling.

    I've leveled plenty of arguments in this combox that haven't even been addressed. So, I'll wait.
    I also asked for you to supply OUR standard commentary on the Deuteronomic passages regarding holy war, but you've declined to do so. You've just offered your own "gut reaction" to what you've read. That "gut reaction" is colored by your naive understanding of NAE history, as well as Israelite practices. I asked you to present the arguments we present, but I guess familiarizing yourself with your opponents position is too much to ask.

    Anywway, I think we can just let what has transpired stand. You've proven to be an incompetant opponent. Feel free to come back after you untie all thots knots I tied you in.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And then, even given ample opportunity, you make another huge assumption:

    Wow, she’s been taken captive for sex,

    Where does the text say that?

    Mason, where does the text say that?

    This is like the 10th time you've been asked. When will you answer?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'll add:

    I SAID: If "ethics' are "nothing more" than "social norms," then you can't say ~X if culture says X.

    MASON SAID: I can’t disagree with social norms? How does that work? I refuted that claim from the very beginning.

    MY REPLY: Boy are you dense. If you are part of that culture, and thgat culture is what makes actions right or wrong, then to disagree with them is to be IMMORAL. I don't know why you don't get this. Even those who espose your position in a cherent manner "get" that.

    MASON SAID: The culture does make the principles they live by. What principle is best is a process of discovery.

    MY REPLY: Another contradiction. If the culture MAKES the principles then they don't DISCOVER them. People "discover" objective facts about reality. Mason, we didn't "discover" that driving on the right side of the road was "better" than driving on the left (as in England, say).

    If you DISOVER a "correct" or "better" principle then that is an "objective" fact of the universe and it is "correct" whether or not culture says otherwise, or whether or not it was ever discovered. There are facts of the world that are facts reglardless of whether or not we've "discovered" them yet. And, if they are discoverable principles, then culture doesn't "make" the norms.

    I've really never seen such self-refuting argumentation before.

    ReplyDelete
  37. yeah, Rhology, they marry the women, and then let them mourn for a month, and THEN "rape" them.

    ReplyDelete
  38. For the record, I've already dealt with issue of OT war brides and related issues.

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/he-done-her-wrong.html

    Gene has also discussed this in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Paul,

    yeah, Rhology, they marry the women, and then let them mourn for a month, and THEN "rape" them.

    Yeah, a month of being held captive makes it not rape. LOL!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paul,

    MASON SAID: Of course. Ideally speaking, given enough time, all cultures would come closer and closer to total agreement on what is ethical. In the meantime, there are different standards.

    MY RSPONSE: Right, and I've caught you backtracking. You originally stated:

    "You man attach "ethics" to you behavior, but it's nothing more than group social norms."

    See that? First, you put ethics in scare quotes. Second, you intimate that ethics do not have an objective existence, they are "nothing but" social norms. But, you now state that there are such things as "ethics" that have independant existence which cultures will, eventually, come closer to.


    Ethics don’t exist independently of the people who hold them, so your point makes no sense. I never implied that they have an independent existence. The only thing I said was that groups will come closer together due to reasoning. And, importantly, from the beginning I said that pragmatism and the process of discovery will be the common denominator, not some absolute, objectively true ethical system.

    Now, if you don't mean that, but you mean that we will all be one giant culture, sharing one ethic, then this doesn't answer my many critiques I've leveled. For instance, at *this point* would moral reform be possible? If so, then culture wouldn't set the standard. There could be *objective* truths about the matter regardless of what ony culture thought. So, you've still not been able to escape my arguments, even with all the backpedaling.

    See above.

    I've leveled plenty of arguments in this combox that haven't even been addressed. So, I'll wait.

    To my knowledge I’ve addressed all your arguments, most of which involved false accusations or misunderstandings on your part. If I missed anything or have not understood you, I am unaware of it. Unlike you, I have no need to be right all the time, so if I have been unclear or made a mistake it doesn’t bother me at all to admit that I’ve done so.

    I also asked for you to supply OUR standard commentary on the Deuteronomic passages regarding holy war, but you've declined to do so. You've just offered your own "gut reaction" to what you've read. That "gut reaction" is colored by your naive understanding of NAE history, as well as Israelite practices. I asked you to present the arguments we present, but I guess familiarizing yourself with your opponents position is too much to ask.

    I looked through a number of commentaries and found nothing worth noting, other than disunity and a number of arguments that support my point of view. In fact one major commentary declined to comment at all. Other than that, only you can defend your superior super-secret knowledge, because the other sources are falling all over themselves to help me or get out of the room.

    But here’s the real joke. Imagine if, as a rebuttal, I had told you to go study my views and the views of those who agree with me and come back when you had studied up. You’d really show me respect then, right? LOL!

    Anywway, I think we can just let what has transpired stand. You've proven to be an incompetant opponent. Feel free to come back after you untie all thots knots I tied you in.

    Wow, more name-calling and posturing from Triablogue. How come I didn’t see that coming?

    I SAID: If "ethics' are "nothing more" than "social norms," then you can't say ~X if culture says X.

    MASON SAID: I can’t disagree with social norms? How does that work? I refuted that claim from the very beginning.

    MY REPLY: Boy are you dense. If you are part of that culture, and thgat culture is what makes actions right or wrong, then to disagree with them is to be IMMORAL. I don't know why you don't get this. Even those who espose your position in a cherent manner "get" that.

    MASON SAID: The culture does make the principles they live by. What principle is best is a process of discovery.

    MY REPLY: Another contradiction. If the culture MAKES the principles then they don't DISCOVER them. People "discover" objective facts about reality. Mason, we didn't "discover" that driving on the right side of the road was "better" than driving on the left (as in England, say).

    If you DISOVER a "correct" or "better" principle then that is an "objective" fact of the universe and it is "correct" whether or not culture says otherwise, or whether or not it was ever discovered. There are facts of the world that are facts reglardless of whether or not we've "discovered" them yet. And, if they are discoverable principles, then culture doesn't "make" the norms.

    I've really never seen such self-refuting argumentation before.


    Not only have you never seen such self-refuting argumentation before, you haven’t seen it yet. “Discovery” is in the context of pragmatism. They discover what works (e.g. the Frog God won’t kill you if you neglect to appease her) and base principles upon that. There isn’t a process by which some absolute, objective ethical point of reference is being discovered. Sheesh.

    Finally, I'm not very good with name-calling, so to keep up I ask your assistance in supplying some insults that I can cast your way. I’d hate to see the economy here collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Paul,

    Just to clarify:

    If you DISOVER a "correct" or "better" principle then that is an "objective" fact of the universe and it is "correct" whether or not culture says otherwise, or whether or not it was ever discovered. There are facts of the world that are facts reglardless of whether or not we've "discovered" them yet. And, if they are discoverable principles, then culture doesn't "make" the norms.

    When speaking of "principles," I'm speaking of principles of conduct based upon what works. You are speaking of universal truths. They can be related, but not necessarily. Something can work, but the explanation can be wrong. Or, people can have principles of conduct and never test or question the underlying reasons for their maintenance. In the second instance, a false belief may in fact hold a society together, and so it serves only that pragmatic purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Paul Manata said: You will be appeared to in a red way by the Ethical Atheist's words.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete