Pages

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Valuing life

1. The abortion debate has a stereotypical shape to it. It usually swirls around issues of personhood and autonomy.

What this emphasis overlooks is a more obvious prolife argument, and that is the degree to which human beings value each other. Of course, that ranges along a continuum. We don’t value a stranger in the same way we value a mother or father, brother or sister, or best friend.

But that distinction isn’t especially relevant to this debate since the parties involved in abortion are related to each other.

I daresay that, for most parents, their children are the most valuable things in life. And siblings often feel the same way about their brothers and sisters.

This is why parents and siblings freak out when they receive a call from the ER about how their son or daughter or brother or sister was rushed to the hospital after a terrible traffic accident. They, in turn, rush to the ER, and spend nail-biting hours in the waiting room, hoping for the best, but fearing for the worst.

To lose a son or daughter, brother or sister to suicide or homicide, accident or terminal illness, is one of the great calamities of life. For that matter, to lose a mother or father to old age can be equally devastating.

When there’s a report of a schoolyard sniper, parents are terrified that their kids might be the victims. If their home catches on fire, what’s the first thing they try to rescue? The furniture? No. Their kids. If their home is destroyed by a tornado, but their children survive, that’s what they ultimately care about. Given a choice, they’d far rather save than children than save their home. Many parents will risk their own lives to save the lives of their children.

If the home is destroyed, they can move on with their lives. Absorb the emotional loss. But if their children die, there’s a sense in which their life comes to a standstill.

This applies to strangers as well. When we hear a news report about a child lost in the woods, or a child that fell down a mineshaft, the whole country tunes in.

It’s bizarre that so many parents are so possessive about children after they’re born, but so callous about children before they’re born. How quickly go from being disposable to being indispensable.

2.Of course, you might say, that’s because we get to know the child after it’s born. And no doubt there’s some truth to that.

However, people are often intensely interested in family members they never knew. Suppose I just found out that I have a brother I never knew I had. Unbeknownst to me, my mother gave him up for adoption. Wouldn’t I want to meet him? Wouldn’t I me angry about all the lost years? About all the opportunities I missed in not knowing my brother? The fact that I don’t know this person is the problem. I want to get to know him. I feel betrayed because I wasn’t allowed to. His existence was kept a secret.

Women who gave up their child for adoption often want to reenter their child’s life at some point. They lament not knowing their own child.

Likewise, many adopted children go to great efforts to discover their biological parents.

3.At the same time, this raises the question of whether children are valuable because we value them, or whether we value them because they are valuable.

From a secular standpoint, nothing is intrinsically valuable. Life on earth is a cosmic accident.

However, you can’t very well use that as an argument for abortion rights or women’s rights. If nothing is intrinsically valuable, then the mother or “woman” has no more intrinsic value than the baby. If feticide is justifiable on the grounds that every child should be a wanted child, then is homicide justifiable on the grounds that every man or woman should be valued by someone else?

4.Is there nothing inherently valuable about a child that causes us to value it? Does a child have a purely arbitrary value, like china or sterling silverware?

Even when parents murder their children, they do so because they know how important children are, and they want to do the most evil, hateful, hurtful thing they can. Out of a punitive, spiteful rage, they choose a target of utmost value.

5.Of course, children are not the only things we value. And of the other things we value, we don’t apply abortion criteria, like personhood or autonomy.

For example, people value their pets. They value cats and dogs. Does a cat have to meet some threshold of personhood to be valuable?

Even if you could mount an argument for the personhood of a cat, no cat owner bothers to formulate such an argument to justify the existence of his cat.

And how does the personhood of a cat compare with the personhood of a baby?

Suppose I went to the pet store everyday and bought a new cat. I buy a new cat everyday because, as soon as I bring my new cat home, I kill it. Everyday there’s a dead cat in my dumpster.

That’s what gives purpose to my life. Meaning. Self-fulfillment.

Suppose word got out that I’m a serial cat-killer. What would that do to my reputation? Don’t you suppose the neighbors would be outraged? I’d become very unpopular in a very short time.

Suppose I assured them that I always kill my cats painlessly. Would that assuage their indignation? I doubt it.

In fact, cat-lovers would pass a law to prosecute serial cat-killers like me. Even though it’s my cat, cat-lovers would violate my autonomy.

And yet a cat is not a person, is it? I mean, what’s the IQ of a cat?

And what about a kitten? A kitten would be even less of a person than a full-grown cat.

Moreover, my cat is a perfect stranger to them. They have never formed an emotional bond with my cat. So why do they value my cat?

6.Then there’s the question of trees. Many people have a thing about trees. They like trees. They protect trees. Old-growth forest.

How do trees rate on the scale of personhood? Not very high. A tree is a poor candidate for consciousness. What’s the IQ of a tree?

There are lots of people who would wax indignant if I took a chainsaw to a magnificent oak tree. Suppose I cut it down just because I can. It’s on my land.

I don’t cut it down to make space for something. I just cut it down because I can. Just because it’s mine.

Many people would be outraged. But why? Have I wronged the tree? After all, the tree is not a person. And it’s on my property. Indeed, it is my property.

Yet I daresay many people would violate my autonomy by passing a zoning ordinance that prevents me from cutting down a magnificent oak tree.

7.Or take a Redwood forest. Suppose I’m a private developer. The world’s last surviving Redwood forest sits on my parcel of land. I bought it. It belongs to me. I can show you the title deed.

Suppose I want to clearcut the forest. I want to put a pharmaceutical factory there. It will employ many people. It will produce much-needed medications. It will benefit many human beings. It will benefit many “persons.”

Do you think I’ll be allowed to chop down the world’s last surviving Redwood forest? No. Not a chance. Not if they can stop me.

Many environmentalists and conservationists value trees more than people. After all, a Redwood will vastly outlive anyone human individual.

They want to preserve the Redwood forest for posterity. For future generations.

8.What if it were a nursery rather than a forest. What if these were merely samplings? Still, due to environmental constraints, this plot of land is the only place on earth where they could grow. Would I be allowed to pave over the samplings and build my factory? I don’t think so.

Their state of their maturation would be irrelevant to the environmentalists.

Would they take the position that every Redwood must be a wanted Redwood? Well, it’s possible that they want to preserve the Redwood forest because they enjoy it. For their personal enjoyment.

And yet the Redwood’s right to life doesn’t depend on everyone wanting it. It doesn’t depend on the developer wanting it. Yet the developer owns the forest. Why should a perfect stranger have a right to tell him what to do with his property?

A conservationist will argue that the fate of the forest is a larger concern. That the general public should have a say in its survival. As long as other people want it, it doesn’t matter what the developer wants.

And why doesn’t that same logic apply to babies? Why does the mother or father have the final say-so?

9. Why, exactly, do we punish a murderer? Do we punish him because he killed a person? Or do we punish him because he deprived the victim of his future?

Taking the life of the victim means denying him his future. What would have transpired had we not violently intervened to prevent that outcome.

10.This is not the same thing as contraception, or a time-travel scenario, in which a potential individual will never exist. Rather, we’re dealing with the potential future of an actual individual. The individual has already come into being.

Many critics of Truman think that dropping the bomb on Japan was immoral, not merely because the A-bomb killed a lot of people, but because it caused genetic damage in the survivors so that, when they reproduced, their children suffered from birth defects.

Yet, at the time we dropped the bomb, those were merely potential children. They didn’t even exist.

How is that worse than abortion, which takes the life of an actual existent?

11. There’s a prolife ad (“Vanished”) in which we see children at play. Then some of the children are phased out. These are the victims of abortion. Their future was taken from them.

If that were your son or daughter or brother or sister, would you erase him from existence?

Unlike most creatures, human beings are future-oriented. We can anticipate tomorrow. Think ahead. We’re not tied to the past or the present in the same way a lower animal is. We make plans.

Traditionally, we punish a murderer without regard for the age of the victim. If you murder a ten-year-old, you receive the same penalty as if you murder an eighty-year-old, even though the octogenarian has far fewer years ahead.

Why do we feel worse when someone young dies instead of someone old? Because someone young had his whole future ahead of him. His life was cut tragically short. He died prematurely. Before his time.

Well, isn’t abortion the limiting case of that intuition? Even if, for the sake of argument, you say the “fetus” or “embryo” or “zygote” is not a person, what difference does that make? What difference does it make when you deprive the individual of his future? Whether you deny him his future at the age of 50 or 15 or 15 months?

You deprive him of what he would have become, of what he would have enjoyed. And, if anything, the earlier in the process you make the cut, the greater the deprivation.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he wasn’t a person in the womb. So what? By killing him, you deprived him of his future personhood. And isn’t that a tremendous deprivation?

Suppose I castrate a man. I deprive him of the opportunity to father children. I don’t deprive him of anything he had. I didn’t kill his children. But by destroying his opportunity to have children, I wronged him. Gravely wronged him.

92 comments:

  1. From a secular standpoint, nothing is intrinsically valuable. Life on earth is a cosmic accident.

    It's sad that you think this way. You've actually confused nihilism with secular humanism. I hope you're intellectually honest enough to admit it and edit the post accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. VAGON,

    It's sad you deny the obvious. You've actually confused secular humanistic propaganda with what secular ethics really represents (=moral nihilism). I hope you're intellectually honest enough to admit it and edit your comment accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. steve said... It's sad you deny the obvious.

    The obvious what?

    You've actually confused secular humanistic propaganda with what secular ethics really represents (=moral nihilism).

    I am loathe to imagine you without a religion, you would be scary.

    I hope you're intellectually honest enough to admit it and edit your comment accordingly

    I'm open to this if you correct me, but I think you'll find you cant edit comments.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sure you can. You can delete your previous comment and repost it. The only time you can't is when you're not signed in. But seeing as how your handle is clickable...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh sorry, I read that he meant edit and not completely remove and repost.

    I don't think I should remove, otherwise people wouldn't understand steve's parody. Plus he'd have to correct me to warrant a change.

    How bout this, I wont delete the original, but if he successfully shows why I'm a victim of "secular humanistic" propaganda I'll post a concession, sound fair?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Vagon, why should an atheist do what is right?

    Give a me one good reason, and not something circular like 'because you should', or 'because you'll contribute to the wellbeing of others'.

    Also don't say 'because you'll help yourself in the long run', because it doesn't always. Why should I die to save someone?

    ReplyDelete
  7. VAGON SAID:

    "I am loathe to imagine you without a religion, you would be scary."

    Like Peter Singer, you mean.

    "It's sad that you think this way. You've actually confused nihilism with secular humanism. I hope you're intellectually honest enough to admit it and edit the post accordingly."

    Well, I guess my problem is that I've read too many secular humanists. I got my information from the horse's mouth.

    Here's an example of two secular humanists reviewing another secular humanist:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/martin_review.shtml

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/martin-reply.shtml

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/taner_edis/review_of_martin.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would take a guess that, for something to have intrinsic value, it requires norms. Because to say that it has intrinsic value, means that it inherently good or bad for its own sake as opposed to being valuable for the sake of something else to which it is related in some way. But saying that something is "good" or "bad" means that it ought or ought not be a certain way. But since atheism is descriptive rather prescriptive or proscriptive, it ends up committing the naturalistic fallacy when trying to ascribe an "ought" or "ought not" to a thing, person, or action.

    Many secular humanists and other atheists/agnostics try to get around this by saying that they assign value or give it meaning for themselves. But this is subjective and person-variable and by doing this, the thing/person/action/etc. can be no longer said to have "intrinsic" value, which would be inherent and objective.

    Those are just some thoughts though, correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Vagon, why should an atheist do what is right?

    Define "right".

    Oh look, we're back here again!

    ReplyDelete
  10. PAUL C SAID:

    "Define 'right'. Oh look, we're back here again!"

    You're "back here" because you never left. You don't get to dodge the issue and make it go away just because you don't have a good answer. It's still waiting for you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "why should an atheist do what is right?"

    Inherent to the notion of an action being right is the fact that it ought to be done (and wrong actions avoided). Why should anyone do what is right? Because it is right. How on earth is "because God says so" even remotely a more satisfying answer?

    Some atheists affirm objective morality (Martin), others (Mackie) believe morality to be subjective. I have yet to see it actually argued that theists are committed to the former, and atheists to the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    "Inherent to the notion of an action being right is the fact that it ought to be done (and wrong actions avoided). Why should anyone do what is right? Because it is right."

    Your tautology begs the question of whether anything is right or wrong, and, if so, what makes it right or wrong.

    "How on earth is 'because God says so' even remotely a more satisfying answer?"

    It would help if you didn't begin with an ignorant caricature of theistic ethics.

    For example, if you deny that nature is purposeful (and methodological naturalism disallows teleological explanations in nature), then you can't say that anything is supposed to be one way rather than another.

    If, on the other hand, God made things for a purpose, then that supplies a standard against which it's possible for things to go wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Your tautology begs the question of whether anything is right or wrong, and, if so, what makes it right or wrong."

    If nothing is right or wrong, the entire question is irrelevant.

    If defining what is right as what ought to be done is tautological, I can just as easily charge theism of doing exactly the same thing.

    "It would help if you didn't begin with an ignorant caricature of theistic ethics."

    One caricature deserves another. Your own ignorance encourages a reflection thereof.

    "methodological naturalism disallows teleological explanations in nature"

    *Metaphysical* naturalism disallows a *supernatural* designer, at least. Theists are no less guilty than naturalists of begging the question. Not all naturalists are physicalists/materialists.

    If you define what ought to be done as what is decreed by the God of theism (what about deism, polytheism, et cetera?), you haven't done much in the way of establishing theism in a non-circular way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    "Some atheists affirm objective morality (Martin), others (Mackie) believe morality to be subjective."

    The question at issue is not whether an atheist affirms objective morality, but whether he can justify that affirmation. I cited two atheists who regard Martin's attempt as unsuccessful.

    "I have yet to see it actually argued that theists are committed to the former, and atheists to the latter."

    What theists have you ever read on the subject?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "What theists have you ever read on the subject?"

    Richard Swinburne (surely a philosophically respectable theist) certainly isn't concerned with beating atheists with the "you can't justify morality" hammer.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have, however, seen the point argued by the likes of Craig. Whether he *succeeds* is a different matter.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Daniel A. Wang said...

    “If nothing is right or wrong, the entire question is irrelevant.”

    Which poses a problem for atheism, viz. human rights, women’s rights, abortion rights, animal rights, &c.

    “If defining what is right as what ought to be done is tautological, I can just as easily charge theism of doing exactly the same thing.”

    You suffer from a lack of reasoning ability. Go back and respond to what I actually wrote. Did I object to defining morality in terms of what one “ought” to do nor “ought” not to do? No. This is what I actually wrote:

    “Your tautology begs the question of whether anything is right or wrong, and, if so, what makes it right or wrong."

    The problem is not with the definition, but whether it describes a true state of affairs. You still need to justify the distinction between right and wrong, which also involves you in grounding that distinction.

    “*Metaphysical* naturalism disallows a *supernatural* designer, at least.”

    A proposition which carries a burden of proof.

    “Theists are no less guilty than naturalists of begging the question.”

    Since theists argue for a supernatural designer, they are by no means begging the question.

    “Not all naturalists are physicalists/materialists.”

    Which is completely irrelevant to what I stated.

    “If you define what ought to be done as what is decreed by the God of theism (what about deism, polytheism, et cetera?), you haven't done much in the way of establishing theism in a non-circular way.”

    Which is irrelevant to what I actually said. Go back and respond to what I actually said: “If, on the other hand, God made things for a purpose, then that supplies a standard against which it's possible for things to go wrong.”

    Thus far you show no capacity to actually engage the arguments of your opponent. You simply have a set of prepared talking-points which you rattle off without regard to what your opponent actually wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  18. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “Richard Swinburne (surely a philosophically respectable theist) certainly isn't concerned with beating atheists with the ‘you can't justify morality’ hammer. “

    Whether or not he’s personally concerned with beating theists on those grounds is irrelevant to whether atheists can, in fact, justify morality. There’s nothing improper about challenging atheists to state and defend their position on moral norms. Many atheists consider this a very serious issue. Why shouldn’t I?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Which poses a problem for atheism"

    No more so than it does for theism.

    "You suffer from a lack of reasoning ability."

    How would you know? Your presumptive jump from isolated actions to the complete lack of an ability is less than impressive.

    "The problem is not with the definition"

    So the definition is *not* a tautology?

    "whether it describes a true state of affairs"

    A fascinating question, indeed. But as you obviously presume that this could only be so if your particular concept of God is representative of reality, what on earth do you expect? It would be more honest to admit that nothing would change your mind.

    "You still need to justify the distinction between right and wrong"

    Provided that I accept it, or consider it relevant. Morality is not nullified by subjectivity.

    "A proposition which carries a burden of proof."

    So we are agreed that both naturalism and theism require evidence then, at least?

    "Since theists argue for a supernatural designer, they are by no means begging the question."

    If they are arguing merely for a supernatural designer, they have not established the theistic God.

    "If, on the other hand, God made things for a purpose, then that supplies a standard against which it's possible for things to go wrong."

    What you are arguing here, at best, is that if God exists then there is objective morality. It is fallacious to infer from this that if objective morality is a reality then so must God be. Likewise that if God does not exist, morality is subjective.

    "Thus far you show no capacity to actually engage the arguments of your opponent."

    Oh, good. I was almost worried you might accuse me of being permanently incapable of doing so.

    "You simply have a set of prepared talking-points which you rattle off without regard to what your opponent actually wrote."

    On the contrary, my response is tailored to what the opponent writes. I have nowhere claimed to be a skilled philosopher, and you engage with me at your own risk.

    ReplyDelete
  20. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “No more so than it does for theism.”

    “No more so” is the best you can do? So you concede that atheism is unable to ground moral norms.

    “How would you know? Your presumptive jump from isolated actions to the complete lack of an ability is less than impressive.”

    Your isolated actions are less than impressive.

    “So the definition is *not* a tautology?”

    Irrelevant.

    “A fascinating question, indeed. But as you obviously presume that this could only be so if your particular concept of God is representative of reality, what on earth do you expect?”

    At this point, I have very low expectations for you. And to judge by your isolated actions thus far, you invariably rise to my low expectations.

    “It would be more honest to admit that nothing would change your mind.”

    It would be more honest to admit that you have no mind to change.

    “Provided that I accept it, or consider it relevant.”

    The post was on the subject of abortion rights. If you consider the notion of right and wrong irrelevant, then you don’t believe in abortion rights, in which case—in which case I agree with your conclusion (if not your premise).

    Or do you regard it as an arbitrary social construct?

    “Morality is not nullified by subjectivity.”

    An assertion in search of an argument.

    And how is that germane to the topic of the post? Do you think a woman has a subjective right to an abortion, but no objective right to an abortion?

    “So we are agreed that both naturalism and theism require evidence then, at least?”

    Sure.

    “If they are arguing merely for a supernatural designer, they have not established the theistic God.”

    Intelligent design theory is hardly the sum total of theistic proofs. You were the one who recast the issue in terms of a merely supernatural designer, not me.

    “What you are arguing here, at best, is that if God exists then there is objective morality. It is fallacious to infer from this that if objective morality is a reality then so must God be.”

    That’s not my argument. I was merely responding to your ignorant caricature of theistic ethics, as if morality amounted to a bare divine fiat.

    “Likewise that if God does not exist, morality is subjective.”

    If God does not exist, then morality is, at best, an illusion—or else an arbitrary social construct.

    “Oh, good. I was almost worried you might accuse me of being permanently incapable of doing so.”

    The evidence is rapidly accumulating to justify a more sweeping prognosis.

    “I have nowhere claimed to be a skilled philosopher.”

    It shows.

    “And you engage with me at your own risk.”

    Thus far, it looks like a pretty risk-free endeavor. But if you’re holding back, I look forward to overwhelming case you’ve been keeping in reserve.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Inherent to the notion of an action being right is the fact that it ought to be done (and wrong actions avoided). Why should anyone do what is right? Because it is right. How on earth is "because God says so" even remotely a more satisfying answer?

    Some atheists affirm objective morality (Martin), others (Mackie) believe morality to be subjective. I have yet to see it actually argued that theists are committed to the former, and atheists to the latter.


    All you have done is to state that we should do what is 'right' because you define 'right' to be 'something you should do'.

    Maybe my question is poorly worded then if you're going to be this pedantic.

    How about:
    "Why should an atheist believe that there are things that he is morally obliged to do?"

    ReplyDelete
  22. "So you concede that atheism is unable to ground moral norms."

    I concede only that theism has no discernible advantage over atheism in grounding moral norms. Theism doesn't even have an advantage over alternatives like deism and polytheism, unlike what your false dichotomy suggests.

    "Your isolated actions are less than impressive."

    So you say. Any reason why that statement should be of any concern to me?

    "I have very low expectations for you."

    And since you have low expectations from the outset for anyone who does not mindlessly agree with your views, this should affect me in the slightest for what conceivable reason, if indeed any?

    "It would be more honest to admit that you have no mind to change."

    An absurd statement, and I'd be more inclined to go with Keith Parsons' assessment of you as having a "big mouth and little brain" than yours of mine, but perhaps we can put that rubbish aside? Your persistently contemptuous tone is no substitute for argument.

    "If you consider the notion of right and wrong irrelevant"

    ...then I'm under no obligation to justify it. I have no strong opinion on whether morality is subjective and objective, what I'm attacking is the ridiculous assertion that theism and objective morality mutually entail each other, and correspondingly with atheism and subjective morality.

    "An assertion in search of an argument."

    I'm not the one asserting that morality cannot be without an objective grounding. If that were really the case, we shouldn't call it subjective morality but immorality. This at least has the benefit of consistency.

    "Intelligent design theory is hardly the sum total of theistic proofs."

    Are you suggesting that the sum total of theistic proofs can be taken to establish theism as a whole? Most arguments for the existence of God could just as easily apply to other conceptions of the divine than that of theism, and gathering them doesn't help.

    "I was merely responding to your ignorant caricature of theistic ethics"

    As opposed to your enlightened critique of secular ethics, one might presume? It's much easier to charge ignorance than attempt to read others charitably.

    "If God does not exist, then morality is, at best, an illusion"

    A pound of assertion to an ounce of argument.

    "The evidence is rapidly accumulating to justify a more sweeping prognosis."

    If only the evidence would accumulate in the favour of theism, or at least the proposition to which I am actually responding.

    "Thus far, it looks like a pretty risk-free endeavor."

    What I mean is very simply that I couldn't care less about what you think of my "reasoning ability". You're the one with the obsession about personal attacks (evidenced in many places), not me.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mark Pendray:

    "Why should an atheist believe that there are things that he is morally obliged to do?"

    Why should the theist believe so? Why should the atheist *not* believe so?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Whether the 'theist' can ground morality is irrelevant to my question. I have an answer, but I'm not going to give it now.

    I can't help noticing that you didn't answer my question.

    It's like if you said:
    "I believe that there's an even number of geese in the world"
    And I said:
    "What evidence do you have for that?"
    And you respond:
    "Well...what evidence do you have against that111!!!!"

    As you can see, if you make a claim you bear a burden of proof.

    So as it stands the conversation has gone:
    "Why do you think there is such thing as morality?"
    To which the reply is:
    "Well why shouldn't I?"

    OK.. So I'm going to repeat the question:
    "Why do you believe there is such thing as morality?"

    ReplyDelete
  25. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “I concede only that theism has no discernible advantage over atheism in grounding moral norms. Theism doesn't even have an advantage over alternatives like deism and polytheism, unlike what your false dichotomy suggests.”

    Another lonely assertion bereft of a supporting argument. At this rate we’ll need to open an orphanage for all your lonely assertions.

    “Any reason why that statement should be of any concern to me?”

    Any reason your lack of concern should concern me?

    “And since you have low expectations from the outset for anyone who does not mindlessly agree with your views, this should affect me in the slightest for what conceivable reason, if indeed any?”

    Because you were the one who cast your question in terms of “expectations.” Sorry you can’t keep track of your own argument, such as it is.

    “I'd be more inclined to go with Keith Parsons' assessment of you as having a ‘big mouth and little brain’ than yours of mine.”

    He’s upset because he lost the argument. More than once.

    “Your persistently contemptuous tone is no substitute for argument.”

    You have offered nothing substantive to refute. And you were the one who initiated the contemptuous tone.

    “...then I'm under no obligation to justify it. I have no strong opinion on whether morality is subjective and objective, what I'm attacking is the ridiculous assertion that theism and objective morality mutually entail each other, and correspondingly with atheism and subjective morality.”

    i) To begin with, it’s not merely Christians like me who say that atheism entails moral nihilism. A number of atheists have admitted that very point. I’ve quoted them on more than one occasion.

    ii) To claim my alternative is “ridiculous” is just another assertion in search of an argument.

    iii) Finally, if you’re so noncommittal on the question of objective moral norms, then why do you think it’s even important to attack someone else’s position? Unless you think it’s morally wrong to be mistaken, your reaction is irrational.

    “I'm not the one asserting that morality cannot be without an objective grounding. If that were really the case, we shouldn't call it subjective morality but immorality. This at least has the benefit of consistency.”

    No, if we were being consistent, we’d call it amorality.

    And you’re the one who keeps using the phrase “subjective morality,” not me. Your lack of linguistic consistency is your problem, not mine.

    “Are you suggesting that the sum total of theistic proofs can be taken to establish theism as a whole?”

    There’s a difference between knowledge and proof.

    “Most arguments for the existence of God could just as easily apply to other conceptions of the divine than that of theism, and gathering them doesn't help.”

    That’s too vague to merit a response.

    “As opposed to your enlightened critique of secular ethics, one might presume? It's much easier to charge ignorance than attempt to read others charitably.”

    i) This is hardly the first time I’ve canvassed the issue.

    ii) And are you claiming that we ought to read others charitably? Is that an objective obligation, or a merely subjective obligation?

    iii) It’s not as if your reading of my post, or subsequent replies, has been distinguished by the least bit of charity.

    “A pound of assertion to an ounce of argument.”

    Go back to my statement about methodological naturalism.

    “You're the one with the obsession about personal attacks (evidenced in many places), not me.”

    i) Do you think personal attacks are morally wrong? If so, are they objectively wrong or only subjectively wrong?

    ii) When you consistently ignore or misrepresent my arguments, then I’m justified in drawing attention to your deficient performance.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "As you can see, if you make a claim you bear a burden of proof."

    But seeing as I did not make the original claim, and since I am not definitely committed either to moral realism or to ethical subjectivism, either to theism or to atheism, there is no burden to meet with respect to this.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow this blew up since I last left.

    Steve, no doubt there are the same amount of people who are evil/anti-socially minded on either "side",

    I'm just saying that if you cant account for morals without Jesus, I hope their aren't people like you in the other 2/3 of the worlds population.

    As for how I determine whats right or wrong, I don't as such, society does. For example I think chewing gum is fine, but people in Singapore obviously disagree.

    You'll find with any law/moral there will be a segment of the population that break it. The small the amount of people that break it, the more "moral" it is. You should check out the Nash equilibrium (or ESS, if you guys don't denied evolution).

    Also keep in mind that without that segment that break the moral norm we would still have slavery, race-hatred and poor women's rights in the western countries. It is good to have your world view challenged, no?

    ReplyDelete
  28. should read:
    *The smaller the amount

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Any reason your lack of concern should concern me?"

    Any reason either of us should be concerned with anything but the argument at hand? Not to the best of my knowledge.

    "To begin with, it's not merely Christians like me who say that atheism entails moral nihilism."

    Which is rather irrelevant to what the truth of the matter is.

    "There's a difference between knowledge and proof."

    So the answer is no, then?

    "you're the one who keeps using the phrase 'subjective morality,' not me"

    Since technically ethical subjectivism and moral nihilism are not identical concepts, and since both stand in opposition to the notion of objective morality, "subjective morality" is an appropriate term.

    "if you’re so noncommittal on the question of objective moral norms, then why do you think it’s even important to attack someone else’s position?"

    I believe in objective truths. If someone claims that square circles are possible, they are plain wrong. The exact nature of morality is very much an open question to me. You want me to commit to things I am by no means obliged to commit.

    "That’s too vague to merit a response."

    I don't understand what's so vague about pointing out that even theists find it difficult to prove the God posited by theism specifically, with all the relevant qualities and attributes. How much more clearly can it possibly be put?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Daniel is obviously skilled at speaking in circles. His formative year must have been spent in a continual state of dizziness.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Daniel Wang,

    Do you believe that morality exists?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Coming from anyone who would not consider TAG blatantly circular, that's almost to be considered a compliment.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Do you believe that morality exists?"

    Pardon? I think you mean *objective* morality. No idea.

    ReplyDelete
  34. VAGON SAID:

    “I'm just saying that if you cant account for morals without Jesus, I hope their aren't people like you in the other 2/3 of the worlds population.”

    And I'm just saying that if you can’t account for morals without Jesus, I hope there aren't people like Peter Singer in the other 2/3 of the worlds population.

    "As for how I determine whats right or wrong, I don't as such, society does. For example I think chewing gum is fine, but people in Singapore obviously disagree. Also keep in mind that without that segment that break the moral norm we would still have slavery, race-hatred and poor women's rights in the western countries. It is good to have your world view challenged, no?"

    And what’s wrong with slavery, race-hatred, and poor women’s rights? After all, you just said that society determines right and wrong. So, by your own definition, if slavery, race-hatred, and poor women’s rights represent the prevailing social mores, then slavery, race-hatred, and poor women’s rights are right, right?

    ReplyDelete
  35. But you *are* sure that you should act morally?

    ReplyDelete
  36. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “Any reason either of us should be concerned with anything but the argument at hand?”

    If and when you furnish an actual argument.

    “Which is rather irrelevant to what the truth of the matter is.”

    It’s quite relevant when they *argue* for moral nihilism on the basis of their secular outlook.

    “So the answer is no, then?”

    The answer is that we often know more than we can formally prove. You’re illicitly shifting from a question of evidence to a question of proof—as if those were interchangeable concepts. They’re not.

    “I believe in objective truths. If someone claims that square circles are possible, they are plain wrong. The exact nature of morality is very much an open question to me. You want me to commit to things I am by no means obliged to commit.”

    And why does it matter whether someone is just plain wrong unless it’s good to be right and bad to be wrong? Do you think we have a duty to be correct? Unless there’s a moral obligation to be truthful, who cares if I’m right or wrong?

    “I don't understand what's so vague about pointing out that even theists find it difficult to prove the God posited by theism specifically, with all the relevant qualities and attributes. How much more clearly can it possibly be put?”

    You might begin with a clear supporting argument for your bare assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "But you *are* sure that you should act morally?"

    It's part of my nature to act morally, insofar as I understand the concept of morality, as socially and mentally beneficial rather than necessarily dependent on some sort of mystical entity.

    Most people are not sociopaths, whatever their philosophical stance, and no matter how wretched religions may declare them to be.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "If and when you furnish an actual argument."

    Presumes a burden of proof not actually on me.

    "It's quite relevant when they *argue* for moral nihilism on the basis of their secular outlook."

    Not in establishing a mutual link between atheism and moral nihilism, such that one necessarily entails the other. If such were the case, this would hold whether anyone holding to either position argued it or not.

    "Unless there's a moral obligation to be truthful, who cares if I’m right or wrong?"

    You seem to be confusing a prudential consideration with a morally obligating one. It could well be that we're not obligated morally to be right, and for being wrong to nonetheless to be quite unfortunate.

    "You might begin with a clear supporting argument for your bare assertion."

    Presuming that one is needed for the "bare assertion". Theism posits an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being (and a few more, to say nothing of the portrayal of this being particular to the actual religion). Now, the last time I checked, the cosmological argument (for instance) does not even come close to proving such a being *even if completely successful*. Or do you want me to support this "bare assertion" as well?

    ReplyDelete
  39. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “Presumes a burden of proof not actually on me.”

    Every time you make an assertion, that involves a burden of proof. An assertion is a truth-claim, whether positive or negative, an affirmation or denial. Prefixing a noun with an alpha-privative (atheism, agnosticism) doesn’t remove the burden of proof. That merely camouflages the onus under the guise of a linguistic convention.

    “Not in establishing a mutual link between atheism and moral nihilism, such that one necessarily entails the other. If such were the case, this would hold whether anyone holding to either position argued it or not.”

    Indeed, a logical entailment obtains whether or not anyone argues for it. The point of the argument is to demonstrate the logical entailment.

    “You seem to be confusing a prudential consideration with a morally obligating one. It could well be that we're not obligated morally to be right, and for being wrong to nonetheless to be quite unfortunate.”

    Unfortunate for whom? Yourself? But you think it’s important to convince other people of your position. Why are you trying to talk me out of my position if there is no moral obligation to hold true beliefs? Assuming that my beliefs are mistaken, it’s quite unlikely that my mistaken beliefs are going to have unfortunate consequences for you over in Oslo.

    And, from a secular standpoint, it could be quite unfortunately to be right. I might be a far happier, well-adjusted individual if I mistakenly believe in heaven. Believe I’ll go to heaven when I die.

    But now that I know heaven is just an antiquated superstition, and morality is an evolutionary illusion, I’m very depressed. I begin to engage in high-risk behavior since I’m might as well go out at the top of my game, rather than languish in a nursing home.

    “Theism posits an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being (and a few more, to say nothing of the portrayal of this being particular to the actual religion). Now, the last time I checked, the cosmological argument (for instance) does not even come close to proving such a being *even if completely successful*.”

    Why do you think there should be just one type of argument for a complex proposition?

    And even if we limit ourselves to the cosmological argument, there are several different versions. A Leibnizian version, with its appeal to infinite possible worlds and the principle of sufficient reason, would require a God with many of the classical Christian attributes.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hello, Steve

    I was just curious about this:

    "Every time you make an assertion, that involves a burden of proof. An assertion is a truth-claim, whether positive or negative, an affirmation or denial. Prefixing a noun with an alpha-privative (atheism, agnosticism) doesn’t remove the burden of proof. That merely camouflages the onus under the guise of a linguistic convention."

    Does a denial necessarily require a burden of proof? For example, sola scriptura is often construed as a denial that extrascriptural traditions are part of the rule of faith. But usually, it's assumed that the burden of proof is on the roman catholic or orthodox to furnish proof that extrascriptural traditions are part of the rule of faith. So the onus seems to be on the party making the positive assertion. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  41. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “I believe in objective truths. If someone claims that square circles are possible, they are plain wrong."

    Of course, it's difficult to ground truth in a secular worldview. Conversely, there are also alethic arguments for the existence of God:

    http://www.proginosko.com/docs/knowledge_and_theism.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Every time you make an assertion, that involves a burden of proof."

    I'm well aware, as this is precisely the reason for inquiring into whether you can actually provide evidence for your claims.

    "Prefixing a noun with an alpha-privative (atheism, agnosticism) doesn’t remove the burden of proof."

    This is venturing into semantic considerations, which for completeness would require looking at etymology, historical uses, and present usage (linguistics being descriptive rather than prescriptive). I'll resist any such temptation and simply acknowledge the fairly obvious fact that anyone who ends up making a definite claim about a particular entity, such as God, shoulders a burden of proof. But not everyone makes definite claims of this nature.

    "Unfortunate for whom?"

    Generally unfortunate. Leads to opposite consequences of those things that I clearly see to be fortunate.

    "But you think it’s important to convince other people of your position."

    Not if my position is held in error. Convincing someone else is not a goal in its own right.

    "Why are you trying to talk me out of my position if there is no moral obligation to hold true beliefs?"

    I'm not. I'm investigating whether you have any evidence for a claim which very many philosophers would dispute, and with good reason. You have made up your mind ages ago on a variety of issues, so trying to "talk you out of" anything is a waste of time, frankly. But that doesn't prevent me from interacting with someone.

    "Assuming that my beliefs are mistaken, it’s quite unlikely that my mistaken beliefs are going to have unfortunate consequences for you over in Oslo."

    Consequences are difficult to predict. At any rate, irrelevant to the question of whether the beliefs in fact are true. And, of course, if your beliefs should happen to be true that would be of personal interest. Either way, there is something to be gained from it, or I wouldn't do it. Even altruistic actions are essentially self-interested.

    "I might be a far happier, well-adjusted individual if I mistakenly believe in heaven."

    By that token one could be miserable knowing that family members will suffer eternally. One doctrine follows the other. What's more, one risks spending an entire life that could easily have been better spent in reality. Now, any view of God or religion supposedly based on truth must ultimately follow that route rather than the supposedly prudential one. And, of course, even if atheism entailed moral nihilism this would have absolutely no impact on whether it was true or not.

    "Why do you think there should be just one type of argument for a complex proposition?"

    I don't. I'd be quite fascinated by a cumulative case for theism that actually established the being of theism, rather than some generic god or god-like being(s).

    "A Leibnizian version, with its appeal to infinite possible worlds and the principle of sufficient reason, would require a God with many of the classical Christian attributes."

    Many and all being quite the difference, not to mention that God could well match "classical Christian attributes" to quite an extent without actually being the Christian God, at least hypothetically.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @steve

    I said: I'm just saying that if you cant account for morals without Jesus, I hope their aren't people like you in the other 2/3 of the worlds population.”

    you replied: "And I'm just saying that if you can’t account for morals without Jesus, I hope there aren't people like Peter Singer in the other 2/3 of the worlds population."

    Great! So we agree that seeing as two thirds of the world isn't like Singer, that morals exist without need for your particular religion.

    "As for how I determine whats right or wrong, I don't as such, society does. For example I think chewing gum is fine, but people in Singapore obviously disagree. Also keep in mind that without that segment that break the moral norm we would still have slavery, race-hatred and poor women's rights in the western countries. It is good to have your world view challenged, no?"

    "And what’s wrong with slavery, race-hatred, and poor women’s rights? After all, you just said that society determines right and wrong. So, by your own definition, if slavery, race-hatred, and poor women’s rights represent the prevailing social mores, then slavery, race-hatred, and poor women’s rights are right, right?"

    Well thats just it is it? They were considered right. I guess if I lived back then I would have thought it moral, or maybe I would have challenged the moral norm. But hindsight is great, you wouldn't want to go back to how the morals were fifty years ago!

    We wisened up, in no small part through scientific research that showed we had no good reason not to afford women/blacks the same opportunities as white males.

    After that it was only cultural acceptance that needed to be overcome. To think all this happened less than 50 years ago too. The bible has been around for what 1600 or so years?

    So:
    -Other people outside of your religion have morals
    -People didn't act in what we would call a moral way today just 50 years ago

    Please edit your post accordingly (assuming you don't want to be demonstrably intellectually dishonest).

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hi all Triabloguers,

    I have learned so much from reading your blog. This article on valuing life was especially insightful.

    I am often amazed at your clarity of thinking, insights into issues, and the rigorous standards of logic you demand from yourselves and others.

    I have two questions: first, how did you learn to think so clearly and argue so logically, and second, would you give me some advice and/or recommend some resources for how to think through an issue, use logic to argue a point and how to recognize logical fallacies in my own reasoning and that of my opponents.

    Please put your advice on the bottom shelf for me because I am such a novice that I had to look up the word tautology. I am such a simple person when it comes to understanding philosophy, I picked up a copy of Philosophy for Dummies. Unfortunately, it hasn't helped me know how to construct arguments like I hoped, but it has been useful in other areas.

    It is somewhat embarrassing to admit so much ignorance, but I want to become wise, and I hope, through study and seeking wise council, I will not always remain in my condition.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Bob,

    One book that Steve recommended to me is "Looking At Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter" by Donald Palmer.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Bob,

    Trust me. You are already heads and tails above Vagon and Daniel.

    Arguing is like anything else: you get better at it the more you practice. However, that doesn't mean you should throw yourself into a lion pit after you buy your first karate uniform.

    One of the best ways to practice spotting logical fallacies is to critique commericals. For instance, when you hear a product say, "We're 10% better!" ask "10% better than what?" You'll find that often there are non-comparison comparison's going on (the advertiser hopes you supply the correct comparison, which is whatever product you WOULD have prefered...).

    Asking questions will provide your foundation. And you can do this with anything that is argued (you can get a book containing essays, philosophical works, etc.) and read through them analyzing each type of sentence. Ask: Is the author making a claim here? If so, has he established a reason for that claim? Does it fit with everything else that the author is asking? Etc.

    Soon enough, this will become second nature to you.

    Finally, it helps to have a good memory. I don't know of anything specifically that helps anyone boost their memory. Some of it is just what you're born with. For example, I have a fairly good memory when it comes to reading text or hearing speech. It's by no means photographic. However, if I read something in a book I can generally tell you where on the page it was located (e.g. "the right hand page in the bottom third") and can find it relatively quickly.

    This is both useful and non-useful when it comes to memorizing Scripture, for instance. It's useful until I switch to a different Bible with a different set of margins, in which case having memorized the chapter and verse numbers would be much more helpful! However, for most books it works fine since I'll only ever have one edition of them. So if I remember something Richard Dawkins said in "The God Delusion" for example, I can usually pick it up and find it again within a minute.

    When it comes to internet discussion, such as we have here on the T-Blog, having a good memory also helps to catch our opponents in contradictory statements, as they so often fall into them. Thus when we dealt with the saga of Touchstone, for instance, I could remember and find which post he had said certain things that contradicted later claims he made, and so forth.

    Again, I don't know how you can improve that naturally. But I think the more you try at it, the better you'll get. And I think people have a greater potential for memory than our culture teaches us with our 30 second soundbytes.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It also helps being completely blinded by religious dogma, and presuming that your opponent must be in error no matter what they could conceivably say, and so treat them with corresponding arrogance.

    I'm sure that's good for preaching to the choir, but for actually making an argumentative impact, that's a different story.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The only real way to make progress in this discussion, I expect, is to explain why Christian theism (and of course, your brand of it in particular) somehow resolves a problem not available to any other philosophies or religions. As yet, even theism itself has yet to be established as superior in this way.

    ReplyDelete
  49. in a manner not available*, excuse me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I always pray to my Gawd before writing my posts, so that my fundamentalist zeal is at it's height. Sometimes I'll tweak my posts just before publishing them to make them even more inflexibly dogmatic.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "It's part of my nature to act morally, insofar as I understand the concept of morality, as socially and mentally beneficial rather than necessarily dependent on some sort of mystical entity."

    How do you *know* it's part of your 'nature' to act 'morally'? Why do you believe that there's something called 'morality', which is socially and mentally beneficial?

    "Most people are not sociopaths, whatever their philosophical stance, and no matter how wretched religions may declare them to be."

    Just because most atheists don't act that way doesn't mean that their ethical theory is correct. The majority can be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "How do you *know* it's part of your 'nature' to act 'morally'?"

    Through experience.

    "Why do you believe that there's something called 'morality', which is socially and mentally beneficial?"

    Same. I need not be committed to either the subjectivity or the objectivity of morals in order to act morally, and to know that killing people is a bad idea. I pity those who think that theism is somehow necessary to establish this.

    "Just because most atheists don't act that way doesn't mean that their ethical theory is correct."

    If it is alleged that someone's metaethical views somehow impact whether they act morally or not, the simple answer is that this is false.

    ReplyDelete
  53. VAGON SAID:

    “Great! So we agree that seeing as two thirds of the world isn't like Singer, that morals exist without need for your particular religion.”

    i) To begin with, 2/3 of the world isn’t secular.

    ii) More to the point, you’re equivocating, due to your lack of sophistication. You raised a question about “accounting” for morality. The fact that someone may behave morally (some of the time) doesn’t mean he can account for his moral behavior.

    “But hindsight is great, you wouldn't want to go back to how the morals were fifty years ago!”

    You have no basis to make that invidious comparison. Since you reduce morality to social mores, you’re in no position to say that one society got it right while another society got it wrong. One social convention isn’t morally superior to another—not if your entire system of ethics is predicated on the notion that morality is a social construct.

    “We wisened up, in no small part through scientific research that showed we had no good reason not to afford women/blacks the same opportunities as white males.”

    To the contrary, slavery had an economic basis: the value of cheap mass labor in a labor-intensive economy. So you can’t attack slavery on purely pragmatic grounds.

    Moreover, you’re shifting your argument from social mores to science.

    “After that it was only cultural acceptance that needed to be overcome.”

    Why should that be overcome if, according to you, society dictates right from wrong in the first place? Your position is irrational and incoherent.

    “Other people outside of your religion have morals.”

    i) Irrelevant to how people “account” for morals.

    ii) Moreover, I never said that unbelievers are just as virtuous as Christians.

    “People didn't act in what we would call a moral way today just 50 years ago.”

    That claim undercuts your own stated standard of morality.

    “Please edit your post accordingly (assuming you don't want to be demonstrably intellectually dishonest).”

    Please edit your comment accordingly (assuming you don't want to be demonstrably intellectually inept). But then, what would we expect from a squirrel?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Daniel said:
    ---
    It also helps being completely blinded by religious dogma, and presuming that your opponent must be in error no matter what they could conceivably say, and so treat them with corresponding arrogance.
    ---

    In this matter, I must yield to Sir Daniel's overwhelming experience. He is most certainly the most qualified of us to speak of intellectual blindness, presumption, and arrogance, having demonstrated time and again his familiarity with all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  55. One person at a time, now.

    "I must yield to Sir Daniel's overwhelming experience."

    Well, your experience of *me* is limited to this discussion and whatever I choose to say here, which is less than what can be said for my experience with this blog. So in that sense, at least, your latest pathetic attempt at sarcasm fails.

    I haven't boasted of any "experience", I was just wondering whether (atheism -> moral nihilism) was anything more than a theistic knee-jerk. Apparently not.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "How do you *know* it's part of your 'nature' to act 'morally'?"

    Through experience."


    That doesn't really answer my question, does it? What experience? Please be more specific.

    I don't think you'd be content with me saying "I know Christianity is true by experience".

    "Why do you believe that there's something called 'morality', which is socially and mentally beneficial?"

    Same. I need not be committed to either the subjectivity or the objectivity of morals in order to act morally, and to know that killing people is a bad idea. I pity those who think that theism is somehow necessary to establish this."


    You're just asserting your views again. What justification do you have for believing them to be true?

    "Just because most atheists don't act that way doesn't mean that their ethical theory is correct."

    If it is alleged that someone's metaethical views somehow impact whether they act morally or not, the simple answer is that this is false."


    I'm not talking about whether someone's 'metaethical' views impact the way they live (although I think they do). The question is whether their views are correct.

    I haven't asked yet whether you adhere to subjective or objective ethics. You've made the claim that you believe that all people should act morally, and I'm asking how you know this.

    ReplyDelete
  57. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “I'm well aware, as this is precisely the reason for inquiring into whether you can actually provide evidence for your claims.”

    Evidence for which claims? Vagon tried to challenge just one of my claims: “From a secular standpoint, nothing is intrinsically valuable. Life on earth is a cosmic accident.”

    When I responded, you tried to challenge my response. Yet your response essentially conceded my original claim. Instead of defending secular ethics, the best you could come up with was the claim is that Christian ethics is in the same boat.

    But even if that were true, that’s irrelevant to scope of my post. Was I making a case for Christian theism? No? Was I even making a positive case for Christian ethics in general? No.

    Rather, I was critiquing some stock arguments for abortion, based on personhood and autonomy. Your comments are wholly irrelevant to my actual argument—except where you ironically confirm my original claim.

    “I'll resist any such temptation and simply acknowledge the fairly obvious fact that anyone who ends up making a definite claim about a particular entity, such as God, shoulders a burden of proof.”

    You’re making definite claims to the contrary. If you oppose my claim, then your counterclaim is the flipside of my claim. You are also making claims about the nature of the evidence and the nature of the world.

    If you say there’s a lack of evidence for Christian theism, that’s a truth-claim. That’s not a neutral, noncommittal position. If you say you can’t decide which is correct, subjective morality or objective morality—that also involves you in a personal stance regarding the nature of the evidence.

    If I say the God of the Bible exists, and you say the God of the Bible doesn’t exist, then your claim is the mirror image of my claim. Your denial amounts to a very specific evidentiary claim.

    I understand why you’d like to weasel out of this. But you don’t get to shirk your own intellectual responsibilities here.

    “I'm investigating whether you have any evidence for a claim which very many philosophers would dispute, and with good reason.”

    You didn’t dispute my claim about secular ethics. You conceded my claim, then attempted to change the subject.

    “You have made up your mind ages ago on a variety of issues, so trying to ‘talk you out of’ anything is a waste of time, frankly.”

    It’s not as if you come across as being Mr. Open-Minded. You have a very militant bias, which you put on public display.

    “At any rate, irrelevant to the question of whether the beliefs in fact are true.”

    If morality is irrelevant, then truth is irrelevant.

    “Even altruistic actions are essentially self-interested.”

    In a lifeboat situation, self-interest may dictate that the guy with the gun shoot his fellow passengers. That way, he doesn’t have to ration the food and fresh water among so many.

    “By that token one could be miserable knowing that family members will suffer eternally.”

    Throughout this exchange you resort to the loser’s tactic of simply trying to turn an objection back on your opponent instead of defending your own position.

    “One doctrine follows the other.”

    And, according to the Biblical doctrine of the afterlife, the saints won’t be miserable (Rev 21:4). Nice try, though.

    “What's more, one risks spending an entire life that could easily have been better spent in reality.”

    i) Begs the question of whether unbelievers lead better lives.

    ii) And once your dead, it doesn’t matter how you spent your life (from a secular perspective). In the end, I won’t remember my life. It will be as if I never existed.

    “And, of course, even if atheism entailed moral nihilism this would have absolutely no impact on whether it was true or not.”

    If moral nihilism is true, it matters not what else is true or false. Moral nihilism destroys the quality of life. Life ceases to be “good.”

    “Many and all being quite the difference.”

    The difference for what? The being or the argument? Different arguments vary in their scope. What varies is not the being, but the range of the argument about the being in question.

    “Not to mention that God could well match ‘classical Christian attributes’ to quite an extent without actually being the Christian God, at least hypothetically.”

    You might want to brush up on the identity of indiscernibles.

    “The only real way to make progress in this discussion, I expect, is to explain why Christian theism (and of course, your brand of it in particular) somehow resolves a problem not available to any other philosophies or religions.”

    That isn’t the problem I posed for myself in my original post. There’s nothing more for me to solve or resolve vis-à-vis my original post.

    “It also helps being completely blinded by religious dogma, and presuming that your opponent must be in error no matter what they could conceivably say, and so treat them with corresponding arrogance.”

    Sounds like you disapprove of my position, as well as my conduct. Do you think it’s morally wrong to be blinded by religious dogma? Is that objectively wrong, or only subjectively wrong? What if the dogmatician happens to think that blind faith is a virtue. How does your subjective value-judgment trump his subjective value-judgment to the contrary?

    Do you think it’s wrong to treat an opponent arrogantly? Is that objectively wrong or subjectively wrong?

    Of course, I don’t accept your tendentious characterization of Christian faith. But as long as you choose to put it that way…

    “As yet, even theism itself has yet to be established as superior in this way.”

    That’s just another vacuous assertion on your part.

    “Through experience.”

    What about the personal experience of Josef Mengele or Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer or the Green River Killer? Was that part of their nature? Was what they did naturally good?

    “Same. I need not be committed to either the subjectivity or the objectivity of morals in order to act morally, and to know that killing people is a bad idea.”

    Of course you do! If morality is merely subjective, then the subjective morality of the murder victim can’t trump the subjective morality of the murderer. Is killing people an objectively bad idea, or a merely subjectively bad idea? If it’s a subjectively bad idea, it’s only subjectively bad to folks who feel that way. It’s a subjectively good idea to the killer.

    Act morally in what sense? Subjectively? Jeffrey Dahmer is acting morally—from his own subjective viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "I don't think you'd be content with me saying 'I know Christianity is true by experience'."

    Apart from the contrast between common human experience and religious experience, you could well know that Christianity is true through such experience. Only problem being, that is not available to me.

    "You're just asserting your views again. What justification do you have for believing them to be true?"

    A justification independent of the theistic God. It is important to distinguish between the reasons why I act morally, and the philosophical issue, which to date remains unanswered (namely, why objective morality requires God). I'm not shouldering the burden of proof.

    "The question is whether their views are correct."

    Unless you're about to argue that it is incorrect that murder negatively impacts society, and runs against what a normal person would be willing to do in the vast majority of circumstances, there's little to add here.

    "You've made the claim that you believe that all people should act morally"

    I would rather live in a world where people acted in a certain way rather than another, and as it happens this applies to most everyone. Even if moral nihilism is true, this would not change.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Daniel said:
    ---
    Well, your experience of *me* is limited to this discussion and whatever I choose to say here, which is less than what can be said for my experience with this blog.
    ---

    OMG J00 R S0 f'n st0000pid!11!1111 HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!! i c4n'7 b3lE3v h0w DUM j00 r!!1111!!!!!!1

    Does that help clarify it any for you?

    Daniel said:
    ---
    So in that sense, at least, your latest pathetic attempt at sarcasm fails.
    ---

    It wasn't sarcasm. It was observation.

    Daniel said:
    ---
    I haven't boasted of any "experience", I was just wondering whether (atheism -> moral nihilism) was anything more than a theistic knee-jerk.
    ---

    Which shows how pathetically stupid you really are. See, I happen to be able to follow the track of a conversation. Bob asked a question of the Triabloggers about how to learn to argue. I answered his question. You spouted your tripe in response to that, supposedly trying to be clever. I burn you for it by having a better wit than you do. Now you try to pretend your comments were not related to my discussion with Bob.

    You are either A) stupid or B) a piss-poor liar. I choose C) All of the above.

    So your pathetic attempt at a "comeback" has failed miserably. You would realize this if you had the prerequisite equipment required for reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  60. MATHETES SAID:

    “Does a denial necessarily require a burden of proof? For example, sola scriptura is often construed as a denial that extrascriptural traditions are part of the rule of faith. But usually, it's assumed that the burden of proof is on the roman catholic or orthodox to furnish proof that extrascriptural traditions are part of the rule of faith. So the onus seems to be on the party making the positive assertion. Any thoughts?”

    In a debate, both sides have a burden of proof to discharge.

    Not all Christians are called upon to offer a sophisticated defense of their position. Not every Christian has the same vocation.

    The debate with Rome didn’t involve doing theology from scratch. There was some common ground. It wasn’t necessary to prove or disprove every operating assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Another "substantive" response from an overgrown child.

    Someone help Peter find his sandbox! Oh, right... this blog probably IS your sandbox.

    ReplyDelete
  62. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    "I was just wondering whether (atheism -> moral nihilism) was anything more than a theistic knee-jerk. Apparently not."

    Either you're ignorant or you're dissembling. Maybe both. This isn't merely a Christian characterization of what atheism entails. There are atheist thinkers who make that equation.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Does anyone else want to offer a few lame ad hominems, while they're at it?

    ReplyDelete
  64. "And, according to the Biblical doctrine of the afterlife, the saints won’t be miserable"

    Which doesn't prevent them from having miserable lives in the *present*. Appealing to the afterlife is closer to Pascal's Wager.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Of course you do! If morality is merely subjective, then the subjective morality of the murder victim can’t trump the subjective morality of the murderer."

    Yes it can. Ethical subjectivism is neither moral realism nor moral nihilism.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "You’re making definite claims to the contrary. If you oppose my claim, then your counterclaim is the flipside of my claim. You are also making claims about the nature of the evidence and the nature of the world. "

    There is a difference between not assenting to, and actively opposing, an idea. I have no burden of proof for ordinary, common-sense statements.

    And I have no reason to play along with being the only person who has to take into consideration the burden of proof.

    ReplyDelete
  67. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “It is important to distinguish between the reasons why I act morally, and the philosophical issue, which to date remains unanswered (namely, why objective morality requires God).”

    That question was answered many comments ago. What you can’t rebut, you disregard.

    “I'm not shouldering the burden of proof.”

    Of course you are. When you deny that objective morality requires God, that’s a truth-claim, with is own corresponding onus.

    “Unless you're about to argue that it is incorrect that murder negatively impacts society.”

    You mean, like abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia?

    “And runs against what a normal person would be willing to do in the vast majority of circumstances, there's little to add here.”

    What a normal person would do frequently depends on the prevailing social norms, which vary from culture to culture. What a normal Aztec or Eskimo would do is not what a normal Anabaptist would do.

    “I would rather live in a world where people acted in a certain way rather than another, and as it happens this applies to most everyone. Even if moral nihilism is true, this would not change.”

    Many people find it normal to lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead. And that occurs in fairly affluent societies where they are already well off.

    In a subsistence existence where life is a constant struggle and you must compete with your fellow man for limited resources, many people find it normal to be far more ruthless. Historically, many cultures were warrior cultures.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Daniel A. Wang said...

    “Which doesn't prevent them from having miserable lives in the *present*.”

    They aren’t miserable in the present since they don’t know the fate of their loved ones in the present.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Daniel A. Wang said...

    “Yes it can. Ethical subjectivism is neither moral realism nor moral nihilism.”

    Irrelevant. That fails to explain how you adjudicate between the subjective morality of the murderer and the subjective morality of the murder victim. Ethical subjectivism doesn’t furnish you with a common moral norm by which to judge the conduct of both parties. That would require a morally objective viewpoint.

    And, in that case, it reduces to moral nihilism.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Daniel A. Wang said...

    “There is a difference between not assenting to, and actively opposing, an idea.”

    Both are forms of assent. Active opposition is simply an assent to the contrary.

    “I have no burden of proof for ordinary, common-sense statements.”

    i) Which begs the question of whether your claims amount to ordinary, common sense statements.

    ii) And, of course, philosophy often challenges ordinary, common sense intuitions.

    “Ordinary” for whom? At what time and place? There’s nothing all that ordinary or normal about atheism. Indeed, it’s rather exceptional.

    “And I have no reason to play along with being the only person who has to take into consideration the burden of proof.”

    I did a post on abortion. You haven’t begun to show that I failed to shoulder the burden of proof according to the terms of my post.

    You then tried to change the subject. And even then, I answered you on your own grounds. Go back to my comment on methodological naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Daniel said:
    ---
    Another "substantive" response from an overgrown child.
    ---

    Your powers of self-observation are quite astute.

    Daniel said:
    ---
    Does anyone else want to offer a few lame ad hominems, while they're at it?
    ---
    I think you've got that cornered.

    I'm better at this then you'll ever be. I've accepted that. You don't have to feel shame in giving up.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Go back to my comment on methodological naturalism."

    What of it, specifically? Which aspect of it do you feel that I did not answer the first time?

    ReplyDelete
  73. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    "What of it, specifically? Which aspect of it do you feel that I did not answer the first time?"

    You didn't answer it at all. You tried to merely parry it with a diversionary reference to metaphysical naturalism. Go back and respond to the original segment.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Your powers of self-observation are quite astute."

    You could use those.

    "I think you've got that cornered."

    I'm sorry, could you speak English?

    "I'm better at this then you'll ever be."

    What, exactly? Being an immature brat? It's all yours.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I did answer it, by pointing out that theism wasn't the only conceivable alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Daniel said:
    ---
    You could use those.
    ---

    Once again a comment that makes no sense in the context of the discussion. Par for the course.

    Daniel said:
    ---
    I'm sorry, could you speak English?
    ---

    I was. I'm willing to give you some slack on this point since your profile says you're from Norway. Perhaps this will help.

    Daniel said:
    ---
    What, exactly? Being an immature brat? It's all yours.
    ---

    A completely unoriginal response seeing as how I already hit you with that one earlier when I said: "In this matter, I must yield to Sir Daniel's overwhelming experience" et al. You fail on originality, but at least you succeed on stealing from a worthy source.

    ReplyDelete
  77. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    "I did answer it, by pointing out that theism wasn't the only conceivable alternative."

    i) You made an irrelevant comment about what God decreed, which wasn't responsive to my actual argument.

    ii) Unless human beings were designed to function in a certain way, you can't have objective morality. Absent design, there's no way they ought to behave. That eliminates secular ethics.

    iii) As for theism, I don't have to reinvent the wheel. I don’t have to formulate a new set of theistic arguments when many arguments are already available from the pen of Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, Alexander Pruss, Dallas Willard, Robert Adams, James Anderson, Greg Welty, Barry Miller, J. J. Haldane, &c.

    iv) I also don’t have to debate deism or polytheism with an atheist, any more than I have to debate ufology with Paul Kurtz. The onus is not on me to disprove something that you yourself reject.

    If I debate a deist, then I’m obligated to disprove deism, just as he is obligated to prove deism. But I’m not obligated to disprove every conceivable alternative with an opponent who denies most every conceivable alternative, any more than you’re obligated to independently disprove all the things I don’t believe in. That’s just a stalling tactic on your part. A rhetorical ploy you picked up from Hume.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "Once again a comment that makes no sense in the context of the discussion."

    Discussion? Give me a break. Being a big baby is not tantamount to participating in an actual discussion.

    "Perhaps this will help."

    Well, it strongly reassures me that *you* need help.

    "A completely unoriginal response"

    My goal isn't to be "original" any more than it is yours to be constructive. You're just playing around in your little sandbox, because you want in on the fun. Fortunately I have no obligation to entertain your puerlie desires.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "Absent design, there's no way they ought to behave. That eliminates secular ethics."

    Even if all of that was to be granted (including your bizarrely narrow conception of secular ethics), it would *still* be far from proving the God of theism, yet again.

    "As for theism, I don't have to reinvent the wheel."

    But you do have to argue your own case.

    "I also don’t have to debate deism or polytheism with an atheist"

    A person's belief or non-belief is irrelevant, the arguments and alternatives remain the same. No, you want to enforce an artificial distinction between two alternatives, because that is easier than producing a proper argument. I don't blame you.

    "The onus is not on me to disprove something that you yourself reject."

    You know little of what I reject or do not reject, and it isn't relevant. I take many alternatives quite seriously indeed, and find no reason to employ false dichotomies.

    "That’s just a stalling tactic on your part. A rhetorical ploy you picked up from Hume."

    No, that's just another in a growing list of baseless claims.

    ReplyDelete
  80. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “Even if all of that was to be granted (including your bizarrely narrow conception of secular ethics).”

    How is that “bizarrely narrow”? What was the context of my statement? Remember? Objective morality: “Unless human beings were designed to function in a certain way, you can't have objective morality. Absent design, there's no way they ought to behave. That eliminates secular ethics.”

    Methodological naturalism eliminates the possibility of objective moral norms.

    Now, I’ve also discussed arbitrary forms of secular ethics, like subjective morality and social contract theory. But that doesn’t erect a principled barrier to moral nihilism. It’s just a game of pretend.

    “ It would *still* be far from proving the God of theism, yet again.”

    i) Are you simple-minded or merely forgetful? This was your original objection to my position: “How on earth is ‘because God says so’ even remotely a more satisfying answer?”

    That’s not a request to prove the God of theism. Rather, that’s a request to show how God would ground morality. How the two propositions were logically interrelated. You were posing a logical question, not factual question. It’s not my fault if you’re either too dim or too forgetful to remember how you yourself framed the issue.

    ii) And did I ever suggest that disproving secular ethics automatically proves Christian ethics? No. It’s a stepwise argument. In my original answer to your original question, I offered a two-pronged reply:

    “For example, if you deny that nature is purposeful (and methodological naturalism disallows teleological explanations in nature), then you can't say that anything is supposed to be one way rather than another. If, on the other hand, God made things for a purpose, then that supplies a standard against which it's possible for things to go wrong.”

    And that two-pronged answer was directly responsive to the terms of your original question.

    It would behoove you to cultivate a modicum of intellectual discipline.

    iii) In fact, the factual question is irrelevant to your original question. Unless you think there’s a logical relationship between God and morality, it wouldn’t matter if God exists. Proving the God of theism is irrelevant to your original inquiry. That would be a separate and subsequent issue.

    “But you do have to argue your own case.”

    No I don’t. I don’t have to paraphrase Plantinga or Pruss, &c. This is not a private tutorial in which I spoon-feed you all the arguments. I’m not here to do your homework for you. I’m at liberty to point you to preexisting resources. I’m allowed to save time. I have my own itinerary. I’ve already given you quite a lot of personal attention.

    It’s not as if there’s just one compact argument for the existence of God. There’s a whole typology of arguments. A whole taxonomy of arguments.

    “A person's belief or non-belief is irrelevant, the arguments and alternatives remain the same. No, you want to enforce an artificial distinction between two alternatives, because that is easier than producing a proper argument. I don't blame you.”

    To say it’s an artificial distinction is another lonely assertion in search of an argument. You just made a claim about the allegedly artificial distinction between theism, deism, and polytheism. You think you’re allowed to simply posit a claim like that, as if it were a given?

    No, that involves you in your own burden of proof. It’s very revealing to see how evasive you are. That’s because it’s easier for you to stipulate your position rather than producing a proper argument.

    “You know little of what I reject or do not reject, and it isn't relevant.”

    Now you’re being duplicitous. Are you a closet deist or polytheist? But you’ve made it clear that you’re not a theist. And since the distinction between the three is “artificial” (according to you), then I do know what you accept or reject on this particular issue. Unless you’ve been lying to me.

    And it’s relevant for the reasons I gave.

    “I take many alternatives quite seriously indeed, and find no reason to employ false dichotomies.”

    Once again, it’s insufficient for you to assert a false dichotomy. If you’re going to claim a false dichotomy, then you assume a burden of proof. You must argue for your assertion.

    “No, that's just another in a growing list of baseless claims.”

    Your denial is just another assertion in a growing list of assertions. The time is overdue for you to begin redeeming your many assertions with corresponding arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Daniel said:
    ---
    Discussion? Give me a break. Being a big baby is not tantamount to participating in an actual discussion.
    ---

    You whizdumb is blinding me.

    Daniel said:
    ---
    My goal isn't to be "original" any more than it is yours to be constructive.
    ---

    I'm glad to see you're succeeding at something.

    Daniel said:
    ---
    You're just playing around in your little sandbox, because you want in on the fun. Fortunately I have no obligation to entertain your puerlie desires.
    ---

    And yet you continue to do so.

    Tell me. Does it bother you that you're so easily manipulated by a stupid theist? Does it frighten you that you're the mouse caught in the clutches of a cat, being bat about, to and fro, without even understanding what's going on? Does it sadden you that someone can so easily see through your tactics and then mirror them to your greater frustration?

    I can't wait to hear your enlightened subjective opinion on this just so I can bask in the glow of your intellect, knowing full well that you're just blathering soundwaves devoid of reason and content which I choose to interpret in an arbitrary manner and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Tell me. Does it bother you that you're so easily manipulated by a stupid theist?"

    Oh, so that's what it's about. You think I'm under the impression that theists are stupid. Alternatively, you're under the impression that those who do not proclaim your dogma (be they atheists, Catholics or anything else) deserve no courtesy whatsoever. Where would the blog be without that attitude, right?

    I don't at all mind that you expose yourself as an obnoxious and prejudicial nitwit, and if you operate under the presumption that you're "manipulating" anyone in doing this, so much the better.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "You just made a claim about the allegedly artificial distinction between theism, deism, and polytheism."

    Er, no. It's pretty clear that I mean to say that you wish to enforce a distinction, artifically, between two alternatives (theism and atheism) as if no other alternatives existed.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ah, poor little Danny still missing the point. Not that it's at all surprising.

    Daniel says:
    ---
    Alternatively, you're under the impression that those who do not proclaim your dogma (be they atheists, Catholics or anything else) deserve no courtesy whatsoever.
    ---

    Why are you so upset when people act toward you consistent with your stated worldview?

    I merely assumed that you were serious when you said morality was subjective, and I've treated you as I arbitrarily and subjectively felt you ought to be treated. Cry me a river if you don't like it, cuz I need the lawn watered.

    But hey, if you don't like your moral view, why should I?

    Daniel said:
    ---
    I don't at all mind that you expose yourself as an obnoxious and prejudicial nitwit, and if you operate under the presumption that you're "manipulating" anyone in doing this, so much the better.
    ---

    Since I'm your mirror, your own behavior shows through in the above.

    But as to the manipulation part, I do have to point out that I got you to respond to me again. You just can't help it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. DANIEL A. WANG SAID:

    “Er, no. It's pretty clear that I mean to say that you wish to enforce a distinction, artifically, between two alternatives (theism and atheism) as if no other alternatives existed.”

    Er, no. It's pretty clear that you mean to posit the artificiality of said distinction without benefit of a supporting argument to justify your contention.

    And since you yourself don’t believe in the other alternatives, there is no onus on me to disprove something you already reject.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Why are you so upset when people act toward you consistent with your stated worldview?"

    Since my worldview recognizes Christianity for the abhorrent unification of superstitions that it is, it can safely be said that you are acting against it. It is clear that you consider your own actions to be consistent with your own worldview, though, which is precisely what to expect.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Daniel Wang said:

    Since my worldview recognizes Christianity for the abhorrent unification of superstitions that it is...

    1. What makes Christianity a "unification of superstitions"?

    2. According to your worldview, how do you justify calling a "unification of superstitions" "abhorrent"?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Daniel said:
    ---
    Since my worldview recognizes Christianity for the abhorrent unification of superstitions that it is, it can safely be said that you are acting against it.
    ---

    As Stephen Colbert once said: "That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it."

    I have been using YOUR MORAL STANDARD against you. You're in a lose/lose here. Either you have to admit that I've been using your standards, in which case you've lost, or you have to say I'm using my standards, which are just as relatively valid as yours, in which case you've lost. Even if I were not critiquing you from within your worldview you'd have no grounds to say that what I was doing was wrong in any way. That's merely your opinion.

    And you've given no justification as to why anyone should waste a tenth of a second caring about what your pathetic inbred opinion is.

    You're just a meat bag. Your morality is just meat morality. Deal with it, but don't whine about it when you get grilled.

    Your morality is simply bogus rules made by incompetent jungle apes who happened to invent tools and had Napoleon complexes. Every moral code is completely arbitrary. There's no *REASON* to hold to any of them, because all of our reason is built off a lie--that we are somehow better than the meat that makes us.

    You cannot escape the fact that if one particular monkey decides to make fun of another particular monkey, it's no great loss. The universe spins on and no rules of physics, chemistry, or natural selection are violated. It's just a part of nature.

    So can your sissy girlie whining and embrace reality like a true monkey warrior.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "I have been using YOUR MORAL STANDARD against you"

    News to me; that would require actual *understanding*.

    "Your morality is simply bogus rules made by incompetent jungle apes who happened to invent tools and had Napoleon complexes."

    No, morality serves definite purposes, whatever its philosophical grounding. As explained multiple times, if some sort of supernatural being is required (and that's quite the if) there are many candidates. This is almost getting slightly tedious now.

    "Even if I were not critiquing you from within your worldview you'd have no grounds to say that what I was doing was wrong in any way."

    On the contrary, I can see that you're a prick without any recourse to divine beings of any kind. It's never been a secret, but it's lovely to see it in full flow!

    "You're just a meat bag."

    Mere caricature, but a religion which teaches that human beings are rotten to the core would have no advantage even over such a view.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I'm sure I will be forgiven for not responding to three or four people at once at this stage.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "I'm sure I will be forgiven for not responding to three or four people at once at this stage."

    The expectation that we all should forgive you would imply an objective moral standard, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  92. "No, morality serves definite purposes, whatever its philosophical grounding.

    That's rather underwhelming. All this could mean on evolutionary assumptions is that your moral beliefs help you survive. of course, that means we're not doing ethics anymore. And, moreover, as many naturalists have pointed out, the way things have gone could have been different. If we had, for some fortuitious evolutionary reason, evolved such that eating our elderly conferred survival value, then eating our ederly would be the moral thing to do.

    "As explained multiple times, if some sort of supernatural being is required (and that's quite the if) there are many candidates. This is almost getting slightly tedious now."

    This is ambiguous. Many wrong answers don't mean much. That one could give many wrong answers to a complicated math question, doesn't imply that the correct answer is faulty.

    Moreoever, why think there are "many candidates?" Where's the statistical analysis of all the various religions showing that they can ground the normativity, universality, objectivity, and sometimes absoluteness of ethical principles? Surely no finite God can do the trick. Surely no impersonal deity will work. Surely pointing to religions that borrow or base their origins in Christianity doesn't work. I fail to see the work you think this non-answer is doing for you.

    "You're just a meat bag."

    "Mere caricature, but a religion which teaches that human beings are rotten to the core would have no advantage even over such a view."

    To be more precise, then, you're just a machine for your genes. And possibly your memes. You're a temporary host for your genes until they use of your body, spit you out, and hop into the next vehicle.

    On the other hand, no reputable Christian theist has proposed that humans are "rotten to the core," and they have furthermore pointed to the non-natural condition of our sinful state. They have also maintained that, though marred, the human still bears the very image of God. Quite the advantage over the gene machine view.

    So, ironically, it is you who trots out caricatures.

    ReplyDelete