Pages

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Shooting blanks


The Rational Skepticism Forum has been commenting on a post of mine:
These are rank-and-file atheists. The lay atheist, compared to the high priesthood (e.g. Harris, Hitchens, Stenger, Dennett, Dawkins). Let's evaluate some of their responses:


ScholasticSpastic » Sep 15, 2014 3:21 amA good eye-roll is sufficient for drivel of this caliber.
hackenslash » Sep 15, 2014 6:09 amThe proper response to this idiotic drivel is: You're a f***wit.
No more needs to be said. It's bollocks from start to finish, aside from the opening question, which he should turn on himself, because the credulous have been hanging on for decades, despite having no argument, let alone having lost it.
Rumraket » Sep 15, 2014 8:07 amThe person is subnormally mentally endowed. No reason to engage with him.

It's revealing when unbelievers who pride themselves on their superior rationality are at a loss to reason for their position. 

Rumraket » Sep 15, 2014 9:07 amI have yet to see a valid theistic argument for an objective morality. 

I appreciate his candid admission of ignorance. 

Their god existing would not make morality any more objective.

An assertion in search of an argument. 

It doesn't matter how much you know, or how powerful you are, or how many magical spells you know, your opinion on what is right and what is wrong is just that, an opinion.

Thanks for corroborating my claim that atheism leads to nihilism. 

You still can't derive any moral "Oughts" from the "is" of whatever property you give your pet deity.

Actually, you can derive an "ought" from an "is" if the "is" has a meaningful purpose. If it was designed by a wise, benevolent Creator, with a particular nature and telos.

Arcanyn » Sep 15, 2014 3:21 pmSo someone's finally found some evidence for gods, have they? Funny, try as I might I couldn't find any provided in that post…

The purpose of the post wasn't to prove God's existence. Pay attention.

…just a few assertions that there would be some bad consequences if that guy's specific god doesn't exist. So on what basis has he shown that atheism is somehow 'dead'?

I showed that in the post. Follow the bounding ball.

I'm With Stupid » Sep 15, 2014 5:34 amWhy stop at funerals? By his/her flawed logic, atheists shouldn't show any emotion at any life situation, because all emotions are a product of evolution and understanding evolution apparently means we should only ever be passive observers to its effects.

Poor thing can't follow the argument. The argument concerns the significance of death, given naturalistic evolution. 

But specifically in the area of funerals, it would seem far more problematic for me that people who claim to believe that their family members are going "to a better place" would be so distraught about the fact. I think the fact that someone no longer exists and you'll never see them again is worth crying about far more than someone being granted entry into the greatest place ever, and you not seeing them for a while. And yet very few Christians at funerals act in a way that suggests they have faith that the latter is what's going to happen. Far more seem to act in a way remarkably similar to atheists who know they'll never see their dead friend/family member again.

That's a shallow objection. People cry at airports as they see their loved ones off to college or boot camp or whatever. The fact that they will be separated for a few months is sufficient reason to be sad. 

VazScep » Sep 15, 2014 9:03 am
Anyone who thinks that you can argue your body into behaving differently by reflecting on the objective point or value of such behaviour is, most likely, as we speak, massively failing with their current exercise regime/relationship/promotion prospects/alcoholics anonymous meetings/whatever.

So we've been carjacked by our bodies. 

So there's no objective grounds not to go around murdering people. So what? I really, really have no inclination whatsoever to murder anyone. 

So the only reason an atheist doesn't commit murder is if he happens to have no inclination to commit murder. Pity the Khmer Rouge never shared his disinclination. 

I also have no inclination whatsoever to eat my own s***. I make that comparison because I find that both disinclinations are controlled quite heavily by a visceral sense of disgust, and that's probably enough for me.

Given the fact that many homosexuals engage in rimming and scat, I find it shocking that an enlightened atheist would resort to such a homophobic illustration. Clearly he needs to attend a mandatory sensitivity seminar on LGBT rights. His comparison is nothing short of hate-speech. 

What gives me the creeps about theists who bang on about objective morality is the prospect that, if it weren't for their stupid religious texts, they would happily go out and do some horrible crime or fulfill some other sick fantasies like those their good Old Testament God enjoyed. I mean, is their belief in objective morality the only thing standing in the way of their wish to act like complete s***-heads? In that case, let's just point out that these people are s***-heads, plain and simple, and that if their Bibles are just a leash that stops them hurting anyone, you don't want to have any association with them.

One moment he assures us that there's no objective grounds against murder, that we have no control over what our bodies make us do. The next moment he complains about the moral consequences of OT ethics. Nothing like atheist incoherence at full tilt. 

chairman bill » Sep 15, 2014 9:24 am
Moral relativism is the only game in town, and it always has been. 

Thanks for corroborating my claim about the moral vacuity of atheism.

Thou shalt not kill, until some priest says God commands it. 

Actually, the text is a prohibition against murder, not homicide, per se. 

Thou shalt not steal, unless it's the land and virgin women of the neighbouring tribe that God has commanded you kill. 

i) The land belongs to God. The Israelites can't steal land from the Canaanites inasmuch as the Canaanites were squatters on God's land. 

ii) If moral relativism is "the only game in town," what's wrong with marrying a virgin from the neighboring tribe"? In fact, how is that wrong given moral realism? 

Just how much of the Old Testament objective morality do you subscribe to? Stoned any adulterers lately?

i) As a Christian, the new covenant doesn't command me to stone adulterers.

ii) Moreover, it's currently illegal, so I wouldn't be at liberty to stone adulterers even if that OT injunction was still in force. 

 Do you think it civilised to do so?

I think adultery is uncivilized.  

What about wearing mixed fibres? 

The purity codes were never meant to be moral absolutes. Their function was symbolic. 

And don't get me started on disrespectful children.

You mean, juvenile delinquents? 

Now, I'm married. I went about it in a very civilised manner - ask my wife. But then I read that bit in the Old Testament about a rapist having to marry his victim…

i) I've corrected that urban legend:


ii) But suppose, for the sake of argument, that the OT required the victim to marry her rapist. Notice how atheists keep talking out of both sides of their mouth. His opening sentence is that "moral relativism is the only game in town." So why does he do an about-face as if rape is wrong? 

surreptitious57 » Sep 15, 2014 4:34 pmThe absence of objective morality does not mean that basic moral code enshrined in law regarding personal behaviour is not something that is necessary in order for society to function. The fact that it is less than perfect is no reason to abandon any attempts to establish it. The alternative to that is anarchy where everyone is only restricted by their own moral code and nothing else. 

Given the absence of objective morality, what's so bad about anarchy?

Sure, the ruling class can enact an arbitrary code of conduct. Take the Aztecs. Mass human sacrifice was perfectly legal. 

Furthermore the subjective interpretation of objective morality renders it entirely meaningless. Even within belief systems there is no uniformity of opinion on the specific parameters of this so it is a bit rich to accuse atheists of relative moralism when theists are just as prone to it themselves.

Once again, notice how an atheist can't think straight. On the one hand there's his appeal to a basic code of social conduct. On the other hand there's his appeal to hermeneutical relativism. But the latter nullifies the former. 

It is one thing to say objective morality comes from God but when those who actually believe in him cannot agree on exactly what that is then it is just empty rhetoric. Something that is objective by default cannot have multiple interpretations.

Really? What about conflicting eyewitness accounts of a traffic accident. Was the traffic accident not an objective event? 

Seven of the ten Commandments do not actually require belief for them to be practised anyway. So there is a significant overlap between what atheists and theists believe or can believe in anyway as pertaining to morality. 

They don't require belief on the part of the governed. But they require belief on the part of the narrator. 

And indeed five of the ten are within reason perfectly acceptable and which I have no problem with at all [ the last two are unacceptable as they are thought crimes ] It is not therefore as if all atheists have one moral code and all theists another moral code with zero compatibility between them. Because in actual fact the origin of morality lies in psychology not religion.

If morality lies in psychology, then all crimes are thought-crimes. Yet our atheist just told us that's unacceptable. 

 As we are all psychological beings it is not therefore entirely unreasonable to find common ground on what is and is not fundamentally morally acceptable or unacceptable regardless of anything else

If morality is reducible to psychology, then there's no moral imperative to find common ground. 

Shrunk » Sep 15, 2014 4:38 pmEven if moral absolutism was a good thing in theory, under current circumstances it is completely unworkable because, if God exists and is in possession of absolute and objective rules for moral conduct, for some reason he has not deigned to clearly inform us of what these are.

An assertion in search of an argument. 

So we have to go around as if we are moral relativists and try to come up with rules that work the best of all concerns [sic].

Given the denial of moral absolutism, why should we care about the best for all concerned? For that matter, what is the "best"? 

For instance, suppose we are setting the road system of a new country and are deciding whether vehicles can drive on the left or right hand side. As moral relativists we can simply take the position that neither side is the "right" side, and the important thing is that we are all driving on the same side. However, the moral absolutists would say that there is only one correct side on which to drive, the one that God wants us to drive on. And, inevitably, there will be groups on both side who insist that their side is the one that should be driven on. In such a situation, there would be no way to resolve such an impasse short of one side defeating and subjugating the other, usually thru the warfare of other violent means. I fail to see the advantage in that, myself.

That fails to draw an elementary distinction between laws of morality and laws of utility. 

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » Sep 16, 2014 2:10 amGoodness gracious, I’ve never seen such a prodigious misuse of straw! Old MacDonald would be furious!

I doubt Woo has a promising future in stand-up comedy. 

[Hays] This is a problem with atheists. For instance, some atheists get very irate when Christians point out that atheism leads to moral relativism or nihilism.
...like it did when those nihilistic atheists hijacked commercial airplanes and flew them into skyscrapers because they thought it would guarantee them a place in an eternal paradise. Oh, wait….

i) To begin with, I'm not Muslim, much less a Muslim terrorist. So how's that the least bit relevant to my own position?

ii) How does that irrelevant comparison disprove my contention that "some atheists get very irate when Christians point out that atheism leads to moral relativism or nihilism"? It's a decoy rather than a refutation.

[Hays] Yet other atheists candidly admit that atheism leads to moral relativism or even moral nihilism. But having made that admission, they think the debate should proceed as if that didn’t mark a turning point in the debate.
And some Christians candidly admit that believing in Jesus means that you should bomb abortion clinics and murder homosexuals. What’s his point here? 

i) If he doesn't believe in objective morality, what do these counterexamples prove? 

ii) He offers no argument to show how Christian theology obligates Christians to bomb abortion clinics or murder homosexuals.

iii) Incidentally, what goes on inside an abortion clinic during office hours is far worse than bombing an empty abortion clinic after hours. So let's keep our moral priorities in check. 

[Hays] If there is no objective morality, then why are they arguing for anything?
Oh gee, I don’t know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we live in a world of cause-and-effect along with other people and living creatures?

Why should I care about other people apart from using them to service my own needs and desires? 

[Hays] Likewise, atheists not only admit, but insist on the fact that evolution is blind. It has no prevision or purpose. Brains weren’t made to think. Yet they still act as if their brains were made to think.
He fundamentally misunderstands the concept of “purpose”; it is something which derives from mechanism, rather than preceding it. Brains weren’t made to do anything, they evolved to fulfil various survival functions in response to dynamic circumstances.

To say brains evolved to "fulfill" various survival "functions" is a goal-oriented description. But methodological naturalism bans teleological explanations in science.  

[Hays] Likewise, they admit that what we value has no intrinsic value. Evolution has programmed us to project value on certain things. But that’s an illusion.
Define “intrinsic”. Not having “intrinsic” value is not the same as having no value at all. We value things for practical reasons, i.e. because they are conducive towards survival, reproduction, social harmony, a sense of security, and/or pleasurable feeling.

Is homosexual behavior conducive to survival and reproduction? And what about serial killers who get a "pleasurable feeling" from wanton murder? 

[Hays] We value love. We value our parents, kids, spouse, and friends. Yet there’s nothing objectively right or good about loving friends and family. That’s just brain chemistry. The indifferent effect of a thoughtless process conditioning us to feel that way.
See above. Again the author is putting the purpose cart before the mechanism horse. Similarly he is accusing rationalists of believing in a “thoughtless process” when in fact this process gives rise to thought as an emergent phenomenon. 

i) To assert that thought is an emergent phenomenon begs the question. There are eminent secular philosophers of mind who deny that consciousness is reducible to brain chemistry. Indeed, there are secular philosophers of mind who dismiss consciousness as folk psychology.

ii) Oh, and he's the one who's got his own analogy backwards. A thoughtless process is the blind horse pulling the lost cart of brain chemistry. 

The author is effectively admitting that he is scared of deconstructing his own thinking process because he is under the misapprehension that it will necessarily invalidate his thoughts and emotions. 

Suppose I am "scared" of doing that. Isn't my fear merely the effect of physical determinism? Why blame brain chemistry? Can I help what my brain is telling me to feel? 

Even if this process weren’t “thoughtless” (as he misinterprets it)...

According to naturalistic evolution, the process is a blind, undirected process. That's not a "misrepresentation." That's textbook Darwinism. 

…how does he propose that we explain the essential underlying “thoughtfulness” of that process…

Because it was planned and implemented by a mind (i.e. God). 

...let alone conclude that said thoughtfulness has “intrinsic” value? 

My argument wasn't that "thoughtfulness" has intrinsic value, but things like love. 

[Hays] Atheists cry when a loved one dies. Yet they can retrace the process. They can see the pull-string. They can see evolution tugging their string. They don’t cry because the death of their loved one actually means anything. They cry because blind evolution pulled their string. A doll’s prerecorded cry at the demise of another doll.
I wonder if the author gets any satisfaction out of films. I mean after all, he can rationally retrace the process by which the films are constructed and the characters developed… 

Watching a film involves the willing suspension of belief. Whether or not you think Godzilla is real makes a different in disaster preparedness. 

[Hays] They can see evolution take the doll apart. They can see evolution operating on themselves. They dissect themselves. Peel back the layers. Cloth. Metal. Plastic. A pile of parts. The more you look the less you find.
Yep, he’s scared of looking too closely. He’s effectively arguing that ignorance is bliss.

Actually, that's how all the atheists are reacting. 

josephchoi » Sep 16, 2014 6:27 amwhat's more relativistic than the moral lawgiver who can bend the very laws on whim?

He gives no examples of what he means. 

quas » Sep 16, 2014 3:41 pmHis arguments are true, but the implications are actually more devastating for his side.
The atheist's life is indeed like this: 
"It’s like a doctor telling a man he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer. He has 2 weeks to live. Having got that out of the way, let’s get back to what he plans to do with the rest of his life." 
The theist's/christian's life is indeed like this: 
It’s like a doctor telling a man he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer. He will die, but not really, cause he's actually going to life forever after his death*. So let’s start planning with what he plans to do with the rest of his (eternal) life.

How is the prospect of blissful eternal life for a terminal cancer patient a "devastating implication" of Christianity? 

Spinozasgalt » Sep 17, 2014 10:49 amI think he's confused practical reasons generally with moral reasons particulary…

Where's the argument?

...that he has the explanatory priority of epistemic and moral norms backwards…

Where's the argument?

…and that even in characterising the atheistic worldview as somehow shorn of all independent requirements of practical reason he doesn't manage to keep the commitments consistent over the course of his post.

Where's the argument?

As a moral argument for God, I think it needs a lot of work.

My post wasn't attempting to mount a moral argument for God. Mind you, showing the morally and intellectually destructive implications of atheism can be preliminary step in that direction. 

Ihavenofingerprints » Sep 17, 2014 12:28 pm
I'm an atheist and I completely agree with him.Just because reality is pointless and unfair, does that mean we should believe in Christianity? 

Not by itself. But it can function as cumulative case argument by eliminating a major competitor. 

I'm interested in looking at the world for what it is, if I'm lead to that conclusion, so what? If he doesn't trust me not to kill people because I'm a moral relativist, so what? That's his problem.

Well, if moral relativists go on a killing spree, I'd say that becomes a social problem. If a moral relativist shoots a mother of two at a bus stop, is that simply "her problem"? In a sense, murder is clearly more of a problem for the victim than the murderer. But how is that an adequate comeback?  

When the religious have the guts to put their money where their supposed "objective truth" is, I'll listen. 

What does that even mean?

Until then they should just accept that we live in a pluralistic world and they need to share the planet with everyone else.

Why should we share the planet with everyone else? Why not take the best for myself–if I can? 

pelfdaddy » Sep 17, 2014 1:13 pm
I care because I care. It's a feeling I'm stuck with. I can learn of its source anthropologically, but I need no "reason" to care that reaches beyond myself, and it does not have to be "grounded" at all, in anything, especially something that flawed primitives invented for my inconvenience. This is my starting point.

And Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't care because he doesn't care. It's a feeling he's stuck with. He can learn of its source sociopathologically, but he needs no "reason" not to care that reaches beyond himself, and it does not have to be "grounded" at all, in anything. That's his starting point. And we know how the story ends. 

laklak » Sep 17, 2014 7:57 pmOnce when Mick (remember Mick?) was going on about same sex marriage inevitably leading to bestiality I asked him if he really need some mouldering old book to keep him from f*** dogs. 

Actually, secular ethicist Peter Singer considers homosexuality and bestiality to be morally equivalent:


The same idea applies here. I don't really want to be around people whose only reason for not raping and murdering people (or dogs) is their belief in some SkyDaddyish retribution. Absolute moralists give me the heebie-jeebies.

Having just rejected moral absolutes, what is the reason for not raping or murdering people? 

30 comments:

  1. Hi, Steve. I'm "Shrunk" who you mention above (I know, my name is different here. Sorry if that's confusing.

    You dismiss my statement:

    "Even if moral absolutism was a good thing in theory, under current circumstances it is completely unworkable because, if God exists and is in possession of absolute and objective rules for moral conduct, for some reason he has not deigned to clearly inform us of what these are."

    by merely asserting:

    "An assertion in search of an argument."

    Could you kindly elaborate a bit? What assertion am I making? Has a god revealed his moral commands to all of humanity in such a way that we can universally agree on what they are? Not that I am aware.

    .



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @lutesuite

      "Has a god revealed his moral commands to all of humanity in such a way that we can universally agree on what they are? Not that I am aware."

      Why is universal agreement a criterion for whether or not God has "revealed his moral commands to all of humanity"? Let's say God has "revealed his moral commands to all of humanity" in the Bible as Christians believe he has done. Given Christianity, why do you think "all of humanity" would "universally agree on what they are"? In fact, given Christianity, I'd expect the opposite would be far more likely since Christianity teaches humans are sinners.

      Delete
    2. You've now modified your original claim. To begin with, you're confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. To stipulate that if there are moral absolutes, they must be universally known, is a non sequitur. What if God never intended to reveal his moral commands to everyone? How does that disprove the existence of objective moral norms?

      Furthermore, how do you justify your gratuitous assumption that there'd be no disagreement on moral absolutes if in fact they existed and were knowable? Your unspoken assumption seems to be that all men are men of good will. But what if some (or many) men are evil in varying degrees? In that case, we wouldn't expect them to acknowledge moral absolutes on pain of self-incrimination.

      Delete
    3. Umm, no Steve. I haven't modified my claim. It was never meant as an argument against the existence of moral absolutes. That is just your strawman version of it.

      Think of it this way: If the Founding Fathers of the United States, when they drafted the Constitution, had then created thousands of different fake versions of the Constitution, and then said "OK, only one of these is real, but we're not going to tell you which one it is. You have to figure it out. It's like a game!", we wouldn't consider them great law makers. We would consider them a bunch of bumbling idiots.

      So if Divine Command Theory is true, it also means that God is a bumbling idiot. And it's never a good idea to take commands from bumbling idiots.

      And your response, it seems, is to claim that everyone KNOWS Christianity is true. It's just that most people pretend not to know this. To which the only response can be: ROTFLMAO!

      You should realize, also, that Muslim apologists are making exactly the same claim about Islam. So good luck convincing them otherwise....

      Delete
    4. @lutesuite

      "Umm, no Steve. I haven't modified my claim. It was never meant as an argument against the existence of moral absolutes. That is just your strawman version of it."

      Actually, your entire comment makes you come across as "a bumbling idiot." At a minimum, you should be able to follow your own argument, and interact with others, but evidently even this is asking for too much. Ah, well, typical village atheism on display.

      "Think of it this way: If the Founding Fathers of the United States, when they drafted the Constitution, had then created thousands of different fake versions of the Constitution, and then said 'OK, only one of these is real, but we're not going to tell you which one it is. You have to figure it out. It's like a game!', we wouldn't consider them great law makers. We would consider them a bunch of bumbling idiots."

      This is an inept attempt to make the world's religions analogous to "thousands" of different versions of the Constitution. (By the way, there's no need to think they're necessarily all "fake." Another possibility is some could be fact, while others could be partly true, etc.)

      For one thing, if this analogy is indeed analogous, then it would mean behind the "thousands" of religions is still one God. If this is the case, then perhaps this God expects a person to sift through the seemingly conflicting revelations in order to find the truth.

      Related to the aforementioned, this isn't how Christians view the situation. Rather, this is how you happen to view things from your own position. Or at the least this is the perspective of an agnostic. But since your original comment attempted to assume Christian presuppositions, you're moving the goalposts by no longer making an internal critique of Christianity. Either you're doing this intentionally, which would be failing to argue in good faith, or you're doing this unintentionally, which would mean (dare I say) you're a bumbling idiot.

      Are there in fact "thousands" of religions which claim divine revelation? That seems to be a huge exaggeration.

      "So if Divine Command Theory is true, it also means that God is a bumbling idiot. And it's never a good idea to take commands from bumbling idiots."

      This doesn't logically follow from your analogy. Nor does it make any logical sense on its own.

      However, it does serve as pretty good evidence you're a bumbling idiot.

      "And your response, it seems, is to claim that everyone KNOWS Christianity is true. It's just that most people pretend not to know this."

      You apparently struggle with basic reading comprehension.

      "You should realize, also, that Muslim apologists are making exactly the same claim about Islam. So good luck convincing them otherwise."

      Only a bumbling idiot would reason: given multiple revelations, therefore atheism.

      Delete
    5. You're quite right in pointing out the weakness of my analogy, Steve. It would be more accurate if, after the founding fathers ratified the Constitution, America was then inundated with thousands of copies of documents claiming to be the Constitution, but which differed from the genuine article in many significant points. In that situation, it would be be expected that the drafters of the Constitution would clearly identify which of these were genuine.

      But, in the case of Christian god (if he exists), he just sits back and leaves it to us to figure it out. As you say yourself, "perhaps this God expects a person to sift through the seemingly conflicting revelations in order to find the truth." Could you imagine if that was how our legal system worked? There would be a law written down somewhere, but it would be hidden among thousands of bogus versions of the law, and citizens, the police and the courts would have to decide for themselves which one of these was the genuine article. That's something only a bumbling idiot would do. Or a sociopathic sadist. That's another possibility.

      Delete
    6. @lutesuite

      "You're quite right in pointing out the weakness of my analogy, Steve."

      Uh, I'm not Steve. But that's good to know, Tony (to pick another random person)!

      "But, in the case of Christian god (if he exists), he just sits back and leaves it to us to figure it out."

      No, that's not what Christians believe. So again you're failing to argue on our presuppositions.

      "As you say yourself, 'perhaps this God expects a person to sift through the seemingly conflicting revelations in order to find the truth.'"

      That's because I was responding to your own hypothetical. But your hypothetical is hardly what Christians actually believe.

      "Could you imagine if that was how our legal system worked? There would be a law written down somewhere, but it would be hidden among thousands of bogus versions of the law, and citizens, the police and the courts would have to decide for themselves which one of these was the genuine article."

      Good thing Christianity isn't analogous to your hypothetical.

      "That's something only a bumbling idiot would do. Or a sociopathic sadist. That's another possibility."

      While we're on the topic of sociopathic sadists and atheism, people might like to check out this short little film.

      Delete
    7. Sorry about the confusion over the name, rockingwithhawking.

      So if you say Christianity isn't analogous to my hypothetical, then how are all of the many other faiths that take moral guidance from supernatural beings compatible with Christianity? Take Islam as one specific example. According to Islam, Jesus was not divine and was never crucified nor ressurrected. That directly contradicts some of the core tenets of Christianity. And, unless I've somehow missed it, the Christian god hasn't descended to earth, appeared before everyone, and said, "OK, that Muhammed guy? He got it all wrong. Jesus was my son, just like the Bible says, and he died for your sins. Got it?"

      So, absent that, it appears that I am quite correct in saying that, if Christianity is true, then God is just sitting back and leaving it to us to work out which religion is the correct one.

      Delete
    8. @lutesuite

      "So if you say Christianity isn't analogous to my hypothetical, then how are all of the many other faiths that take moral guidance from supernatural beings compatible with Christianity?"

      They're not, and I never claimed they are. Keep in mind I'm responding to how you originally framed the issue.

      "Take Islam as one specific example."

      Islam is self-refuting inasmuch as Islam claims the Bible attests to its message but Islam is obviously inconsistent with the Bible.

      "So, absent that, it appears that I am quite correct in saying that, if Christianity is true, then God is just sitting back and leaving it to us to work out which religion is the correct one."

      You're just sparring with yourself. You're bringing up an argument you conjured up in order to quash your own argument. This may leave you feeling smug and self-congratulatory, but it doesn't actually touch Christianity.

      Delete
    9. lutesuite

"Think of it this way: If the Founding Fathers of the United States, when they drafted the Constitution, had then created thousands of different fake versions of the Constitution, and then said 'OK, only one of these is real, but we're not going to tell you which one it is. You have to figure it out. It's like a game!', we wouldn't consider them great law makers. We would consider them a bunch of bumbling idiots. So if Divine Command Theory is true, it also means that God is a bumbling idiot. And it's never a good idea to take commands from bumbling idiots."

      "It would be more accurate if, after the founding fathers ratified the Constitution, America was then inundated with thousands of copies of documents claiming to be the Constitution, but which differed from the genuine article in many significant points. In that situation, it would be be expected that the drafters of the Constitution would clearly identify which of these were genuine."

      Your comparison is confused:

      i) There's no logical connection between divine command theory and the scope of divine commands.

      ii) Apropos (i), the Torah was intentionally addressed to a small subset of humanity (ancient Jews).

      iii) Moreover, you need to explicate how your comparison is analogous to divine command theory. How is the fact that humans disagree on moral norms analogous to God issuing counterfeit commands? Where's your actual argument? You need to fill in the gaps.

      iv) I didn't appeal to divine command theory in my response to the Rational Skepticism Forum. So how's that supposed to be relevant to my response?

      "And your response, it seems, is to claim that everyone KNOWS Christianity is true."

      Quote where I said that or implied that.

      "You should realize, also, that Muslim apologists are making exactly the same claim about Islam."

      That builds on the false premise of imputing to me something I didn't say in response to you or the Rational Skepticism Forum.

      Moreover, Islam logically implodes because Muhammad made the Bible the arbiter of his prophetic claims.

      "But, in the case of Christian god (if he exists), he just sits back and leaves it to us to figure it out. As you say yourself, 'perhaps this God expects a person to sift through the seemingly conflicting revelations in order to find the truth."

      i) Where did I say that in response to you?

      ii) Most major religions don't even claim to be based on propositional revelation. Hinduism isn't based on propositional revelation. Moreover, the personal gods of Hinduism are hardly omniscient.

      The religions which do claim to be based on propositional revelation take the Bible as a common frame of reference (e.g. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Swedenborgianism, Jehovah's Witnesses). So there's one standard of comparison. It's largely a hermeneutical issue.

      In addition, claimants like Joseph Smith shoot themselves in the foot in other respects, such as the Book of Abraham fiasco.

      Delete
    10. lutesuite

      

"So if you say Christianity isn't analogous to my hypothetical, then how are all of the many other faiths that take moral guidance from supernatural beings compatible with Christianity?"

      They aren't. 



      "So, absent that, it appears that I am quite correct in saying that, if Christianity is true, then God is just sitting back and leaving it to us to work out which religion is the correct one."

      i) As a Calvinist, I don't think it was ever God's intention to inform everyone. His intention is to save the elect. He leaves the reprobate in darkness.

      ii) God can save the elect through religious social conditioning. In his providence, he indoctrinates the elect in the true faith. For instance, many of the elect are raised in churches where they hear the Gospel. They don't have to pick the one true God; rather, the one true God picks them. God has done the sorting for them.

      iii) Finally, if you can raise questions about comparative religion, then you're in a position to compare them. God has given sufficient evidence to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

      Delete
  2. Atheism's adherents generally claim to believe in 'evolution', with its requisite 'survival of the fittest'. It's fascinating to note, however, that atheists tend to reproduce poorly. Case in point: I'm the youngest of 4, the last generation in which atheists like my parents would have >2 kids. Amongst my 3 older brothers, atheists all, we're 2 offspring. I, the only black sheep of the family, being an eeevil conservative Christian, have 4. Guess who's going to win the grandchild war? Of course atheism 'punches above its weight' due to their disproportionate presence in education. This can be countered quit effectively by homeschooling, thankfully. Just think of it as evolution in action. Survival of the fittest. Last man standing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. iPad + clumsy fingers = typos :-)

      Delete
    2. And if religious belief was a genetic trait, you might have an argument. But as it is...

      Delete
    3. Whether or not religious belief is a 'genetic trait' ('God Gene', anyone?), it is transmitted. Children usually grow up believing basically what they are taught. That's why I'm the black sheep, having 'rebelled' against my parents' teaching. Theists tend to reproduce at a higher rate than atheists despite the latter touting 'survival of the fittest'. I'm not making an 'argument', just pointing out an irony...

      Delete
    4. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains how the diversity of life observed on earth has arisen. It is not a rule by which one is expected to live one's life. That seems to be what is confusing you, Doc.

      Delete
    5. @lutesuite

      "The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains how the diversity of life observed on earth has arisen. It is not a rule by which one is expected to live one's life."

      Tell that to Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne. For example:

      "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

      Delete
    6. Two points: That quotation does not specifically pertain to the theory of evolution (which many theists find compatible with their beliefs). And, even if it did, it does not in any way prescribe any forms of personal behaviour, particularly WRT to the number of children one should have (which is the example Doc was discussing).

      Delete
    7. @lutesuite

      "Two points: That quotation does not specifically pertain to the theory of evolution"

      It's a quotation from Dawkins. An example of his beliefs, and where he thinks they lead. It's part and parcel of Dawkins' overall position.

      "(which many theists find compatible with their beliefs)"

      I'm not responding to other theists such as Christian theistic evolutionists. Rather, I'm responding to your blanket statement.

      "And, even if it did, it does not in any way prescribe any forms of personal behaviour"

      You're surprisingly literalistic here. By your lights, Dawkins would have to spell out each and every "do this" or "don't do that" for you to put any weight in the point.

      Ironically, you can't think outside the box. Follow the implications.

      Of course, ultimately speaking, Dawkins would say the rule is there are no rules. Despite the fact that the rule there are no rules is in and of itself a rule.

      "particularly WRT to the number of children one should have (which is the example Doc was discussing)."

      That's not how your response to Doc was worded. I'm just responding to your own words.

      If you don't like your own response, then you should consider re-wording it next time.

      Delete
    8. lutesuite

      "The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains how the diversity of life observed on earth has arisen. It is not a rule by which one is expected to live one's life. That seems to be what is confusing you, Doc."

      So you reject evolutionary ethics, even though that's championed by many secular ethicists.

      Delete
    9. @ rockingwithhawking

      If you don't like your own response, then you should consider re-wording it next time.

      I have a better suggestion: Why don't you learn how to read plain English?

      @ steve

      So you reject evolutionary ethics, even though that's championed by many secular ethicists.

      Do you mean descriptive evolutionary ethics, or normative evolutionary ethics? If the latter, then, yes I don't accept that. This may come a surprise to you, but just because some secularists believe something does not mean that every secularist must believe it.

      Delete
    10. The point is that this isn't just a Christian v. atheist debate, but an intramural atheist debate.

      Delete
    11. So explain that to Doc, who doesn't seem to understand that.

      Delete
    12. @lutesuite

      "I have a better suggestion: Why don't you learn how to read plain English?"

      I'll just quickly point out to people: this comes from someone who evidently can't easily keep track of people he's debating (e.g. mistaking me for Steve). Not to mention can't keep track of his own arguments so we have to remind him of what he said.

      Delete
  3. @Ven. Kwan Tam Woo

    "So what? The fact of the matter is that, so far as this debate is concerned, he is on the same side as those Muslim terrorists."

    Woo's prejudice is on display here.

    "The idea that atheism leads to moral relativism and nihilism is as fallacious as it is offensive"

    Yet it's precisely what many atheists scholars have themselves argued (e.g. Alex Rosenberg). Sounds like Woo needs to read up on atheism.

    "Or he could go here and have a gander at some of the vehemently anti-gay rhetoric that comes straight out of his own 'holy' book."

    Actually, the LGBT community are vehemently anti-heteronormative beliefs and values.

    By the way, the website to which Woo links is the Skeptic's Annotted Bible. Hardly an objective source. But it's nice to see evidence of the level at which atheists like Woo operate.

    "and the cognitive dissonance begins. So bombing clinics “after hours” is okay is it? I’m sure the FBI would be very interested to know that. What if someone happens to be working back that day? What if an employee ducks back into the clinic because they forgot something when they left for home? What about some unsuspecting passer-by who just happens to be walking a little too close to the building when the bomb goes off? And what about the landlord who just so happens to devote a considerable portion of his time and money to helping the poor? Gee, this “objective morality” business gets pretty perplexing pretty quickly!"

    Woo has quite the imagination. He's obviously dizzying himself spinning a yarn - and nevermind the trivial fact it was never part of Steve's original comment!

    "Well now he knows how narcissistic psychopaths feel! I hope I never run into this guy in a dark alley! First he suggests that it’s okay to bomb abortion clinics 'after hours', and now this."

    Woo thinks like this because Woo obviously isn't very bright. He can't follow a simple argument. Steve is responding to atheists on their own terms. It's not actually what Steve himself believes.

    "'No man is an island'; I know that phrase doesn’t come from his so-called holy book, but it’s probably a good idea (for the sake of all concerned!) for him to have a think about it anyway..."

    Of course, the Bible does have plenty of stuff about loving one's neighbor, etc., which is the primary book from which the poet John Donne who penned "no man is an island" took his inspiration. It's probably a good idea (for the sake of Woo's remedial education!) for Woo to familiarize himself with Bible 101.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No it's not. It's an adaptation-oriented description."

      Again, Woo has difficulty grasping basic concepts. Concepts like "fulfill" and "functions" are indeed teleological. Just use a dictionary.

      Also, sure, they may be adaptive too. But even so, news flash for Woo: it's possible to be both adaptive as well as teleological.

      "Complexes of self-replicating molecules (I.e. organisms)"

      Woo must be scientifically illiterate. Complexes of self-replicating molecules are not necessarily organisms.

      It depends in part how we define "organism." Not to mention "complexes" is quite vague.

      Besides, how much empirical evidence is there for self-replicating molecules outside of a particular chemical environment which supports self-replication?

      "which developed features that would eventually lead to brains were better adapted to their environments and thus more likely to successfully self-replicate, thereby passing their brain-like features on to future generations."

      This sounds like evolution for kindergarteners. But for starters there are like a gazillion intermediary steps which Woo simply assumes without benefit of argument.

      "Simply put, natural selection gives the illusion of brain evolution moving towards a particular goal."

      Woo contradicts Woo here. Woo continues to use teleological language to describe (as Woo claims) a non-teleological process: how does Woo know natural selection "gives" an illusion when natural selection itself is not teleologically oriented as Woo believes?

      But what's really funny is Woo actually agrees with what Steve has said but without realizing that's what he's doing. Prime example of Woo's village atheism.

      "No, homosexual sex is not conducive to reproduction"

      So Woo agrees with Steve again!

      "but then neither is any instance of heterosexual sex involving the use of any contraception technology or practice."

      It'd be amusing to witness Woo's sheer stupidity if it weren't likewise so painful to read. Obviously if someone is using contraceptives, then it's quite unlikely they'll be able to reproduce. But if a normal heterosexual couple are having regular unprotected sex, then yes it's possible for them to make a baby. However, a homosexual couple can't have regular unprotected sex and expect to make a baby. I guess Woo never learned about the birds and the bees.

      "It is however (I assume, not being gay myself)"

      Sure, whatever you say.

      Delete
    2. "conducive to pleasurable feeling"

      Lots of deviant sexual practices may be "conducive to pleasurable feeling," but it doesn't make it right. It may be pleasurable for a pedophile to molest children, but this would be extremely wrong. It may be pleasurable to some degree for a woman to be raped, but this would be extremely wrong.

      "social harmony"

      Really? There's evidence homosexual sex leads to "social harmony"? One could just as well argue there's evidence homosexual sex leads to social disharmony.

      "and a sense of security which comes from companionship and intimacy with another human being."

      Given Woo's beliefs, why stop at human beings? Maybe some humans would better achieve a sense of security via interspecies sex.

      "Perhaps the author should try it sometime!"

      Is Woo referring to himself?

      "Perhaps the author could enlighten us as to why his 'loving' God has seen it fit create serial killers who derive pleasure from wonton murder? Those poor wontons!"

      Before we move to serial killers, let's ask why atheists like Woo exist. Here is one possibility.

      "The evidence that thought arises from neurological activity is overwhelming."

      Another dumb statement from Woo. The question isn't whether thought "arises from neurological activity," but whether it's reducible to neurological activity alone. Big difference.

      "Those 'eminent' philosophers (I assume he means people like Chalmers?) are pulling assertions out of their arses."

      I suppose Woo's naked assertion is somehow meant to be an argument. Maybe this is the sort of thing what works around his little circle of supposed rational skeptics. Too bad it doesn't work among actual rationally-minded people.

      "Yes you can in fact influence what your brain tells you, but in order to do that you have to understand and accept how the brain works first."

      Does Woo actually understand how the brain works? Woo's own scientific illiteracy appears quite palpable thus far.

      "The emotional effects are real whether you are consciously aware that the story and characters are fictional or not. If you can just switch them off by reminding yourself that it’s not real, then the movie makers haven’t done their job properly."

      No surprise, but Woo totally missed Steve's point.

      Anyway, it may be Woo's emotions are abnormal emotions, not that filmmakers haven't done a good job. Boo hoo for Woo!

      Delete
  4. “Do you mean descriptive evolutionary ethics, or normative evolutionary ethics?”

    From the perspective of eternity every word of the cumulative works of the adherents of either means the same as a Gorilla fart.

    “If the latter, then, yes I don't accept that.”

    No one cares what you accept. The biggest gun wins. That is reality.

    “This may come a surprise to you, but just because some secularists believe something does not mean that every secularist must believe it.”

    Why shouldn’t you believe in a moral philosophy that finds its roots in ‘nature red in tooth and claw?’

    As an atheist, I see three possibilities:

    1) You’re one of the weak ones. You don’t have the guts to take what you want and live for yourself. You make yourself feel better by expecting others to be weak too.

    2) You’re deluded. The history of the human race is a history of blood. The strong will always take from the weak.

    3) You’re not very bright. You should be doing these things and you haven’t thought about it, long and hard enough, yet.

    “The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains how the diversity of life observed on earth has arisen. It is not a rule by which one is expected to live one's life.”

    You are a nobody. You don’t get to declare what it “is not.” You don’t have that power.

    “Take Islam as one specific example. According to Islam, Jesus was not divine and was never crucified nor ressurrected. That directly contradicts some of the core tenets of Christianity. And, unless I've somehow missed it, the Christian god hasn't descended to earth, appeared before everyone, and said, "OK, that Muhammed guy? He got it all wrong. Jesus was my son, just like the Bible says, and he died for your sins. Got it?"”

    Are you suggesting that the Qur’an is a better/equal-can’t-know-either-way source for the beliefs of the earliest Christians than the NT? The Muslims have you fooled.

    Steve said: “Most major religions don't even claim to be based on propositional revelation.”

    Steve’s nailed it. You don’t understand any of the positions you reject.

    Woo said,

    “So bombing clinics “after hours” is okay is it?”

    On atheism, yes. All that matters is you win.

    “I’m sure the FBI would be very interested to know that.”

    The FBI has the same authority the Roman Senate did: as long as they got the power, they got the authority.

    “What if someone happens to be working back that day?”

    They would have died someday anyway.

    “What if an employee ducks back into the clinic because they forgot something when they left for home?”

    They would have died someday anyway.

    “What about some unsuspecting passer-by who just happens to be walking a little too close to the building when the bomb goes off?”

    Did someone fail to tell you that everyone dies sooner or later?

    “And what about the landlord who just so happens to devote a considerable portion of his time and money to helping the poor?”

    He’s a moron. He should know he lives in one of the most privileged places at one of the most privileged times in human history. He should be taking while the taking’s good (it ain’t always gonna be good).

    “I hope I never run into this guy in a dark alley.”

    I hope you don’t too. Sounds like he’d kill you and take all your stuff. And, on atheism, it wouldn’t matter at all.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve Hays has a subsequent post in response to Kwan Tam Woo here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This was one of the best threads I've seen in awhile at t-blogue, it was a real hoot reading the combox exchanges. Please invite the (ir) Rational Skeptics over more often.

    But on a more somber note, it serves as a stark reminder that fallen man is not only in desperate need of having his soul redeemed and therefore saved from the judgment to come, but he desperately needs his mind redeemed from the judicially imposed futility it abides under in the here and now.

    Such confused, self-refuting, self contradiction is the calling card of the unredeemed mind. They fail to grasp that the only reason the can know anything at all about God's world is because they are made in God's image and they're secretly borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview in order to attack the God of the Bible, their Creator.

    It's like the three-year old child who can only slap his father in the face because his father holds him in his lap.

    Naturalism = Nihilism.

    ReplyDelete