tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post1912690723397740881..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Can't Be Moral Without God? Wrong.Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75764511974544497502014-04-08T07:06:41.847-07:002014-04-08T07:06:41.847-07:00"Evolutionary biologists have given us a larg... "Evolutionary biologists have given us a large body of evidence now that indicates that evolution built us, along with lots of other species to be moral. We observe proto-moral behaviors in all sorts of animals now, and we have a number of theories that about why evolution might have selected for altruism, sympathy, cooperation, and other social instincts. "<br /><br />Here is the big problem. All those theories about how we evolved to have these moral beliefs have nothing to do with them being true.<br /><br />The truth of whether it is good to be altruistic or cooperative or sympathetic has nothing to do with these theories. It could be morally wrong to have these traits and the theories would still work just as well. <br /><br />Its interesting that you give several moral systems just like you give several different religious systems. But when you give the religious systems you suggest that just like we don't believe the majority of them we shouldn't believe say Christianity. But you withhold that logic when it comes to moral systems. <br /><br />In fact you seem to imply the opposite that since there are so many theories (albeit contradictory theories) of how morality can work without God surely one is correct. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21817754584518974642011-12-23T07:51:39.361-08:002011-12-23T07:51:39.361-08:00Some moral skeptics claim morality is bunk and mor...Some moral skeptics claim morality is bunk and moral pronouncements no more meaningful or practically relevant than the claim of a superstitious Polynesian that eating a certain type of coconut is taboo.<br /><br />We, like the Polynesian, are hypnotized by nonsense words.<br /><br />He is hypnotized by "taboo" and we are by "wrong," "right," and "duty."<br /><br />Have you commented on that sort of skepticism?<br /><br />On the meta-ethical level it rests on a kind of error theory but on the normative level instead of being reformist it is flatly rejectionist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-88843023262909566662011-08-06T04:22:42.118-07:002011-08-06T04:22:42.118-07:00It is hard to believe that a book (Bible), which i...It is hard to believe that a book (Bible), which is full of immorality can be expected to teach morality.<br /><br />http://subtledeceit.com/index.php?p=1_16_GOD-OF-ISRAELD.C. Willishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02528094175479493757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-65820463310957061872009-12-22T17:22:09.993-08:002009-12-22T17:22:09.993-08:00Once again, an argument that appeals to God do not...Once again, an argument that appeals to God do nothing to provide us with answers to moral problems is not an argument for materialism. And atheism should not be conflated with materialism. Furthermore, materialism comes in several different varieties: eliminative, methodological, ontological, etc. None of them, as far as I can tell, match with what you're calling materialism. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-17749789180690428672009-12-22T12:56:01.963-08:002009-12-22T12:56:01.963-08:00"Im not sure whether you are suggesting that ..."Im not sure whether you are suggesting that we should be depressed about our plight as humans on this earth but I find your posts highly depressing!"<br /><br />Well, "From nothing. By nothing. For nothing." is not exactly a mantra for elevating one's self-esteem. But what else has the materialist got?<br /><br /> 20th cc. existentialists denied God's existence, then from this concluded that human existence was absurd. I think they got it right, and anything else is window-dressing and self-deception.<br /><br />Have a great (ultimately meaningless, purposeless, destined-for-extinction) day!BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31284603058851080642009-12-22T12:31:25.384-08:002009-12-22T12:31:25.384-08:00RKBall
I still do not see that you have said any...RKBall <br /><br />I still do not see that you have said anything about why God should exist other than the fact that we as absurd, as you like to say, human beings "like" to think that he exists. Or that it gives us comfort to "believe" that he is out there somewhere. Of course "believing", whatever that means, becomes a lot easier if everyone around you does and you were brought up to believe. <br /><br />I find your point of view highly unsatisfactory.<br /><br />It still seems blindingly obvious to me that religion is a human construct. It also seems obvious that our sense of right and wrong is nothing sacred or mysterious its just a by-product of society. This becomes more obvious when you think of other animals having a sense of right and wrong and even punishing each other for doing something they think is "wrong".<br /><br />Im not sure whether you are suggesting that we should be depressed about our plight as humans on this earth but I find your posts highly depressing! If there is one thing I can definitely say I disagree with you on, its that we can still be positive people despite the burden on all this knowledge.Bowling4Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11266653129878440985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72680950655906610732009-12-22T09:34:06.612-08:002009-12-22T09:34:06.612-08:00"No, I did not say this."
Ah, I see. Y..."No, I did not say this."<br /><br />Ah, I see. You're going for the Moral Argument after all. But it takes a greater "suppleness of mind" than I possess to sense the path you're on. Wow.<br /><br />But now you've put out such a flood of stuff, and I'm not so sure I care to fight a world war.<br /><br />I don't know that there's anything objectively (if by "objective" we mean something like "hardwired into reality") "wrong." So what? The fact is, we all subscribe to some code of morality. And it generally works. Furthermore, when it doesn't work it doesn't seem to break down along the line between believer and unbeliever, which is telling. We can quibble about where it comes from but, again, if you're going to insist that source is the Divine, you'll first need to show that the Divine exists, not simply suggest that without the Divine morality is subjective and expect us to jump the several intuitive chasms to your conclusion.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86216151552163835262009-12-22T09:23:11.289-08:002009-12-22T09:23:11.289-08:00Those look a lot more like arguments, RK. I'm...Those look a lot more like arguments, RK. I'm not going to try to address all of it in the comments section. As I see it, there are several problems in your reasoning: you're still ignoring the arguments that I (and others) have given that show that the dilemmas you're giving--morals come from man's imagination, or from God--are false dilemmas. 2) An argument that God offers no explanation or justification for morality (which I've been giving) does not amount to an argument for materialism. So limitations of materialism are beside the point. 3) you're committing the fallacy of composition. Since you cannot conceive of how molecules can be moral, you refuse to accept that combinations of them could be. I cannot imagine how a large airport can function smoothly, but the limits of my knowledge or my sense of wonder impose no impossibility on the event. By a similar argument you might think that it is impossible for complicated computer software program to run or for a plant to grow. 4) this brings us to the insufficiency of your "sufficient reason" argument. What you've done is string together several complicated human behaviors where you don't have a clear grasp on the mechanisms and then leapt to the conclusion that only God (Christian?) could explain how we could have all of those things. If you do your homework and actually try to understand the scientific accounts that we now have that go a long way towards explaining each one of those (instead of rejecting them as impossible at the outset) you'll see that we have closed many of these so-called gaps. Furthermore, suppose that x,y, and z are all unaccounted for phenomena in humans. You assert that they would all be explained perfectly well if we adopt the God hypothesis. Therefore we should. But that's a fallacy too. There's an infinite list of other supernatural hypotheses that will offer the same mysterious blanket explanation: Sobek did it, Thor did it, aliens did it, Allah did it, invisible magic elves endowed us with a moral sense, and so on. It simply doesn't follow that since you can come up with an explanation that might work, that it therefore must be true. This is the theist's equivalent of making the Just-So story mistake that evolutionary biologists sometimes make. <br /><br />Thanks for clarifying your position. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47230800735042115932009-12-22T08:46:05.445-08:002009-12-22T08:46:05.445-08:00"There's no conflict between using the la..."There's no conflict between using the language as a sort of short hand without making any assumptions or having any requirements about an actual designer. "<br /><br />One might think that those whose whose main mark in life is to adamantly and persistently deny a teleological dimension to cosmological reality would be eager to describe said reality without recourse to teleological language. In fact, you would think they would insist on it. The fact they don't is curious; the fact they perhaps cannot, suggestive, to say the least.<br /><br />What an odd reality you claim we inhabit -- an intrinsically a-teleological process wires us to be hopelessly teleological in thought and speech.<br /><br />If the universe, and life, cannot be described without recourse to teleological language, then why should one believe that the a-teleological view is true? If it is "true", then "we" are not. At a minimum it supports my contention that we are absurd creatures -- hopelessly out of tune with the a-teleological, a-moral essence of our surroundings.<br /><br />Thanks for all the references and suggested areas for further study. That's what I like about your site.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77860371478676279372009-12-22T06:46:29.294-08:002009-12-22T06:46:29.294-08:00Darwinian foundations.
I prefer the view that mor...Darwinian foundations.<br /><br />I prefer the view that moral sense is not just a human overlay, that it is indwelling, innate, and persistent. But this makes the problem even worse. Forget about rational foundations for morality. At least we are rational whereas the processes of nature, being mindless, are not. Now morality is rooted in nothing greater than darwinian wiring.<br /><br />Darwinian processes are themselves mindless, amoral and purposeless (would you agree with that).<br /><br />If so, there is just insufficient input to take the output -- moral sense -- seriously. To trust it. To think that it actually means something. To think that it is anything more than a survival strategy (and strategy is the wrong word), it is really nothing more than a cruel burp of mindless, amoral evolution that doesn't care even if we survive or not, let alone develop moral sense.<br /><br />So, we are endued, as you like to say, with the sense of "ought", the sense that some things are right and others wrong, in the same way that there is something wrong with the notion that 2 + 2 =5 and that it is not just a matter of rational constructs of the human brain (view one) that 2 +2 should be 4, or feelings (view 2) that 2 +2 feels like four, but an apprehension of an objective fact that lies outside of human sense experience and is true whether we recognize it or not.<br /><br />The problem, of course, is, that in a closed-system materialistic world, there is no place for objective morality to exist outside of the molecules themselves. Unless you posit that morality somehow existed potentially in the stardust and water that begat us and is part of the fabric of the universe.<br /><br />So, that is why I argue from absurdity. The materialist, in positing the objective existence of good and evil, right and wrong, cannot adequately account for it.<br /><br />He can argue why we *think* there is right and wrong, but good and evil themselves cannot be sufficiently accounted for. And a truly scientific materialism would seek to debunk such thinking.<br /><br />And that is why I conclude that have two fundamental choices: a) freedom from God and moral accountability to him coupled with the absurdity of the human condition or b) God and accountability to Him, and authenticity.<br /><br />It does not "prove" the existence of God. But it does demonstrate why rational human creatures should at least lean towards hoping that God in fact does exist.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-274752397234935742009-12-22T06:46:18.642-08:002009-12-22T06:46:18.642-08:00Matt -- I am arguing from the premise of sufficien...Matt -- I am arguing from the premise of sufficient cause. One of the principles of software engineering is that "what goes out, must have come in" i.e., there must be sufficient inputs to produce a given output.<br /><br />All the closed-system of materialism has to offer us is human beings which are the product of mindless, amoral, purposeless processes (and nothing more). If I'm wrong about this first premise, let me know.<br /><br />Now, humans are, by nature, moral creatures. (If I'm wrong, let me know.)<br /><br />What is the foundation of this moral sense? I see only two possibilities -- man himself, or nature, i.e, darwinian processes. (Wrong, let me know.)<br /><br />Man himself.<br /><br />The first source is man himself, with morality not being innate, but, as intelligent apes, or worms, or bacteria, being rationally determined by man as a rational creature (rationality is another problem for materialism, but let's grant it for the sake of argument.)<br /><br />Morality in this view is the result of human reflection and contemplation -- and nothing more. In other words, we are not wired to be moral creatures, we overlay moral thinking upon our amoral urges.<br /><br />In this view it is nothing more than a subjective overlay by humans upon more foundational realities -- that we are nothing more than stardust and water, re-mixed by an amoral, unthinking process, for no purpose.<br /><br />Morality is then, at foundation, subjective. The human race may develop one set of moral constructs, an alien race another. And it would not be a question of one being right and the other wrong -- because in the closed system of materialism, morality is not intrinsic to the universe, it is some kind of overlay, and there is no external arbiter.<br /><br />Indeed, different human groups or cultures could conceivably develop different moral systems, and there same problem would apply -- no outside, objective arbiter.<br /><br />Now, the higher we go in moral thinking -- thinking that human beings have "value", thinking that human beings have "intrinsic worth", thinking that harming another human being is "wrong" or "evil", the higher we go in the disconnect from our origins from mindless, dead molecules -- and the more absurd and incongruous we become. Surely we deceive ourselves when we think we are worth something or have value! Our moral sense "emerges" like a vapor from the elements, but that's all it is at heart, vapor. It is grounded in nothing, ultimately.<br /><br />Our moral thoughts are grounded in nothing more than utilitarian thinking -- I don't like to have pain inflicted upon me, so I won't inflict pain on others -- but this does not make inflicting pain "wrong". I feel good when I give to charity, so I'll give to charity -- but this does not make giving "good". This is not objective right and wrong, good and evil. This is just pragmatism, dressed up as right and wrong. This may get us to pragmatic advice for getting along in life, but it does not get us to objective right and wrong or good and evil. It falls short. <br /><br />And, since there is no objective criteria "out there", anyone can refuse to play the game. Some people find pleasure in inflicting pain -- who's to say this is "wrong"?BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81822832578545121552009-12-22T05:58:03.654-08:002009-12-22T05:58:03.654-08:00Mike -- Of course I'm making an argument, but ...Mike -- Of course I'm making an argument, but it is an inferential argument, rather than the kind of QED argument you are looking for.<br /><br />"But you've said in no uncertain terms that you're not making that argument."<br /><br />No, I did not say this.<br /><br /> It is possible to say that something points to, or indicates, as opposed to "proves". You need to develop a suppleness of mind and an appreciation for nuance.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-43246105206688454242009-12-22T03:02:28.993-08:002009-12-22T03:02:28.993-08:00I think Matt's pretty much summed it up, RKBal...I think Matt's pretty much summed it up, RKBall. <br /><br />You can only be doing one of two things here: feinting toward (not making) an argument or making unsubstantiated assumptions. Considering the context of this thread and that your comments are all about morality, the argument you would be hinting at would be the Moral Argument. But you've said in no uncertain terms that you're not making that argument. (Which is obvious enough, anyway.) And you're not even waving at any other argument. Thus, I'm forced to reiterate my initial accusation: you're making bald assertions. Now, you're free to do that, I suppose, but you can't expect us to take simple, unsupported claims seriously. Despite what you apparently think, the truth of what you're saying is anything but self-evident.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71039642237163551472009-12-21T16:06:03.704-08:002009-12-21T16:06:03.704-08:00On a related note, Plantinga himself, the patron s...On a related note, Plantinga himself, the patron saint of modern theist philosophers, argues forcefully against the view that using teleological language commits one to some metaphysical views about the existence of a supernatural designer. There's no conflict between using the language as a sort of short hand without making any assumptions or having any requirements about an actual designer. See Warrant and Proper Function, and catch up on your philosophy of biology.<br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-13119138765287000332009-12-21T16:01:54.324-08:002009-12-21T16:01:54.324-08:00I've read your posts over and over, RK. I'...I've read your posts over and over, RK. I've seen you assert with great authority that materialism entails moral absurdity. But I haven't detected any sort of argument for that conclusion. Nor have I seen you actually address any of the arguments I've given in the posts--mostly there are just adamant denials of their conclusions. <br /><br />Furthermore, it would be another mistake to conflate materialism with atheism. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7972619866789891852009-12-21T15:41:17.224-08:002009-12-21T15:41:17.224-08:00"So, you're not claiming the corollary, i..."So, you're not claiming the corollary, i.e., morals do exist, therefore, God? You really aren't saying that?"<br /><br />No.<br /><br />"Can you imagine why I might have thought you were?"<br /><br />I'm just guessing here. You weren't reading carefully? You have trouble following an argument?<br /><br />"What other inference am I to take away from what you said."<br /><br />One may indeed infer that God exists, to the extent that one recoils from the absurdity of human life under materialism, and to the extent that one concludes that materialism is an insufficient cause for things like objective morality. But to infer the existence of God from these arguments is something quite different from your bald assertion " morals do exist, therefore, God". It takes a certain suppleness of mind. <br /><br />"veiled threats and insupportable claims such as, "Atheists, in choosing a belief system which frees them (temporarily) from accountability to an ultimate moral authority, must live with the absurd implications of their choice."<br /><br />You have done nothing to refute my absurdity argument. Nothing. Nada. Zip.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29359782332823461582009-12-21T12:04:14.983-08:002009-12-21T12:04:14.983-08:00"...if God doesn't objectively exist, nei..."...if God doesn't objectively exist, neither do morals...."<br /><br />So, you're not claiming the corollary, i.e., morals do exist, therefore, God? You really aren't saying that? Can you imagine why I might have thought you were? What other inference am I to take away from what you said.<br /><br />The fact is, there are morals. It is equally factual that it cannot be established that God even exists, and much less that he has anything to do with morality. Until you can establish those things you have no business making veiled threats and insupportable claims such as, "Atheists, in choosing a belief system which frees them (temporarily) from accountability to an ultimate moral authority, must live with the absurd implications of their choice."mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77536086197536320942009-12-21T11:33:11.386-08:002009-12-21T11:33:11.386-08:00"But it simply won't do to say, "We&..."But it simply won't do to say, "We're moral agents, therefore God exists." That doesn't work."<br /><br />And that is why I never said this. I simply said that, if God doesn't objectively exist, neither do morals, and the moral sense that we do have is an absurdity associated with the human condition caused by nothing more than a mindless, amoral, purposeless process -- and therefore no more authentic or meaningful than a burp or hiccup.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75497194424131963322009-12-21T10:39:34.385-08:002009-12-21T10:39:34.385-08:00Let me see if I can spell out what I thought would...Let me see if I can spell out what I thought would be obvious. Reference my first post on this thread. We are moral creatures. That is fairly uncontroversial. It's something we'll agree on. Now we can get to guessing why we're moral creatures. Believers such as yourself insist we're moral creatures because God made us so. There's a problem with that. Nonexistent entities don't cause--aren't the source of--anything. They didn't cause the universe, they aren't the reason for its order or its function, they didn't create life, and they don't make us moral. Nonexistent entities don't do anything because ... they don't exist.<br /><br />Oh, but God exists, you say? Well, then, the task before you is to demonstrate that. That's what you'll need to do first. Once you've shown that God exists, then maybe we can talk about whether he is the cause of our moral sense. But it simply won't do to say, "We're moral agents, therefore God exists." That doesn't work.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21844144672909022842009-12-21T10:03:11.918-08:002009-12-21T10:03:11.918-08:00"1) we are moral and 2) we have reasons for b..."1) we are moral and 2) we have reasons for being moral that have nothing demonstrably to do with deity."<br /><br />Of course you are moral -- we are all hopelessly moral. What you don't have is a reason why anyone should think that moral senses in a human being have any more objective validity or ultimate consequence than, say, burps or hiccups. Authentic moral sense inserted by an unthinking, purposeless, amoral process?BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76130544133838094192009-12-21T09:20:41.434-08:002009-12-21T09:20:41.434-08:00"It is not immoral to strike a rock or pumpki..."It is not immoral to strike a rock or pumpkin and smash it into its constituent material parts; it is no more immoral, under materialism, to smash a baby's head in...."<br /><br />This is not an argument. It's an assertion. Don't complain about my anger after you've made such a stunningly vicious charge. Astonishingly (?), materialists aren't out smashing babies' heads in. Why not? Because God has infused us with a moral sense, though we don't recognize it? Says who? If you can't demonstrate so, then you must admit that 1) we are moral and 2) we have reasons for being moral that have nothing demonstrably to do with deity.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-62017784510138327402009-12-21T06:30:15.330-08:002009-12-21T06:30:15.330-08:00ms -- you sound like an angry person. I made an a...ms -- you sound like an angry person. I made an argument; you made a bald assertion. Since you said nothing, I shall respond in kind.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3481859869629486982009-12-20T13:42:00.550-08:002009-12-20T13:42:00.550-08:00No, RkBall, that's not true. You see, I can m...No, RkBall, that's not true. You see, I can make bald assertion as well as you can. Think I'm wrong? Show me.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86313031422306184032009-12-20T09:31:28.956-08:002009-12-20T09:31:28.956-08:00There cannot be evil unless there is also good. Th...There cannot be evil unless there is also good. The problem in explaining the human condition, or, at the very least, humans' apprehension of it, is that both good and evil must be accounted for. Both are absurd, silly concepts in a materialistic universe in which no good or evil exists prior to the accidental construction by mindless, amoral matter and natural processes, of human beings. <br /><br />Apart from a source additional to mindless amoral matter, good and evil can be nothing more than some kind of illusion or delusion inside the brains of humans put there either by amoral evolution, or simply invented by human beings. <br /><br />It is not immoral to strike a rock or pumpkin and smash it into its constituent material parts; it is no more immoral, under materialism, to smash a baby's head in; it's just a human conceit of our self importance or value -- neither of which is, objectively true in a unthinking, mindless, amoral universe. Even Dawkins, the Great One, admits this.<br /><br />It's either God and moral accountability to him, or absurdity. Atheists, in choosing a belief system which frees them (temporarily) from accountability to an ultimate moral authority, must live with the absurd implications of their choice.BallBounceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-87294880651831290402009-12-20T05:10:35.322-08:002009-12-20T05:10:35.322-08:00And what makes this a "sound argument," ...And what makes this a "sound argument," Teacher? Because you say so? Because Thomas Aquinas says so? 'Splain.mikespeirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05397674737999065117noreply@blogger.com