tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post7397408789876333780..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Nature gives us morality, not God. And science reveals it, not religion.Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-90296757209892740242014-04-08T07:19:11.870-07:002014-04-08T07:19:11.870-07:00"Consider the second claim that morality exis..."Consider the second claim that morality exists in the natural world: What is the source of ones belief that morality exists? A gut instinct, moral intuition, reasoning, some external source?" <br /><br />I wonder how you would answer this. I suspect you ultimately would reason from some gut instinct. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-8211055500474167902008-09-15T23:10:00.000-07:002008-09-15T23:10:00.000-07:00I just came across a really interesting website ht...I just came across a really interesting website http://www.healingtheriftbook.com/ in which it was announced that a book concerning this very topic,<A HREF="http://healingtheriftbook.com/" REL="nofollow"> science and spirituality</A>,<BR/>is going to be released in October. The book is titled, “Healing the Rift,” by Leo Kim.<BR/>I was really encouraged when I read what this book entails. Apparently the author of this book has extensive experience working in cancer wards. He writes about his experiences and analyzes them on a scientific and spiritual level. This book just may help answer the question as to whether or not science and god do coexist. Definitely sounds interesting no matter what your beliefs are.Beckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05957358850375701366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-4127920016150379232008-09-13T17:31:00.000-07:002008-09-13T17:31:00.000-07:00Science is descriptive whilst morailty is prescrip...Science is descriptive whilst morailty is prescriptive. How can you get moraility from science?<BR/><BR/>David Hume's counterfeit spiritAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7375889232277243462008-09-13T17:26:00.000-07:002008-09-13T17:26:00.000-07:00The comment below is a false dichotomy. It could b...The comment below is a false dichotomy. It could be true<BR/><BR/><BR/>"So in the end, the claim that without God there can be no morality is either hopelessly circular, or its patently false"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55285802774330645152008-09-11T13:23:00.000-07:002008-09-11T13:23:00.000-07:00Yeah, you're right Bryan. I'm sometimes in a hurr...Yeah, you're right Bryan. I'm sometimes in a hurry, and the blogger software doesn't make doing that as easy as I wish it did. I'll see if I can fix it.Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-70497505350977175542008-09-11T11:39:00.000-07:002008-09-11T11:39:00.000-07:00MM--is that list in your last comment to other blo...MM--<BR/><BR/>is that list in your last comment to other blog entries of yours? I've notice you also post entire URLs in your comments elsewhere. The problem is that they sometimes get cut off for not fitting on one line. You should use a little html in your comment (the "a" tag) to turn them into links, and with long URLs to just hyperlink some text. It makes it easier to navigate and connect your blog entries. I've also found just putting in a "further reading" kind of list of links at the bottom of an entry related to other topics does the job too; plus you can throw in off-site links in that list as well. Just some logistics stuff I thought I'd throw out there, from one blogger to another!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-78232995262693098382008-09-10T07:52:00.000-07:002008-09-10T07:52:00.000-07:00If the theist wants to claim that morality has a d...If the theist wants to claim that morality has a divine origin, I think it is incumbant on the theist to say just how this happens. How does God CREATE morality, and how can the theist maintain this thesis without running afoul of the Euthyphro problem? If the theist is pressed on this point, I think a better answer is called for than "well, I think that reason is a way we can know about the nature of divinely created morality, but at the same time I deny that the nature of morality is completely arbitrary in the way suggested by the Euthyphro problem". The theist can even say, "I don't know the details of the story that needs to be told to meake sense of things here, but I accept on faith that such a story can be told". But this admission weakens the claim that God MUST be posited as the source of (objective) morality so much as to render it impotent. It reduces to the mere assertion that God is necessary for morality, and provides no positive grounds undergirding such an assertion.<BR/><BR/>I think this is substantively the same point Matt makes.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-42823851176210307402008-09-10T07:25:00.000-07:002008-09-10T07:25:00.000-07:00If nature gives us morality, then the reason we ha...If nature gives us morality, then the reason we have morality is due to the way the natural world is.<BR/><BR/>If the natural world was created, then it follows that, our morality was given by that creator.<BR/><BR/>Pinker's argument is strongest for an objective moral sense, which is very different than what is commonly called an object morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-2484810115728088962008-09-09T12:39:00.000-07:002008-09-09T12:39:00.000-07:00Thanks again Josh for reading so closely and think...Thanks again Josh for reading so closely and thinking hard about this. A few comments: <BR/><BR/>first, you're right, there will be some theists somewhere who won't be convinced about this. You're not really doing this, but I often get comments from people who outline some new, convoluted position that my argument seems to have pushed the theist back to, and then they say, "Well, what do you say about that? huh? smarty pants?" I can only take on so much at one time, and I've opted for fast, loose, and provocative in these blog posts, not careful and bulletproof. (But that's no defense of my argument, of course.) <BR/><BR/>What about the divine command theorist who denies a rational theory of morality? Well, once someone has been pushed back to here, I think they've got a whole shit load of new troubles having to do with DCT, but not so much the argument I have given here. They'll need to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma, obviously. And a lot of what I have to say about Divine Command Theory I've written up in all the "Morality and Atheism posts over on the left side. As far as I can tell, divine command theory is just a non-starter. I think there are VERY few serious moral theorists, not just a hack like me, who take it seriously. And I always have this very simple point to make. Deciding to act according to one divine command instead of another is itself a moral choice that one has to make on your own. It really doesn't matter that some magical being in the sky commanded it--you've got to find some grounds other than that for deciding that it is the RIGHT thing to do. Believers do this on a regular basis when they opt to abide by some commandments but ignore others, like the ones about executing anyone who violates the 10 commandments. <BR/>Thanks again. <BR/><BR/> * Heroism and the Duty to Rescue Show that there is No God<BR/> * The Believer's Moral Double Standard for God<BR/> * The New Ten Commandments<BR/> * No Moral Truths, No God<BR/> * Monkey Morality, or Goodness Isn’t Magical<BR/> * Stephen Pinker: Instinct for Morality<BR/> * Trying to be Moral Through the Distorted Lens of the Bible<BR/> * Incoherent: I believe because it makes me moral.<BR/> * Believing in God is Immoral<BR/> * Does the Theist Have a Moral Advantage over the Atheist?<BR/> * Can Atheists be Moral?Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-85781675475893773812008-09-08T23:06:00.000-07:002008-09-08T23:06:00.000-07:00Hey, MM. Thanks for clarifying. I take your point....Hey, MM. Thanks for clarifying. I take your point. However, I still think the theist might have some sort of response.<BR/><BR/>I'm imagining the theist distinguishing very strictly between morality and the concept of morality. Most of us have the concept of morality. Presumably, we need it to debate the issue at all. So can't the theist say the following?<BR/><BR/>"We've got this concept of morality. And if we think carefully about it, we notice that it is divine in a certain sense---namely, if there is something in the world that falls under the concept, then it must have a divine source." <BR/><BR/>Of course, after endorsing this sort of divine command theory, the theist has to claim that some things do fall under the concept---there are instances of morality or moral actions or whatever---to then claim that God exists. And this is what you contend she can't do since she will have to abandon divine command theory to show that morality exists. I take it that one way to summarize your point is: divine command theory is incompatible with a moral rationalism like Kant's. That seems right, unless one has a very implausible view of our rational faculty according to which our rational moral judgments always accord exactly with God's will.<BR/><BR/>But I'm imagining the theist as distinguishing also between the correct principles of morality and morality itself. I'm thinking that "morality itself" is something like a property, perhaps of actions. In this way, I think the theist doesn't have to endorse moral rationalism in order to support the second premise of the argument (the premise that morality does exists in the natural world). She can deny having any knowledge of the correct fundamental principles of morality by anything other than God's will; she simply holds that she does have some very general knowledge about the nature of this property of moral wrongness.<BR/><BR/>So, I guess I'm assuming that it's not implausible for the theist to hold divine command theory, deny moral rationalism, but still hold that morality exists (where I'm thinking of this as the claim that there are moral facts, properties, etc.). After all, we don't tend to think that we must have a correct first-order ethical theory in hand in order to make the general, meta-ethical claim that morality exists---that certain things are morally right or wrong, good or bad.<BR/><BR/>Now, I think there is plenty to object to in this theistic response. But I'm just trying to play devil's advocate (no pun intended) to see if one could get around your argument. Frankly, if you're right and I'm wrong, you've got a nice argument here---one that I'd love to endorse. :)<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>-JoshJosh Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511130370992616940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-18585102075915995182008-09-08T21:44:00.000-07:002008-09-08T21:44:00.000-07:00Thanks to all who have commented. This seems to h...Thanks to all who have commented. This seems to have gotten some people stirred up. <BR/><BR/>Josh, great comments. I always tell my students not to turn in their first drafts--I should heed my own advice. I think you're right about the science claim. I guess I'll say that science is the best method we have for determining what's real. And it's really just a side comment. Studies in biology and anthropology have been able to confirm the existence of analogs of human moral behavior in animals. Community, fairness, sympathy, and other rudiments of human moral systems are present in a number of "lower" animals. <BR/><BR/>On your first point. I put that wrong. Notice that I'm addressing this argument: <BR/><BR/>1. Unless God creates or establishes it, morality would not exist in the natural world. <BR/>2. Morality does exists in the natural world. <BR/>3. Therefore, God created it. <BR/>4. Therefore, God exists.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If the principles of morality can be revealed by reason, then the theist has got a problem in this argument. The argument alleges to show God's existence from the existence of morality. If an inquiry by reason produces the fundamental principles of morality (as Kant said it does), then the inexplicableness of morality can't be invoked to prove God any more. It won't do for the theist to say, "Well, God produces morality, reason is just our route to it. Therefore God exists." That's circular again. What we're trying to do is find some independent grounds for God's existence. They can't argue from the premise "God produces morality" to the conclusion "therefore God exists." Maybe that's a better way to put my point. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous, again, take a look at the work of Frans de Waal, Jonathan Haidt, and Stephen Pinker. I've cited them several times here. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-87759116620289176442008-09-08T20:53:00.000-07:002008-09-08T20:53:00.000-07:00I still do not understand the claim that morality ...I still do not understand the claim that morality is from evolution. How does a instinct or intuition tell us what is right or wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-73470270083944775602008-09-08T20:34:00.000-07:002008-09-08T20:34:00.000-07:00"it’s science and evolution that show us that mora..."it’s science and evolution that show us that morality is objective and real". <BR/> My reading of the scientific evidence is not that it provides an objective morality, but rather a subjective ones. Different moralities arise in different conditions and advantage different types of individuals.<BR/><BR/>I don't share your optimism with respect to science. It may be able to tell us how to act in order to achieve what we want, or what the probability is that certain actions will prevent the worst case scenario, but it will never be able to tell us what we should want. At some point it becomes more important to know who the scientists are working for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-91340735872228398262008-09-08T20:30:00.000-07:002008-09-08T20:30:00.000-07:00Matt, do all arguments deduce to circular reasonin...Matt, do all arguments deduce to circular reasoning? For example, why do we rely on our sense experience when in fact it has been unreliable many times. Or the notion of our existence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-75386522947606828862008-09-08T12:55:00.000-07:002008-09-08T12:55:00.000-07:00It is shocking how the no-morality-without-God arg...It is shocking how the no-morality-without-God argument is one of the preferred arguments peddled around by theists in the U.S. these days and yet it is such a horrible argument. <BR/><BR/>But I do have two comments/worries about some of your points:<BR/><BR/>(1) In discussing the second premise, you write that their arguments for it are typically at odds with the first premise. That seems right in many ways. However, you say:<BR/><BR/>"...if we can reason through to the conclusion that morality is real, if reason can open the window to it, then it would seem that the original claim that morality must come from God is mistaken."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure this is right. Why can't the theist just say that morality is a divine sort of thing (so it has to have been created by a God) but reason is an epistemic route to knowledge of the <I>nature</I> of morality at least (not the correct first-order moral theory)? They would need some of argument for this, but it seems like your criticism alone can't block it.<BR/><BR/>It seems like you're thinking that the claim that God is the source of morality precludes the claim that we can know something about the nature of morality through reasoning. I guess I'm just not sure that that's right. Compare: Suppose a French citizen says "The content of the U.S. constitution depends on the activity of some humans, though I'm not one of them." This person just has the concept of the U.S. constitution and knows that its content depends on some people other than her, and she knows this by thinking clearly and reflectively about the concept she has of the U.S. constitution.<BR/><BR/>(2) You say toward the end that science is the "the only method we have ever come upon that isn’t flagrantly circular or patently false for establishing that something is real." This is a common theme in current atheism. However, I think there is a serious worry here about making the scientific method the only route to the truth or knowledge about what's real. Of course, I loves me some science. But I think it's clear that not everything is known through the methods of the natural sciences. <BR/><BR/>And I think this is a bad sort of assumption to make especially when debating with theists about morality. I worry that the theist is just going to win if we accept the burden of explaining the existence of objective moral facts through science. I think theists would likewise win the debate (just in the sense of having a more powerful or convincing argument) if we allowed them to saddle the atheist with the burden of explaining the existence of objective mathematical truths by empirical science. I just think there are plenty of ways to show that the no-morality-without-God argument is flawed without resulting to the claim that we only know stuff through science.<BR/><BR/>It think it shouldn't be that atheists have to hold that a truth is known only through science. And it likewise shouldn't be that theists have to hold that things are known through either science or religious intuition/revelation/hope/faith. We should, I think, all just be able to agree that we need reasons or justification for our beliefs. Science often provides that, but so do other methods. And mere faith, hope, etc. do not. <BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts. I'd be interested to see what you think. Thanks for the post!<BR/><BR/>-JoshJosh Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511130370992616940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-61829403316082438272008-09-08T10:12:00.000-07:002008-09-08T10:12:00.000-07:00There are a lot more people in the world who do no...There are a lot more people in the world who do not believe in the "god of the desert" than do and I include Islam. It is common sense to believe that these people have a morality similar to ours. <BR/><BR/>Morality happens because most people are not comfortable with the undesirable acts of others. Then rules are made to prohibit these acts.<BR/>Criminal codes are not acts of any gods. <BR/><BR/>Who, in their right minds these days, would want to have to live under the laws of the of Yaweh or Allah?Aspentrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679911093460636159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-46970375887148749152008-09-08T08:58:00.000-07:002008-09-08T08:58:00.000-07:00Second, even if we think that the documents like t...<I>Second, even if we think that the documents like the Bible accurately reflect what God said, what are our grounds for thinking that those claims are true? Those sources again? We know that what God says in the Bible is true because the Bible says that what God says there is true?</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, a plain reading of the Bible (Gen 2:17) tells us that God is a liar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-11379323425714687332008-09-08T06:24:00.000-07:002008-09-08T06:24:00.000-07:00Matt McCormick wrote:"...like some tired rubber du...Matt McCormick wrote:<BR/>"...like some tired rubber ducky."<BR/><BR/>Thanks for that. You just made my morning.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.com