This is a companion piece to Poor arguments to make with atheists. I deliberately used theists instead of Christians to keep things simple, though I did use a couple Christian examples below. I accumulated these from various atheist web sites or comments made here.
9. Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches (or Muslims disagree on the Koran, etc.) so there can’t be one right answer.
Just because a book is capable of being misunderstood doesn’t mean it is incapable of being understood. Disagreements in science don’t mean everyone must be wrong.
If you have actually studied the Bible you’ll note that it addresses many false teachings and warns that there will always be false teachers. So the concept that people disagree on what the Bible says isn’t exactly newsworthy. It is Biblical, in fact.
10. Why do religious people keep quoting bits out of a book written long ago by stone aged (or bronze aged) and ignorant men?
The men who wrote the Bible were quite intelligent. The Apostle Paul, for example, was well educated, articulate and a clear thinker.
The age of the book is completely irrelevant, of course. If God wrote it the message would be timeless. And of course, if it were written last week they’d complain that it was too late.
The complaint that our responses are old is also invalid. The objections are old as well. The funny thing is that over the last 2,000 years brilliant theists have wrestled with the same questions the New Atheists have, except with more clarity and thoughtfulness.
11. Why do religious people not understand the scientific and philosophical arguments against the existence of god which clearly refute its existence?
This commenter didn’t share any of those arguments or refer to any sources, so it is difficult to answer even if the objection didn’t have a flawed premise (it is basically a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of question that anyone on any side of an issues could use).
12. I can’t understand or conceive of why God would set things up this way, so He must not exist.
We call this “creating God in your own image.” See the 2nd Commandment.
If you create your own universe with working DNA and such, you can make your own rules. But whether you like it or not you play by God’s rules in this universe and you’ll have to give an account for your life. Ignorance is not an excuse.
13. Some people who call themselves Christians do and/or say stupid things, so Christianity is false.
That doesn’t disprove Christianity any more than atheists doing and saying stupid things proves there is a God.
In fact, Christians saying and doing stupid things probably bothers us more than it does atheists. Believe it or not, we have some common ground there.
14. Religion poisons everything! What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.?!
What silly hyperbole. Religion has done many great things – helping the poor, building hospitals and schools, great art, etc.
You don’t judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets. Click the link above for more.
The Salem Witch trials killed 18 people. The Inquisition killed about 2,000. That is 2,018 too many, to be sure, but keep in mind two things: The perpetrators did the opposite of what Jesus commanded and 2,018 murders was a slow afternoon for atheists like Stalin and Mao.
Here’s a quote from a guy trying to rally atheists to their cause by raiding theist blogs like this one – to rescue the world from this religious poison, I suppose. Messiah complex, anyone?
In a very real (but perhaps overly dramatic sense) the fate of the planet is at stake.
Uh, yes, “perhaps.” But if atheism is true then who cares if the planet dies? You must use empirical evidence to prove why it would be a bad thing 
.
15. Religion gets in the way of scientific progress.
Nonsense. The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements. And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo? And who knows, maybe Einstein’s presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant. After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one.
16. You don’t use reason and we do.
That is just patently false. Atheists just don’t like the reasons. Christianity in particular encourages and applauds the use of reason. Countless great thinkers and scientists were Bible-believing Christians.
Closing thoughts: As Edgar pointed out so well, even if every religion is completely false and atheism is true, then naturalism is to blame. So it is irrational to get mad at religion or religious people. We’re just doing what our genes tell us to.
And, of course, you have absolutely nothing to be proud about. You haven’t accomplished anything and haven’t generated any brilliant or meaningful ideas. You are just a bag of chemicals that thinks you have. Congratulations! You have no reason for bitterness or grandstanding.
All fun aside, those who can stay away from time-wasting arguments and who want to engage in an actual dialogue are welcome. Otherwise, save your keystrokes.
See part 1
Filed under: Apologetics, Bible, Christian worldview | Tagged: atheists, Bible, christianity, God, Intelligent Design, Jesus, religion, theists
Quick note: Einstein told Schrodinger that “God does not play dice with the universe.”
Okay, theists, step AWAY from your keyboards!
Einstein was referring to Schrodinger’s theory that there is random movement of electrons (and all matter, really), that determines a lot of action on the quantum level. Basically, Einsteing said that Schrodinger was wrong because God would not set up the universe that way.
He later recanted and admitted that Schrodinger’s theory was accurate.
Food for thought.
Neil said: 9. Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches (or Muslims disagree on the Koran, etc.) so there can’t be one right answer.
How about the fact that Christians disagree with Muslims with Jews, with hindu’s with etc etc etc, and there is no rational way to choose between them?
Neil said: There is a rational way to choose between them. Look at the facts supporting them. For example, over 500 years after the fact one guy started Islam and said Judas or some body double died on the cross instead of Jesus. Christianity and non-Biblical records recorded within a few decades of the event say it was Jesus. There are many examples like that. Go with what you see as the best evidence.
It’s handy that the bible has passages concerning “false teachers”. It gives you a good excuse to ignore those you don’t agree with – “The bible said people would do that. The bible is true again”. It’s one of the “immune response” things which religions seem to posses, to help believers maintain their belief in the face of challenges.
Neil said: That only works in your atheistic tautology where even when you concede that the Bible is right it is proof that it is wrong. I didn’t offer that as a lead point or a prophetic proof, just a simple statement of FACT. Your bias is really showing.
Read the book, people!
Neil said: The age of the book is completely irrelevant, of course. If God wrote it the message would be timeless. And of course, if it were written last week they’d complain that it was too late.
That’s a problem right there. It seems these inspired works of God(s) (Bible, Torah, Koran, etc) were written for their time, which is exactly as you’d expect if they were written by man and not divinely inspired.
Neil said: I can’t tell where you get the idea that the Bible was only written for its time. It makes countless universal and timeless claims. Here’s just one:
Acts 17:26-27 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us
theobromophile, Einstien’s God was in no way the “personal, interventionist” Christian God:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Neil said: Havok, we appear to agree on this one, at least in part. My point was that Einstein’s non-religious worldview appears to have gotten in the way of his science. You love to claim that theists let religion get in the way because we just believe in micro-evolution and don’t see a strong case for macro, but my point was that the worldview problem can be a two way street.
Just as Einstein appears to have let his get in the way – to his great regret – so too many scientists may be letting their Darwinian worldview, deep desire to ignore God or financial/career concerns get in the way of theirs.
Neil said: As Edgar pointed out so well, even if every religion is completely false and atheism is true, then naturalism is to blame. So it is irrational to get mad at religion or religious people. We’re just doing what our genes tell us to.
Your genes have provided you with the mental faculties to analyse your behaviour, and not simply be a slave to instinct.
Neil said: Now who is dodging? Since when did instincts become right or wrong?
Neil said “So the concept that people disagree on what the Bible says isn’t exactly newsworthy. It is Biblical, in fact”
I love it! The very fact that someone denys the Bible and denys God, fulfills prophecy. Next time someone denies the Bible to me, I’ll tell him.
Neil, in part one you said:
“6. You don’t have empirical evidence for ____ (God, the resurrection, etc.).
To quote Bubba: “Can one prove that only empirical evidence is trustworthy? Better yet, can one prove this by using only empirical evidence?”
The answers, of course, are no and no.”
And in part you you say, “…Uh, yes, “perhaps.” But if atheism is true then who cares if the planet dies? You must use empirical evidence to prove why it would be a bad thing.”
Interesting how we must use emperical evidence and you must not. Even more interesting is when we do use it, you are allowed to completely ignore it. Regardless, your statement in part two is a very stupid thing to say. As if the planet dying would be a good thing… Just what kind of evidence would you need?
Hi Mark – sorry that wasn’t clear. I have nothing against empirical evidence. I was just pointing out that if one says that only empirical evidence is reliable or useful then he has the burden to prove that empirically. But of course that is a circular reference which shows how the original statement was self-refuting.
I’m just taking those views to their logical conclusions. If one claims that only empirical evidence is valid then that is all one could use and still be consistent, right? In my worldview I can use all sorts of evidence and still be consistent.
Re. the planet – if it formed out of nothing and has no transcendent morality or purpose, why would it be “bad” if it went away?
Neil,
It’s good to be back. I found your #14 especially compelling, in light of the fact that to use that arguement you have to set aside (at least devalue or minimize) all of the good things done in the name of Christ. (Hitchens argues that religion has done nothing that is good.) I would be interesed in you expanding on this point. I have yet to see any organized activity on the part of Athiests to relieve suffering. ( I understand that in the Materialist, Athiest view there is no real moral imperative to relieve suffering) Where, are the Athiest charity hospitals, food kitchens, etc. (for all you athiests, I’m distinguishing between secular/governmental and Athiest). Anyway, I’m rambling a bit due to travel shock, but I hope I’m making some sense.
Havok,
I’ll be putting something together soon, to continue our conversation. I’ve missed it.
Neil, regarding #12. Atheists love to make the claim, “If God existed, he would be X. God is not X. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.”
Most common example I have heard is:
If God existed, he would have given a clear revelation of himself.
People disagree about God, so God hasn’t given a clear revelation of himself.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
As you pointed out, they are making God in their own image in the first premise. The first premise is not shown to be true, just taken for granted by the atheist.
The second premise also doesn’t follow. Disagreement doesn’t necessarily indicate lack of clarity.
Well, Neil, it would be “bad” because you and I live on it! But somehow I think you know that.
Mark,
You haven’t established that there is such a thing as objective “bad”, but somehow I think you knew that too.
Jesus? – Did He Really Die on the Cross? (Evidence says, NO!.)
Bible – Is It the Word of God? (Experts say, NO!.)
Trinity- Did Jesus or anyone teach this? (Bible says, NO!.)
“Only Begotten Son of God”? Was this Jesus? (Bible, says – NO!).
Are children born in original sin? (Bible says, “Yes!” – but Jesus says, “NO!”)
All this & more – internets site to compare İslam & Christianity:
http://bibleislam.com
Neil said: Hi, and thanks for stopping by to comment.
I read a bit of your site and saw this quote, which shows that your whole premise is horribly flawed: “According to Bible scholars themselves, the original scripture is no longer extant. It is nowhere to be found. We have no idea if what we are reading and implementing into our lives and belief system is, indeed, God’s teaching.”
Just because we don’t have the originals doesn’t mean we can’t be very confident of what the originals said. I’ve seen many skeptics concede that point (even though they don’t believe the words themselves, they see how the copying and translation process was very robust). Given the ~5,000 ancient copies of the New Testament found around the world along with the process of textual criticism we know that the New Testament you hold today is 99.5% accurate and that the differences are minor and have no impact on Christian theology.
This is a really big deal. I hope you read into this more – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/12/04/how-many-times-was-your-bible-been-translated/
A couple of interesting excerpts from a conversation between Lawrence Krause and Richard Dawkins. I expecially like the condescending tone of the statemente regarding religious belief.
“Dawkins, whose latest book, The God Delusion, is only one of a slew of recent books attacking religious beliefs, prefers an “in your face” approach. He once wrote that “if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane.” He then added “or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that.”
In his discussion with Krauss, Dawkins stood by his statement, calling it “a simple and sober statement of fact.”
“For his part, Krauss prefers to “reach out” to people and “understand where they are coming from”—not so that he might learn from them: Like Dawkins, he assumes that the people in question have little, if anything, to teach him. Rather, his goal is to “seduce” them into “understanding” and accepting scientific truths.
Thus Krauss says that “telling people . . . that their deepest beliefs are simply silly—even if they are” is counterproductive.
are” is counterproductive.”
“I do not think we will rid humanity of religious faith any more than we will rid humanity of romantic love or many of the irrational but fundamental aspects of human cognition. While orthogonal from the scientific rational components, they are no less real and perhaps no less worthy of some celebration when we consider our humanity.”
I think that last quote of Krauss says it all. Athiests would like to “rid humanity of religious faith” My, how open minded of him.
Scientific American July 2007
Craig
“objective bad” ??? hmmm. The planet dies and everything on it dies with it. You’re right, I haven’t established how that’s bad… lol
This is why it is so hard having a discussion with people like you. It’s just further proof that common sense isn’t as common as it should be.
Mark, I think we have a misunderstanding here. What I was doing – and I think what Craig was doing as well – was taking the materialist worldview to its (il)logical conclusions. I don’t really think it would be ok for life on earth to end, but in a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview I don’t see how one could claim it would be bad.
In that worldview, life came from non-life after the universe was created without a cause. So when that first cell (or whatever) somehow started living, would it have been morally bad for it not to survive? If so, I’d like to understand why. If not, then I don’t see how the alleged evolution to what we see today would have added morality somewhere along the way.
The fancy name for this type of logical argument is reductio ad absurdum – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Back to the topic: I think we all agree that it would be bad for life to end. The question is how someone with a materialist worldview can justify their view.
LOL! Materialists justify their worldview with “Because I said so!”
All,
I’m not sure if sarcasm doesn’t translate well in blog responses, or if athiests just don’t have a sense of humor. Either way, I think Neil covered the response perfectly.
Dan,
Amen
There you go again, Neil. Your “logical” conclusions are just nonsense. Just because you can’t wrap your head around the subject doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or is wrong (sounds like an argument that you put forth on many occasions). Please don’t even think of reversing this argument and trying to use it on me. I completely understand why you think morality exists and where it came from – I just don’t believe it.
Besides, in this case, why would morality even come into play? The earth dies, we all die, that is bad.
After think on it further, I don’t understand why you would think it is bad. In your worldview, God would have willed the destruction of the earth, so how could that possibly be a bad thing?
Neil said: If you think I drew the wrong conclusions, then feel free to point out where you think I’m wrong.
I inferred you meant “bad” in some moral sense. Of course most people would rather not be annihilated. The question is why that would be bad in any universal, transcendent sense? Again, I think we intuitively know it is, but why?
Craig, unless it is very blatant, sarcasm doesn’t come across all the time. I have not read many of your responses in the past, so please pardon me if I didn’t “get” your sarcasm.
And no, I am not being sarcastic.
DiscovertheTruth, if your names really implies that you are trying to consider this. Find this evidence yourself so you’ll know it’s accurate and correct. As Neil says there are about 5,600 bible manuscript copies in existence, the oldest written within 50 years of the resurrection and many within 500 years.
Caesar’s Gallic Wars – 10 copies [oldest 1000 A.D.]
Pliny’s Natural History – 7 copies[oldest 800 A.D.]
Thucydides History – 8 copies[oldest 900 A.D.]
Herodotus History – 8 copies [oldest 800 A.D.]
Plato – 7 copies [oldest 1000 A.D.]
based solely on the weight of the documentary evidence it’s more doubtful whether the Gallic war was fought than the resurrection of Jesus occured.
Mark, if it is “bad” for life on Earth to end, someone has to decide that one outcome is “good” and one is “bad”. If there is no God to decide this, who does decide? You? Just wondering.
Craig-
I must admit I was intrigued by your excerpts from the conversation between Dawkins and Krauss, so I did a little digging.
You quoted-
“Dawkins, whose latest book, The God Delusion, is only one of a slew of recent books attacking religious beliefs, prefers an “in your face” approach. He once wrote that “if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane.” He then added “or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that.”In his discussion with Krauss, Dawkins stood by his statement, calling it “a simple and sober statement of fact”.
The next paragraph, however, puts his comments in a different light.
” But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact.
Ignorance is no crime. To call somebody ignorant is no insult. All of us are ignorant of most of what there is to know”.
Suddenly it doesn’t seem quite as insulting, does it? Calling someone ignorant is not necessarily an insult, it has to be chosen to be taken that way.
Your quote and comment on Krauss-
““I do not think we will rid humanity of religious faith any more than we will rid humanity of romantic love or many of the irrational but fundamental aspects of human cognition. While orthogonal from the scientific rational components, they are no less real and perhaps no less worthy of some celebration when we consider our humanity.” I think that last quote of Krauss says it all. Athiests would like to “rid humanity of religious faith” My, how open minded of him.
Funny thing is, that isn’t what the quote says at all. Krauss says he does not think humanity can be rid of faith, but he does NOT advocate trying.
The preceding sentence to your quote-
“After agreeing to lecture, I discovered that I had been assigned the title Science Enriching Faith. In spite of my initial qualms, the more I thought about the title, the more rationale I could see for it”.
And a later sentence-
“But if religious faith is a central part of the life experience of many people, the question, it seems to me, is not how we can rid the world of God but to what extent can science at least moderate this belief and cut out the most irrational and harmful aspects of religious fundamentalism. That is certainly one way science might enrich faith”.
I think these quotes put yours in a different light. I will admit, there are some atheists who want to rid the world of faith. But you surely cannot deny that there are believers who want to rid the world of atheists!
In any case, I do not believe that Dawkins and Krauss have advocated what you claim they have (nor, for the record, am I that type). Perhaps they are more open-minded than you think.
If it’s one’s perception that religious viewpoints can be compared to scientific facts, there are doubts whether one can even be an objective participant in such a discussion.
Hi avid mass,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. Can you expand on your point or provide an example? If you mean that we can’t use the scientific method to address all religious claims then I agree (I’ve made that point in other posts).
But, for example, the universal laws of logic can be applied to religious and natural issues.
Neil said: Christianity and non-Biblical records recorded within a few decades of the event say it was Jesus. There are many examples like that. Go with what you see as the best evidence.
Except there are no non-biblical records of “Jesus Christ”. There are some which reference a guy name Jesus, but no mention of him being a messiah, performing miracles etc.
Neil said: Are you deliberately missing my points? I was making a distinction between Islam and Christianity. Also, while the secular sources don’t attribute deity to Jesus (they wouldn’t be secular then, would they?) some do acknowledge that his followers considered him to be such.
Neil said: I can’t tell where you get the idea that the Bible was only written for its time. It makes countless universal and timeless claims.
I’d expect EVERY claim to be timeless and universal, if written by “the all powerful creator of the universe”. For example, why are slavery and geneocide fine in the OT, women treated as less than men in the NT, if the message is timeless? Shouldn’t we be following these tenants still?
Neil said: Deliberately or not, you are making the common mistake of ethnocentricity – I have a post coming up on that in a week or so. You also have a misunderstanding of women in the NT. Just because God had different roles for women in the church (not to be pastors and elders) doesn’t mean they had less value. Do these sound anti-women, especially in light of that culture?
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Here’s a bit on slavery if you are really interested – slavery in the Bible
Neil said: Just as Einstein appears to have let his get in the way – to his great regret – so too many scientists may be letting their Darwinian worldview, deep desire to ignore God or financial/career concerns get in the way of theirs.
Objectivity is a difficult thing to manage. The scientific method is the best way known to come by objective knowledge. That scientists are often subjective is natural. That is why results are peer reviewed, theory tested and retested etc. It’s how those biases are found and removed.
Neil said: I’m glad we agree! Let’s file this away the next time someone falsely claims that only religion causes bias in science. Anti-religious bias, fear of losing funding / reputation / jobs, desire for fame (see the fossil frauds), etc. can all cause prolonged bias.
Neil said: Neil said: Now who is dodging? Since when did instincts become right or wrong?
In so far as they allow your species/genetic heritage to continue they’re “good”. Right and wrong is a classification we apply to that, using our evolved “moral” sense.
Neil said: Oh, come on! If you aren’t going to be logical then conversation won’t be productive. You try to sneak morality in the back door again – twice!
You continue to appeal to a “universal morality” but have provided no substantial evidence of such, except “god gave it to us”. It’s the same as me saying “we evolved it” except my response is testable and has some evidence on its side.
Neil said: Yes, I’ve provided evidence but you seem incapable of understanding it, or as I’m starting to suspect, are deliberately misunderstanding it.
Neil said: I inferred you meant “bad” in some moral sense. Of course most people would rather not be annihilated. The question is why that would be bad in any universal, transcendent sense? Again, I think we intuitively know it is, but why?
It wouldn’t be bad in any universal transcendent sense, as you have no evidence for the universal and transcendent. It would be “bad” for us as individuals because we’d die, and as a species we’d go extinct. That’s enough “bad” for me, with no need to invoke some “universal morality”
Neil said: Thanks for conceding that you just made the whole thing up then. In a nothing-to-molecules-to-man worldview, there is no justification to say that it would be bad to go back to nothingness.
Neil-
just to quickly say: while the universal laws of logic are a good tool, they are not the be all and end all, either. For instance, logical thinking has a tough time when it is applied to things like chaos theory, wave dynamics, or pretty much anything that has the word “quantum” in it. It’s a fact that the human mind has great difficulty with understanding certain concepts, simply due to the way it is wired.
Neil said: Hi Jonathan – interesting that you used logic to explain why logic isn’t that important
. I don’t think I ever claimed they were the be all and end all, just that they are universal and transcendent. My main point here was that the “I only consider empirical evidence” is a deliberate limitation of the rules to justify the materialist position.
“I think these quotes put yours in a different light. I will admit, there are some atheists who want to rid the world of faith. But you surely cannot deny that there are believers who want to rid the world of atheists!
In any case, I do not believe that Dawkins and Krauss have advocated what you claim they have (nor, for the record, am I that type). Perhaps they are more open-minded than you think.”
Yeah, Dawkins is quite open minded. I’m sure this quote from him about God was taken out of context as well:
“Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Yes, we want to rid the world of atheists, but not by killing them. We want to do it by telling them about the truth of Jesus and how He suffered, died and rose again to take the eternal punishment for their sins – if only they’ll put their faith in him.
Hear the Good News!
Technically, it was about the Old Testament God. Have you read the God Delusion? Apologies if you’ve stated it elsewhere, I haven’t had time to look at more than a fraction of your blog.
Neil said: Hi Jonathon – no, I haven’t read the whole thing – just excerpts plus a dialogue on CARM radio (http://www.carm.org/) between an apologist and a guy named “Bob the Atheist” that covered much of it.
I need to do a whole piece on the OT vs. NT myth. It is the same God. For those who have studied the OT God they’ll see that He is extremely patient and quick to forgive. And Jesus talks more about Hell than the whole OT did.
Hey Neil
You said in your last response to me, “The question is why that would be bad in any universal, transcendent sense? Again, I think we intuitively know it is, but why?”
I guess we disagree. It would be bad because I and my loved ones and the rest of humanity would cease to exist – and – I don’t want to cease to exist, not yet anyway. In a “universal, transcendent” sense, it would not be good or bad. It would just be. It would be like removing a blade of grass from your lawn. Sure, you lost something, but it’s not noticeable at all. Besides, you have many new blades of grass to take it’s place.
Hello Neil, all,
Re: an absolute basis for good and bad: perhaps I don’t understand what folks mean by this absolute basis, but at first glance it strikes me as an arbitrary invention and an impossible-to-fulfill requirement.
Actions have consequences. Any consequence is good or bad FOR someone or something, IN TERMS OF something or other. (In terms of happiness and suffering, chiefly). Where else do values lie except in relation to one another and to a particular situation? Where outside of actions and their consequences FOR someone or something? Can you show me such a place, this absolute basis? As has been said, what evidence is there for it? Nor does the lack of this invented category, “absolute basis,” leave us all at sea–rather it allows for a keener sensitivity to all the parties involved in any situation.
Do I misunderstand what’s meant by absolute right and wrong?
To proceed into territory I may regret: some mystics (Asian, particularly) will tell us that in nonconceptual, meditative intimacy with life, all phenomena are experienced as too immediate–each sight, sound, thought seemingly at the ground zero of creation–for any division into self and other. All seems inconceivably perfect in each moment, such that categories like good and bad appear arbitrary. Yet, this nondual (no subject and object) awareness evokes an infinitely appropriate, compassionate, choiceless response to each moment, as if FOR NO REASON. Or, an intense sense of sympathy, compassion, even injustice, is itself an expression of primordial perfection.
I think this may be one of many places where a narrowly linear rationality gives us less than the whole picture. Is it a dangerous, amoral teaching to say that all is perfect? Indeed it probably is if one takes it as a logical proposition, rather than a poor description of an experience beyond verbal categories. This doesn’t change the fact that it’s a true approximation of things, however paradoxical.
Sorry about all those graceless capital letters. I’m new to this, don’t know how to italicize.
Hi SeasofBrightJuice (now there’s an interesting handle! – thanks for stopping by and commenting. Re. absolute good and bad: If someone steals your stereo I’m pretty sure you won’t be happy about it. I don’t know of any societies that consider it a moral good to torture babies for fun (not for religious reasons or sacrifices, but just for fun). I don’t know of any societies that honor traitors and cowards.
Neil “Neil said: I’m glad we agree! Let’s file this away the next time someone falsely claims that only religion causes bias in science. Anti-religious bias, fear of losing funding / reputation / jobs, desire for fame (see the fossil frauds), etc. can all cause prolonged bias.”
Except that if anyone is found to be a fraud, their funding dries up. What fake fossils are you talking about?
I seem to remember secular scientists actually publishing a retraction of Archaeoraptor in a top scientific journal – it seems you are somewhat misinformed
Neil said: Actually, I’m not. Piltdown man, for one.
Neil said: Just as Einstein appears to have let his get in the way – to his great regret – so too many scientists may be letting their Darwinian worldview, deep desire to ignore God or financial/career concerns get in the way of theirs.
The way science works, we only include things there is testable evidence for in theories. Perhaps you could provide some reasons and evidence to include your specific god into a theory – do so and you will get a nobel prize.
Neil said: You are missing my point. I was just showing how bias can be a two way street. That’s it. So for people to imply that religious people are automatically anti-science is simply wrong.
Theists seem to need to think that people actively want to exclude god from things. This is loaded with unjustifiable presuppositions and seems to allow theists to ignore genuine challenges – a bit like your sarcastic straw man responses – I see lots of sarcasm, but very little evidence (although I have not read all you blog).
Given the consequences of not believing in your god (if he were real) do you really think that people would want to ignore him? Do you really think that is an intelligent statement to make?
Neil said: Yes, I think people would want to ignore him. Lots of people are familiar with v. 16 below, but not as much with v. 19:
John 3:16-19 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
I wonder how many people actually believe solely because they fear hell? I certainly know a couple. Taking Pascal’s wager isn’t a particularly biblical thing to do if you hold a theology that states that only those who love your god are saved. I certainly is not a rational thing to do either
Neil said: Perhaps so. I have never advanced Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe.
Remember, you guys are the one making the claim. We dont have to disprove him, its your job to back up your claim if you think there is any evidence for it.
Neil said: Stick around if you really want the claims, or read some old posts. Or check out http://www.tektonics.org/ or http://www.str.org/site/PageServer or http://www.carm.org/ or http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp . I’m glad to back up my claims. You’ll note that I didn’t come knocking on your door. If people want an authentic dialogue, that’s great, but I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. If people don’t want to hear about Jesus and how He provided the payment for their countless sins against a perfect and Holy God, then I won’t pester them.
Neil said: Actually, I’m not. Piltdown man, for one.
I believe that was scientists that uncovered that one, and it was a malicious fabrication by a disgruntled employee with the intent to discredit.
What about the real fossils – Archaeopteryx, acanthostega, tiktaalik, ambylocetus, Sinosauropteryx etc?
Neil said: Uh, what about them? I made an assertion about people having motives to lie and backed it up. We seem to agree on that. If you want to know more, do some research on fossil frauds.
Neil said: You are missing my point. I was just showing how bias can be a two way street. That’s it. So for people to imply that religious people are automatically anti-science is simply wrong.
Glad we agree, one of the leading anti ID campaigners (Ken Miller) is a christian.
What is your view of Ken Ham? I attended a sermon by him recently, and had to say I was disgusted by his anti science stand
Neil said: I think I heard Ham on a radio show once, but am not familiar enough to make an assessment. I’ve heard Miller’s name but couldn’t tell you anything about him.
Neil said: Yes, I think people would want to ignore him. Lots of people are familiar with v. 16 below, but not as much with v. 19:
That’s actually circular reasoning; using the bible to validate your claim to verify the bible. Now, If you believe that the bible is the definitive word on the subject and needs know verification, well I can’t accept that as a rational position. I also know you are wrong, and I also know Lee and Jonathan would believe if they had real evidence – we are interested in the truth. With out intending to be rude, but do you entertain the possibility that you could be wrong here?
Neil said: Billy, if you re-read the comment I think you’ll see that I did not use circular reasoning. I wasn’t using the Bible to verify the Bible. I consider the Bible to be the word of God, and I’ll quote it whenever I want to.
In this case, you asked, “Given the consequences of not believing in your god (if he were real) do you really think that people would want to ignore him?” I gave you an answer. Just because I quoted the Bible doesn’t invalidate it. If you don’t believe it, that is your business.
If you want a secular answer, consider how many people break the law knowing that there could be consequences. I meet lots of them when I do prison ministry. People are sinful by nature. Plenty of empirical evidence for that, by the way!
Neil said: Perhaps so. I have never advanced Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe.
I wasn’t intended as such a statement, and I included it for those who may think it is a reason
Thanks for the links, I have visited a few of them already. I am well aware of the “evidence” Ontological, moral, teleological, scriptural, personal experience etc, and find they do not hold up to scrutiny, I will try and stick around, but tend to get too sucked in and spend too much time on such things.
Makes a change from christians knocking on your door though
All the best
Billy
Neil said: Ha! Thanks, Billy. Yes, these things can be a bit time consuming. All the sites are good, but I think my favorite is http://www.str.org (Stand to Reason). They have a terrific Podcast as well.
Good luck in your search.
Jonathan,
I don’t have much problem with ignorant, I do have a problem with stupid, insane and wicked. Those are a little harder to rationalize. As far as Christians wanting the world of athiests. That may be, but not by force.
Craig
Neil said: Hi SeasofBrightJuice (now there’s an interesting handle! – thanks for stopping by and commenting. Re. absolute good and bad: If someone steals your stereo I’m pretty sure you won’t be happy about it. I don’t know of any societies that consider it a moral good to torture babies for fun (not for religious reasons or sacrifices, but just for fun). I don’t know of any societies that honor traitors and cowards.
Thanks, that clarifies. I agree there are objective rights and wrongs in the sense of transcultural rules of thumb, but stereo theft, baby torture entertainment, and treachery still are bad FOR somebody and IN TERMS OF their suffering or inconvenience–I see no absolute beyond those relative considerations.
Cowardice is an interesting case, since we often admire even foolhardy courage, even courage that only honors a principle without saving anyone from actual harm. We joyfully applaud self-sacrifice. So does much of the animal kingdom. (On the other hand, look at my cat’s guiltless cruelty! Interesting). Is altruism evolved? Well even so is human males’ taste in females (or vice versa or any other permutations) an evolved and arbitrary taste, but that doesn’t make our love poems any less sublime, to human tastes. And hmm, doesn’t tenderness increase with the complexity of an animal’s brain…? –Also the capacity to extend it beyond one’s own species, family etc.? (I’m no biologist, I don’t know). Even if we can’t say altruism has a platonic gold standard, maybe we can at least say that it seems to correlate observably with sophistication? (Or could the human species just as well, in correcting for non-gene-serving forms of altruism, evolve toward greater selfishness? I sure wouldn’t like that conclusion. My guess is it’s a rather less likely direction, anyway).
So, absolute right and wrong? The Asian spiritual perspective is so suggestive to me because therein, it’s precisely an EQUABLE awareness of the beautiful and ugly (morally or aesthetically) that evokes compassion–with the simultaneous sensation that nothing is less than perfect. I consider meditative presence the most fundamental (human) experience of the world–what the world/being is in itself without concept or contrivance, i.e. conditioning. That it can be described in terms of perfection, everything-in-its-place, and yet is simultaneously the state most likely to produce tender action, suggests to me that “right” and “wrong” are kind of like downstream musical principles derived from a more fundamental wholeness and harmony. A wholeness and harmony which needn’t be called supernatural, or natural for that matter since it’s just all there is, everything manifesting this one presence. Without any separate creator; where could a separate creator be found in this all-inclusive presence, just now? Just now, which is all there is? –And with that misty effort, I guess, I sail bravely up shoot’s creek in the eyes of both my Christian and Atheist readers. Actually I don’t mind if y’all call me sharply on my poetic imprecision. I’d love help in being more rigorous. Just too sleepy at the mo.
I second the appreciation for your efforts as a host, Neil.
SeasofBrightJuice is a naughtily lyrical bit from Whitman. He’s describing a sunrise: “Something I cannot see puts upward libidinous prongs, / Seas of bright juice suffuse heaven.”
<Why do religious people not understand the scientific and philosophical arguments against the existence of god which clearly refute its existence?
No intelligent atheist would make this statement. Science does not and can not refute God’s existence. And as a matter of record, some of the world’s most brilliant Scientists were and are Christians.
1. Hi Neil
Neil said: Uh, what about them? I made an assertion about people having motives to lie and backed it up. We seem to agree on that. If you want to know more, do some research on fossil frauds.
Yes, but that was someone fooled by a malicious attack, it is different to scientific fraud or placing an agenda on your data
Neil said: Going in circles here . . . I’ll just repeat: I made an assertion about people having motives to lie and backed it up. Please don’t change the question and then wonder why I didn’t answer it.
Neil said: I think I heard Ham on a radio show once, but am not familiar enough to make an assessment. I’ve heard Miller’s name but couldn’t tell you anything about him.
Ham is CEO at the creation museum and responsible for Answers In Genesis. There is a good talk by Miller here if you have the time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
In this case, you asked, “Given the consequences of not believing in your god (if he were real) do you really think that people would want to ignore him?” I gave you an answer. Just because I quoted the Bible doesn’t invalidate it. If you don’t believe it, that is your business.
Well, if you’re only source on the matter is the bible, you don’t have a rational argument. I still fail to see how it is not circular reasoning to cite the bible to verify tour claim that non believers want to reject your god.
Neil said: Since I gave you a secular argument as well and you even posted it and replied to it below, why would you bother saying that? (That’s rhetorical.)
Even if I didn’t have a secular argument, I still have a rational argument: I have strong reasons to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and I think it clearly says ____ (whatever the original point was). Just because you don’t trust the Bible doesn’t make my reasoning circular.
I also know you are wrong.
Neil said: Now there’s a rational argument!
Are you really saying that you know what I think bettere than I do? Are you claiming that the bible knows better than I do about my position? Such comments do turn many atheists away from such debates. So, let’s be clear here, are you saying that I do not want to believe in god?
Neil said: You tell me if you want to believe in God (and please capitalize God when you are talking about the God of the Bible).
I didn’t say whether you wanted to believe or not. My point was that people often make choices that have negative consequences.
If you want a secular answer, consider how many people break the law knowing that there could be consequences. I meet lots of them when I do prison ministry. People are sinful by nature. Plenty of empirical evidence for that, by the way!
I actually know of at least one set of US government figures that show atheists are disproportionately less well represented in prisons http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Neil said: Uh, interesting trivia, perhaps, but not sure how that is relevant. I am highly skeptical of religious surveys, by the way. Not that they can’t have any usefulness, but when a significant percentage of “Christians” say they believe in reincarnation, for example, it tells me that there are probably a lot of people checking the “Christian” box who really aren’t.
I find this response puzzling from a christian perspective (but finding two christians to agree on things can often be difficult) Surely you believe everyone is a sinner – Christians included. Is it any surprise that people break the law? Given the way some christians misrepresent Darwinism, this is entierly consistent with look after no1. However, we have evolved as social creatures, and that is why we rarely go on killing sprees – evolution can favour “good” behaviour.
Neil said: Yes, I believe we are all sinners. I haven’t met anyone yet who isn’t, and I am reminded daily that I am one.
Re. the lack of killing sprees – I think it would be a little hasty for evolution to take credit for that. It also might be prisons, the death penalty, etc. As always, evolution can’t provide a moral foundation for not going on killing sprees. Note once again that I’m not saying that atheists are all relatively immoral compared to theists. I’m just saying the materialistic framework can’t explain why without bringing some definition of “good” in the back door.
Neil said: Ha! Thanks, Billy. Yes, these things can be a bit time consuming. All the sites are good, but I think my favorite is http://www.str.org (Stand to Reason). They have a terrific Podcast as well.
Good luck in your search.
Going to try and not spend so much time here just now. I know I can stop…..:-)
MS Green, you appear misinformed, most elite scientists are atheists. That however is not an argument for or against the existence of god. Science deals with that which is testable, if you claim god is not testable, then the fact that these guys may be christians has nothing to do with their science (Michael Behe may be an exception, but his aruments are not scientific, as they make no testable predictions and areoften arguments from incredulity – wats Ken Miller (a christian) rip him apart in the video
I’ll just repeat: I made an assertion about people having motives to lie and backed it up. Please don’t change the question and then wonder why I didn’t answer it.
No you didn’t, he was fooled, he did not have a motive to lie. </b
Neil said: Billy, your time here is almost over if you don’t stop this. For the third time, “I made an assertion about people having motives to lie and backed it up.”
For you to say I didn’t do that is a lie. Also, your facts in defense of your lie are wrong. Even Wikipedia, which isn’t known to be too ID friendly, points that out – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
This is the last word on this one.
Neil
Neil said: Since I gave you a secular argument as well and you even posted it and replied to it below, why would you bother saying that?
No you didn’t, you said there are people in prisons – how is that an argument that people want to run away from god – it starts with the unjustifiable assumption that to be in prison is a rebellion against god. If that’s what you mean, then again, it is circular reasoning. I also pointed out that there were disproportionately more christians in prison – they believe in god, so how are they activly not believing in god?
Neil said: Billy, once again you are being deliberately difficult. Here is exactly what I said: “If you want a secular answer, consider how many people break the law knowing that there could be consequences.” Then I mentioned prisons as an aside. The point was that people will rebel against authority figures.
Just because you don’t trust the Bible doesn’t make my reasoning circular.
no, but to say that it is the word of god then use it to verify itself (actually, you do it again here: “I have strong reasons to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and I think it clearly says ____ (whatever the original point was”)). I would be interested to here these reasons sometime. this essay provides a good reason why it is not the word of god: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
it is full of bad history
Neil said: Now there’s a rational argument!
Now there is an ad hominem. So you think it is irrational for me to not know whether I would believe in God or not given sufficient evidence – how very rational of you indeed!
Neil said: Uh, interesting trivia, perhaps, but not sure how that is relevant. I am highly skeptical of religious surveys, by the way. Not that they can’t have any usefulness, but when a significant percentage of “Christians” say they believe in reincarnation, for example, it tells me that there are probably a lot of people checking the “Christian” box who really aren’t.
Would you have a different view if it supported your case? The problem is that you are now deciding who is and is not a christian – reminds me of the westminister confession of faith that says that the pope is the antichrist. There are lots of views of what constitutes true christianity – which is not good for something that claims ultimate truth (or should that be an oxymoronic ultimate thruths). Where your point is flawed though is that you claim that this is evidence that people dont want to know god. Regardless of your view on what constitutes chistianity, these people still believe in god – which is strange if you claim they don’t want to know him.
Neil said: I explained why I wasn’t interested in your study. As another example, I met another guy last night who could have claimed to be a Catholic or a Protestant. He was baptized as a baby as a Catholic and later as a Protestant. Yet he has no interest in God, knows nothing of him, etc. Yet he’d probably check the “Christian” box on a form.
Also, see above as to why this is not an argument
just saying the materialistic framework can’t explain why without bringing some definition of “good” in the back door.
Yes, but god and bad are relative – do you still think it is good to stone homosexuals? Do you thing human sacrifice is good? Is polygamy good? Many cultures have found these things to be good. There also seems to be more than a touch of the argument from incredulity about your response here. Even monkeys have a sense of justice: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1676,Monkeys-show-sense-of-justice,Dr-David-Whitehouse-BBC
Imaginge this scenario for the evolution of being concerned for the welfare for others :
Vervet monkeys have words for Eagle, Leopard and Snake, which they call out to the troop when such a threat appears. Imagine they didn’t co-operate in this way. Each would be responsible for its own safety. It cant look in all directions at once, so it is not able to scan the sky, trees and ground simultaneously, so it is more vulnerable to predation. If however, there are many sets of eyes looking in many different directions, and these send out a warning, everyone’s survival chances are improved – would you not agree? So, your survival is actually dependant on the survival of and co-operation with those around you. Imagine you are in the trenches of Paschendale, some one tosses in a grenade. You either run and keep quiet, or you shout a warning and run. Which benefits you most? It’s the same principle.
I think it is naive to say that evolution cant account for something without evidence to back it up. If you have time, I recommend this as a primer to the evolutionary formation of moral codes http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/evolpsych.html
The question is why do we need god for moral values to exist at all?
My moral values will not be exactly the same as yours. What do you think of homosexuality for example?
Neil said: No one is disputing that different people have different morals. In fact, that is part of the problem! I just pointed out that a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview always has to sneak some “good” in the back door to justify morality. But keep you guys talking long enough and you always equivocate on the word “morality,” anyway, so the conversations go nowhere.
If you want to know some of my views on homosexuality, click on the “Sexuality” category to the left. I’ve written a couple things.
Final warning: You need to be much more careful with what you right and stop endlessly dragging out points that you have misstated. I’ve been more than patient with you on the whole Lazarus/Paul/Piltdown man/etc. things but enough is enough. You have had your facts wrong left and right, and instead of conceding that or just dropping it you drag it out to another round.
And please stop using bold in your comments. It makes it confusing to read once I reply.
Neil said: I just pointed out that a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview always has to sneak some “good” in the back door to justify morality
You’ve mentioned this a few times, and I’m a little unsure as to exactly what you mean by it. Do you mean explaining “morality” without reference to a “universal morality”, via an evolutionary framework for example?
Why is that sneaking if it accounts for observed behaviour?
Neil said: First, I should have used “brought” instead of “sneak” because I don’t think most people are aware when they do it.
An example: “Such and such is moral because it helps perpetuate the species.” Ignoring the tautology for a moment, notice how this assumes that it is good to perpetuate the species. But why is that “good?” In the materialistic worldview countless species went extinct before man even came along. Why was that morally bad?
Of course we all think it would be bad for humans to go extinct, but the materialistic worldview can’t explain why without importing the concept of morality. The Biblical worldview makes much more sense, in that God wrote these laws on our hearts (Romans 2-3).
Neil, if you assumed evolution occured for a moment, what part of the evolutionary explanation for this “moral” behaviour do you have issues with?
What part of selection for social coherence etc, since it would aid our survival chances (and therefore the chance that our genes will be passed on again and again) do you disagree with?
Neil said: Hi Havok – the same part I’ve mentioned on multiple comments and threads. Whenever I comment on it I am, for the moment, assuming evolution is true and pointing out that if it is true then there is no foundation for moral behavior (in the classic sense of the word). It is just some made up concept that is really just self-interest masquerading as morality.
The whole “survival of the fittest” thing, which is easily observed, would be “moral” in that view. If helping my neighbor aids my survival chances, that is “moral.” If killing him and taking his wife and/or his stuff aids my survival chances, that is “moral” as well.
As I always point out, in your worldview there is nothing morally “good” about genes being passed on. That is the most common “moral good” that gets brought in the back door. But a nothingness-to-molecules-to-man view can’t explain why that is truly “good.”
Again, for the benefit of new readers, I’m not saying atheists are immoral (any more than the rest of us, on average), but that their worldview provides no foundation for true morality. None.
Moral laws require a moral lawgiver.
Neil, your statement would be better phrased “Absolute moral laws require a moral lawgiver”, and even then, I’m not sure of the need for hanging some “transcendent” thing on an entity, as you do for Logic.
Neil said: Perhaps that would help clarify things, but I don’t see the necessity. If your neighbor accuses you of breaking law that he made up, you wouldn’t take him seriously. If there is a real law, it had to have a real lawgiver.
The the evolutionary argument for “morality” does not argue for absolute morals, simply a basis for simple moral “code” instilled in us through evolutionary action.
Neil said: That might be, but it would only work because it doesn’t use “morality” in the conventional sense. It becomes a big equivocation. They need to make up a new word.
The complex and nuanced morality we appear to have being based upon that simple basis.
Unless of course I’m completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding the evolutionary argument, which I admit could be the case
Morality: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
No mention of them being absolute in the definition, so I think I’m justified in using the term. Those ideals have been different at different time and in different cultures.
You seem to think that morality is a “choice”, like I could wake up tomorrow and decide that rape is good. I see it as an unconscious thing, the result of genetics (basic morality/golden rule) and the environment I was raised (and still live) in.
Had I been born in Europe in the middle ages, I’d probably see “cat burning” as great entertainment. Today I’d see it as a ghastly practice. Different society, different morality.
I see morality as something of a zeitgeist, as apposed to some universal law.
It is interesting to see how so many moderns and postmoderns converge at the point of moral relativism.
Neil, it is interesting how many theists converge at the point of transcendent universal morality.
Your point being?
If the evidence points towards moral behaviour and morality being a physical, as it is seems to, then it doesn’t matter how well you can argue for the existence of transcendent morality, it becomes unnecessary as an explanation.
What evidence shows that moral behavior has a physical cause. Can you tell me what gene is the morality gene? Can you describe the experiment used to detect this gene? Earlier you described morality as conditioned by yourenviroment, now you describe it as physical. Which is it? Is the evidence empirical? Just the quick questions raised by your post.
Craig, the evidence that changes to the brain change moral behaviour suggests that it is physical. No, we don’t have it completely understood as yet. Possibly we never will.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm
http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/60/3/437
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Where is the evidence that morals are transcendant? Where is the evidence that transcendant morals come from a lawgiver? Where is the evidence that the moral’s you claim to follow (the bible) are actually accordance with these transcendant moral laws?
“Neil, it is interesting how many theists converge at the point of transcendent universal morality.
Your point being?”
I just find it ironic that moderns and postmoderns would both converge on the designer morality bit (not Intelligent Designer morality, but “design your own” morality).
Havok,
Let me get this straight. There is no actual evidence (empirical or otherwise) that does more than “suggest” that “changes to the brain change moral behavior suggests that it is physical”. Nor is there anything more than a hope that we will ever understand it. Yet you feel confident in asserting as a fact that moral behavior is caused by brain changes. You appearantly have faith (in something or someone) that science will catch up to your assertions. Why? What is the object of your faith? Science? Scientists? What is the track recorsd of the object of your faith in explaining phenomena like this? Are you sure that moral behavior doesn’t cause brain changes? Are you sure that moral behavior is really moral?
I have a feeling, if I made an arguement like that I’d be subject to some good old atheist derision and ridicule.
Craig, why would I assume a non physical “thing” causing moral actions, when there has been, to date, no evidence of anything “non-physical”. Evolutionary phsychology IS finding evidence to support the theory that morality is an evolved trait. That is isn’t as settled as, say theories of gravity or evolution does not mean that it is automatically a non-physical cause.
You might find this interesting reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=5&ref=science
Havok, it might be helpful to have a list of terms you define as “morality” with the A, B and C definitions. I don’t think you do it deliberately but there is a lot of confusion on what type you mean in different comments.
Moral relativism basically means there is no universal morality, or even anything resembling it. It is all individual or cultural.
But the alleged evolutionary morality doesn’t fit with that at all. U.S.-style slavery, for example, was either moral or immoral – its status didn’t change with a war or a Constitutional amendment. If popular votes can determine “morality” then that is a different thing altogether.
Havok,
Are you saying that morality is a physical thing. Obviously we have different definitions of morality.
Havok,
I could only access the first 2 links you suggested, so I can only respond to them.
1. The story had very few details about the nature of the study or methodology so it is hard to take it too seriously without knowing more. Beyond that, given the fact that it appearantly was only one study the best you could say is it is suggestive. If they were to repeat the study with a control and got the same outcome it might be interesting. Also, they set the bar incredibly low as far as what they considered altruism. As a parent who has had young children, let me say that they are naturally inclined to pick things up for any number of reasons. How does this begin to explain altruism that actually has a cost (either physical, monetary, or social)?
2. You are basing your contention that our brains are “wired” for moral behavior on a case where one person with a brain tumor behaved in certain way. The first flaw in that would seem to be that, by definition, someone with a brain tumor has a brain that would not function “normally”. Obviously, someone whose brain structure has been altered could be expected to exhibit behavior changes. This doesn’t explain how someone whose brain is unaltered is driven to act in a certain way by physiology.
I’m still waiting for you to explain how you determine what constitutes “moral behavior”. Can one exhibit “moral behavior” without being motivated by morality. If the behavior is simply physical, by what definition is it moral? How have you determined that cat burning (I was unaware of a great outbreak of cat burning, but if it’s a problem where you live… I am aware that there is a fair amount of cat cooking, some of which might be burned, in some cultures) is not a moral behavior. As someome who would personally benifit from more cat burning, by your standards it could be mora for me.
Finally, can we be done focusing on minutia. I’ve spent a long time demonstrating that it is reasonalbe to presume that there is an Atheist worldview. You might not subscribe to it, but it’s a silly argument to be spending this much time on. Lets move on, and hopefully you can answer some of my questions.
The 3rd link is an essay by Stephen pinker which discusses studies showing we are wired for “moral” behaviour, and what that means. It is quite interesting and worth the read.
The first link is a general science piece, and is therefore light on detail.
The case in the second link shows that physical differences in the brain can cause drastic behavioural changes.
If our morality were God given and not rooted in the brain, how would that happen? I’m not speaking about someone acting against their previous morality, but their morality actually changing.
I determine what is “moral” by how it correlates with my evolved/environmentally conditioned moral sense. How do you determine morality?
Do you subscribe to you God being perfectly moral, and all moral values flowing from there? Where is your evidence of this?
If so, would you kill your child if He commanded it? Under the “God is perfectly moral” view, it would be the moral thing to do.
You can say that God “wrote the laws on our hearts”, but the evidence shows it is an evolutionary trait. God may have “guided” evolution to get that result, but if the process of His “guiding” is indistinguishable from natural causes, God becomes superfluous.
It’s not that I don’t subscribe to the “Atheist” worldview you’ve tried to make a case for, it’s that the case you’ve made does not make it reasonable to assume that atheism is a world view. The “new atheists” or “dawkins acolytes” or whatever they’re being called these days would be described better as “rationalists” or something like that. In that instance atheism tends to be the result of requiring evidence before belief.
Re: morality again. They say God is both infinitely forgiving and infinitely just. But this justice is more, manifestly, than the justice of ending Apartheid or of equal pay for equal work. It’s also the justice of Hell—of proportionate punishment. (Proportionate! Funny math).
Is this kind of justice part of your transcendent morality? This would be an example of an irrational “in order to.” [On the Raiding Parties thread Bubba wrote that you can’t get “ought” from “is” (“is” being all that natural science can account for) and I replied that every ought implies an in-order-to. There’s no grammatical or logical possibility of an absolute, free-standing “ought.”] The only possible value of punishment is either to train someone to behave better or to serve as a deterrent to others. Eternal punishment lacks any such utility. The only other reason anyone seeks “justice” is revenge.
If this is deeply ethical, God screwed up when he wrote the laws on my heart.
People are inclined to say “ours is to forgive; only God can judge” because they’re more moral than God.
And the belief that there’s a complete rule book in the heavens seems a poor basis for democracy. I know Christians say humans can’t know it perfectly, but even the supposition that we can know it a little bit is politically poisonous. (And if we can’t know it even a little bit, what good is it exactly)? Shouldn’t at least some parts of God’s intended order lie beyond political tussle? Should a nation of sinners be allowed to democratically row themselves over a cliff, when an elite of clearer Christian heads could save them from damnation? Would it ideally be written into our constitution, for instance (not just in laws, which can change with the caprices of sinners), that gays must remain loveless from cradle to grave? What about stem cell research? Or, shouldn’t the lawmakers be devout Christians, since they’d err less in their interpretation of God’s laws?
If ethics lie in principles of social harmony (in the broadest sense—social harmony with all life), the emergent will of the people should make law and policy. If ethics lie with God, then power should go to whatever government can best divine his rules.
I guess I should have said something like “eternal punishment EXCEEDS any such utility.” Obviously it can have a deterrent effect, but you’d think half of eternity should be enough.
How come no-one ever says “eternity lies OUTSIDE of time” when they’re talking about Hell?
Aaand I should have capitalized “Constitution.” Obviously it isn’t written into our *constitution* that gays should be loveless from cradle to grave.
“Would it ideally be written into our constitution, for instance (not just in laws, which can change with the caprices of sinners), that gays must remain loveless from cradle to grave?”
Hi Seas – lots of things to rebut so I’ll just pick that one.
Your premise is faulty, because you are confusing sex and love. There are all sorts of loving relationships that are made worse if sex is added: parent / child, siblings, same-sex friends, teacher / student, adult / minor, etc.
The Bible doesn’t say gays should be loveless, just that they should not have sex with people of the same gender.
Good question re. governance, but God gives people different gifts. I think Mike Huckabee is a sincerely devout Christian but that doesn’t mean he would make the best leader.
“If this is deeply ethical, God screwed up when he wrote the laws on my heart.”
Using that logic, your materialist philosophy is equally screwed up.
Neil said: The Bible doesn’t say gays should be loveless, just that they should have sex with people of the same gender.
Hallelujah!
Oh, no fair, you changed it.
Neil said: Ha! Sorry about that, I caught my error right as you did!
Havok,
If we are “wired” for moral behavior, then who wired us?
My point exactly, since the first link is light on detail, the best you can do is to accept the conclusons based on something other than the “evidence’ presented. As I noted, you obviously have faith in these people, I’m not sure what they’ve done to deserve it.
Re #2. Again my point. If we are “wired” for moral behavior (which contradicts your assertion that morality is shaped by individual experiences, and environmental conditioning), then how can you demonstrate anything by using someone whose “wiring” has been re routed? Further, If as you say that morals are a product of evolution/environmental conditioning, then how can you judge his behavior moral or immoral. We have no way of knowing what his state of evolution was/is nor how he was conditioned by his environment. Ultimately, under your construct of morality, the only person who can make that determination is him. Since, according to your previous posts there is only moral behavior, (not morals) you are making a huge leap of logic to state that anything besides his behavior changed.
Your question about morality rooted in the brain is interesting. I would respond, of course, we are made in the image of God, therefore He rooted morality in our brains. Where else would it be rooted?
I would not argue that God is perfectly moral, I would agrue that He is perfect. I would further argue that morality is a reflection of His perfection. As far as evidence, you would dismiss anything that I would offer, as you have dismissed everything else in this blog. That is not a slam on you, just the way the conversation is going. I would offer this, I have had enough experiences in my life, that I can only attribute to a God who loves me, and has my best interetst at heart. I realize that may not be helpful, but I am not the same person that I was.
As far as “would I kill my child if God commanded it” the honest answer is, I believe that He would never allow me or anyone else to kill their child at His command. I assume that you are referring to the OT story. The point of that story is not that God expected the child to die. Obviously he didn’t, what He expected was trust. Trust that the God who had revealed himself was trustworthy, and would keep his promises. So, from my end that’s just another “pink unicorn” question, pointless.
As I said before, if you think the best way to move this discussion along is to argue that there is not an ATheist worldview, then whats the point. Just say that you don’t subscribe and lets move on. Obviously a lot of Atheists disagree with you, and you aren’t speaking for them.
Finally, I’m goint to suggest that you do some reading, I’m not sure you’ll have the time or want to put forth the effort (I know that my reading time is much more limited than I would like). But these are some really intellegent people who can do a much better job than I in explaining some of this stuff.
Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf
The God Who is There by Francis Scheaffer
He is there and He is Not Silent by Francis Scheaffer
Escape From Reason
Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey
How Shall We Then Live by Francis Scheaffer
What We Can’t Not Know J. Budziszewski
Case for Christ/Creation etc. By Lee Strobel
(I know Strobel gets a bad rap, but he does interview the right people)
The Twilight of Atheism by Alistair McGrath
A fairly long list, but worth your time.
Seas,
I don’t know how you are defining justice, but here is the way I would. God’s justice, is simply God returning creation to a right relationship with himself. There is also an element of deserved reward and punishment.
To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, There is no one in Hell who didn’t choose to be there.
I don’t know anybody who says eternity lies outside of time when referring to either heaven or hell
Who has ever said that gays should be lovless from cradle to grave?
I know this is not much, but it’s late, and I’m sure Bubba or Neil, can do a better job of expanding on this.
Craig said: If we are “wired” for moral behavior, then who wired us?
Evolution. Simple as that. No designer necessary.
Craig said: The point of that story is not that God expected the child to die. Obviously he didn’t, what He expected was trust.
There is no way I’d trust something which asked me to take my childs life, even if it claimed to be the all powerful creator of the universe. God may not have expected the child to die, but even the asking is incredibly immoral. Though I guess, being perfect, it was perfectly moral.
I dare say, at the time Abraham (if he actually existed) would have believed in the existence of other Gods – Yahweh was one of many Gods in the pantheon of the region of Caanan, including El the father, and Baal.
Craig, please read the Pinker article, even if you have to dummy up a registration. He makes the case much more eloquently than I can.
Havok, you seem to keep making Craig’s points whether you mean to or not. You attribute morality to evolution, then make universal statements about morality. But if it just “evolved” then by by definition each person is exactly where evolution would have them be. There would be no such thing as true accountability.
You are at least consistent with the postmodern view that “my truth isn’t necessarily your truth” but that thinking is incoherent and would be rather chaotic if taken to its logical conclusion.
Havok,
I’ll try to read the Pinker article, if I Have a chance. I’m still waiting for you to do more than cherry pick what you are going to respond to.
Re Abraham: How can you make such bold statements about what he believed. If you are correct then you have access to resources that are much more detailed and well documented than the textural evidence for the Bible. Can you share them?
I’m guessing that you would trust a doctor if he told you that your child should be aborted. Be that as it may, what puts you in a position to pass moral judgement o either God or Moses? By your standard, all of the above actions would be completely moral.
Havok, please read the reading list they make the point much more eloquently than I can.
Good evening Craig, Neil, all.
Neil said: Your premise is faulty, because you are confusing sex and love.
I think the word I was sleepily looking for was “lacklove,” which may be Allen Ginsberg’s coinage and has a specifically romantic connotation. I meant loveless as regards an intimate body-soul life partner. So, *should* it be written into the Constitution? What else should go in an ideal Constitution? Now’s as good a time as any to start thinking about it.
Omigod, I hadn’t even seen that beautiful line of Huckabee’s: “it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God.” This is what transcendent morality gets you. If it doesn’t get you this, your logic has broken down or you’ve lost the courage of your convictions. Transcendent, heavenly morality should lead you to at best a partial theocracy.
Neil said: Don’t assume I support Huckabee’s views on that. He’s been getting blasted by orthodox Christians all over.
Neil again: There are all sorts of loving relationships that are made worse if sex is added: parent / child, siblings, same-sex friends, teacher / student, adult / minor, etc.
Well, this makes the baselessness of anti-gay feelings so clear. Harm is obvious in those relationships. (It might be okay with your guitar teacher, or an 18-year-old with a 17-year-old). In contrast, there is no evidence on earth of more harm in gay relationships than straight. I’m embarrassed to have to make these elementary arguments, but it is elementary. I’m left with nothing to say. I wish we could find our ethics in terms of cooperation, in terms of the living beings affected, instead of celestially.
Neil said: Nothing left to say? OK with me
. Kinda judgmental of you to say there is harm in all those relationships. There is nothing in an atheistic worldview to support that. Nothing. My guess is that if you looked in the animal kingdom you’d find support for those just as you do for homosexual behavior and abortions.
And don’t forget HIV, and the new disease that is running 13x the norm in the gay community, and anal fissures, etc. And of course the perversion of our youth by teaching kindergarteners or younger that this is all normative – http://www.massresistance.com/ .
Do you think that in eternity you’ll learn at last of the *reason* that gay sex is immoral? Or is there no reason, it’s just God’s nature to hate fags? (It calls to mind Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma, a superb excavation of common sense and one of so many objections that theologians can only give the appearance of answering). If the Bible glorifies reason, you’d think it could at least arm you with one when requiring you to oppress your neighbor. But this is precisely what an absolute “ought” cannot do, by definition. If there’s a reason for it, it isn’t absolute but relative.
Craig said: There is also an element of deserved reward and punishment.
So I ask, what is the purpose of this punishment if not to train or deter? It’s simply useless cruelty. An eternity of useless cruelty. Not rational. Folks claim the Bible encourages reason, but with so many contradictory precepts which you’re required to accept (unless you’re a freer spirit like Erudite Redneck), how can you possibly give reason its due? You inevitably resort to “mystery.” In practice this means not “I’ll contemplate its mystery” but “I’ll stop worrying about that now.” To contemplate its mystery would be to #grapple# with it—and, by my lights, to discover there’s no mystery there at all. Just one of many castles in the air which transfix a believer’s days.
Neil said: Erudite Redneck holds heretical views. I find them so transparently heretical that I don’t mind if he posts here. Spare us the mystery sermon. You guys have way more mystery than us . . . “How did the universe start? We don’t know, other than it had to break a bunch of scientific laws to do so. How did life come from non-life? No idea, but man, we know it happened!” And so on.
In this light, protestations of reason ring very hollow. A mass of unproven propositions which must be accepted (some of them in order to avoid fire!) is the opposite of the free exercise of reason. It does strengthen neural pathways for rationalization, though.
“There is no one in Hell who didn’t choose to be there”—was this a cool cost-benefit analysis? Like a juvenile delinquent choosing to spend his life in prison? Tasting both flavors of eternity, preferring chocolate? You know much better why you don’t want to be in jail once you’ve been there. If you haven’t tasted real peace, you inevitably crave lesser satisfactions and distractions from pain. Like the man says, “they know *not* what they do.”
Does someone abused and devalued since childhood have exactly as much “free will,” in some conditionless void, to choose Death or Eternal Life?
Now a confession: if this comment has fervent rhetoric—I won’t know till tomorrow—it stems from distractedness and distance more than from dudgeon. I’m sort of just returning the ping pong ball tonight. Maybe not the way to conduct world-straightening conversation. Wishing a fine winter evening to all.
Neil said: Nothing left to say? OK with me
. Kinda judgmental of you to say there is harm in all those relationships. There is nothing in an atheistic worldview to support that. Nothing.
There is something utterly straightforward to support that: the suffering it causes. I don’t say it harms atoms! I don’t say it harms God! I say it harms people. It’s your claim of “perversion” that has nothing to support it. Too much message discipline, mon! I’ve expended inches in various comments exploring naturalistic ethics, logic etc.–also pointing out flaws in the alleged theist basisisisises for these things–while your replies have only repeated “x is transcendent,” “you have no basis,” in place of engaging the arguments.
–
The mystery sermon is fair. I’ve seen more than one comment here along the lines of “I just remind myself it’s not for me to understand.” Things are full of mysteries, sure. Religions seek to exterminate all mysteries they haven’t invented for their own amusement.
Neil said: Not sure if your “own amusement” comment was intentionally ironic following your “. . . in place of arguments” bit . . .
–
I wasn’t saying you supported Huckabee’s statement, I was asking how you can avoid supporting statements like it with your transcendent morality. A “divine dictatorship” (Hitchens) doesn’t square so well with a democracy. That was my glaring point, along with the irrationality and immorality of Hell. C’mon, glare back at those two instead of just pointing out each time I say something is good or bad or dope or wack. You have thereby precisely provided an absolute measure for wack.
Neil said: There is nothing un-Christian about voting for the most qualified candidate who will advance important causes the best. Re. immorality of Hell – again, you have zero foundation to make such a statement about anything being universally immoral (and if that wasn’t a universal statement, what is?). Crimes against a perfectly holy God rise to a great standard. See the post going up at noon for an illustration.
–
P.S. I’m not sure, but I think you misunderstood my “God must have screwed up when he wrote the laws on my heart.” I mean to say, he made me so I don’t find Hell a thing of moral beauty, which it must necessarily be.
Neil said: It is a fallen world. We often suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You can try the defense of ignorance at judgment day but it won’t work (see Romans 1:18-20).
Neil said: You guys have way more mystery than us . . . “How did the universe start? We don’t know, other than it had to break a bunch of scientific laws to do so. How did life come from non-life? No idea, but man, we know it happened!” And so on.
Huh?
“How did the universe start?”
Scientific: “We don’t know, but we have some nifty models which are plausible given our current understanding of the laws of physics”
Theistic: “God did it”
Neil said: “Nifty models?” Hard to argue with that. The First Cause and all the other arguments are way more plausible than your something from nothing fantasy.
“How did life come from non-life?”
Scientific: “We don’t know for sure for the case of earth, but we have a number of plausible theories which would account for it”
Theistic: “God did it”
Neil said: Same as above.
Yeah, science is much more mysterious than theistic thought. How did God make the universe again? How did he start life? I guess you can’t use “God did it” to actually explain anything.
Neil said: “Nifty models?” Hard to argue with that. The First Cause and all the other arguments are way more plausible than your something from nothing fantasy.
So, the “nifty models” which do not violate the physical laws as we understand them, are mathematically valid, and are testable are less plausible than the first cause, though the only validation for first cause is a fun logical argument? And the first cause could quite easily been seen to be quantum fluctiations, collisions of M-Branes etc etc.
Same for abiogenesis. You get a passage in a book which is ancient, written by prescientific cultures (and borrowed from various other cultures, though not wholesale), whereas abiogenesis gives valid scientific hypothesis regarding “life from non-life”.
Plausible: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious
Specious: having a false look of truth or genuineness
God can certainly be more “plausible” given the definition above.
The scientific explanations are much more possible and probable than the hypothesis that “God did it”.
How does the hypothesis that “God did it” increase our knowledge?
We “knew” God did it for thousands of years, yet it’s only been in the last 300 or so, when we’ve used the scientific method that we’ve greatly increased our knowledge.
Just so.
Havok, once again you raise the false assertion that we are somehow against the scientific method. You’ve tried to make your point; time to move on from this topic. Keep on believing that something can come from nothing without an eternal first cause if you like.
Well but Neil, you can’t have much respect for science’s *practitioners* if you’re so quick to reject their hunches on large questions to which they devote passionate energy. Do you think they decline to explain things with “God did it” through sheer conspiratorial denial? Or do you think they know things will be stranger than they suppose, and so take one step at a time instead of just lazily supposing?
Seas, I’ve explained it a whole bunch of times. I’m tired of the repetition.
Neil said: Keep on believing that something can come from nothing without an eternal first cause if you like.
Keep on asserting the same tired strawman if you like, it’s your blog after all. I’ve provided a simple explanation from a cosmologist, as well as refered to other scientific hypothesis currently being investigated and fleshed out, which seek to explain the “beginning” of the universe, and even if that question is valid. That you continue to say I believe “something came from nothing” when my response would be “I don’t know, but scientists are working on it” is your perogative.
I guess this topic is dead on this current thread.
Havok,
I can quote cosmologists who would disagree with you regarding the origion of the universe. But when It all comes down the bottom line to whatever theories you are talking about is “something came from nothing”. You refuse to answer why it is that you have so much faith in these unnamed scientists, and what they have done to earn your faith and appearantly uncritical trust. I know you are a big believer in science, but all of the theories that I have seen propounded have to sidestep the Second Law of Thermodynamics to some degree or another.
Re: “How did life come from non life? But man we know it happened?” Please show some empirical evidence for this claim fast, if you can’t then please admit that this is a presupposition, and that you are waiting for “science” to catch up.
This is turning into the Monty Pythin argument sketch
Neil said: The ” . . . man, we know it happened” was my paraphrase of Havok (I think), so that shouldn’t be attributed to him. I think we’ve exhausted this topic for now. I suggest picking it up on a new thread someday if necessary.
It’s early, It’s cold, I’m heading for work, should be Python, my bad.
The link to a cosmologist I provided has examples where something can seemingly come from nothing (by having net zero energy etc) which do not violate the second law. Quantum virtual particles are an example of something coming from nothing.
The various theories of abiogenesis are not well tested, and there have been little in the way of definitive results, so it is something more akin to presupposition, but backed with valid empirical models which can and are being tested. For this reason “genesis” is still a contender in this arena, though improbable because it calls for an entity which there is no empirical evidence for.
I guess we let this one go for now
Consider this exhausted, I know I am.