Atheists Unveil Their Monument to Atheism

Re your #189, KN, unchecked capitalism is one of the ultimate effects of materialism, however informal the individual's adherence to it. Axel

BP: Pardon but I think you are a bit personal there, beyond need. KF kairosfocus

JWT: I see you are insistent, so pardon a little OT remarking, BA. In a world in which ruthless evildoers from hardened criminals to demonic dictators disposing of armed forces exists, has the following from Rom 13 escaped your notice?

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

The first thing here is that we see that there is such a thing as the civil authority acting as God's protective servant to defend the civil peace of justice from evildoers who would prey upon the innocent. That starts with the policeman on the corner. And if the civil authority is God's servant of justice armed with the sword, there is no good reason to infer that to be such a servant is to be out of God's will. yes, abuse is possible and must be guarded against. indeed, other texts such as Dan 1 - 2 and Exodus make it plain that there is a legitimate principle of interposition by lower magistrates and by representative spokesmen who may also be called of God in a situation. The case of Exodus is actually that of a revolution leading to the formation of a new national polity, initiated against a tyrant by God acting with and through his spokesmen. That is, we see in essence the emerging pattern of government and nationhood under God, of rulers as acting in light of a double covenant: nationhood under God, just Government of the people under God. Where also we see in Moshes the difference between personal meekness and the need to act with due humility but also determination, in roles of civil leadership in the name of justice, as representative then as magistrate. David is another striking case, and there are more. (Cf my discussion here on.) And so forth. There is much more to the story than you have been taught. Good day. KF kairosfocus

This, which was ignored by E. Liddle from another post: E. Liddle said: “Modelling the expected distribution under some kind of process in which each “draw” is independent from prior “draws” is clearly not a model of Darwinian processes.” Bpragmatic responded: I don’t believe that in the OOL phase of “evolution”, the laws of physics and chemistry (darwinian processes are beholding to) would be anywhere near as charitable to the material formation requirements as would “independent draws” as you seem to imply with the above statement. In fact I would propose that there is a clear cut scientific case for asserting that some sort of guiding intelligence is required to overcome the IMPOSSIBILITY of certain component relationships from developing guideded purely by the laws of physics and chemical reactions. Liddles response: NOTHING. Why deal with reality questions when you can continue to pull the "discussions" down the rabbit trail to nowhere. Especially when it achieves the personal goals of: ????? Lizzy, come clean. You have no clue when it comes to applying your alleged "expertise" regarding probabilities and mathematical conclusions towards requirements of OOL. I know that if you don not respond to my statements, it might be because you think you have "bigger fish to fry". I really dont know. But, if you can respond to this post in a way that scietifically supports your position, I am looking forward to that. I hope your sink is clean. Another question: Can the paid nde propoganda machine come up with some one who can really demonstrate valid arguable positions on these issues? bpragmatic

@kf:

Inasmuch as this does not significantly affect the Judaeo-Christian stance on morality, it is irrelevant to this thread.

Not significantly? I repeat: "Let’s see… What society refuses to take part in any war… Hm? - Atheists? - Trinitarians? - Muslims? - Jehovahs Witnesses?" Killing Darwin doesn't solve anything. The hypocracy is rich in the lands of Trinitaria. JWTruthInLove

F/N: Thirty years ago, when Francis Schaeffer warned us about the trends we have been facing, he was widely dismissed, now with "post birth abortion" being advocated in major ethics journals, we should heed his warnings. Similarly, I find the following by Will Hawthorne, significant in light of the want of a worldview foundation IS in evolutionary materialism capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT and given what has been going on:

Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism [= evolutionary materialism] is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible . . . . Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions) . . .

It is time to wake up and realise the fires that have been set in our civilisation by ruthless radicals intending to abuse the colour of law to demonise, intimidate and even possibly destroy those who on point of principle disagree with them, and try to put the fires out before they blaze utterly out of control. KF kairosfocus

JWT: You may find this on the sins (and blessings) of Christendom, something you need to bear in mind in future. Debates over Unitarianism in theology are off topic for UD, but I can point here for those who are interested in why this is and has long been the orthodox Christian position. Inasmuch as this does not significantly affect the Judaeo-Christian stance on morality, it is irrelevant to this thread. Also, I will not delve on debates regarding particular peculiarities of sects, which can be explored elsewhere. KF PS: Onlookers would be well advised to note that a known -- and in key parts INTENDED (kindly note onwward links) -- implication of the ongoing push to homosexualise marriage in the name of equality and rights (demonstrably falsely, in some cases willfully counterfeitly so) is that the Judaeo-Christian creation-order, naturally evident ethics of family and sexuality are progressively being smeared falsely as hate speech and proscribed under false colour of law. As a direct consequence, under misappropriated civil rights law, principled Christians and others who have principled and informed concerns regarding the radical homosexualist agendas, assertions and trends (cf. here for a sampler, and note also the historically anchored, fulfilled prophecy-driven core warranting case for the Christian worldview as truth anchored in Messiah who was prophesied, came in love, liberated, died for us and rose with over 500 witnesses who could not be shaken, in fulfillment of the prophecies of Scripture) will predictably progressively be unjustly stereotyped as the moral equivalent of racists [hence the slanders at TSZ about nazism and EL's attempts first to deny then to defend . . . ] and driven out of employment and positions of responsibility; including especially in education as the next step of morality taken captive to radical relativism and might makes right anti-ethics driven by the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism is pushed through. (There are already significant cases on record in several major jurisdictions that make this quite clear; cf here.) Our civilisation is at a terrible watershed and some pretty ruthless might and manipulation make 'right' radical tactics have been used to bring us here. Cultural civil war knife fight is an unfortunately accurate description of what we are facing: a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing an unwavering design that points to ever increasing persecution of people of principle rooted in slander, scapegoating and marginalisation. And, of course one of the talking points being used here is to say that to speak out frankly about what has been going on and where it points is "fear mongering." Sorry, I am not going to be intimidated by that. kairosfocus

StephenB, I put your comment on a facebook discussion page and it ignited a a long debate,,, you might want to check it out; http://www.facebook.com/groups/unbelievablejb/permalink/409085492525306/ bornagain77

bornagain77, DonaldM, Elizabeth, thank you for the kind words. StephenB

KN: With all due respect, your rhetorical tack is disappointing. Let us suppose -- for argument -- the sort of typical "received" view of Alcibiades in say Plutarch's Lives and other sources (you will note I specifically exclude the evidently spurious dialogues, though they reflect an obviously ancient view and has not a few interesting thoughts such as the ignorance that has conceit of knowledge), is completely wrong, and that my reading of the tenor of the hints of Plato's resentments over the death of Socrates in the above cited passage in The Laws is wrong. It would mean that I am wrong on a relatively minor point and wrong in good company. However, it would have not one whit of difference on the analysis of the tendency of avant garde evolutionary materialist thought c 400 BC, and the logic that makes that summary apt. (I agree, Democritus does seem a source for the line of thoughts, and Lucretius' poem from much later does speak in quite similar terms to what Plato painted. Plato's summary can be taken as saying this had a time when it was an avant garde fashion rather roughly c. 400 BC.) For it was and is true that there is a tendency to reduce reality to matter interacting by chance and necessity, dismissing design. It would remain so that a characteristic result of such a basis is a radical relativisation of law and morality leading to the inference that "the highest right is might." It would still be so that when such views are fashionable there is a tendency for ruthless nihilist factions to arise on this claimed advanced view, and it would still tend to domineering and destructive statecraft. It would still be the case that Alcibiades is an apt example of the manipulative, self-centred scheming politician who rises from allegedly promising youth and becomes dominant, a living scandal, a cynical manipulator and a glib operator always on the lookout for no 1 who turned coat at least twice over. One who was evidently targetted by Socrates to try to point him to a nobler path, who despite great positive potential went a very different way that echoes the warning themes Plato sounded. And, it would still be true that c. 360 BC, all of this that sounds ever so eerily familiar was anticipated in a major work by one of the all time top ten philosophers in our civilisation's history. Which is the main context of my citation: it is the WORLDVIEW of evo mat not the currently favoured lab coat it wears, that drives its characteristic socially relevant conclusions and tendencies, and this was pointed out on the record 2350 years ago. In short, on my worst case, you would still be setting up and knocking over a strawman. So, it seems to me that you need to put things back in due proportion, and address the worldview foundations and tendencies problems highlighted 2350 years ago by Plato. And no, my citation is not a blind appeal to Plato as substitute for scriptural authority. Instead, I find it highly significant to see the issues put on the table from 2350 years ago. Issues we still need to face today. KF kairosfocus

I'm pressing this point because it goes to Kairofocus' appeal to Plato's authority for the claim that "materialism" is a cause of moral corruption. Axel: the complaints raised @ 186 look much more to me like symptoms of unchecked capitalism than anything else. Kantian Naturalist

I'm not disputing that Plato saw Alcibiades as a warning of the dangers of the wrong (i.e. Sophistic) education, nor that Socrates wanted to distance himself from Alcibiades; what I'm disputing is that Plato saw Democritean atomism as a cause of Alcibiades' moral corruption Kantian Naturalist

KN: I am sure you are very familiar with the fate of Socrates and the pattern of charges that led to his demise, along with just who would have been the no 1 youth in question. Similarly, with the history of Alcibiades [and note I speak to his path as a young man of potential spoilt . . . Plato's focus, not childhood], including how he was able to gain a favourable and even seductive impression when it suited him (until he went too far), which is of course duly noted in the summary above. But all along he was a cynical self-serving, narcissistic manipulator, who ended badly indeed, having started from a very favourable position. He is of course exhibit no 1 on the way Athens' leadership went from bad to worse in the run-up to the Peloponnesian war then onwards to the unjustified attack on Syracuse that he championed [it is suspected to gain fame and fortune by success] and which in the end was so disastrous when with Spartan advice Athens was defeated decisively. In that immediate context the charge against him which led him to be recalled to Athens was sacrilege, which is what led him to skip town and turn traitor. Where, he could not resist seducing the queen of Sparta, then he turned traitor to all of Greece. Astonishingly, reflecting his abilities as a manipulator, he was indeed able to win back favour in Athens, and so on to the point of his sticky end. This is the dark triad in action indeed, which is my point. Compare that to what Plato makes the Athenian Stranger say in The Laws, bearing in mind Socrates' ghost at his shoulder. KF kairosfocus

Elizabeth B Liddle states: 'And the fear-mongering that KF seems to be indulging in, of what terrible things will happen to society if the “materialists” come to dominate, is, in my view, just that – fear-mongering. It's not 'fear-mongering', it's knocking heads together, because it's already here. It's not 'will happen'. Our world has become increasingly anomian and dystopian since WWII. It's now front and centre. The bitterest irony, (familiar to our ID tribe on here) is that the claims made by atheists, the nihilists responsible, are beyond bizarre in that they are the precise antithesis of the truth. For example, since the inception of sex-education classes, school-girl pregnancies have been rocketing. Below, is a very brief conspectus of the state of US society, after rampant hedonism has taken over, and its liberal-atheist leaders have taken to mocking Christian values. (Orlov speaking on his blog, cluborlov.com, under the sub-heading, A Healthy Sense of Shame. He's a brilliant, very original, atheist polymath): 'Here is a specific example: I recently told an audience a few things about their own country (the United States). I pointed out that their country is number one among developed countries in quite a few categories, such obesity (Mexico is number two), divorce rate, one-person households, children being raised fatherless, child abuse death, sexually transmitted disease infection rate, teenage pregnancy rate, incarceration rate, depression and stress-related ailments. I pointed out that one-third of the children in the US are fatherless, that one-quarter of teenage girls in the US have at least one sexually transmitted disease, that a quarter of the women in the US are prescribed antidepressants at one point or another, that a third of all the employees suffer chronic debilitating stress and one-half experience stress that causes insomnia, anxiety and depression. I told them that they are killing themselves in record numbers, suicide being the leading cause of injury death, ahead of the also plentiful car accidents and gunshot wounds. I told them that the extent of their social inequality and societal neglect is worthy of a third-world banana republic. And I told that audience what they, according to numerous opinion polls, think of their government: their Congress is less popular than cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesmen and Genghis Khan. And they took all that on board and even chuckled. Yes, it's all true.' In fact, things happen today quite regularly, which no-one could have imagined in the fifties, e.g. infertile women ripping babies from the womb of expectant mothers. Weird stuff. 9 year old rapists etc. We are sometimes told that the US is the most Christian country in the West. Well, there's formal Christianity and there's actual Christianity. 'By their fruit, you shall know them.' I see some of you on here are shocking partisans of the most vicious right-wing economics. It never ceases to amaze me. And I'd bet heavily you are not short of a bob. ----------- 'If we are to live in peace as a society, we need to respect each other’s moral worth. I suggest that both sides of the atheist-theist debate could help by not denigrating the moral capacity of the other side.' Ironically, the above statement by Liddle is almost a facsimile of Orlov's next sentence, which I excised. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on, from the viewpoint of mainstream Christianity. There can be no question of peace. Atheists would certainly not cease in their struggle against Christianity and its values until they were crushed - which is perfectly consistent with one of our fundamental tenets, namely, that we are all caught up in a spiritual battle of unimaginable scope and ferocity. Axel

How much do we really know about Alcibiades' education and about the Alcibiades-Plato relationship? If Alcibiades is a good example of the kind of person Plato is talking about in Laws X, how do you explain the much more sympathetic portrayal of Alcibiades in Symposium? Do we have good reason to believe that Alcibiades was deeply influenced by Democritus, the only Greek materialist from that period of history? What's the basis for believing that Plato had Alcibiades in mind at all when he wrote Laws X? Kantian Naturalist

Now, let us see just how Plato warned us in The laws Bk X, about the sort of evolutionary materialism that our civilisation is again enamoured of: __________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny. )] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them. >> ___________ Talk about cossetting an asp to the bosom under the foolish impression that the snake has become lamb-like because it has TOLD you so cleverly. KF PS: I see KS trying the cynical 1984 doublespeak game. He knows full well how a reasonable remark was foully twisted in the fever swamps surrounding UD, and he is seeking to slyly smear by making that allusion. For his information, sparing the rod and spoiling the child (which is not to be equated to sadistic child abuse -- yet another slander used by the foul) is a major part of the mess our civilisation is in. kairosfocus

Let me describe a model for so much of what we are seeing, Alcibiades [the model in the back of Plato's mind in the remark in The Laws Bk X], by clipping a nice summary discussion by Gabriella Arcan: ______________ >> According to Thucydides, Alcibiades was an immoral man. He was never able to be loyal to his country, his wife or his friends. As a teenager, he was Socrates’ protégé and pupil but was not faithful to him. Alcibiades also liked to be flattered, and indulged himself in sensual pleasures. He was famous for his parties which scandalized the citizens of Athens . . . . Alcibiades showed no respect for other people’s feelings, and for them as human beings all together. Sometimes he did certain things to redeem himself, but not because he was sorry for the wrong he caused, but because he realized that even he needed to maintain a certain level of decency in the public eye. People of Athens tolerated his behavior for two reasons. First, he was a good general, and they needed him, and he knew how to get their clemency, by being very eloquent. He was a very charming man, and knew how to use that. But a time came when even the Athenian people had enough, and one day Alcibiades, having too many enemies, was accused of a religious sacrilege. He escaped to Sparta where the most unforgivable example of his immoral character occurred. Alcibiades convinced the Spartans that he was their friend, and indeed helped them, against his own city, but in the meantime he was very busy himself, seducing the wife of his Spartan protector King Agis. Incredibly, Alcibiades seduced King Agis’s wife to have a successor to the Spartan throne. He thought that he was able to manipulate everything. She gave birth to a baby boy, and even if according to Plutarch, the boy’s name was not Alcibiades, she used to call him that when she was in a circle of good friends. Word got back to King Agis, and he got suspicious of Alcibiades. The king knew that the baby was not his own, since he hadn’t been with his wife for about ten months prior to the child’s birth. When he realized the boy’s father was Alcibiades, he planned to get revenge. Alcibiades, who up to then had pretended to be the king’s friend, being scared, fled Sparta for the chief enemy of all the Greeks, The King of Persia and his satrap Tissaphernes. Once there, he behaved unscrupulously. But what should not be forgotten is he left behind to who knew what sort of dangerous fate his own son and the woman with whom Alcibiades conceived him. He never thought of the king’s wife’s situation, or the child’s. But Alcibiades had never proved himself to be faithful before that time or afterward. He committed evil deeds because he thought he would be manipulating a situation for his own self-interest or simply because of whatever short-term pleasure it offered and he did not care about the harm that he caused. If he actually cared, he could have taken the mother, or at least the child with him. Of course, he did not. He did not go back to get them, or attempt to . . . . As a result Alcibiades ultimately had to flee for his life to the king of Persia’s minister, or satrap. Turning traitor a second time, Alcibiades advised the Persians how to best defeat the Spartans. Later on, having worn out his welcome with the Persians, Alcibiades took advantage of a pair of revolutions in Athens, the first of which overthrew the democracy and the second of which overthrew the oligarchy that had taken over. Alcibiades participated in the revolution that returned the city to democracy and then came back to Athens . . . >> _______________ Resemblance to to much of what is happening in our civilisation today, is NOT coincidental. More on that in a moment. KF kairosfocus

KF,

Isn’t it interesting to see how KS tries to push the twisting of a reasonable statement on discipline [where too much of what we are seeing here is plainly a case of narcissistic overgrown spoiled brattishness] into an accusation.

What accusation? All I did was link to a comment you wrote in your own words, in response to your comment about teddy bears and knife fights! Dude, you are entirely too wound up these days. That Supreme Court decision really got to you, didn't it? keiths

Isn't it interesting to see how KS tries to push the twisting of a reasonable statement on discipline [where too much of what we are seeing here is plainly a case of narcissistic overgrown spoiled brattishness] into an accusation. This speaks volumes on the exact point about nihilistic dark triad ruthlessness I have pointed to; which we do need to be prepared to deal with, especially the other two components. And right now the only positive contribution KS is making is by way of inadvertently providing an example of the problem. let's just say that high machs will try to get away with anything they think they can at others' expense and sociopaths are unfeeling thus low on the empathy that EL is presuming upon to carry the ethical load, a gap she does not understand. I doubt that she has had experience of having to deal with cold hearted, calloused killers. KF kairosfocus

Your #170, JDH, the basic assumptions of our world-view are a great leveler, for sure; well, scripture indicates somewhat more than that. The reason, of course, is that such primordial assumptions are more abstruse, and their implications for us so personal that we make such choices with our hearts. For the Christian, there is ample confirmation of the wisdom of this faith/knowledge, not least today from the convergence of science, of all kites and crows. Beauty and self-giving love, the goal, the be-all and end- all of the Judaeo-Christian faith, seem almost to be aspects of the same thing. There is a Mosaic law which seems on the face of it, quite footling and anomalous: 'a proscription against seething a kid in its mother's milk'; but pondering on it, it doesn't seem so obscure. Don't we speak of 'the milk of human kindness'. Is not a mother's milk not a powerful symbol? The thing is: there is a moral ugliness about seething a young animal in its own mother's milk, which, if indulged, would coarsen our sensitivity to moral beauty and ugliness, the ultimate implications of which could lead to, well, the sort of thing that goes on in the name of our atheist science today, which the Nazis might well have blenched at. Axel

KF, What you don't seem to understand is that a "right" is: 1) Whatever Dr. Liddle's particular mass of ineteracting materials computes as output, and/or 2) Whatever definition or claim happens to "emerge" from the vague processes that generate what other processes refer to as KN's thoughts. Garbage in, garbage out (or, garbage source, garbage emerges). Rights need not be attached to any absolute moral grounding because we just make up our rights as we go along - whatever we feel like should be our right, and whatever we can get others to agree with - those are our rights, man. I have a **right** to medical care, a **right** to a cell phone, a **right** to a share of the fat cat's profits ... I have the right to claim as my right whatever I feel like I deserve, ... maaaaannn. William J Murray

Sure it’s my view that “we” – meaning human beings – have discovered that societies based on reciprocal altruism work better than those that don’t. Although it’s true that a few people haven’t got the memo.

"Work better" according to what standard, utilizing what evaluatory metric?

Name a society in which reciprocal altruism doesn’t lie at the heart of the law, of social duties and taboos, or even at the heart of the economy. There may be some, historically, but most modern societies seem to work like that.

You made the positive claim; name a society which centrally employs "reciprocal altruism" - especially in the law. William J Murray

Elizabeth B Liddle said “Name a society in which reciprocal altruism doesn’t lie at the heart of the law, of social duties and taboos, or even at the heart of the economy. There may be some, historically, but most modern societies seem to work like that.” All the actual europeans countries do not allow free immigration, is that based on “reciprocal altruism” or shelfishness? There is plenty of people without a job in eropeans countries is that because at the heart of the economy works the reciprocal altruism? Irak and Afghanistan have the presence of eropeans armies, Siria do not. Cuba is under an US embargo China not. That decisions are taken because reciprocal altruism is at the heart of economy? US is conditioning their help to africans countries to the implementation of birth contro policies, free abortion policies and recognition of gay unions, is that reciprocal altruism? Elizabeth B Liddle said “Well, yes, which is why we develop laws and criminal justice systems to reinforce the moral code. So to give my full version of what I think underpins most human society: reciprocal altruism + justice tempered with mercy. “ Sorry but the laws do not inforce reciprocal altruism. You are immagine that. Elizabeth B Liddle said “Who is compelling you? Not that I said it was “just” an evolved capacity. As I said, I think our cultural heritage plays a role. So in your view, why do people do the right thing?” Elizabeth B Liddle said When the right thing do not like to me you mean? In order to comply with the authoritie. Elizabeth B Liddle said “It’s not as bad as you fear.” How do you know? Never have been tested. Elizabeth B Liddle said “Well, the Golden Rule would be a good start. Unselfishness. As I say, I think it’s a mixture of what is innate, and what we (i.e. human beings and the culture they pass down) have figured out works.” Can you elaborate better? I have to do to others what I want others do to me. That is your definition of goodness? Chesterton

JDH There is no objective morality is not a statement about what you should do. It is a statement about the nature of the justification for what you should do. I think almost everyone agrees you should minimise the suffering of others. It is just some of us have different ideas about the justification for that statement. Mark Frank

KF,

Sorry, I am not taking a teddy bear to a knife fight...

Yes, ditch the teddy bear. Bring "Mr. Leathers"! keiths

LT: Slanders, evasive denials of same while harbouring, accusations of racism that are unwarranted, outing tactics, censorship and career busting, all of which have been well documented, are ruthless nihilistic tactics and all are being used even routinely by darwinist evo mat advocates. Sorry, I am not taking a teddy bear to a knife fight being perpetrated even on innocent members of my family. And it is time you realised what you are enabling by your own behaviour. KF kairosfocus

You are using the majestatic “We” to hide that what you are saying is nothing more than your particular view of human society.

Sure it's my view that "we" - meaning human beings - have discovered that societies based on reciprocal altruism work better than those that don't. Although it's true that a few people haven't got the memo.

There is no societies that have “moral codes”.

Of course there are.

Societies have laws and autorities that enforce the laws.

Yes, indeed, and those who trangress a law are generally deemed to have "done wrong".

Reciprocal altruism never was a rule of a society.

Name a society in which reciprocal altruism doesn't lie at the heart of the law, of social duties and taboos, or even at the heart of the economy. There may be some, historically, but most modern societies seem to work like that.

Yes, there people that follow moral codes based on mututal respect and reciprocal altruism, also there is people that follow moral codes based on non reciprocal altruism, but the majority of that people follow that codes because thinks that they are accountable for what they do and will be a reward or a punishment.

Well, yes, which is why we develop laws and criminal justice systems to reinforce the moral code. So to give my full version of what I think underpins most human society: reciprocal altruism + justice tempered with mercy.

So no, “We” do not discovered nothing.

I think we have.

Elizabeth B Liddle said “And while theists may attribute that “innate” sense to God and societal wisdom to religion, while atheists attribute it to our evolved capacities for empathy and social cohesion plus the collective accrued wisdom embedded in our culture, the core is the same.” The core looks the same but it isn´t. If our perceptions of what is right or wrong is just an evolved capacity I´m compelled to do the right as far is useful to me.

Who is compelling you? Not that I said it was "just" an evolved capacity. As I said, I think our cultural heritage plays a role. So in your view, why do people do the right thing?

Elizabeth B Liddle said “And the fear-mongering that KF seems to be indulging in, of what terrible things will happen to society if the “materialists” come to dominate, is, in my view, just that – fear-mongering.” Not fear-mongering, fear to the unknow. I prefer not to test the change, fortunatly it will not happen during my life time.

Well, perhaps it is fear of the unknown. In which case I say: take courage. It's not as bad as you fear.

Elizabeth B Liddle said “It seems to me far sounder to recognise what is of God because it is good, than to recognise good because someone is convinced that it is of God.” Well, then give us a definition of good.

Well, the Golden Rule would be a good start. Unselfishness. As I say, I think it's a mixture of what is innate, and what we (i.e. human beings and the culture they pass down) have figured out works. Elizabeth B Liddle

Elizabeth B Liddle said “ I absolutely agree that as a people we have discovered that “Societies just do better” when they honour a moral code based on mutual respect and reciprocal altruism.”. You are using the majestatic “We” to hide that what you are saying is nothing more than your particular view of human society. There is no societies that have “moral codes”. Societies have laws and autorities that enforce the laws. Reciprocal altruism never was a rule of a society. Yes, there people that follow moral codes based on mututal respect and reciprocal altruism, also there is people that follow moral codes based on non reciprocal altruism, but the majority of that people follow that codes because thinks that they are accountable for what they do and will be a reward or a punishment. So no, “We” do not discovered nothing. Elizabeth B Liddle said “And while theists may attribute that “innate” sense to God and societal wisdom to religion, while atheists attribute it to our evolved capacities for empathy and social cohesion plus the collective accrued wisdom embedded in our culture, the core is the same.” The core looks the same but it isn´t. If our perceptions of what is right or wrong is just an evolved capacity I´m compelled to do the right as far is useful to me. Elizabeth B Liddle said “And the fear-mongering that KF seems to be indulging in, of what terrible things will happen to society if the “materialists” come to dominate, is, in my view, just that – fear-mongering.” Not fear-mongering, fear to the unknow. I prefer not to test the change, fortunatly it will not happen during my life time. Elizabeth B Liddle said “It seems to me far sounder to recognise what is of God because it is good, than to recognise good because someone is convinced that it is of God.” Well, then give us a definition of good. Chesterton

Mark Frank @166 Mark, I have read some of your comments before and respect your intellect. But please explain to me how, "There is no objective morality" is not an objective, moral statement. 1. Is it objective. Well in my mind objective U subjective form a complete set. There is no statement which is in the excluded middle. I may be wrong there. So is the statement "There is no objective morality" subjective. It certainly is not. It has no subject that is showing any personal preference. It is a declaration of something that is not true only for some subjects. It claims a universal truth. Therefore it is objective, not subjective. 2. It is moral. In my understanding a moral statement is about how one "should" behave. The statement,"There is no objective morality" implies behavior and "should". It implies that there is no objective scale to judge someone else's morality. So if you are judging someone else's morality, you are doing something you "SHOULD NOT" do. 3. Since the statement "There is no objective morality" is both objective and moral it is an objective, moral statement. If you can find a hole in this argument then please present it, else please admit you were wrong. JDH

KN - you also confirm the Word of God to me. Because for God to make it so a man of well honed intellectual prowess could never reject him, but the man of weak intellect could, would be in my mind unfair and not consistent with God's declared impartiality with respect to persons. Alan Fox may make an internally inconsistent statement that boldy displays the truth of "'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God'”. But your ability to hide behind large constructs of obfuscation and depend on such vague concepts as "emergence" and "compatibilism" to rationalize your disbelief shows that both the man of shallow thinking, and the man of deep intellectual exercise can reject God. JDH

LoL! @ LarTanner! Materialists' abuse of science and reason, is what we decry... Joe

a ruthless cultural knife fight

The above snippet illustrates one of the greatest barriers to productive and civil discussion here on UD: in the ID narrative, science and reason are vicious thugs out to stab gods and good soldiers (and, I suppose, impose homosexuality and atheism throughout the world). LarTanner

WLC:

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

That is true regardless if some christaians disagree with it. If you are a christian, muslim, or adhere to Judaism, you have to obey God- that's first and foremost on your list. If God doesn't know better than you then why are you following God? Joe

JDH Saying "there is no objective morality" is not even a moral statement, much less an objective one. It is a metastatement about the nature of morality. Mark Frank

Alan Fox said:

There is no objective morality. None!

Of course, what Alan Fox said is an objective moral statement. And we wonder why God says, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" Alan, all you are doing is confirming the Word of God by your speech. JDH

The most I will concede to KF's 163 is that emergentism is not consistent with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, if the PSR is taken as a metaphysical principle rather than as a regulative ideal for guiding successful empirical inquiry. Kantian Naturalist

Folks, I am busy just now with two or three local political/policy crises in a nexus, so later. I will only say that an absolute claim is refuted by a counter example, here someone reporting a general consensus. In fact the worldview foundation of "scientific" atheism is matter, energy and space-time interacting by blind chance and mechanical necessity. There is no IS in that capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT beyond might and manipulation make 'right.' and that is patent; Provine is right on his premises. Indeed the appeal to compatibilism and emergence are disguised concessions, emergentism implying that hey poof ti just happens once things get complicated enough with enough loops in software written by frozen accidents [itself an absurdity]. Compatibilism is in the end that we are deluded that we have real choice; suitably repackaged to sound nice. Later. KF kairosfocus

So, KF: one prominent atheist thanks that "no ultimate foundation for ethics exists". I guess I'd want to know what "ultimate" means in that sentence, before I took Provine to task. We also have, in the thread, a quoted statement by William Lane Craig, who, I think you would agree, is a "reasonably prominent Christian":

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

Some Christians here may agree with Craig; others do not. Some atheists may agree with Provine; others may not. What makes it OK to generalise from Provine to all atheists, but not from Craig to all Christians, or, indeed, all theists? And why on earth should I think that an "ultimate foundation for ethics" is a good thing when at least some people seem to think that that "ultimate foundation" is: if God commands it, it is moral obligation, even if, in the absence of that command, it would be a sin? Frankly, I find myself siding with Provine here, which is rare. If "ultimate" means "somewhere other than in our innate sense of right and wrong, fine-tuned by the aggregate of collective human wisdom", then I agree with Provine. But I'd rather have our innate sense of right and wrong fine-tuned by collective human wisdom than than an "ultimate" arbiter of right and wrong capable of telling me it is just fine, on this occasion, indeed morally obligatory, to enslave women and slaughter children. It seems to me far sounder to recognise what is of God because it is good, than to recognise good because someone is convinced that it is of God. Do you disagree? Elizabeth B Liddle

KF #159 I argued that some kind of "ultimate foundation" for ethics cannot exist and that doesn't matter. Your "refutation" is a quote to the effect that no ultimate foundation exists! Come on - please do better. Mark Frank

Prominent, maybe; but not correct in what he takes naturalism to entail, if emergentism is a viable contender for a scientific metaphysics. Kantian Naturalist

MF: First, read and weep, from Provine (Whom I take it you would acknowledge is a reasonably prominent naturalist) in his Darwin Day address in 1998 at U Tenn, just for one instance:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .

The attempted correction implodes. As for Dr Liddle's attempts to dismiss and divert, they fall to the ground. Evolutionary mateilist atheism and its fellow traveller ideologies do undermine the foundations of morality, and open the door to nihilism, as has been warned of since the days of Plato. Going further, it does have a major self referential incoherence ending up in being self refuting as a world view from the mind on up. But to operate in a world where we do have functioning minds and have to recognise moral government, we see the smuggling in of ideas and principles that find their foundation elsewhere, i.e they are kidnapped and forced to serve what would otherwise be a dead on arrival system due to such obvious incoherence right at the basis. And of course all of this is in a context where EL and others have been engaging in enabling behaviour for slander directed at me, pretence that it does not exist then now the outrage of trying to project the moral equivalency of racism to those who have principled objections to the radical agenda driven patently destructive homosexualisation of our civilisation. Sorry, I am not going to take a teddy bear to a ruthless cultural knife fight. Which is what you so obviously want. KF kairosfocus

First, I'd like to see a response to my criticism of "the stolen concept fallacy": that the very idea of such a fallacy rests on an unacceptable conflation of genesis and validity. Second, the main reason why my view doesn't collapse into mere materialism is because I treat "reduction" as an epistemological notion, not an ontological one. Though living animals, including us rational animals, are entirely comprised of cells (molecules, atoms, bosons and fermions), "comprised of" doesn't do much explanatory work. Water is entirely comprised of hydrogen and oxygen, but the properties of water cannot be predicted from the properties of its atomic constituents. (Or can they? Not sure if water is the best example.) In fact, succesful reductions from one theory to another are quite rare in the history of science. My view is to appeal to emergence, as a metaphysical concept, to explain why reduction is so rare. Third, though I do think that emergentism is a highly attractive candidate for a scientific metaphysics, I see it as completely neutral with regard to the question of whether God (or anything relevantly like God) exists. Emergentism is equally compatible with theism and with atheism. Kantian Naturalist

Lizzie #154 You are so right about this. I think maybe it is time to issue KF with a corrective. KF:

That is why, we find people in the contradictory position of inescapably demanding to have their rights respected, while holding forth that there are no adequate grounds for morality.

I haven't seen a single atheist claiming there are no adequate grounds for morality. They are just different grounds from KF's grounds. KF seems to be saying that adequate grounds must allow you to deduce moral values from facts, get an OUGHT from an IS (as usual with KF I find it quite hard to know exactly what he does mean). I challenge him to give an example of an OUGHT derived from an IS. I don't believe it can be done without smuggling some values into the premises. But it doesn't matter, because "subjective" does not entail "trivial" or "unreasoned". You can care deeply about other human beings without an objective grounding for your morality and you can have an objective grounding and be a uncaring and dangerous person. KF relax and stop creating unnecessary fears. You have much less to fear from atheists than you do from theists of other persuasions. Mark Frank

And the fear-mongering that KF seems to be indulging in, of what terrible things will happen to society if the “materialists” come to dominate, is, in my view, just that – fear-mongering.

We see the rusults of atheistic dogmas in Scientology, North Kora and China. However these are not the only societies, which willfully defy Gods word: The effects of Muslim and Trinitarian "objective morals" are seen in the cadavers of dead children around the globe killed by abortions and keepers and bearers of arms. Let's see... What society refuses to take part in any war... Hm? - Atheists? - Trinitarians? - Muslims? - Jehovahs Witnesses? The hypocracy of KF and Liddle ist breathtaking. JWTruthInLove

Elizabeth BS Liddle:

KF appears to me to be implying that atheists are amoral, at best “kidnapping” concepts from theists.

That much is obvious. And not even you can change that fact. Joe

No, it is not "well put". KF appears to me to be implying that atheists are amoral, at best "kidnapping" concepts from theists. If this is KF's point, then I profoundly disagree. If it is not his point, then I invite him to clarify. StephenB put it well:

The ability to discern right from wrong is innate is it not? Don’t we all know that adultery, dishonesty, murder, dishonesty, and theft are wrong? Isn’t it just a case of fine-tuning what we already know and being open to correction when we need it? There is both an objective and a subjective component to morality. The objective component is written in nature. Societies just do better when they honor the Ten Commandments.

Yes, we have an innate sense of right and wrong. Yes, that sense is "fine tuned" by the society in which we live. And while, I'd substitute the Golden Rule (Jesus' version if you like) for the Ten Commandments, I absolutely agree that as a people we have discovered that "Societies just do better" when they honour a moral code based on mutual respect and reciprocal altruism. And while theists may attribute that "innate" sense to God and societal wisdom to religion, while atheists attribute it to our evolved capacities for empathy and social cohesion plus the collective accrued wisdom embedded in our culture, the core is the same. And the fear-mongering that KF seems to be indulging in, of what terrible things will happen to society if the "materialists" come to dominate, is, in my view, just that - fear-mongering. If we are to live in peace as a society, we need to respect each other's moral worth. I suggest that both sides of the atheist-theist debate could help by not denigrating the moral capacity of the other side. Elizabeth B Liddle

KF in #150

That is why, we find people in the contradictory position of inescapably demanding to have their rights respected, while holding forth that there are no adequate grounds for morality. Sorry, a right is a binding morally grounded expectation we have to be respected based on our inherent dignity as human beings. Which can only be grounded in a foundational IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT, as is outlined above. In short, here comes the fallacy of kidnapped concepts again. Snatched from their proper foundation by people who, were they consistent would have no right to appeal to them. Indeed, who would be forced to the nihilistic conclusion of evolutionary materialism warned against by Plato long since: the highest right is might. So, there is no real mystery here, just an incoherent worldview that tries to pretend to being the epitome of knowledge and reason. Get the foundation right and the rest follows.

Well put! DonaldM

Donald:

Elizabeth in #135 “One thing worth mentioning: atheists are not a monolithic group.” Apparently they are, as my entire point in starting this thread was that at last we had the atheistic monolith in the form of a stone bench monument in Florida. And more to come, we’re promised.

Nope. Clearly not a monolith. You can see the joints. Elizabeth B Liddle

BA in #148 "StephenB, what refreshing read this morning at 142. Thank you for your clarity once again." Plus 1!! DonaldM

F/N: It is obvious that the universal testimony of humanity is that we are under moral government, as is seen by the underlying premise of even the manipulative ideologues around UD these days, who are trying to show us in the wrong, or at least perceived wrong. That immediately implies, are we under a moral governor with the proper right to set such principles and premises of moral government? Of course, evolutionary materialism answers, no this is just a delusion deposited in us by Evolution. Thus, self-referentially cutting its own logical throat (yet again) by raising the retort, and the resulting delusional nature of mind would undercut every system. The correct part of Hume's guillotine IS-OUGHT dilemma argument, then leads to the point that there is but one place in a worldview where OUGHT can enter, a foundational IS that properly, objectively grounds ought. The only serious candidate for such is the inherently good, eternal God and Creator who is at once him who framed us in our world and him who installed the moral compass, which is at least as trustworthy as our minds and senses, including that of consciousness. (Which, also, we cannot avoid using.) Thence, we come to the way to conduct moral reasoning on sound principles, that we are equally endowed by our common Creator with unalienable rights, i.e. as we have a purpose and value to our Creator thus in ourselves, we have certain things that must be respected: life, liberty, fairness, truth etc. Thence, the principles of moral reasoning that Locke appealed to in his 2nd treatise on Civil govt, Ch 2, by citing "the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker [in his Ecclesiastical Polity]":

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80; cf. here on which also addresses the pretended decisive objection, the Euthryphro dilemma, so called.]

The echo of the Golden Rule of Moshe, Jesus and Paul, is of course deliberate. Now, too, of course, there will be ever so many objections, but when they are analysed, it will at once be evident that the problem is not that morals are not objective and reasonable on principles like this which are longstanding and published in major works that our education system should have helped us make acquaintance of, but that people are being indoctrinated in implicitly or explicitly atheistical systems under false colours of education. Systems that are dressed up in the lab coat and announced as Knowledge, AKA "science." The self-referentially incoherent schemes entail that here is no foundation for morality. That is why, we find people in the contradictory position of inescapably demanding to have their rights respected, while holding forth that there are no adequate grounds for morality. Sorry, a right is a binding morally grounded expectation we have to be respected based on our inherent dignity as human beings. Which can only be grounded in a foundational IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT, as is outlined above. In short, here comes the fallacy of kidnapped concepts again. Snatched from their proper foundation by people who, were they consistent would have no right to appeal to them. Indeed, who would be forced to the nihilistic conclusion of evolutionary materialism warned against by Plato long since: the highest right is might. So, there is no real mystery here, just an incoherent worldview that tries to pretend to being the epitome of knowledge and reason. Get the foundation right and the rest follows. KF kairosfocus

Elizabeth in #135 "One thing worth mentioning: atheists are not a monolithic group." Apparently they are, as my entire point in starting this thread was that at last we had the atheistic monolith in the form of a stone bench monument in Florida. And more to come, we're promised. KN in #131

Point is, I don’t think that libertarian account of freedom must be presupposed in order for the concept of free will to make any sense. (One may point out that the original conception of free will was bound up with the libertarian account; I refer the reader to my criticism of the very idea of “stolen concepts” above.)

Earlier, in response to Chris's question of what is left when you take away all physical properties, KN said "nothing". That seems to imply that thought or mind reduces to physical matter, and physical matter is subject to physical laws. More to the point, every property of mind is the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. So if mind produces a thought, that thought is the end result of that same chain of blind, purposeless events - there being nothing beyond physical properties, as KN told us. That is the upshot of KN's response to Chris's question:

None; for there is no underlying thing, substance, “mind” — the mental properties inhere in the living animal, not in some part or aspect of it. (We can conceive of disembodied minds, yes, and so they are logically possible, but I don’t think that there really are any.)

But now he wants to argue that we can still account for free will. Somehow, magically, free will is, I guess, one of those "complex emergent properties" of matter. But since the very thought itself, including KN's post quoted above is the end result of the blind, purposeless chain of events leading up to it...that is to say...causing it...I see no reason to accept it as being true or even rational. KN tries to get around the obvious here with sophistry about "emergent properties" and such. In the end, those arguments do not work as they are self-refuting. Wow, this thread has wondered into philosophical thickets! And all because of a stone bench in a remote county in Florida! DonaldM

StephenB, what refreshing read this morning at 142. Thank you for your clarity once again. Hillsong - Mighty to Save - With Subtitles/Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ bornagain77

It may be a reason to believe in God, but you don’t have to believe in God for it to be valid.

Yes, you do - unless, of course, you use an improper definition of the term "objective". Otherwise there's no such thing as objective moral principles, and so the idea that self-evidently true moral statements must exist is false, and the idea that morally true and binding statements can be rationally explored outward from such statements is also false. Also, without objective (absolute) basis for morality (god), there will be no necessary consequences, and so no significant reason to bend one's wants to one's shoulds. William J Murray

And I note William agrees. Good for you, Stephen! Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at Syria now? Elizabeth B Liddle

Stephen: Thanks for your response. A comement in haste:

The ability to discern right from wrong is innate is it not? Don’t we all know that adultery, dishonesty, murder, dishonesty, and theft are wrong? Isn’t it just a case of fine-tuning what we already know and being open to correction when we need it? There is both an objective and a subjective component to morality. The objective component is written in nature. Societies just do better when they honor the Ten Commandments.

Apart from the last two words (I'd substitute the Golden Rule) I agree with this entirely. It's the point I've been trying to make, essentially. It may be a reason to believe in God, but you don't have to believe in God for it to be valid. I especially like the bolded :) Thanks. Elizabeth B Liddle

F/N: Has anyone above noted on the unintended self-referential irony of the following cheap shot on the atheism monument:

“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church . . .

Which is attached to a monument that is a monument to atheism, not a hospital. (I am sure it is noted up-thread that Christians have built many a hospital and many a school across the world, so the willful denigration and twisting of obvious facts through ingrained hostility are utterly evident. Do I need to note that churches by and large more than pay their way in society as centers of mutual support and upliftment, including through informal education and moral nurture? [And not a few are involved in schools and/or host6pitals etc.]) For shame! KF kairosfocus

On this StephenB and I agree:

The ability to discern right from wrong is innate is it not? Don’t we all know that adultery, dishonesty, murder, dishonesty, and theft are wrong? Isn’t it just a case of fine-tuning what we already know and being open to correction when we need it? There is both an objective and a subjective component to morality. The objective component is written in nature.

No book or authority - not even the purported word of god - is necessary to find objective morality; objective morality can be discerned starting with self-evident truths, then using those to discern other necessarily true moral statements, conditionally true moral statements, and generally true moral statements. These things are objectively written into the nature of a human being. I also agree that there is a subjective component, but as I see it, this has more to do with finding one's individual purpose and pursuing it. I'm not sure why any worldly descriptions of god or names of god would be important beyond being compatible with self-evident moral truths and other, first principle characteristic requirements, such as source of logic, free will, first/sufficient cause, etc. William J Murray

Elizabeth:

But in what sense is this an “objective” choice? Why not Leviticus, or some non-Christian text?

Objective refers to a code that it is coming from outside of us, perhaps from nature, or perhaps from someone who knows us better than we know ourselves. Subjective refers to our attempts to make it up for ourselves. Leviticus is mostly about the judicial and ceremonial aspects of the law and less about its moral aspects. So, it doesn’t really apply to us except as being of historical interest. Recall that the moral code develops all throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament. In the beginning, it was designed for crude people because they were not ready for the more subtle formulations. What we are after is a moral code that covers not only behavior but also our intentions. What a person does is important, but why he/she does it is more important. Non Christian religions cannot provide sufficient guidance because they are inconsistent and do not get at the “why.”. Consider Islam’s teaching of “abrogation.” (God changes his mind about what is morally good). What kind of a moral life can we build on a teaching of that kind? Suppose someone has paid a heavy price following God’s will and formed moral habits that reflect His doctrines only to have God whimsically announce that He has changed his mind about what is good. Who needs that?

I can see that if you believe, a priori, that the true god will not lead you astray, that this will lead you to Objective Morality – but how do you then distinguish between your Objective Morality and that of a devout Muslim who discerns that his conscience leads him to jihad?

Any religion must pass the test of reason before it has earned the right to make demands on us. That is one of the ways that we can find the true God. Line up all the claimants (Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Christ etc) and put them to the test: Who was foretold? Who performed miracles? Who claimed to be God? Who embodied his own doctrine? Who took his own medicine? Which religion is worried about the condition of the heart? Which religion encourages us to love our enemies? Which religion encourages us to control our pugnacious nature (turn the other cheek). On the other hand, which religion encourages us to exploit our pugnacious nature? Which religion proposes arbitrary laws that do not necessarily contribute to spiritual growth? Which religion oppresses women? In the final analysis, faith is a gift, but reason can prepare us to dispose ourselves for that religion that is most likely to speak for God and represent the true objective morality.

That’s the core of my question – what objective means do we have of discerning right from wrong? And if all we have are subjective means (and I don’t knock subjective), in what sense do we mean that the morality itself is “objective”? It seems to me like saying: this wine is the real, authentic aged yadda yadda wine, the standard by which all wines are compared. But we don’t know what it tastes like, so you just have to guess.

The ability to discern right from wrong is innate is it not? Don’t we all know that adultery, dishonesty, murder, dishonesty, and theft are wrong? Isn’t it just a case of fine-tuning what we already know and being open to correction when we need it? There is both an objective and a subjective component to morality. The objective component is written in nature. Societies just do better when they honor the Ten Commandments. This is no secret. Where divorce is rampant, thievery is common, violence is present, lying is accepted, and sexual immorality is encouraged, chaos always follows. The subjective component is written in our conscience. We just don’t feel good about ourselves when we fail to follow the light we are given, or when we hurt someone unnecessarily, or when we fail to do a good thing that is within our power to do. Of course, we can lose that sense if we go down the wrong path (or are taken down the wrong path), but no one is beyond redemption, at least until after death occurs, at which time it is too late StephenB

???? Kantian Naturalist

KN: Please find a dictionary and look up "iconoclast" and stop relying upon your personal, local "emergent" definitions. William J Murray

I'm slightly flattered that you think anything I'm saying here is novel, let alone iconoclastic. I'm just transmitting a small part of a long tradition that goes back to Schelling and Hegel and forward to Peirce, James, Nietzsche, Bergson, Dewey, Merleau-Ponty, Kauffman, Prigogine, and Deleuze. Kantian Naturalist

Chris Doyle, Please stop raining on KN's "Third Way" iconoclast parade. William J Murray

Thanks for your response, Stephen, and I'm pleased to have someone join me on the other horn of Euthyphro's dilemma :) Yes, I agree Craig is wrong.

Say this prayer: God give me the wisdom to see the light and the strength to follow it. If you don’t believe in God, then say it anyway. It is a prayer that is always answered. Follow whatever light you are given and keep following that light all the way to the end.

Yes I can and do do that, atheist though I be. I think it's the way to discern what is right, whether one thinks it comes from God, or from the process of letting oneself start to let go the ego-centred perspective and see the world from something more than a "god's eye" view. But I do not claim that it is anything other than subjective - meaning, between something I alone am party to.

That task entails several challenges: Learn about objective morality (The Natural Moral Law, The Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, The Beatitudes, and the Law of Love [Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.]) This is impossible without God’s help.

Well, I utterly approve your choice of texts (I still know the sermon on the Mount by heart, having learned all three chapters at school for a prize - the school was called "The Mount"). But in what sense is this an "objective" choice? Why not Leviticus, or some non-Christian text?

Then form your conscience according to those principles and cultivate the virtues of wisdom and prudence so that you will have the good judgment to apply that objective, absolute, and unchanging moral law to the changing and unpredictable circumstances that you face in your daily life.

Well, that sounds good, and I am not attempting to trivialise what you say when I ask: in what sense is this objective? I can see that if you believe, a priori, that the true god will not lead you astray, that this will lead you to Objective Morality - but how do you then distinguish between your Objective Morality and that of a devout Muslim who discerns that his conscience leads him to jihad? That's the core of my question - what objective means do we have of discerning right from wrong? And if all we have are subjective means (and I don't knock subjective), in what sense do we mean that the morality itself is "objective"? It seems to me like saying: this wine is the real, authentic aged yadda yadda wine, the standard by which all wines are compared. But we don't know what it tastes like, so you just have to guess.

Is divorce right or wrong?

Are you talking about divorce only, or about divorce and remarriage?

Which ever you'd like to answer. What I'm interested in is the methodology :) (I'm not divorced myself - just about to celebrate our 39th :)) Elizabeth B Liddle

'Are we, as Dr. Alexander seems to say, really forgiven for everything, even if we have not repented? I hope so (!), but that's not Judeo-Christian teaching.' Philip, my impression is that Dr Egnor, like many other people, have misconstrued the import of those words spoken to Eben by the beautiful young woman, who, it turns out, was/is a sister he had never known. Not that there aren't a few fraudsters latching on. Very transparently so. It's not mainly about sin. It's about love, self-giving love, charity, isn't it? I'm sure God would expect, would know, that Eben would be more careful to obey his commandments and teachings, not less. Remember Augustine's dictum? 'Love God and do what you like.' Same principle. A person who loves God and his fellow man won't readily become a bad person. Axel

One thing worth mentioning: atheists are not a monolithic group. Anyone can decide that they do not believe in god or gods. Some groups right manifestos, but the vast majority of atheists do not belong to atheist groups. I certainly don't. I don't even normally call myself one. Elizabeth B Liddle

It turns out, besides DNA, that quantum entanglement/information has been confirmed to be deeply embedded in protein structures as well;

Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/

Moreover, These following studies indicate that quantum information cannot be destroyed (i.e. quantum information is found to be ‘conserved’)

Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – March 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence

related note:

The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings – Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings

clear implications of all this?

Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information)- Life After Death – Stuart Hameroff – video https://vimeo.com/39982578

And if the ’70 standard deviations’ establishment of quantum entanglement is not strong enough for some:

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008 Excerpt: Leggett’s theory was more powerful than Bell’s because it required that light’s polarization be measured not just like the second hand on a clock face, but over an entire sphere. In essence, there were an infinite number of clock faces on which the second hand could point. For the experimenters this meant that they had to account for an infinite number of possible measurement settings. So Zeilinger’s group rederived Leggett’s theory for a finite number of measurements. There were certain directions the polarization would more likely face in quantum mechanics. This test was more stringent. In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/

The clear implication of this is noted here:

“I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. – quote taken from “Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness – A New Measurement” video lecture

Verse and music:

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Creed – My Sacrifice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-fyNgHdmLI

bornagain77

Chris, Axel and KN, To make the case for a transcendent soul, let’s look at the 'saga' of establishing the non-locality of quantum entanglement first: Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect, along with a bit of the history of the debate between Einstein and Bohr, talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain quantum entanglement with ‘hidden variables’:

The Failure Of Local Realism – Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145

The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) as to trying to explain quantum entanglement, was recently greatly strengthened:

Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons – Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt: In the years since, many “Bell tests” have been performed, but critics have identified several conditions (known as loopholes) in which the results could be considered inconclusive. For entangled photons, there have been three major loopholes; two were closed by previous experiments. The remaining problem, known as the “detection-efficiency/fair sampling loophole,” results from the fact that, until now, the detectors employed in experiments have captured an insufficiently large fraction of the photons, and the photon sources have been insufficiently efficient. The validity of such experiments is thus dependent on the assumption that the detected photons are a statistically fair sample of all the photons. That, in turn, leaves open the possibility that, if all the photon data were known, they could be described by local realism. The new research, conducted at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Communication in Austria, closes the fair-sampling loophole by using improved photon sources (spontaneous parametric down-conversion in a Sagnac configuration) and ultra-sensitive detectors provided by the Single Photonics and Quantum Information project in PML’s Quantum Electronics and Photonics Division. That combination, the researchers write, was “crucial for achieving a sufficiently high collection efficiency,” resulting in a high-accuracy data set – requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html

The following recent article by Sal gives us a small glimpse as to what it truly means for non-local entanglement to be confirmed to an order of ’70 standard deviations’:

SSDD: a 22 sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins? – June 23, 2013 Excerpt: So 500 coins heads is (500-250)/11 = 22 standard deviations (22 sigma) from expectation! These numbers are so extreme, it’s probably inappropriate to even use the normal distribution’s approximation of the binomial distribution, and hence “22 sigma” just becomes a figure of speech in this extreme case… https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/ssdd-a-22-sigma-event-is-consistent-with-the-physics-of-fair-coins/

The following study added to the falsification of local realism from another angle:

Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012) Excerpt: To derive their inequality, which sets up a measurement of entanglement between four particles, the researchers considered what behaviours are possible for four particles that are connected by influences that stay hidden and that travel at some arbitrary finite speed. Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can’t stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,, The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

Where this ‘outside space and time’ quantum entanglement gains traction within molecular biology as to establishing a transcendent soul for each man is here. Quantum entanglement/information has now been found in molecular biology on a massive scale:

Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA – Elisabeth Rieper – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA – Elisabeth Rieper, Janet Anders and Vlatko Vedral – February 2011 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.4053v2.pdf

bornagain77

I'm dismissing it as materialism, and rightly so. Free-will is not possible if mind is reducible to brain, or even to the whole body. Atheism rejects the immortal soul therefore all that it is left with is brains that evolved by chance to do whatever best promotes survival, and fully subject to physical laws the whole time. Chris Doyle

Chris, unlike you and William, I don't dismiss compatibilism as a cheap dodge. (Not that I'm a compatibilist, anyway, but still.) Point is, I don't think that libertarian account of freedom must be presupposed in order for the concept of free will to make any sense. (One may point out that the original conception of free will was bound up with the libertarian account; I refer the reader to my criticism of the very idea of "stolen concepts" above.) Kantian Naturalist

"'I' am my body" Kantian Naturalist

KN, holds that nothing is 'transcendent' within man. i.e. That nothing survives the physical death of the material body. Of course holding such a position KN is immediately confronted with evidence of the following sort which he must find a way to explain away (and believe me KN has the philosophical posturing to do it):

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Michaela's Amazing NEAR death experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLEmETQdMkg&feature=player_detailpage#t=629s

But aside from all KN's philosophical/intellectual posturing, or is that regardless of, physics has now advanced to the point of verifying that there is a transcendent, beyond space and time, component to man that is not reducible to a matter-energy: bornagain77

The mysteries of such synergies! Sounds like KN wants ratiocination to be some kind of 'dynamic'(!), but immaterial concept that animals produce and carry around with them. But not by the brain. By the whole animal. Or does 'bearers' have the sense of parturition? Axel

Elizabeth:

I’ve answered repeatedly, William, and been repeatedly told that without God there can be no objective morality. William Lane Craig gives an excellent example of what is wrong with thinking that morality is objective and defined as what God commands.

If you will recall, I have dealt with the problem in past discussions. Craig is wrong. Something isn't good because God commands it; God commands it because it is good.

OK, perhaps someone who believes in “objective morality” would answer this question:

OK.

Let’s say that I accept that there is an “objective morality”, God-given, or otherwise. By what method do I discern what is right and what is wrong?

Say this prayer: God give me the wisdom to see the light and the strength to follow it. If you don't believe in God, then say it anyway. It is a prayer that is always answered. Follow whatever light you are given and keep following that light all the way to the end. That task entails several challenges: Learn about objective morality (The Natural Moral Law, The Ten Commandments, The Sermon on the Mount, The Beatitudes, and the Law of Love [Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.]) This is impossible without God's help. Then form your conscience according to those principles and cultivate the virtues of wisdom and prudence so that you will have the good judgment to apply that objective, absolute, and unchanging moral law to the changing and unpredictable circumstances that you face in your daily life.

Is divorce right or wrong?

Are you talking about divorce only, or about divorce and remarriage? StephenB

LOL. VL. I'm just too sharp for you, Chris!!! Axel

Eureka! We got there in the end, KN. So, it turns out "mental properties" are ultimately reducible to.... sorry, entirely made out of matter and/or energy. That is to say, when mental properties occur, according to KN and indeed Internet Atheists, they are nothing more than brain activity, purely physical occurrences. Therefore, they are subject to the laws of physics, along with all the other matter and energy in the universe. No matter what emerges, it all just boils down to the material world. So much for free-will (remember, you were offering a defence of free-will if atheism was true: you've ended up somewhere else entirely but it is important to remember where you went wrong at the beginning so you don't make that mistake again). Now then, how about atheistic morality? You thought that was possible too at the beginning. If the conversaation here hasn't already made you change your mind, can you help Lizzie out? She ended up discarding reason for emotion. It didn't work and she admitted it. What have you got, KN? Chris Doyle

‘I regard the living animal as the bearer of mental properties, not some other thing, “the mind”, which is inside the animal or distinct from it. I don’t believe in the ghost or in the machine.’ '... the bearer of mental properties'. What does that mean in this context? It would make a tad more sense if you contended that the 'mental properties', i.e. thoughts, emotions etc, were infused on an ongoing basis, by who knows what, from who knows where. Axel

You got me, Axel! Clearly there are a million different things that "ultimately reducible to" can mean, including "not ultimately reducible to" (that's a silent not, it emerges from the sum of its parts!) Chris Doyle

So, when you take away all the matter and energy from mental properties, what substance are you left with?

None; for there is no underlying thing, substance, "mind" -- the mental properties inhere in the living animal, not in some part or aspect of it. (We can conceive of disembodied minds, yes, and so they are logically possible, but I don't think that there really are any.) Kantian Naturalist

Now you're getting contentious and resorting to sophistries, Chris, and introducing tricky concepts, like 'ultimately reducible to'. Axel

You are running pell-mell in the direction of a Creator, but, far from acknowledging it, just asserting that 'it's a fact of life', or your philosophy: 'complex systems have properties that cannot be predicted from the properties of their constituents. Like it or lump it' Axel

So, when you take away all the matter and energy from mental properties, what substance are you left with? Chris Doyle

For my part, yes. Axel

Chris, I don't know what you mean by "ultimately reducible to," but insofar as I attach any meaning to that phrase, I would say "no," since that's just the whole point of emergentism: complex systems have properties that cannot be predicted from the properties of their constituents. Kantian Naturalist

I'm simply trying to work out what you mean by mental properties because you're entire appeal to free-will rests on them. Please answer my question in post 115. Chris Doyle

Wait a minute here . . . are you people trying to argue that since mental properties are distinct from physical properties, there must be some 'immaterial entity' to which those mental properties belong, in which they inhere, etc? Is that the line of thought? Kantian Naturalist

KN: a simple yes or no answer: are these mental properties ultimately reducible to matter and/or energy? Chris Doyle

By mental properties, I mean such things as pains, pleasures, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, imaginings, dreams, fantasies, perceivings, and so on. Many of these we share with non-human animals; some of them are unique to human beings (so far as we know). Asserting that seems mere sanity to me, and nothing controversial. Kantian Naturalist

I've never heard of an animal having a mental property, other than unreflective thought. You really have no purchase on the meaning of life itself, do you? Axel

'I regard the living animal as the bearer of mental properties, not some other thing, “the mind”, which is inside the animal or distinct from it. I don’t believe in the ghost or in the machine.' That makes no sense. Mental properties? What kind of mental properties? Necessarily immaterial. Axel

So, these "mental properties"? Are they reducible to matter and energy? If not, what else are they comprised of? Chris Doyle

I didn't realise you were a dualist, KM. I thought you were a materialist, who preferred the term, 'emergentist'. Whither the emergence? Into what? Axel

So, you believe in non-physical, immaterial forces which govern the brain, KN? Do you believe that this “spiritual” entity survives physical death?

I don't believe that any part of us survives the death of the body. And I'm no more a dualist than I am a materialist; I regard the living animal as the bearer of mental properties, not some other thing, "the mind", which is inside the animal or distinct from it. I don't believe in the ghost or in the machine. Kantian Naturalist

So, you believe in non-physical, immaterial forces which govern the brain, KN? Do you believe that this "spiritual" entity survives physical death? Chris Doyle

KN, if “ventromedial prefrontal cortical inhibition of the limbic system” is itself determined by purely physical laws and quantum randomness then free-will – in the every day and intellectually honest usage of the term “free-will” – is an illusion.

But I have no reason to believe that neurophysiological processes are causally determined by "physical laws and quantum randomness" -- that's just the point of emergentism, in contrast with materialism.

So, do you still want to reconcile free-will with atheism? When other Internet Atheists are happy enough to jettison it

I don't know what "Internet Atheists" are, though it's not a bad name for a band. Anyway, I'm not an atheist, Internet or otherwise. Kantian Naturalist

Oops. Sorry. It's got no lymbic system. Axel

Andre, "lumps of meat" don't think. Living animals do; it is the whole living animal which is the bearer of mental properties and described by mental predicates. The brain no more thinks than the eyes see -- it is the living animal which sees with its eyes and thinks with its brain. And some of those animals -- the ones that have acquired a language -- are able to have very complex thoughts, such as "why I am arguing on the Internet when it's such a nice day outside?" Kantian Naturalist

KN, if "ventromedial prefrontal cortical inhibition of the limbic system" is itself determined by purely physical laws and quantum randomness then free-will - in the every day and intellectually honest usage of the term "free-will" - is an illusion. So, do you still want to reconcile free-will with atheism? When other Internet Atheists are happy enough to jettison it Chris Doyle

Your #81, very funny, William! The thing is, Liz and KN are arguing at a 'folk' level and as far as that goes, great. Very understandable. It's nice to feel 'good' about doing something 'good' and feeling 'good' about it. Why should theists be the only ones allowed to pontificate about what's good? Never mind questions about how a lump of meat, be it never so intricately complex, is able to think. Still less, have a moral compass and the capacity to make moral decisions. Is Pizza good? Why shouldn't it be? Why shouldn't it be able to think? And make moral choices? Go for it, Will! Axel

So, Kantian Naturalist, still waiting for you to revisit your initial comments. You still want to claim that atheists can have free will and moral goodness?

"Have" is ambiguous here. I assume that the challenge is better phrased as

You still want to claim that atheists are rationally entitled to believe in free will and moral goodness?

To which I answer, "yes". For one thing, whether or not atheism entails materialism depends on one's starting assumptions. DonaldM gave a nice example of how this is supposed to work in his (16) above. The idea seemed to be this: if we start off with the Bifurcated World of the Platonist/Christian/Cartesian, and then subtract one side of that dichotomy, then we're left with materialism. It's as if one were to start off with "the ghost in the machine" and then take away the "ghost," so it's "machines all the way down." And that's clearly unsatisfactory, for reasons that DonaldM, Elizabeth, Chris, William, and I would all agree upon. (I except Alan Fox because I don't know his views all that well, not because I have any reason to believe he'd disagree.) So then the question is, "how is 'machines all the way down' to be avoided?" Here the debate isn't between theists/dualists and materialists -- since there aren't any materialists here -- but between dualists and emergentists. (Elizabeth, I'll classify you with me over here in this category for the purposes of this post, but of course feel free to reject this classification.) That should dispense with the Standard Objections. Now, to work: The first thing we need to do is distinguish between explication and explanation. In explicating the sense of a concept, I convey the information needed for someone to master the use of that concept. In explaining a phenomenon, I construct a simplistic model of the phenomenon which assists understanding because I've built it. (As the models become more intricate, our explanatory purchase on the phenomenon becomes more sophisticated.) So, "do I have free will?" admits of a variety of responses. I could say, "yes; there are voluntary and non-voluntary actions, and we're responsible for the voluntary ones and not for the non-voluntary ones," etc. -- and go on quite a bit, explicating the inferential linkages between notions such as free will, autonomy, responsibility, guilt, innocence, behavior -- why we don't hold animals and very young children responsible for their actions -- and so on, and on. But, one might point out that "free will" is just a descriptive term here -- it helps us keep track of which behaviors and social practices go together -- but it doesn't really explain what free will is -- so 'free will' is more of a label for a problem than a solution to one. Let me turn things around a bit here -- supposing the emergentist's contention were granted, that organisms in general and animals in particular are not machines. And supposing it were granted, further, that normative facts are irreducible to natural facts. Still, the question might be posed as "what has to happen to the brain of an animal for it to become the brain of a rational animal?" And one part of the answer is, "over the course of enculturation and learning, the neuronal connections are sculpted so as to instantiate in that brain the ethical norms of that social group." So to the question, "do I believe I have free will?", I answer, "of course I do -- it's just that I believe that free will is best explained in terms of ventromedial prefrontal cortical inhibition of the limbic system". Kantian Naturalist

semi related: The New Theist - How William Lane Craig became Christian philosophy's boldest apostle - July 1, 2013 http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Theist/140019/?cid=wb&utm_source=wb&utm_medium=en Apologetics and philosophy at Biola University featured in the very secular and liberal Chronicle of Higher Education--and it's not even a hatchet job. WL Craig, JP Moreland, Craig Hazen, Scott Rae spoken of in nearly respectful terms due to good work and weighty scholarship. Kind of a dream come true. bornagain77

Shogun, atheists don't have a "unifying atheist scripture" but they do have the humanist manifesto, if that's any consolation. Barb

They post their ten commandments, then say "atheist is not a worldview". Sounds like an idea for a meme. Shogun

“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated.” – American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O’Hair

That's a lie, how do we know for sure? Who is to say what atheists actually "believe"? Unless they have a unifying atheist scripture in the works. Shogun

To give Alan Fox some examples of societies where rape is sanctioned: 1. South Africa: the overriding "war culture" which emphasized masculinity and violence led to a culture in which rape was normalized. 2. India: the 2012 Delhi gang rape case 3. Kenya, Africa: The Gusii tribe report 47.2 rapes per 100,000 population annually (http://www.csub.edu/~jgranskog/inst205/benderly.htm) It's most certainly not a hypothetical situation. It's very real. Barb

In re: 79

I’m not interested in your sophistry. I was pointing out your mistake (or lie, take your pick). That’s all.

That's your response to my reasoned objections against "the stolen concept fallacy" at my (75)? I point out that the very idea of such a fallacy rests on a conflation of genesis and validity -- a distinction that anyone who respects the reality of thought should accept -- and for that, I'm accused of "sophistry"? That's fantastic! Kantian Naturalist

@AF: "Raping for a good cause"-societies exist in this world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ7EoWKBhxw JWTruthInLove

Please let me know under which circumstances rape is acceptable. After all, there is no objective morality and, therefore, no behavior is intrinsically “wrong.”

Taking the English meaning, forcing a woman to have sex against her will, is in my view, a criminal act. Criminal acts are defined by societies. In principle, rape could be sanctioned by some society. I would not be able to live in such a society. Thankfully as no such society currently exists in the free world, I don't need to worry about this hypothetical situation. Alan Fox

By what method do I discern what is right and what is wrong?

I've answered that question several times on TSZ. You find moral statements that are self-evidently true; you use logic to infer from them further necessarily true moral statements, generally true moral statements and conditionally true moral statements. Disagreements are resolved by finding the common true statement and applying logical arguments from there. William J Murray

Yes, we seem to agree on both those points, Barb :) Thanks. Elizabeth B Liddle

Dr. Liddle writes,

don’t think it is ever right, Barb, although I guess it might be possible to imagine circumstances where it might be the least appalling of options: “if you rape this woman I will let her go, otherwise I will rape and kill her myself”.

Rape is one of those behaviors/acts for which I can see no real justification (torture is another example). I find that it is always objectively wrong, and I have yet to see anyone defend rape as a subjectively moral behavior. I've mentioned this book here several times. A Natural History of Rape in which researchers Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer attempt to argue that rape is biological. Have you ever heard of this book, or ever read it (or excerpts)? What did you think?

My moral principle is, as I have said, the not-very-original Golden Rule: do as you would be done by. I think it’s the most sensible rule for a social species like ourselves – the one most likely to lead to the best outcome for all.

On this we agree. Barb

William, I was responding to Barb. If it doesn't apply to you, ignore it. Elizabeth B Liddle

William:

If your game theory model shows that rape is the best way to make the most people the most happy, wouldn’t rape – by your own standards and model – be a good, moral activity?

1. Game theory doesn't show what is the best way to make the most people the most happy; it actually shows what is the best way to make the player the most happy. 2. You asked for a rational (self-interested?) reason to be moral. I gave you one (because you had asserted that it wasn't rational to behave well if you didn't think there were consequences for behaving badly). I don't think that behaving well needs to be "rational", as in reasoned, or even as in self-interested. I think we mostly intuit that what seems to make life go well is reciprocal altruism. But there are objective ways at arriving at that conclusion (in other words, lines of reasoning that independent people can agree on, which is, presumably, why the Golden Rule keeps cropping up in very different cultures). But if you could persuade me that there was a better - a more objective - way of discerning what is right and what is wrong, cool. But I'm not seeing it being presented here, and in prior discussions with you, it seems to get back to the intuition that torturing babies for pleasure is wrong. With which any atheist can agree (and you agree that atheists will agree). So where's the problem? Elizabeth B Liddle

Liz responds,

I’ve answered repeatedly, William, and been repeatedly told that without God there can be no objective morality. William Lane Craig gives an excellent example of what is wrong with thinking that morality is objective and defined as what God commands.

Didn't I just ask if Craig was here? Didn't I just ask if anyone was making Craig's argument? Perhaps you forget our prior discussions where I explicitly stated that I do not hold to such a view of God - that something is good because God commands it. I don't even hold the view that God "commands" anyone to do anything - we have the free will to do whatever we want. I suggest that if you want to argue Craig's points, you seek Craig out. Until then, all you are doing is lighting straw men and setting them on fire to provide smoke cover for your own inability to own up to the ramifications and shortcomings of atheistic morality. William J Murray

Of course I decided it in advance, Lizzie. This is not the first time I have thought about and discussed objective morality and free-will. It is plainly obvious that denying them both is an act of madness (if the denier is indeed telling the truth, rather than compromising their intellectual honesty for the sake of atheism). Most atheists do not realise that choosing to disbelieve/hate God requires the rejection of free-will and objective morality. That is the only point of this discussion: thank-you for playing a starring role in it because you're quite a star amongst Internet Atheists. So, Kantian Naturalist, still waiting for you to revisit your initial comments. You still want to claim that atheists can have free will and moral goodness? Chris Doyle

OK, perhaps someone who believes in "objective morality" would answer this question: Let's say that I accept that there is an "objective morality", God-given, or otherwise. By what method do I discern what is right and what is wrong? And, as a follow up: Is divorce right or wrong? Elizabeth B Liddle

(1) "Objective morality" is a red herring. (2) "I don't think rape is every right (moral). (a clear statement that she considers rape absolutely wrong. (3). As if there are "shades" or "percentages" as to "how objective" a commodity is, but her admittedly subjective principle is as objective as any other, even though objective morality is a red herring. Liz, If your game theory model shows that rape is the best way to make the most people the most happy, wouldn't rape - by your own standards and model - be a good, moral activity? William J Murray

My answer is that objective morality is a red herring, But I will answer Barb’s question: I don’t think it [rape] is ever right. It may not be as objective as you’d like, but I have yet to see one that is more objective.

How can anyone actually write this kind of self-contradicting nonsense and not expect to be called out on it? Is Liz here making a case that she must write whatever physics happens to command, even if it sounds more like a dog barking than a cogent argument? William J Murray

I've answered repeatedly, William, and been repeatedly told that without God there can be no objective morality. William Lane Craig gives an excellent example of what is wrong with thinking that morality is objective and defined as what God commands. My answer is that objective morality is a red herring. Even if it existed, if we have no objective way of figuring out what it means, it's a subjective as any other morality. Alternatively, if it means doing what we think some God has commanded, regardless of whether "in the absence of a divine command, [it] would have been sin", then I definitely prefer my fallible subjective attempt to use intuition and reason. But I will answer Barb's question: I don't think it is ever right, Barb, although I guess it might be possible to imagine circumstances where it might be the least appalling of options: "if you rape this woman I will let her go, otherwise I will rape and kill her myself". My moral principle is, as I have said, the not-very-original Golden Rule: do as you would be done by. I think it's the most sensible rule for a social species like ourselves - the one most likely to lead to the best outcome for all. It may not be as objective as you'd like, but I have yet to see one that is more objective. Elizabeth B Liddle

KN in #48 writes:

As I understand the views under contention here, the thought is that norms must be absolute in order to function as norms. If no norms are absolute, then putative norms just collapse into desires (perhaps aggregations of desires?). What’s unclear to me is why that’s the right way of thinking about norms to begin with.

I do give you credit for being consistent with your Kantian views, however misguided they may be. ;-) To answer your question, though, the reason its the right way to think about norms is because unless those norms are grounded in an absolute objective reality, then they are not norms, but something else. Put whatever label you want on them, subjective preferences, collective preferences, etc, it doesn't matter. Unless moral norms are grounded in an objective absolute standard that lies beyond ourselves, they are not norms. DonaldM

Axel, I just do whatever physics commands. Perhaps I'll eat some pizza and, due to unpredictable effects, the next time you read me I'll completely agree with Liz. Whatever the computation decrees, Amen. William J Murray

According to William Lane Craig, and his “divine command theory”, the answer is: when God tells you to.

Elizabeth dodges yet another answer and turns to emotional pleading, trying to stay away from the point that IF her "game theory" outputs "rape" as the best way to make the most people the happiest, it is by definition "moral". Is William Lane Craig here? Did anyone here make William Lane Craig's point? Then why bring it up? William J Murray

Kantian, I'm not interested in your sophistry. I was pointing out your mistake (or lie, take your pick). That's all. William J Murray

Barb:

Please let me know under which circumstances rape is acceptable. After all, there is no objective morality and, therefore, no behavior is intrinsically “wrong.”

According to William Lane Craig, and his "divine command theory", the answer is: when God tells you to.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

Read more Elizabeth B Liddle

What puzzles me about this odd assertion that atheist morality is "might makes right" is that in a great many religious traditions, particularly the Christian tradition, what is moral is defined as what God commands. That the All-mighty is the All-righty. Fortunately more theists than not, I think do it the other way round - they recognise what is of God by what is good. This has always seemed to me what Jesus maintained - "by your fruits ye shall know them"; "would you not pull your donkey out of a well on the Sabbath?"; "what father would give his son a snake when he asked for fish, or a stone when he asked for bread"; "who was neighbour to the man who fell among thieves"? And yet the idea persists that it is fine to prepare to slaughter your only child, kill your enemies' children and enslave their wives as long as God commanded it. Even if God's commandment did define "objective morality" - by what possible objective means am I supposed to know, if I wake up one day with the conviction that I must kill my son, that it is really God's commandment, and not a mental disorder? What is "objective" about a system where the only possible inquiries as to what that "objective" system requires are mediated via subjective personal revelation? Elizabeth B Liddle

You're masochists arguing with Liz and Lars, especially you, William. It's a pity KN is on their side. It would be hilarious to see them trying to outbamboozle each other, with circular and sometimes just 'vanilla' nonsense. Barry's got a lot to answer for letting Liz back! He should know your'e a bunch of brilliant, erudite innocents. Axel

In re: 62

Objectivists define the fallacy of the stolen concept: the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

Objectivists? Objectivists? You're getting your theory of concepts from them? Oh boy. The confusion at work in the idea of a "stolen concept fallacy" turns on the phrase "the the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends", and more specifically, "logically and genetically." It's fairly clear that concepts have both correct circumstances of application and inferential consequences, and both are defined in terms of the role that concepts play in judgment. If I assert, "that box is heavy" while pointing at a light-bulb, I've not used the concepts 'box' or 'heavy' correctly; if I assert, "that box is heavy" in the correct circumstances, then I'm committed to other judgments as inferential consequences (e.g. "that box is heavy, therefore it is not light"). So there is a moderate degree of semantic holism. But the "logically and genetically" messes it all up, because (a) conditions of genesis and conditions of validity are different things, and so (b) conditions of genesis cannot determine validity. There is no such thing as a genetic dependence of one concept on another that can determine validity or invalidity. So the Objectivists have made a colossal blunder. Don't follow them in this. And of course, if there is such a thing as "the stolen concept fallacy," defined as the Objectivists define it, then it would be an instance of the fallacy itself for the concept of that fallacy to be used independent of how Objectivists used it. Kantian Naturalist

Alan Fox writes, There is no objective morality. None! Please let me know under which circumstances rape is acceptable. After all, there is no objective morality and, therefore, no behavior is intrinsically "wrong." Barb

Well, that society would think so.

It's amazing how much misdirection and obfuscation you can stuff into a single post, Liz. What do you mean "That society would think so?" Are you deflecting and dissembling because you don't want to own up to the ramifications of your own argument? "That society" would be arriving at their moral guidelines exactly in the manner that you have outlined - by running a games theory model about what would generate the most happiness for the most people. So by your definition of "good", it is necessarily and definitionally a good thing, if that games model outcome is correct, to oppress and torture the minority in the society. Can you not simply admit that this is true - that if someone ran a game theory model and the evidence showed that "torturing children for fun" produced more happiness for more people than the altruism model, then "torturing children for fun" would, by definition, be a morally good thing?

I don’t see that theism helps much.

Only theism offers a principle (presumed absolute morality) by which your model, if it produced such an outcome as "we should torture children for fun", could be denied as being moral or good. It offers the principle by which any such claimed basis, motto, authority or rationale can be challenged and denied.

What’s the point of an so-called “objective” morality if no-one can agree on what it is?

A presumed absolute morality provides the conceptual basis for a sound moral system that an admittedly entirely subjective morality cannot; it also provides a significant motivator to behave morally that an admittedly subjective morality cannot provide; it also provides a presumed means by which moral disagreements an be arbited that an admittedly subjective morality cannot offer. Please note my use of the term "presumed" and "admittedly", because those are important to the point.

One might as well use intuitive and reason – it’s what we end up using anyway.

Intuition about what? About what one subjectively prefers? You have no need to "intuit" what is "moral" if you accept that morality is entirely subjective; you only have to ask "what would I prefer"? The only way "intuit" means anything significant in this statement is if you are attempting to "intuit" about something presumed to be objectively real. Definition of intuition:

1. instinctive knowledge: the state of being aware of or knowing something without having to discover or perceive it, or the ability to do this 2. instinctive belief: something known or believed instinctively, without actual evidence for i

But, what is the "it" you are "intuiting", if "it" is an entirely subjective "whatever I prefer" commodity? If morality is entirely subjective, you are simply exploring your own preferences, you aren't attempting to intuit knowledge about something actually existent "out there".

Well, I think morality is “about” what we ought to do, rather than what we “want” to do. That seems fairly non-controversial. But it seems rational to me to discern what we “ought” to do on the basis of what will bring about greater happiness (in ourselves or others) than what we currently “want” to do.

Why should we do what will bring about greater happiness in ourselves and others, unless that is what we want to do? I think you're attempting to have your cake and eat it too. Didn't you say:

Oh boy. Because it’s the state to which we aspire? Because it’s what we call the state to which we aspire? Because “I want to be unhappy” is an oxymoron? Do I have to explain why black is necessarily darker than white?

IOW, "we all want to be happy, we all aspire to be happy, this is why "happiness" is the goal of morality? You pretty much blatantly said here that happiness is the goal of morality because that is what we all innately want." ... but yet, out of the other side of your mouth, say that morality is about what we should do, not what we want to do. William J Murray

Chris:

Any position which involves the denial of free-will AND objective morality is just about the most unreasonable, self-defeating and downright insane position anyone can ever hold.

If you have decided this in advance of any discussion, Chris, then clearly there isn't a great deal of point discussing it. But I did invite you to examine your own concept of free will for coherence. I reluctantly abandoned it, not because I didn't want to believe in it, but because I concluded that it didn't actually make sense - if it is immaterial, how does it inform itself and interact with matter? And if it does not inform itself, how can it make good choices? If it does not interact with matter, how can it make any difference to our actions? And if it does both, in what sense is it immaterial? You may have answers to these questions, but rather than dismissing my position as a "denial of free will", would you not consider addressing these questions? After all, if you could answer them to my satisfaction, you would probably have a reconvert :) As for denying "objective morality": I neither deny it nor accept it. I don't know what it means. If it is objective in the sense that it is an absolute standard - what use is that if there is no objective way of finding out what that standard is? And if there is an objective way, why do so many theists disagree about it? Does it not strike you that there is not much that is objective about morality if there is so little consensus about what it is? Especially, when what consensus there is is shared fairly universally, regardless of whether a person is an atheist or a theist?

Atheists have got two choices: admit that that is what they believe so normal people can make their excuses and leave the crazy talk to the crazy people. Alternatively, they can ask themselves: “if atheism requires the denial of free will AND objective morality, do I really want to carry on being an atheist?”

What atheism (which I guess is what you'd call my position, although it still seems fairly theistic to me) "requires" of me is simply the perception that I have the capacity to choose my actions by virtue of my ability to foresee the consequences of alternative courses of action and to choose those most likely to further my goals, and also the capacity to take moral responsibility for my actions, including the effects of my actions on the welfare of others. That does not seem so bad to me. Elizabeth B Liddle

Well, the limitations of our cognitive access to reality, and the fallibility of our judgments formed on the basis of that access, is consistent with the objectivity of those judgments in just that minimal sense of objective that contrasts with fantasies, hallucinations, etc.

Shared experience is the key to avoiding fantasy. I'm always glad when it's not just me! :) Alan Fox

So .. might makes right. That is principle upon which the morality of atheists rests. At least Alan Fox is honest enough to admit it.

I always say what I think, William, and you never fail to misinterpret it. That's life! Alan Fox

LT, I understand perfectly. Any position which involves the denial of free-will AND objective morality is just about the most unreasonable, self-defeating and downright insane position anyone can ever hold. Atheists have got two choices: admit that that is what they believe so normal people can make their excuses and leave the crazy talk to the crazy people. Alternatively, they can ask themselves: "if atheism requires the denial of free will AND objective morality, do I really want to carry on being an atheist?" Search your heart, LT. You and me both know that there is such a thing as good and evil and that you are in complete control of your actions. Don't be a follower of Internet Atheists: they are just plain wrong. About everything. Chris Doyle

That’ll do for me.

Exactly the problem. No attempt to understand. No attempt to consider. No attempt to learn. Just glib offense at having your "self-evident truth" rejected. UD is the worst orgy ever. LarTanner

No need, Lizzie. You've said it all before. You admitted that there is no such thing as free will and denied objective morality. That'll do for me. Chris Doyle

Chris, you might want to re-read my posts. Elizabeth B Liddle

So, you admit it just happens to turn out (supposedly) that a system of reciprocal altruism promotes “best happiness” (but one wonders how many behavioral models are tested under “game theory”). Pointedly, if it happened to turn out that a societal practice of torturing children for fun “best promoted” the greatest amount of happiness, then that practice by definition would be “moral”.

Well, that society would think so. Presumably that's why people have offered up child sacrifices. Abraham, eventually, thought it was moral to sacrifice his child on a pyre because he thought God had commanded him to. I don't see that theism helps much - that's the point. What's the point of an so-called "objective" morality if no-one can agree on what it is? One might as well use intuitive and reason - it's what we end up using anyway.

But then, of course, all of this relies upon your entirely subjective and rather unique definition of “morality”. I’ve literally never heard anyone else, nor have I read any definition of morality, that had anything to do with “happiness”, much less make it the center point. And yet here you are, apparently unable to even conceive of any other concept of what morality could possibly be about.

Well, I think morality is "about" what we ought to do, rather than what we "want" to do. That seems fairly non-controversial. But it seems rational to me to discern what we "ought" to do on the basis of what will bring about greater happiness (in ourselves or others) than what we currently "want" to do. I guess there are other schemes, but "happiness" seems as good a stab at what a "good" state is as any. Better than "misery" anyway. Elizabeth B Liddle

LT, that is the most ridiculous summing up of this discussion. I recommend you re-read post 52 where WJM sums it up perfectly. The likes of KN denied that atheism entails the loss of moral goodness and free will. The likes of Lizzie then admitted that there is no such thing as free will if atheism is true before getting herself in all sorts of knots over morality. Check out post 39. Look at the analogy with the mill-wheel and water. Now swap "water" for "mugger" and "mill-wheel" for "little old lady". You can either blame the mugger for mugging the old lady or blame the old lady for being mugged: it's all the same to Lizzie. She's not impressed with a rational basis for morality for one simple reason: if atheism is true then free-riding is the most rational strategy. It's so inescapable that only by abandoning reason itself can you delay the car crash by a few more seconds! Then it turns out that she thinks morality is something you do to maximise happiness. She couldn't be further from the truth if she tried. A fine job? Of demonstrating how ridiculous atheism is, absolutely. None of us could have done a better job, even WJM! PS. Kantian Naturalist: would you care to revise your second post on this thread? It is clearly false as you can now see from this discussion. Chris Doyle

Well, the limitations of our cognitive access to reality, and the fallibility of our judgments formed on the basis of that access, is consistent with the objectivity of those judgments in just that minimal sense of objective that contrasts with fantasies, hallucinations, etc. Kantian Naturalist

#60: From Wikipedia:

Indirectly self-denying statements or "fallacy of the stolen concept" Objectivists define the fallacy of the stolen concept: the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_concept William J Murray

I don’t understand the question, Alan.

That's really what I meant! I didn't understand your comment.

But maybe I should elaborate a bit on where I’m coming from.

Exactly!!!

For one thing, I distinguish between what is objective and what is absolute, so norms don’t cease being objective just by virtue of not being absolute. For another, the objectivity of norms is, as I see it, compatible with thinking that norms are fundamentally social — the norms of thought and action consist in what we hold other people to and what they hold his to. Furthermore, we can and should distinguish between the objectivity of norms and the objectivity of facts.

Well, I think we are only capable of forming a provisional view of reality via our sensory inputs. Maybe there is absolute truth but we are far from being able to discern it with certainty. Feel free not to indulge me. I really don't grasp philosophy (or entropy for that matter!) But in the meantime life goes on and why not make the best of it? Alan Fox

@58: agreed. Also, there's no such thing as "the stolen concept fallacy". Kantian Naturalist

As you yourself said above, to prove my point:

And it turns out that our happiness is best promoted by a cooperating in a system of reciprocal altruism. There is perfectly good empirical evidence for this, and even mathematical models.

So, you admit it just happens to turn out (supposedly) that a system of reciprocal altruism promotes "best happiness" (but one wonders how many behavioral models are tested under "game theory"). Pointedly, if it happened to turn out that a societal practice of torturing children for fun "best promoted" the greatest amount of happiness, then that practice by definition would be "moral". But then, of course, all of this relies upon your entirely subjective and rather unique definition of "morality". I've literally never heard anyone else, nor have I read any definition of morality, that had anything to do with "happiness", much less make it the center point. And yet here you are, apparently unable to even conceive of any other concept of what morality could possibly be about. William J Murray

Elizabeth Liddle, You did a fine job in a discussion made very difficult by your interlocutor's lack of empathy and outright hostility. Your points were made clearly and thoroughly. Your opponent mentioned "just playing games and lying." He meant to refer to you, but everyone sees exactly what has been going on. Please keep making the good case! LT LarTanner

But for what it’s worth, yes, I do think that happiness if fundamental to morality, for the simple reason I gave: that it’s the word we give to a state to which we aspire.

Contradicting yourself again. If morality is subjective, then "happiness" cannot be held as "fundamental to morality" (fundamental is a stolen concept here); and, as usual, you ignore the not-so-pleasant, necessary ramifications of your position: such as, if it is the consensus view, and operationally successful, that the happiness of the majority is best served by the oppression and torture of the minority, then by definition oppressing and torturing the minority is morally good, because it provides for the greatest sense of happiness for the most people. IOW, if the best operational system, under your game theory paradigm, for providing the most happiness for the most people required oppressing and torturing a few (including children), then that practice, by definition, would be morally obligatory. William J Murray

William:

I think you’re just playing games and lying.

Well, I'm not, William. I don't lie, and the only games I play are an occasional tactic to try to get across a point (oh, and to tease JoeG). As I explained. But I don't see any point in continuing a conversation in which there is not a basic assumption of good faith on both sides. As mine is not reciprocated, we should probably just end it there. But for what it's worth, yes, I do think that happiness if fundamental to morality, for the simple reason I gave: that it's the word we give to a state to which we aspire. Therefore, if we prevent other people from reaching such a state, or prioritise our own happiness over our own, we are doing something germane to the issue of morality. And it turns out that our happiness is best promoted by a cooperating in a system of reciprocal altruism. There is perfectly good empirical evidence for this, and even mathematical models. In other words, it does not take an assumption of theism to derive. But I've made this point many times, and as your response is that I am deceiving myself and lying, there probably isn't any point in making it to you again. But someone might find it useful so I have done it. Cheers Lizzie Elizabeth B Liddle

Rubbish. Morality ideally is collective personal preference. There is no objective morality. None!

By what measure is morality "ideally" collective personal preference, if not your own personal preference? You've just contradicted yourself. You should have said that morality is ideally whatever you personally prefer it to be. William J Murray

Rubbish. Morality ideally is collective personal preference. There is no objective morality. None!

So, if it is the collective personal preference to torture children for fun, it is by definition moral. Right? Whatever the might of the consensus decrees, that is what right is. Right? So .. might makes right. That is principle upon which the morality of atheists rests. At least Alan Fox is honest enough to admit it. William J Murray

I don't understand the question, Alan. But maybe I should elaborate a bit on where I'm coming from. For one thing, I distinguish between what is objective and what is absolute, so norms don't cease being objective just by virtue of not being absolute. For another, the objectivity of norms is, as I see it, compatible with thinking that norms are fundamentally social -- the norms of thought and action consist in what we hold other people to and what they hold his to. Furthermore, we can and should distinguish between the objectivity of norms and the objectivity of facts. Kantian Naturalist

Oh boy. Because it’s the state to which we aspire?

What does that have to do with morality?

Because it’s what we call the state to which we aspire? Because “I want to be unhappy” is an oxymoron?

So, morality is about what anyone wants to do? Under atheism, then, there is no difference between "want", and "should"?

Do I have to explain why black is necessarily darker than white?

What this says to me is that you are assuming that "morality" is absolutely about "people wanting to be happy"; therefore, if people are made happy by torturing infants for fun, and that is what they want to do, then questioning that concept of morality is the same as questioning the idea that black is darker than white? IOW, although you deny any absolute definition of morality, and any absolute view of what humans "should" do, and consider it all subjective, you now claim that "people wanting to be happy" is as necessarily what "morality" is as black being darker than white?

This is angels on pins, William. If we can’t agree that happiness is a more blessed state than unhappiness (indeed it’s what “blessed” means) then I don’t think any shared ground is possible!

I have no idea what you mean by "blessed state"; what it appears to me now is that even though you have admitted that morality is subjective, unless I agree with you about what it means and how it is defined, then debate is impossible and I am as wrong about morality (even though it is subjective) as a person who denies that black is darker than white. Hypocritical and self-contradictory. This is the kind of nonsense that ensues from poorly examined philosophy. The fact here is that you simply cannot conceive of "morality" being or meaning anything other than what you consider it to be, and meaning anything other than what you personally, subjectively hold it to mean, and so all of your "answers" to my questions assume the consequent and/or beg the question. Even though you consider morality subjective, your words are belied by your insistence that your basis for moral interpretation is no more subjective than black being darker than white. All of your arguments about morality assume that those you are debating operate from the same moral premise as you - "people should do what is most likely to make themselves and others as happy as possible", apparently blithely unaware that for billions of people throughout history, morality means no such thing; morality means obeying the purpose (will) of God, whether or not it makes anyone "happy". But, I don't think anyone is really that blithely ignorant of what morality has meant throughout history; I think you're just playing games and lying. William J Murray

But what about real life, KN? Alan Fox

It's hard for me to conceive of an argument strong enough to undermine the objectivity of moral norms that isn't also strong enough to undermine the objectivity of epistemic, semantic, and logical norms. Kantian Naturalist

There’s no reason to use the term “morality” to describe what one holds simply as their personal preference – unless, of course, one is being deceptive.

Rubbish. Morality ideally is collective personal preference. There is no objective morality. None! Alan Fox

Keep playing your games, Liz. The only person you are deceiving is yourself.

Pure projection, William. You are the oddball, not Lizzie. Alan Fox

Who’s asking you to?

Since morality is a question of what people should do, then claiming that a thing is moral is a de facto claim that people should adopt that practice or view. There's no reason to use the term "morality" to describe what one holds simply as their personal preference - unless, of course, one is being deceptive. William J Murray

Since I'm not a materialist or an atheist,I'm not interested in defending those positions. Instead, my interest in this conversation turns on my interest in understanding the nature of norms. As it takes shape here, the relevant question is, "what do we need in order to make intelligible the distinction between norms and desires?". A closely related question is, "what is the relation between that distinction and the objective/subjective distinction and the absolute/relative distinction?" As I understand the views under contention here, the thought is that norms must be absolute in order to function as norms. If no norms are absolute, then putative norms just collapse into desires (perhaps aggregations of desires?). What's unclear to me is why that's the right way of thinking about norms to begin with. Kantian Naturalist

Why should I adopt your ethical system?

Who's asking you to? You have the absolute right to think what you think. You need to grant others that same right. You should be unsurprised if the vast majority of those that look at your world-view choose not to share it. Alan Fox

Mark Frank writes,

The good news is that this not true. Science and technology (conducted as you say by both believers and non-believers) have done much to conquer disease (smallpox, polio, diptheria, measles …..) and reduce if not banish poverty.

Science has conquered disease in a limited capacity. There are diseases that have cures (smallpox) or vaccinations that prevent outbreaks (measles, diptheria). But this pales in comparison to new antibiotic-resistant diseases that crop up (SARS, H1N1, HIV/AIDS). I have great respect for epidemiologists and pathologists; I also respect what medical science has done in terms of advancing our knowledge of how the human body fights disease. But to say that disease has been completely conquered is a misnomer. People still get sick every single day.

The number of people without enough to eat has fallen by 130 million since 1990 despite adding about 1.5 billion to the population. Of course that is not a reason for complacency – there are still nearly a 100 million people without enough to eat – but it is incredible progress.

Poverty has not been vanquished by science, not by a long shot. There are people in the richest nation in the world (USA) living in poverty. This, however, has more to do with the politicians than with scientists. Barb

Of related note: Euthyphro's Dilemma answered - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iffPFCCx-iY bornagain77

William

Those were all question-begging reiterations of “what your morality is”. Why should I consider happiness a necessary aspect of “what morality is”?

Oh boy. Because it's the state to which we aspire? Because it's what we call the state to which we aspire? Because "I want to be unhappy" is an oxymoron? Do I have to explain why black is necessarily darker than white? This is angels on pins, William. If we can't agree that happiness is a more blessed state than unhappiness (indeed it's what "blessed" means) then I don't think any shared ground is possible! Elizabeth B Liddle

No, my ethical system is based on a slightly elaborated Golden Rule: Be generous, penalise cheaters, but be merciful.

So? Why should I adopt yoru ethical system?

You can get it from first principles from Game theory.

First principles from game theory? Do you mean "from first principles or from game theory?" What you don't seem to comprehend here is that there is a fundamental conceptual difference between morality as a first principle (absolute good) and morality as a code of behavior derived from "game theory"; there is no fundamental reason one must accept game theory, or any code of behavior derived from it, in the first place. IOW, if I reject your premise that morality is about a "game theory" method of distributing as much "happiness" as possible, there is no presumed necessary consequence for me rejecting it. All I am doing is rejecting your subjective opinion about what morality "should" be about, and in so doing I accrue no necessary moral consequences. So, your "game theory" concept of "what morality is" elicits a big fat "so what", and a big fat "who sez?", because there is simply no compelling, presumed reason for me to accept it in the first place. If morality is absolute, and carries with it necessary consequences, then there is reason one must accept the "shoulds" such a source of morality produces, whether they personally prefer such shoulds or not.

Or you can just use your intuition and/or learn from the social customs that on the whole have arisen to approximate to the Game Theory solution, because it has been discovered to work.

To work at doing what? What you personally, subjectively define as "morality"?

You believe in God. I believe in Good, where Good is, essentially, Love. God is Love; Good is Love. God is Good.

The difference being that under your paradigm, if I personally consider it good to torture infants for fun, it is by definition good. Under my paradigm, if you personally consider it good to torture infants for fun, it's still wrong - for you, and for anybody, in any culture. You are, once again, stealing concepts your ideology has no right to use, for the sake of deception, even if that deception is your own.

Those statements seem to me to be not terribly different from each other.

Concepts underlie the validity and worth of any statement; concepts require contextualizations and foundations. You a using terms that draw upon context and foundation your ideology denies, which is a classic, self-refuting case of concept stealing. William J Murray

I was not “unwilling”, William, and indeed did that very thing many times. I pointed you at Game theory; I pointed you at research; I pointed you at th

Those were all question-begging reiterations of "what your morality is". Why should I consider happiness a necessary aspect of "what morality is"? Why should I consider anything you define as moral as having anything to do with morality? You've never answered that; you've only ducked and weaved via question-begging.

But you just kept insisting that I hadn’t answered your question.

You answer questions that I do not ask, or you simply reiterate your definition of what morality "is", giving no reason why I "should" accept that definition of morality. You keep assuming your definition of morality when you explain why I should care about it, but I'm asking you why I should assume your definition in the first place. You have no answer for that, other than to simply insist upon that definition.

So why keep insinuating that atheists don’t?

You're lying. I've corrected you on this many times. I've never insinuated that atheists don't know that torturing babies for fun is wrong. Of course they know it is. What I've repeatedly stated is that there is no meaningful principle under atheism that allows for such "knowledge", because under atheism it can only be "knowledge" in the sense that an atheist "knows" their own subjective preferences and predilections. Under atheism, if one prefers and enjoys torturing babies for fun, then it is by definition moral - a subjective preference - for that person. IOW, atheists are either lying, self-deluded or simply ignorant of the necessary ramifications of their own philosophy if they claim to "know" that torturing infants for fun is wrong, in any significant sense of the term "know". They just personally prefer not to torture babies for fun, and would personally prefer that others don't engage in the activity. But, it cannot be "wrong" by any significant standard because, under atheism, there is no such standard of right and wrong; there is only personal definitions and preference.

So there’s the rationale, William. Please don’t accuse me again of not providing it.

That's a rationale based entirely upon what you personally consider to be the definition of "morality"; you have not given me any reason to adopt your definition of morality in the first place, nor any rationale for adopting that definition. All you are doing is providing a theoretical means for people to get along and be as happy as possible, as if that is what "morality" necessarily "is". You are assuming the consequent - assuming that what you consider "morality" to be about in the first place.

That’s it really. It’s not rocket science. And it doesn’t need to be theology.

IOW, you can string any set of words together that you want, whether or not your ideology provides an conceptual support for those terms and implications thereof, and dismiss anyone who challenges your use of concepts by snidely deriding them as "making things too complicated" or say "it's not rocket science". Keep playing your games, Liz. The only person you are deceiving is yourself. William J Murray

I don’t see how the self “as part of the organism/as the whole organism” distinction changes the fact that the self is a slave to physical laws and quantum randomness, Lizzie. But why is it more correct to say that "the self is slave to physical laws" than that "physical laws are slave to the self"? Let's pursue the metaphor: Let's say that a millwheel drives a millstone. The wheel turn because the water drives it. So really the "water" is grinding the corn, not the mill-wheel. So the mill-wheel is the "slave" and "merely" does what the "water" tells it. But why not equally say that the mill-wheel "tells" the water to turn it, simply by being there. After all, if it were not, the "water" would be "free" to fall straight down. In other words, we are simply modeling the same system with two different metaphors. You say my "organism" is "slave" to my neurons (or atoms, or quarks or whateve). I say my neurons, atoms, quarks are "slave" to my "organism". Both are as true and no more true, than the other. The fact is that they are 100% correlated, and trying to decide on the direction of causation is like asking whether, when two asteroids collide, which one did the hitting, and which was hit. But regarding the higher level as the "driver" makes more intuitive sense, because it is at the systems level - the organism level - that we can start to understand the decision-making mechanisms. You cannot predict my decisions by observing my neurons, or atoms or quarks - because the system consists not merely of its parts but of its arrangement. But you can make a stabe at predicting my decisions by understanding me as a decision-maker, in other words as an organism. So that's the efficient level-of-analysis. It's no more or less correct than trying to do it at quark level. But it's possible, while doing it at quark level isn't.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, that’s the end of that. There is INDISPUTABLY no such thing as free-will if atheism is true.

The think you think is free will is not possible under atheism. My argument is that it's not possible at all. How can a thing both be independent of material causation AND be informed AND interact with matter to change its direction? If you can answer that (to my satisfaction :)), I will consider the possibility that your free will can exist. Until then I am happy with the one I've got, which is informed, can act with goals that can be adjusted in the light of new information, and a morality based on what seems to promote the kind of society that I would like to live in. Elizabeth B Liddle

If morality is subjective, like preferring chocolate pie to strawberry, then any attempt to enforce a moral standard on others through law (like, not stealing or killing) is the simple imposition of subjective preference on others through force – IOW, might makes right. So, if you feel that eating cherry pie is wrong, and many other people agree with you, then making a law against the eating of cherry pie, and enforcing it, is moral. Right?

I seem to recall that the architects of the US Constitution and government had a way to address and mitigate "the simple imposition of subjective preference on others through force." Perhaps you have a better way. Do tell. LarTanner

As far as our discussion at TSZ, that ended because you are unwilling to explain why anyone should adopt your view of “what morality is”. If there are no necessary consequences to immoral behavior, there is no rational reason to behave morally. Period. There is no iteration of atheistic morality that offers necessary consequences, because (1) there is no presumed absolute standard of what is moral in the first place, and (2) whatever subjective or consensus moral standard society or an individual might devise does not offer necessary consequences – only arbitrary or haphazard consequences.

I was not "unwilling", William, and indeed did that very thing many times. I pointed you at Game theory; I pointed you at research; I pointed you at the fact that most people are happiest when others are happy. But you just kept insisting that I hadn't answered your question. So I thought I'd turn the tables and let you define how you know what is good. At one point you said it was that you knew that torturing babies for pleasure is wrong. I agree. I think everyone pretty well agrees. So why keep insinuating that atheists don't? Or that we need to provide a "reason", whereas you just need to assert that it is "self-evident"? It's really rather insulting, hence my rather curt responses. Atheists are just as capable of theists of figuring out what is right and wrong, based on a combination of gut instinct, reason, and experience. If they want to be really nerdy, they can simulate it in Game Theory, and do that. But as it's so simple, and actually so self-evident it's not really necessary. Reciprocity is good for everyone, and when most people are reasonably content, it's easier for everyone to be content, so it's a virtuous circle. We sleep more easily when others aren't howling in despair. We also sleep more easily if we trust others to comfort us in our despair. We are a social species, and so our own best interests are best served by what best serves us all. Mostly that means Do as you would be done by; sometimes it means depriving those who don't from some of the benefits of society; but it also means being fairly merciful and forgiving, because people do tend to respond to penalties positively, and we can then reap the benefit of their return to society as productive members rather than paying to keep them locked up. So there's the rationale, William. Please don't accuse me again of not providing it. Theists make things so blooming complicated. I am this thing over here typing this post; I have free will because I can choose different course of action depending on what my goals are, and I can even choose my goals. I know that altruism is good, because it makes the world a nicer place to be, but I also know that we sometimes have to punish people who don't get that, to keep them from disrupting society, and also, with luck, to teach them a wiser way to behave. That's it really. It's not rocket science. And it doesn't need to be theology. Elizabeth B Liddle

The fact that moral goodness is subjective doesn’t make it non-existent!

If morality is subjective, like preferring chocolate pie to strawberry, then any attempt to enforce a moral standard on others through law (like, not stealing or killing) is the simple imposition of subjective preference on others through force - IOW, might makes right. So, if you feel that eating cherry pie is wrong, and many other people agree with you, then making a law against the eating of cherry pie, and enforcing it, is moral. Right? William J Murray

I don't see how the self "as part of the organism/as the whole organism" distinction changes the fact that the self is a slave to physical laws and quantum randomness, Lizzie. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, that's the end of that. There is INDISPUTABLY no such thing as free-will if atheism is true. If theism is true, on the other hand, then we have a rational objective basis for morality. You may not like that morality, you may prefer to do whatever you please instead and act on your feelings: to hell with reason. But you would be in a small minority. Most people love and revere theistic morality: even atheists, why else do they desperately cling to it if they truly believe that there meaningless existence will end in oblivion no matter what they say or do? One thing is for sure: subjective morality is a complete and utter failure. If that is all you've got, then that's the end of that too. Chris Doyle

No, William, I know that "you" are not separate from "heart" or "head". It was a metaphor. I've very explicitly said, repeatedly that "I" - my "self" - am, in my view, Lizzie-the-organism, i.e. heart, head, sensory system, motor-system, history, experience, genes, decision-making apparatus. Not one of them - the entire system. Far from being "reductionist" I am an "inclusivist". I do not relegate my "self" to some shadowy immaterial entity that somehow despite being immaterial is nonetheless informed by material information and has an effect on matter. I am, this thing, this whole thing, sitting here, typing. this system. This person.

So, your morality is based on what any individual desires? Or is it based on “what makes most people feel happy”?

No, my ethical system is based on a slightly elaborated Golden Rule: Be generous, penalise cheaters, but be merciful. You can get it from first principles from Game theory. Or you can just use your intuition and/or learn from the social customs that on the whole have arisen to approximate to the Game Theory solution, because it has been discovered to work. Or alternatively, simply regard it as an article of faith. You believe in God. I believe in Good, where Good is, essentially, Love. God is Love; Good is Love. God is Good. Those statements seem to me to be not terribly different from each other. Elizabeth B Liddle

The latter. I’ll show you mine if you show you yours.

No, thanks. I think I'll just stop here with your admission that you are playing games. As far as our discussion at TSZ, that ended because you are unwilling to explain why anyone should adopt your view of "what morality is". If there are no necessary consequences to immoral behavior, there is no rational reason to behave morally. Period. There is no iteration of atheistic morality that offers necessary consequences, because (1) there is no presumed absolute standard of what is moral in the first place, and (2) whatever subjective or consensus moral standard society or an individual might devise does not offer necessary consequences - only arbitrary or haphazard consequences. William J Murray

In that case rationality is over-rated. Fortunately most of us use our feelings as well – our hearts as well as our heads.

How is the computed output of one local subset of physics/biology "more fortunate" than another? Aren't they all just equal products of physics? You are again stealing concepts; "you" are not separate from "heart" or "head", nor do you "use" them. You, what you consider your heart and your head, and how all of that is processed via the computation of physics are all just parts and outputs of the computation. "You" do not "use" anything; your sense of self, your sensation of "using" some computational commodity, and your ideas of "heart" and "head" are as much computed physiological effects as anything else. The physics computation has outputted (1)"you", (2) the words saying you caused the choice of X, and (3) X. "You" are an aspect of and an ongoing result of the computation; you do not control it or have any supervision over it.

Escaping detection is not the only human motive for avoiding hurting others – the simple desire to avoid hurting others is also a powerful motivator. Most of us feel happier ourselves when we make others happy, than when we make them sad.

So, your morality is based on what any individual desires? Or is it based on "what makes most people feel happy"? William J Murray

William:

You’re the one that made the claim that the reason to not steal under atheism is the same as theism, and now when asked to clarify, you ask me what is wrong with stealing under theism? So, either you lied, or you are playing games.

The latter. I'll show you mine if you show you yours. But in any case I gave an answer. You just didn't recognise it as such.

So, Liz has no answer, under atheism, why I should care how my actions affect others. IOW, there is no reason under atheism why I should care how my actions affect others.

Perhaps there isn't (actually I think there are lots - Game Theory gives us an excellent rationale for altruism + justice tempered by mercy as the way of maximising our own wellbeing) - but that wouldn't mean I didn't care. I do. Perhaps it's irrational, but it's a fact. It's a very common fact. Personally, I think it's because it's a partially evolved trait. But there really is no point in going round in further circles, William. We've already done so at TSZ. I've given you my rationale for altruism, and I've said that at least part of the reason we think things are wrong is that we feel that they are wrong. I suggest that you yourself start from a similar basis when you say that you start from the "self-evident" truth that torturing babies for pleasure is wrong. Why is it self-evident? Because it "feels" wrong. Fair enough. But that doesn't give you a monopoly of cool reason. Hot indignation is right up there with you as well as with me. As for my supposed "ignorance" of Christian thought. I did not say all Christians thought that. But I have met some. Chris Doyle himself has presented the argument that an atheist has no reason to avoid doing a wrong thing if there is no chance of being caught, whereas a theist must always be aware that he is being observed by God. Chris will correct me no doubt if I have mis-characterised his view. Elizabeth B Liddle

If the self is purely physical then it is a slave to physical laws and quantum randomness, Lizzie. In other words, there is no room for free-will. You can’t have a self which is merely a part of the organism AND free-will, if you have to redefine free-will, you simply confirm what I said at the start: if atheism is true, there is no such thing as free-will.

I didn't saythe self was "merely part of the organism". I said it was the organism. I am not a "reductionist". I do not think a system, like an organism, can be "reduced" to its parts. I think it has properties that its parts do not possess. One of those properties is a mind. And one of the things that mind can do is construct a sense of self.

Likewise, if you have to ditch rationality in order to reconcile morality with atheism, you are confirming the other point I made at the outset: if atheism is true, then there is no such thing as moral goodness. Emotional urges are purely subjective and pinning your hopes on some illusory moral consensus is simply providing happy hunting ground for all rational atheists: free-riding has never been easier or more appealing to them.

It means no such thing. The fact that moral goodness is subjective doesn't make it non-existent! Mine is no more subjective than yours, or any theists, as William's post makes clear. Muslims (he claims) think that stealing from infidels is OK. We may think that we have chosen an "objective" moral standard, but the very fact that we have chosen it, while others choose others, show that the choice itself is subjective. The only arguments I have seen for a religious "morality" being more "rational" than an atheist ones are that: 1. If you think you will be punished in the afterlife for being immoral, you have an incentive to be moral. 2. If there is no objective morality there is no reason to be moral. I think (1) isn't about "morality" at all - if we only do the "right" thing for fear of being punished, what's "good" about our behaviour? It no more "good" than that of a child who only refrains from stealing candy because he's spotted the CCTV. And (2) is useless unless there is some objective way of determining what the putative "objective" morality is. If it's something to do with a god, how do you decide which god? Objectively? Elizabeth B Liddle

Well, you tell me what is wrong with it under theism, and I’ll tell you whether it’s the same.

You're the one that made the claim that the reason to not steal under atheism is the same as theism, and now when asked to clarify, you ask me what is wrong with stealing under theism? So, either you lied, or you are playing games. I asked: Why should I care how my actions affect others? Liz's answer:

Dunno

So, Liz has no answer, under atheism, why I should care how my actions affect others. IOW, there is no reason under atheism why I should care how my actions affect others. Where I pointed out that Liz's explanation of why theists avoid stealing (self-interest) is obviously incorrect under at least two major theistic religions, she agrees that her explanation is incorrect. She then adds the following, which reveals her utter ignorance about Christian thought:

But at least some theists seem to think that the consequence of damnation are at least a deterrent – a divine CCTV with an infallible crime-detection and prosecution system.

What theists believe that?

It’s certainly emotional, in the sense that it is our emotions that tell us that something is wrong, as well as our reason.

The only reason-based answer you've given as to why stealing is wrong (or any other string of words you want to use to characterize "stealing) is "Dunno." So all you have available is emotional rhetoric, and it is obvious that is all you are doing here - applying emotional rhetoric to avoid the fact that you have no rational answer to the question: "Under atheism, why should I avoid doing something because of the effects on others?" William J Murray

If the self is purely physical then it is a slave to physical laws and quantum randomness, Lizzie. In other words, there is no room for free-will. You can't have a self which is merely a part of the organism AND free-will, if you have to redefine free-will, you simply confirm what I said at the start: if atheism is true, there is no such thing as free-will. Likewise, if you have to ditch rationality in order to reconcile morality with atheism, you are confirming the other point I made at the outset: if atheism is true, then there is no such thing as moral goodness. Emotional urges are purely subjective and pinning your hopes on some illusory moral consensus is simply providing happy hunting ground for all rational atheists: free-riding has never been easier or more appealing to them. Chris Doyle

Chris:

As WJM has already explained, those are disappointingly weak answers Lizzie. The fact is, it is often more rational for an atheist to deprive someone of what is precious to them for their own benefit than it is not to (providing they can escape detection, or, as is often the case these days, the benefit outweighs the punishment).

In that case rationality is over-rated. Fortunately most of us use our feelings as well - our hearts as well as our heads. Escaping detection is not the only human motive for avoiding hurting others - the simple desire to avoid hurting others is also a powerful motivator. Most of us feel happier ourselves when we make others happy, than when we make them sad.

As for free-will, if the brain is reducible to matter and energy, and matter and energy are wholly subject to deterministic physical laws (or, at best, random quantum-level events), there can be no self-determination (where the “self” in self-determination is real and autonomous: not merely an illusion brought on by biochemistry).

I don't know the difference between a "real" self and a self that is "merely an illusion brought on by biochemistry". I don't think the "self" that I consider a result of biochemistry and many other factors is an "illusion" any more than I think the shaddow I see on the wall is an illusion. Both are models of reality and perfectly good ones. I see my "self" as the whole of me, as an organism, not just my neurons or my "biochemistry". That seems a much better referent for the "self" than some immaterial force that has some unknown but postulated effect on matter while yet somehow being "immaterial". The latter seems incoherent to me. The former perfectly straightforward - more "real", in fact. Elizabeth B Liddle

William:

Which is what?

Well, you tell me what is wrong with it under theism, and I'll tell you whether it's the same. Seriously.

Yet, you’ve provided no reason why atheists should avoid it “because of the effects on others”. You’re just continuing to beg the question. Why should I care how my actions affect others?

Dunno, but I do. Most people seem to. Don't you? (Yes, I'm being difficult, but that's because I'm trying to get you to see your own begged questions :))

Also, please explain what you mean by “theists avoid stealing because of the effects on themselves” – because, at first glance, that appears to be incorrect. Many Muslims don’t mind stealing from infidels – in fact, such behavior is rewarded.

That's true. It's certainly true that theism doesn't provide much of a basis for morality.

Also, under a large swath of Christian thought, there isn’t much of a penalty for stealing from others, because we all have a sinful nature, and stealing – like just about any other sin – can be forgiven without penalty.

That's also true. But at least some theists seem to think that the consequence of damnation are at least a deterrent - a divine CCTV with an infallible crime-detection and prosecution system.

It doesn’t appear to me that what you are saying is much more than emotional rhetoric.

It's certainly emotional, in the sense that it is our emotions that tell us that something is wrong, as well as our reason. But it's not "rhetoric". It's simple fact. As human beings we have the capacity to be revulsed by cruelty, as well the reason to see the advantages of a society that is fair. This has led to a growing consensus morality that "do as you would be done by" has merit as a moral tenet. It seems to me a more reliable guide than most forms of theism. Elizabeth B Liddle

As WJM has already explained, those are disappointingly weak answers Lizzie. The fact is, it is often more rational for an atheist to deprive someone of what is precious to them for their own benefit than it is not to (providing they can escape detection, or, as is often the case these days, the benefit outweighs the punishment). As for free-will, if the brain is reducible to matter and energy, and matter and energy are wholly subject to deterministic physical laws (or, at best, random quantum-level events), there can be no self-determination (where the "self" in self-determination is real and autonomous: not merely an illusion brought on by biochemistry). Chris Doyle

Same as what’s wrong with it under theism.

Which is what?

The only difference is that atheists avoid it because of the effects on others, while theists avoid it because of the effects on themselves.

Yet, you've provided no reason why atheists should avoid it "because of the effects on others". You're just continuing to beg the question. Why should I care how my actions affect others? Also, please explain what you mean by "theists avoid stealing because of the effects on themselves" - because, at first glance, that appears to be incorrect. Many Muslims don't mind stealing from infidels - in fact, such behavior is rewarded. Also, under a large swath of Christian thought, there isn't much of a penalty for stealing from others, because we all have a sinful nature, and stealing - like just about any other sin - can be forgiven without penalty. It doesn't appear to me that what you are saying is much more than emotional rhetoric. William J Murray

For me, free will is the ability to make informed choices.

You are stealing concepts. If you are a computation of physics, you do not make "choices"; you reach computational output. Nothing more.

What enables me to make those choices is my sensory system including my brain, and what enables me to execute them is my motor system including my brain.

More concept-stealing. You write this as if "me" and "making choices" and "my sensory system" and "my brain" and "my motor system including my brain" are all categorically separate commodities, where the "you" is in operational control and ownership of function input and processorial commodities. That is a deceptive use of language that implies distinctions where none actually exist under your ideology. "You" are nothing more than the process and output of physics/biology as it processes data. "You do not "make choices"; the computation generates output, including the sensation of having made a "choice", including the sensation of "self". Correctly stated minus the deceitful, unwarranted concepts, you are saying that your kind of "free will" is "the local physics/biology system computing an output along with the sensation of having made a choice". The idea that this is the same as "free will" is either a deliberate or self-deluded lie. William J Murray

Same as what's wrong with it under theism. The only difference is that atheists avoid it because of the effects on others, while theists avoid it because of the effects on themselves. Yes, that's harsh, but worth thinking about. Fortunately many theists are like Huck Finn, prepared to risk damnation to help a friend. Elizabeth B Liddle

Because it would deprive someone of what is precious to them for my own benefit.

That's just begging the question. You've just restated "stealing" with a different phrase. What's wrong with depriving someone of what is precious to them for your own benefit, under atheism? William J Murray

Barb #11

Now, as far as the disease-conquering, poverty-banishing, and war-eliminating stuff goes, most religious people are content to say that this will come with the Kingdom of God. Because humans–believers and nonbelievers–have tried and have failed repeatedly.

The good news is that this not true. Science and technology (conducted as you say by both believers and non-believers) have done much to conquer disease (smallpox, polio, diptheria, measles .....) and reduce if not banish poverty. The number of people without enough to eat has fallen by 130 million since 1990 despite adding about 1.5 billion to the population. Of course that is not a reason for complacency - there are still nearly a 100 million people without enough to eat - but it is incredible progress. Mark Frank

Chris Doyle

KN, thou (ie. an atheist) shalt not steal. Why not?

Because it would deprive someone of what is precious to them for my own benefit.

Also, almost all atheists believe that mind is reducible to brain.

No, but many atheists believe the the mind is the property some organisms have by virtue of their bodies and brains.

If that is true, then how can that fact be reconciled with free-will?

Depends what you mean by free will. If you mean: how can organisms make informed choices between alternative courses of actions so as to maximise the probability of achieving certaing goals, including future benefits and benefit to others, as well as to form such goals, there is huge neuroscience literature on the subject. If you mean something else, and you probably do, then can you explain exactly what? For me, free will is the ability to make informed choices. What enables me to make those choices is my sensory system including my brain, and what enables me to execute them is my motor system including my brain. Without those, I cannot see how I could make an informed choice. My choices are the result of that information, and the processes by which I weigh it up. If that makes them unfree - and it certainly constrains them - I'd rather have the information than the freedom. Elizabeth B Liddle

KN, thou (ie. an atheist) shalt not steal. Why not? Also, almost all atheists believe that mind is reducible to brain. If that is true, then how can that fact be reconciled with free-will? Chris Doyle

KN Here is the problem to your whole argument. 1. We assume we live in a world of cause and effect. Otherwise science, philosophy, and logic are meaningless. 2. In order to actually care about and pursue arguments in science, philosophy using logic persons, even though they are animals, are the generators of purposeful actions which have meaning. ( An action without purpose "Done on accident" can not by definition have meaning.) Hence persons decide when and what time, not only to do things necessary to survive (like animals), but also when to tell stories, when to paint art, when to create sonnets, when to discuss philosophy. Persons create things which have meaning. 3. No set of non-purposed actions no matter how complex can generate something that has purpose. 4. So what in the KN world is that which generates purpose in persons? What is the cause of it? It is unreasonable and inconsistent with nature to believe that purpose just plops itself into a human brain and not into other brains. 5. This thing that creates purpose is God. 6. But God is not allowed. 7. So persons can not have purpose and generate meaning but purpose and meaning is just accidental. 8. Which implies no guided purposeful actions at all. 9. Which is the same thing as materialism. 5 is the crux of the issue. Whatever it is that instills purpose is God. Since the overwhelming evidence is that we do take actions which generate meaning, there must be a god. Finding out who and what that God is, is (ironically) our highest purpose in life. JDH

Kantian Naturalist in #8 "Its the conflation of atheism with materialism that's causing the problem here." Atheists deny the existence of any spiritual realm whatsoever, not just the existence of God or gods. For all practical purposes atheism entails materialism or philosophical naturalism. The upshot of the atheistic worldview, especially as being promoted by the sponsors of the monument under discussion, is that everything is the result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. If that's so, then it follows that any particular thought anyone has, including an atheist is also the result of that same blind, purposeless process. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that any thought entails Truth or anything of the sort. To say otherwise is to imply there really is something more to the process. Something immaterial that itself is not produced by that blind, purposeless chain of events. There's no way to philosophically parse that away. KN writes:

(5) and norms that are themselves part of that process cannot function authoritatively as norms, because they are not justified or grounded in anything other than themselves.

And then writes

Now, in my estimation, the real problem with this argument is premise (5). I regard premise (5) as intuitively plausible, especially for those us raised in the Platonic/Christian/humanist tradition, but nevertheless as completely and radically false.

You may regard it as false, but that doesn't mean it is false. I regard your #5 as completely and radically true. Absent an objective standard not produced by a blind, purposeless chain of events, then the norms you speak of have no authority beyond themselves. That is to say, what someone's individual personal preference might be. That leaves any notion of good, bad or evil adrift at sea with no place to anchor and no port as destination either. An atheist may think A is good; I think A is bad or evil. The atheist can provide no objective principled grounds to justify this goodness in A beyond that A is just something they happen to like, enjoy or find useful. The excursion into Epicurean materialism is interesting in its own way, but not very relevant to what the intent of the sponsors and creators of this monument were doing. DonaldM

Not even that. Most atheists simply say they do not believe in god or gods, not that they believe there are no god or gods. In other words it is not that they deny the existence of God, they simply don’t see any good reason to posit such an existence.

Citation? All you are doing here, Elizabeth, is running interference and generating your own smiley-face brand of apologetics for materialist/atheistic book-burning, intimidation-tactic, Alinskyite anti-theistic thugs wearing lab coats and spreading their anti-theistic religion under the guise of science. You either do it complicitly, or you are what we would call a "useful idiot". I tend to think it's probably the latter. Read it; this isn't an "atheist" monument; it's clearly and anti-theistic monument. Your apologetic characterization clearly doesn't comport with the ideas expressed in the monument. William J Murray

“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated.” – American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O’Hair

And an atheist can lie about all that because lying is OK when it suits you as an atheist. Joe

semi related: Podcast - William Lane Craig critiques the recent movie 'The Unbelievers', a documentary film featuring Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. In three parts, Craig gives an overview of the goal of the documentary, talks about attitudes towards science, and shows the many unscientific assertions within the movie. You can also read his article about the film here. http://www.apologetics315.com/2013/06/william-lane-craig-critiques-unbelievers.html bornagain77

Elizabeth:

In other words it is not that they deny the existence of God, they simply don’t see any good reason to posit such an existence.

And yet they can't posit anything, ie no reasoning, for our existence. Joe

“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated.” – American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O’Hair This is ironic, considering that churches (notably the Catholic Church) build hospitals, as well as do deeds (and says prayers). One other example: Habitat for Humanity is a Christian-based charity that builds houses for low-income citizens. Isn't that "involvement in life"? Now, as far as the disease-conquering, poverty-banishing, and war-eliminating stuff goes, most religious people are content to say that this will come with the Kingdom of God. Because humans--believers and nonbelievers--have tried and have failed repeatedly. Barb

semi related: How Not To Defend Atheism - Crazy gay, jewish Atheist goes postal at street preacher - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43WJ4AlOI2Y bornagain77

All the atheist need be committed to is the denial of the existence of God or anything relevantly like God.

Not even that. Most atheists simply say they do not believe in god or gods, not that they believe there are no god or gods. In other words it is not that they deny the existence of God, they simply don't see any good reason to posit such an existence. Elizabeth B Liddle

It's the conflation of atheism with materialism that's causing the problem here. If it were true that atheism logically entailed materialism, and if materialism were consisted entirely of Epicurean materialism, then there would be some validity to those criticisms. It's true that Epicureanism cannot accommodate intrinsically normative notions, such as judgement, objectivity, or rationality, because it lacks the resources for explaining how normativity emerges from natural events. However, it seems manifestly false that the bare idea of atheism itself has any (let alone all) of those implications. All the atheist need be committed to is the denial of the existence of God or anything relevantly like God. We may say, borrowing an idea from Plantinga, that what the atheist denies is that there are any persons that are not also animals. A person is anything that is a member of the space of giving and asking for reasons -- a person is anything that can judge, assert, infer, assess its inferences, evaluate its commitments, grant or withhold endorsement of its assertions, and act on the basis of those reasons. And an animal is anything that can perceive motivationally salient occurrences in its environment and modulate its own motor activity in response to those occurrences. Presumably, a theist is someone who holds that there are some persons who are not animals -- God, for example. As typically conceived, God is a person -- He thinks, judges, acts on the basis of reasons, and so on -- but He is not an animal -- He has no biological characteristics at all; He has no unique spatio-temporal location, He doesn't move his limbs in order to act, and He has no sensory organs. So an atheist, in denying the existence of God or anything relevantly like God (e.g. angels, demons), is committed to saying that all persons are animals. But does atheism entail materialism? If by 'materialism' we mean something like Epicureanism, then the atheist is committed to denying the validity of all of the normative notions. In an important sense, then, the Epicurean materialist denies the existence of persons. So, in order to generate the inference from atheism to Epicurean materialism, what we would need is an argument that takes as a premise the idea that all persons are animals, and has as its conclusion that there aren't any persons at all. (I would go one step further and say that Epicurean materialism cannot really accommodate the notion of animality or of life as such, but that's both a side-issue and also the very heart of the matter.) Thus articulated, what this argument would need is some missing premises -- here's one possible way of filling that in: (1) suppose that there is nothing at all like God; (2) then all persons are animals; (3) then there aren't any norm-governed beings which are exempt from the process of life, history, and becoming; (4) but then all norms are themselves part of life, history, and becoming; (5) and norms that are themselves part of that process cannot function authoritatively as norms, because they are not justified or grounded in anything other than themselves; (6) hence, since they cannot function authoritatively as norms, there aren't any norms at all; (7) and if there aren't any norms, then there aren't any persons, since a person is defined here as a norm-governed being; (8) so if there aren't any persons that are not animals, then there aren't any persons at all; (9) since this argument is itself an exercise of rationality, and rationality is a norm-governed project, anyone who accepts it or rejects it cannot be an atheist. That's a bit simplistic, but it might work to explicate the reasoning implicit in what's been said above. Corrections are welcome, of course. Now, in my estimation, the real problem with this argument is premise (5). I regard premise (5) as intuitively plausible, especially for those us raised in the Platonic/Christian/humanist tradition, but nevertheless as completely and radically false. Kantian Naturalist

Proton #2

I see no contradiction. A materialist doesn’t believe that things are good or bad “for God”, but good or bad “for society/humanity”. When Christians talk about “good” they’re meaning “good in the eyes of God” or “divine good”. When materialists talk about good they mean “good for people”, good in the sense that it makes human life better. Why is that illogical or unreasonable?

The point is on what basis do athiests (or materialists) speak of good at all. Good stands in contrast to something else, ie bad or evil. But on the atheistic worldview, where everything, absolutely everthing (no exceptions!) is the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy interacting over eons of time through chance and/or necessity, there is no basis whatsoever to think that anything is good or bad or evil. Why? Because on that view, everything is the result of a blind, purposeless process, including the thought that such and such is good, or such and such is evil or bad. Therefore, there's no reason whatsoever to think that it really is good or bad or evil. At the end of the day, whatever an atheist (or materialist) thinks is good or bad or evil is based entirely on a subjective thought, which itself is the end result of the aforementioned materialistic process. There's simply no reasonable or logical way to argue for the rationality of that position. It boils down to what one prefers, and it follows from that that what is deemed good or bad or evil can change with one's preferences. And there's no way to say that preference A is preferable to preference B. With the creation of this monument, the atheists have now carved this illogic and unreason into stone. DonaldM

If atheism is true, there is no good. And there is no free-will either. The only thing that is intrisic is survival and that is not the same as moral goodness either.

I fail to see how either the non-existence of the Good or the non-existence of free will follows from the non-existence of God. In the absence of argument, that's just one huge non sequitur. Kantian Naturalist

"What’s problematic about the thought that the cultivation of human capacities for community, imagination, empathy, and autonomy is intrinsically good?" If atheism is true, there is no good. And there is no free-will either. The only thing that is intrisic is survival and that is not the same as moral goodness either. Chris Doyle

A good method(for a humanist-darwinist) of "disease conquered" is to kill people pre-born or post , if in a humanist hospital an analisis detects same genetic disease. creatoblepas

We've gone around this one many, many times at UD. At risk of playing the same game again, I'll take up the cause: What's problematic about the thought that the cultivation of human capacities for community, imagination, empathy, and autonomy is intrinsically good? Kantian Naturalist

No doubt most atheists do think the elimination of those things is a good thing. But, what isn’t clear is why they think it is good in the first place. Good compared to what standard? There is an inherent major contradiction here, and now they’ve made it official by having it carved in stone. So much for logic and reason!

I see no contradiction. A materialist doesn't believe that things are good or bad "for God", but good or bad "for society/humanity". When Christians talk about "good" they're meaning "good in the eyes of God" or "divine good". When materialists talk about good they mean "good for people", good in the sense that it makes human life better. Why is that illogical or unreasonable? Proton

The back is kind of ironic since I do believe it was Catholism that founded hospitals and fund them. So the Christian in fact does more than the athiest. The Christian builds the hospital...and then prays. IF it's possible that prayer helps then why wouldn't you do it non the less? ForJah