Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Atheists Unveil Their Monument to Atheism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A month or so ago, I alerted UD readers that atheists in Florida were about to place their stone monument of the Ten “commandments” of atheism.  Well, today they have unveiled their monument to atheism in front of the Bradford County, Florida, courthouse, right near a monument listing the traditional Ten Commandments from the Old Testament scriptures.  Personally, I have no problem with the monument itself being placed in a public square.  We’re a pluralistic society, all ideas are welcome and open for debate.  That is what freedom of speech is all about.  (As a side note, contrast that with Nick Matzke, the suppressor!)

“When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench,” said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.”

So, now we know that atheists define the real as what is physical.  I guess there’s no real surprise there.  But it would be interesting to see what scientific evidence they have to show that real and physical amount to the same thing. I guess numbers aren’t real?  How about love?

On the different sides of the monument, we now have, literally carved in stone, what atheists actually believe.  For example, on one side is this quote:

“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
One wonders that if everything is the the result of materialistic processes, as an atheist must believe, then on what basis does an atheist want “disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated”?  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!
Apparently the monument also includes some of the Old Testament punishments for certain sins.  Besides the selective editing involved in picking out what offenses and punishments should be carved in stone for all time, it is interesting to note that they haven’t quoted anything from the Koran about, say, what ought to happen to infidels.  One has to wonder why.

 

 

Comments
LoL! @ LarTanner! Materialists' abuse of science and reason, is what we decry...Joe
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
Prominent, maybe; but not correct in what he takes naturalism to entail, if emergentism is a viable contender for a scientific metaphysics.Kantian Naturalist
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
BA in #148 "StephenB, what refreshing read this morning at 142. Thank you for your clarity once again." Plus 1!!DonaldM
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
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=-08YZF87OBQbornagain77
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
And I note William agrees. Good for you, Stephen! Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at Syria now?Elizabeth B Liddle
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
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
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
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! KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
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
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
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 lateStephenB
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
????Kantian Naturalist
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
KN: Please find a dictionary and look up "iconoclast" and stop relying upon your personal, local "emergent" definitions.William J Murray
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 7

Leave a Reply