Church-Burning Video Used to Promote Atheist Event

_{Gil Dodgen

January 27, 2012

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s another delightful offering from the compassionate, tolerant, inclusive, diversity-promoting atheist community. As usual, it includes a plug for “evolution.”

…the lineup includes atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a “kiddy pool” where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water.

There will also be a number of bands performing – the most famous of which is Aiden. They are featured in a video on the “Rocky Beyond Belief” website that includes images of burning churches and bloody crosses.

Among the lyrics: “Love how the [sic] burn your synagogues, love how they torch your holy books.

The group is no stranger to strong lyrics. Another of their songs says, “F*** your God, F*** your faith in the end. There’s no religion.

From a link in the link above:

The band Aiden has announced it will be playing the atheist festival “Rock Beyond Belief” at Fort Bragg in March 2012, as the lead-in act to Richard Dawkins, the main attraction at the “concert.”

As we all know, Christian believers are mysteriously the primary targets of denigration and vilification on the part of militant atheists (always, of course, in the name of the high virtues they proclaim: tolerance, diversity, etc. — yawn).

I have a modest proposal for the band Aiden:

Why not be a little more specific in your lyrics and see what happens? How about:

“F*** Jesus, F*** the Bible, F*** Christians”
“F*** Mohammed, F*** the Koran, F*** Muslims”

The results of this experiment would be interesting to observe.

Comments

Mark,
But in the end there is no ultimate justification possible for choosing between the objective justifications (even the theist ones).
Exactly right. That's what I was trying to convey earlier in the thread when I wrote:
…suppose that we did somehow obtain certain knowledge of what God wants us to do. We would still have to ask ourselves, “Is it morally right to do what God is asking me to do, or am I morally obligated to disobey?” For example, who among us would fail to ask ourselves that question if God asked us to kill one of our children, as he supposedly asked Abraham? It comes down to individual judgment. Each of us is responsible for his or her moral decisions, and we can’t pass the buck to any external authority — not even to God.
champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

KF, Suppose that the members of Aiden were the very spawn of Satan. A lie about them would still be a lie. Given your sanctimonious lectures on morality, how do you justify your lies? Is lying for Jesus okay in your book?champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

F/N: Observe how Ch utterly fails to inform us that the video in question puts the words he excerpts in the mouth of the imaged, cross-wearing vampire clergy man image, and that it goes on to say much more in the same vein of invidious associations. I have already repeatedly deconstructed the song, and its context; so we can see that all that is happening is that Ch wishes to smear me for telling the unwelcome truth about a group that responds to the Christian gospel by smearing verbal filth across it and circulating such as a ring-tone. When such a group goes on to caricature Christian clergy as vampires, that is willful demonisation. Then, when it builds a song by wishing to smear such as promoting blood money in the "coffers" and wars, protecting war criminals and genocide, we can take it that we are dealing with invidious association, stereotyping and scapegoating. In that context, putting love how the burn in such lips and following with 60's era sepia tone footage of white police arresting a black man, is an obvious propaganda montage of accusation and invitation to the lunatic fringe in their audience to "retaliate." All, neatly deniable. And of course, a scan of this thread will show how effective this sort of immersion in one-sided smearing of the Christian faith is: despite centuries of positive history and millions of transformed lives and uplifted communities, we do not find a single whole-hearted acknowledgement of even say a Wilberforce, or a General Booth or a Mother Teresa from objectors to the Christian faith above. The climate of smears and hostility is working. Just as it was intended by those who hope to manipulate sentiments to create just such a climate of hostility and invidious stereotyping against the Christian faith and its adherents. If that does not raise a red flag of warning, it should. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

butifnot,
They came from outside the game of poker, as they must.
Outside of poker, but inside the universe. Exactly as it is for morality. 'REAL morality' doesn't have to come from outside the universe any more than 'REAL poker' does.champignon_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Onlookers, Ch's onward reaction shows my point. Sad, but revealing. All of the hostility and smearing of Christians -- I will make a general observation shortly -- are occasioned by daring to highlight that Aiden has stepped across some serious lines into the utterly indefensible, and it seems that leading new atheist prof Dawkins is quite willing to share a platform with such. I hardly need to underscore the further revelations in MF's attitude, given that the final breach in dealing with him was under remarkably similar circumstances to what is happening with Ch.Sadly revealing. KFkairosfocus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

JDL (if I may use this abbreviation) I am going to try and explain this in a different way from my atheist colleagues. The issue of the ultimate grounding of morals comes up with tedious regularity on UD and about a million other places on the Web. I got so fed up with repeating myself on this that I wrote a series of blog posts which I could keep referring back to - the most relevant one is here. In summary the point is that there have been many objective justifications for morality (!)ranging from Aristotle through Kant to J.S. Mill - none of these three are based on a deity, others are. But in the end there is no ultimate justification possible for choosing between the objective justifications (even the theist ones). Hume was right - in the end morality is based on our common human passions - you cannot logically derive an ought from an is. But that doesn't mean morality is trivial.markf_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Liz: "Nope. But not objectively immoral for those who regard do not see themselves as part of a wider community beyond their own local society." And here is the atheist incoherence, front and center. Here you admit, that to the Mashco-Piro, kidnapping is not objectively immoral, that it is relatively immoral, all the while claiming atheism can ground objective morality. Why are your feelings about kidnapping children more valid than the Mashco-Piro? Liz: "because they do not see themselves as part of a wider community" By compounding the incoherent logic, if one sees themselves as part of the wider community, then morals becomes objective. How do we then, based on darwinst-atheism, decide if "seeing yourself as part of the wider community," is more valid than "not seeing yourself as part of the wider community"? Let's say life on another planet evolved to accept cultural rape. They are clearly not part of our the wider community. Let's say their race is older than our race, by a billion years and legions smarter than our race, and there is more of them. Then by your logic, since they do not see themselves as part of the human race on earth, their actions are not objectively wrong. Rape becomes right.junkdnaforlife_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Your good and evil and right and wrong are meaningless. Apparently they can change and so at different times might even contradict. Construct systems and frameworks, anything you want, again so what?
We can say that morality evolved because populations in whom a moral sense was more acute and ethics better codified were less likely to go extinct, and individuals with a drive towards altruism were less likely to be rejected from the tribe to die.
If the diametrically opposite to every thing you believe is moral had given social populations less chance to go extinct - we evolved differently - then that would be morality instead?butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

What is justice made of?butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

They came from outside the game of poker, as they must.butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Liz: “Morals derived from the claimed authority of a religious text is” You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity. Either that, or you are willfully misleading. Moral authority comes from Jesus that which is grounded in the resurrection event.
OK. So what was all that OT stuff about?
You clearly do not understand what objective means. Objective is not grounded in what you feel is right, or based on the warm fuzzies you experience. If you feel one way about one thing, and another person feels another way about something, than which *feeling* is objective? How is, “we evolved our objective morals,” not logically incoherent?
No, it is not. "Objective" means "can be concluded by independent observers". "Subjective" means "conclusion is dependent on the subject doing the concluding". Independent observers can agree that if we each obey the Golden Rule, we will live in a harmonious society. So it's reasonably objective.
What you *feel* is the right thing to do is relative. Here’s an example of the incoherence of your “evolved objective moral code.” There is a tribe in Peru called the Mashco-Piro. They are virtually untouched by modern civilization. They have “evolved” a moral code that differs from western culture. One of the differences being: “The Mashco-Piro live by their own social code, which Soria said includes the practice of kidnapping other tribes’ women and children.”
Yes, and I think we have developed, culturally, a much more extended view of the human family as we have become more aware of the connectedness of us all. Sadly, we remain all too prone to defining our "Neighbour" too narrowly. That's why I think it's important to try to build bridges rather than barriers.
Based on your atheist logic, 1) evolution is the basis for moral code
Nope. Our capacity to develop a moral code evolved. That is not the same as saying that evolution is the basis of that code. This is the error Butifnot, kf and now you have all made.
2) evolved moral code is objective
No, but a moral code collectively developed, and subject to continued refinement in the light of our growing understanding about how connected we all are (genetically, and economically and ecologically) is more objective than something lifted from some arbitrarily selected alleged sacred text.
3) the Mashco-Piro tribe evolved a code which allows kidnapping women and children
No, they developed it. So did our own ancestors. That kind of thinking is still rife in warfare in the Western world. It certainly isn't countered by religion. Many of the most vicious wars have been between tribes fighting in the name of their own gods.
4) kidnapping children is objectively moral
Nope. But not objectively immoral for those who regard do not see themselves as part of a wider community beyond their own local society.
You have two choices, 1)appeal to a transcendent objective moral code and denounce the tribe’s behavior and refute yourself, 2) accept that evolution has selected the kidnapping of women and children, and therefore moral code accountable by evolution can only be relative –> and therefore have the guts to follow your ideological first premise to its logical conclusion: Evolution can not objectively ground morality.
I completely agree. Nor can quantum physics or Big Bang. What grounds morality is our status as social animals whose best interests are served by a harmonious and healthy society.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Please find a Bible and read the Golden Rule. Now please explain how living one life’s in accordance with that rule is not good moral guidance.
I've already stated that the Golden Rule is good moral guidance. Just as well that it's in the bible, but a shame that such terrible moral guidance is in there as well. And you have moved the goal posts radically (I see you did see Champignon's post). Catholics don't count? People who hear voices they think are from God don't count? Even though it did count for the Israelites who thought God was telling them to slaughter the Canaanites? Barb, the bible is only good moral guidance if you ignore the bits that aren't. And the way you know how to ignore the bits that aren't is that you are perfectly capable of figuring out what is right and wrong before you even open the book. Exactly the same is true of all of us, believers and unbelievers, as kairosfocus says. The only difference is that we don't think that sense is a Divine gift, but rather something that we evolved as social animals.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

The bottom line is that your conclusion that atheists are no more amoral or evil than believers has been thoroughly disproven by historical facts.
No, it has not. Did you read 20.2? And do you honestly think it is less evil to massacre a city of 10,000 than a city of 100,000?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Liz: "Morals derived from the claimed authority of a religious text is" You have absolutely no understanding of Christianity. Either that, or you are willfully misleading. Moral authority comes from Jesus that which is grounded in the resurrection event. You clearly do not understand what objective means. Objective is not grounded in what you feel is right, or based on the warm fuzzies you experience. If you feel one way about one thing, and another person feels another way about something, than which *feeling* is objective? How is, "we evolved our objective morals," not logically incoherent? What you *feel* is the right thing to do is relative. Here's an example of the incoherence of your "evolved objective moral code." There is a tribe in Peru called the Mashco-Piro. They are virtually untouched by modern civilization. They have "evolved" a moral code that differs from western culture. One of the differences being: "The Mashco-Piro live by their own social code, which Soria said includes the practice of kidnapping other tribes' women and children." Based on your atheist logic, 1) evolution is the basis for moral code 2) evolved moral code is objective 3) the Mashco-Piro tribe evolved a code which allows kidnapping women and children 4) kidnapping children is objectively moral You have two choices, 1)appeal to a transcendent objective moral code and denounce the tribe's behavior and refute yourself, 2) accept that evolution has selected the kidnapping of women and children, and therefore moral code accountable by evolution can only be relative --> and therefore have the guts to follow your ideological first premise to its logical conclusion: Evolution can not objectively ground morality.junkdnaforlife_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Of course, the scare quotes willfully ignore 2350 years of apt description, analysis, and from the horse’s mouth examples. But, that is just a note on tone.
The "scare quotes" as you call them are no such thing. They merely indicate that I am quoting you. It is your term.
What is there that makes this not just someone’s feel-good recommendation, but a real binding OUGHT? Where do we get the notion that our evolutionary inferiors and defectives — think here, those ever so ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked fundies of prof Dawkins — have such value that they have RIGHTS that they should expect to be treated with equality?
What "evolutionary inferiors and defectives"?
Has not the very fact that some have risen to the top shown their evolutionary superiority, and does that not justify the domination or even elimination of the unfit?
No. You have made the same error as Butifnot. Rising to the top of a social pecking order is not the same as showing "evolutionary superiority", and nor does allowing such individuals to exercise authority over others merely because s/he holds power promote a harmonious society. As I'm sure you would agree.
So, WHO is the neighbour to be loved and treated as oneself?
The members of the population with whom we identify. And as time goes on, and we continue to reify our ethical principles, so we expand those boundaries, so that now, unlike the past, even the recent past, we recognise all human beings as members of one great society. Or at least some of us do, and there are even increasing moves to include all sentient beings, in some sense, as our neighbours, as we increasingly discover the interconnectedness of our own species with the world it inhabits.
And, if treasuring the evolutionarily unfit and/or inferior is undermining the fitness of the community of interest, does that not justify first sterilising them forcibly if necessary, then “mercifully” putting them away, so removing a burden on the society? And if that is the consensus of the elites and their media spin doctors and amplifiers, driven home drumbeat style, with any who dares to differ swarmed down under the media hornets, where would the community held captive to such head?
No, it is not "the consensus of the elites". Again, it is muddled thinking (even by Darwin), confounding the persistence of the species with the wellbeing of individuals. It certainly has nothing to do with atheism per se. And only to do with evolutionary theory inasmuch as some people have used evolutionary theory to justify immoral acts. Just as they have used religion. BTW, you do know that "The Selfish Gene" does not refer to a gene that makes us selfish? I assume so, but I discovered that some people have made that wrong connection. However, I will say that I think there are real ethical issues raised by our current capacity for predicting, for example, the probability of passing on genetic disorders to future children, and I think genetic counselling is sometimes right and proper, as is, sometimes, sterilisation (or at least long-term contraception) for women who might well enjoy sex but would be unable to care for a child (or be unlikely to carry a healthy child to term). Again, that's the kind of ethical issues that a god-free morality frees us to consider thoughtfully, and which is often dismissed without thought by those with authority-derived ethical precepts.
And so, if I have enough power and cleverness to manipulate laws and policies to do that, and can propagandise enough to agree with me, does that not make what I am doing “right”?
No, it does not. And a non-theistic basis for morality and ethics frees us to see that. A theistic basis patently does not, as we see from the abuse of power within, say, the catholic church.
Do you see what happens when you have a worldview that has in it no foundational is that can ground ought objectively?
Yes, but I see that as a problem with a religious foundation that defines God as good, and what God commands as good, rather than a foundation in which good is regarded simply for what it is, and, possibly, as evidence of God, but always that way round. I agree we need an objective basis for deriving our ethical principles, but I argue that we get nearer to truly objective criteria for what is good by using our capacity for reason and our knowledge of what makes for a harmonious socieity that by arbitrarily adopting some allegedly divine text and arbitrarily picking a selection of precepts, many of which derive from pre-scientific ideas about the origins of disease.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

Does religion make people less evil? Ask a Buddhist monk. Or a Hindu. Or a Jehovah's Witness, as this religion claims political neutrality.Barb_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

“Barb, I’m not going to trade genocides with you. A genocide that only kills half a million people is not less evil than one that kills 6 million people. Both religious and non-religious movements have been responsible for heinous atrocities, and I see no evidence that one is any less likely to commit such atrocities than the other. What seems to be the common factor is tribal ideology, religious, in the case of the crusaders and many others, political in the case of Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. The nubmers of dead are irrelevant, your Jeffrey Dahmer example shows.” The bottom line is that your conclusion that atheists are no more amoral or evil than believers has been thoroughly disproven by historical facts. “And if you want a religious example of a Jeffrey Dahmer, it is not unusual for serial killers to be under the delusion that they are acting on instructions from God. Peter Sutcliffe was one. In other words, religious belief offers no protection against evil-doing, any more than atheism does. “ No. My point was that Dahmer committed his crimes while an atheist. Find a cannibal serial killer who committed his crimes while also being a practicing Christian. I’m not discussing mental instability at all. “And that’s before we even consider the human sacrifices that were offered to gods.” That is a non sequitur. It is a logical fallacy which proves nothing. “I don’t know what “objective standard of morality” means.” Really? An objective standard is one that is set (so to speak) in stone. Surely you can define morality. Therefore, an objective standard of morality is one that is written down and is easily available for anyone to read. An example might be a corporate policy of ethics (my company has one) or a holy book. “ I see nothing “objective” about the standards of morality outlined in those books – the very fact that there is more than one book is evidence that choice of book itself, must be subjective.” No. The point is that there a standard to live by. The point is that you have moral guidelines, rather than being guided by your own (or someone else’s) feelings. “And I don’t think those books offer good moral guidance anyway. I’d say that most atheists, who come to their ethical principles by way of figuring out what causes harm and what doesn’t, and what contributes to a contented society in which they can live happily have a way more “objective” standard. “ Please find a Bible and read the Golden Rule. Now please explain how living one life’s in accordance with that rule is not good moral guidance. Here’s another example. Rape is a crime punishable by over a year in prison, making it a felony. It is also a crime of power and violence. Society has laws in place that punish rapists. Why? Because society considers it a very bad thing. However, there is a book that suggests that rape is simply a mechanism by which genes are spread (its title is, I believe, “The Natural History of Rape”). Its authors suggest that rape isn’t really all that bad, evolutionarily speaking. Now, Ms. Liddle: is rape bad or good? Right or wrong? “It certainly produces ethical principles on which most people can agree, regardless of cultural or religious backgrounds.” Can you provide an example of an ethical principle that is founded on atheism? “Except that atheists don’t “make up moral standards as [they] go along”. This is a myth, and a highly divisive one. It’s high time it was busted.” Google ‘moral relativism’. Or ‘secular humanism.’ It’s not a myth, it’s reality. Champignon: “That’s pure blind prejudice, and it completely ignores the facts. You should be ashamed of yourself.” Why? I used ‘historical documents’ that are available to anyone to make my case. I have nothing to be ashamed of, champignon, because I’m only repeating what history has told us. Deal with it. “Unlike you, William Lobdell actually bothered to find out whether Christians behave better than atheists. He describes his findings in his book Losing My Religion: His conclusion: the faith of Christians has grown fat and flabby." Taking antidepressants has nothing to do with morality, so that is a non sequitur. I would agree that not all Christians behave in the manner in which Christ instructed them to do. My argument is that at least they have a source for moral guidance, whereas atheists do not. This research is interesting, but does it cover the 10,000 groups who claim to be Christian? Surveys are only as good as the people who take the time to answer them. “Whether the issue is divorce, materialism, sexual promiscuity, racism, physical abuse in marriage, or neglect of a biblical worldview, the polling data point to widespread, blatant disobedience of clear biblical moral demands on the part of people who are allegedly are evangelical, born-again Christians,” Sider writes. “The statistics are devastating.” Evangelical born-again Christians =/= all those who claim Christianity as their religion. This is a narrow sampling that fails to include other groups whose moral behavior may be better than that of atheists. “…And I already knew that the majority of Catholics ignored some of the church’s basic teachings..." See above. Catholics do not represent all of Christianity. “I just couldn’t find any evidence within Protestantism or Catholicism that the actions of Christians, in general, showed that they took their faith seriously or that their religion made them morally or ethically better than even atheists. Losing My Religion, pp. 204-207” Firstly, his sample is too narrow. He cites born-again Christians but apparently fails to admit that they are only one part of Protestantism as a whole. Error is something that every researcher has to deal with; respondents might not answer accurately because they don’t understand the survey question or because they don’t recall any experiences related to the question in their own lives. The survey might have suffered from prevarication bias or selection bias. Anyhow, your points are interesting to note, but they still do not answer my initial point of having an objective standard on which to base moral decisions.Barb_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

We do it for the onlookers. :-)champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, again, I have again and again put a basic bhallenge to objectively ground OUGHT on evo mat premises. You plainly cannot, or you happily would have.
I have done so repeatedly, kf, several times in the last hour. I am not shooting at any messenger. I am trying to respond to people's posts, including yours. As for my charge of fearmongering, what is this:
Thus, such an ideology, agenda and underlying worldview, pose moral hazards to our civilisation. And, as Kant’s categorical imperative reminds us, morally unsound behaviours have destructive, chaotic consequences for a civilisation.
if not fear-mongering? For the last time, I hope, kf: an atheist worldview does NOT entail the belief that Might Makes Right. On the contrary, some theistic views do, including yours, apparently (as you defended Craig). It justifies, apparently, some christians in saying: our Mighty god said that homosexuality is evil so we it is right for us to condemn it. No, it isn't because Might doesn't make Right. What makes right is empathy, altruism and social justice, because those are the principles that promote harmonious society in which human beings, as social animals, can thrive and be content.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Lizzie and Champignon Are you going for the record for sustaining a debate with KF? I am gobsmacked by your patience and perseverance.markf_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

you are suggesting rules for cooperation among those who do not have disproportionatre power.
I'm suggesting that such rules are common sense, and do not rest on the assumption of a creator God.
This has no grounds for ought that are beyond might and manipulation make right. As has been repeatedly pointed out, explained, and grounded, but ignored.
No. You have repeatedly asserted it, but you have not explained it, and I have not ignored it. In fact I have repeatedly offered a rebuttal, only be to told that I have failed to accept your correction. And you have completely failed to show how: if God commands it, it is good, even if it is a command to genocide, is not an appalling example of the principle that "Might makes Right" sitting right there at the heart of your religious "moral" system. Morals derived from the claimed authority of a religious text is, I would argue, not morality at all, but an abnegation of moral responsibility. Whereas morals derived from an understanding of the way in which harmonious societies function automatically mandates (i.e. makes an "ought") the shouldering of our own moral responsibilities for the good of our fellow human beings, and perhaps allows us to extend that principle to beyond our own species.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

You are saying absolutely nothing here. This is a deep fundamental issue. All of this talk is an absolute not-answer to ought-is.
It seems like an answer to me. Perhaps you need to rephrase the question?
And what is success? Sheer number, perpetuation of the population. Perhaps we would be more ‘successful’ if we didn’t live in cooperative groups but some iron fisted coercive society or whatever, who knows. Everything you’re saying is totally relative.
You are confounding the purpose of an individual, or of a collective, for the teleonomy of evolution. Let's take a less contentious subject as an example. Why do we enjoy sex? The answer, from an evolutionary perspective is: "because individuals able to enjoy sex were more likely to seek it, and so had more offspring, who inherited the capacity to enjoy sex, than those who enjoyed it less." But that does not answer the question as to why we, as individuals enjoy sex, which might be: "because it gives me and my partner physical pleasure and confers a sense of closeness and affection". In other words, we have the "teleonomic" purpose of sex on the one hand (the reason it evolved) and the teleogic purpose of sex (what we as individuals seek from it). Same with morality, but it's easier to get confused. We can say that morality evolved because populations in whom a moral sense was more acute and ethics better codified were less likely to go extinct, and individuals with a drive towards altruism were less likely to be rejected from the tribe to die. But that only answers the teleonomic question. The teleologic question "why do we seek what is right, rather than simply what suits us at the time" has a quite different answer. We do not share the teleonomic project of evolution - we are purposeful beings, and when we pursue what is right, we have our own goals, which may, sometimes, not even be for the perpetuation of our genes or of our species, if we determine that is may be more ethical for us to do something else. That, for instance, is why many couples choose not to have children, or to limit the size of their families - for moral reasons. And I think this may be at the heart of the misunderstanding, now that I come to think of it. The idea that "survival of the fittest" must mean that it is right that the fittest survive; that the fact that our "genes" are "selfish" means that we should be; the fact that we evolved to have good cheater detection systems means that it isn't "really" wrong to cheat. This is fallacious, IMO. Acknowledging that we evolved to have a moral sense and the capacity to construct justice systems and ethical frameworks, and to reify good and evil does not mean that these things are not objectively real. They are as real as anything is. And that is why the charge that materialism is amoral is false. Yes, we believe that the universe is amoral, and "pitiless" as Dawkins says, but that doesn't mean that people are, just as the fact that we are all made of fundamental particles does not mean that we do not exist as organisms with properties far different from the fundamental particles of which we are made. I hope that may have shed some light on your question.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

KF,
Ch: that is now plainly an outright lie: willfully stating what is objectively false and should be known to you to be false in disregard of the truth and hoping to profit by its being taken as truth; insisted on in the teeth of abundant correction.
Got a mirror handy?
I repeatedly have taken time to show just what Aiden is doing, which is utterly beyond the pale of decency and is a calculated multi-layered smearing of the Christian church... [snip remainder of rabid fulmination]
A lie doesn't become the truth just because you dislike the people you're lying about. You accused Aiden of promoting synagogue and church burning in their song Hysteria:
Gil: a serious and sobering point, given the above. I note that we see no serious response on your expose of promotion of synagogue and church burning. KF
The lyrics of the song indicate just the opposite:
Love how they burn your synagogues Love how they torch your holy books Filling coffers with your grief Filling coffins with your misery Faith holding outright criminals safe This is just the world we live in Can you justify the pain The death of fiction will save us all
Your accusation is false. That makes you a liar, a hypocrite and an embarrassment to Uncommon Descent.
...but then, might and manipulation make ‘right’ don’t they, on your evident worldview.
No, and the fact that you keep insisting that they do is just one more lie.champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, again, I have again and again put a basic bhallenge to objectively ground OUGHT on evo mat premises. You plainly cannot, or you happily would have. That points to a serious moral hazard. Why are you resorting to shooting at the messenger instead of dealing with it? Have I not pointed out, repeatedly, that we all struggle morally and need to address this issue? Have I not pointed out repeatedly that all of us are capable of moral action, but must restrain our tendencies to act otherwise, and in that general context, have pointed out the problem of worldviews that do not help? And, have you seriously read what I have specifically cited with approval from Bernard Lewis, using that to argue towards onward reformation? Since when does doing such translate into fear-mongering and the like? Sorry, I find you here guilty of insisting on a smear. Please stop it, and then seriously grapple with the worldview issue and the problem posed by Aiden and the like. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Dr Liddle, Pardon, but I find the above unacceptable.
What, specifically, "above" do you find "unacceptable"? kairosfocus, as I've said, I appreciate your sincerity on this, but I do think you are massively missing a very important point, which several people have made to your repeatedly, and which you do not seem even to acknowledge. And I do notice that you seem to reply in stock phrases, which recur in most of your posts, and suggest that you may have given up listening, and think only, like the proverbial Englishman abroad, that if only he speaks louder, surely the natives will understand! No, we don't understand. Your words make no sense to us, and betray no evidence that you have actually listened to the points being made, whether or not you agree with them. Let me take your post piece by piece:
I must ask, how many times do you have to be confronted with the direct statements, that: a: it is a specifically foundational Judaeo-Christian belief that all men have implanted conscience-based principles of morality, part of how we are morally governed? (Have you read Hooker’s argument used by Locke as he grounded principles of liberty, which has been ever so often cited, even in this thread?) b: It is also similarly a foundational Judaeo-Christian understanding that we are all finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed? thus, we all face the challenge to live up to the principles we know or should know. c: thus also it is a foundational principle, that we are called to turn f4rom the wrong to the right, seeking God’s help to walk in the right? Accordingly, and as has been repeatedly pointed out in the teeth of the rhetoric of the loaded and ad hominem laced strawman that has appeared ever so often in this thread, the issue is not whether atheists can think or feel or even act morally.
And, as I have repeatedly said, I know it isn't (for you). I am not accusing you of saying that atheists cannot be moral. I know you think they can be. I have never said that you think they can't be. What you are saying however, is that the "evolutionary materialism" we promote, promotes an amoral worldview. This is what we dispute. So please address the rebuttals we are making to this claim of yours, instead of assuming that we are rebutting a case you have not made!
So can all men of sound mind. That is what makes us morally responsible.
Well, in your view. Obviously not in ours. We don't think conscience was implanted by God, but evolved as part of our evolution as language-using primates living in social groups. You disagree. Fine. But do not mistake the fact that we differ in how we account for the origins of our moral sense for a difference in acknowledging that such a moral sense exists. We do acknowledge it, and we do not promote a worldview that is amoral. Quite the contrary. Many of us promote a worldview that is deeply moral, even though our moral precepts tend to result, on some issues, of different ethical conclusions, one, of course, being homosexuality.
The problem with evolutionary materialism, as repeatedly highlighted — and just as repeatedly ignored, brushed aside, distorted and even angrily dismissed — is that it has no foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT. Once no such IS is in the foundations, it cannot then later arise in the system.
And so - dare I say, like a drumbeat ;) - you repeat this assertion. I'm not exactly sure what it means, but whatever it means, the fact is that your conclusion is false. We are perfectly capble of grounding our oughts - in the principles that enable us to live harmoniously in groups as social animals, and rear our young to take their role in a harmonious society. We do not need to posit a Creator God to do this, although it may enable us to recognise a good God if we find such a God.
Consequently such materialism erodes the basis for moral consensus and insight, if left unchecked, at individual, institutional and cultural levels alike.
And, as I have repeatedly tried to explain, it does no such thing.
For, as thinkers have known since Plato, it — by strong tendency — leads to radical relativisation of morality and to the rise of the de facto principle that might and manipulation make ‘right,’ and so by manipulation of the community one changes even core morality. for there is nothing more to it than community and personal sentiment, in the end.
Well, I don't think Plato thought that, but if he did, he was wrong. It doesn't. As I pointed out earlier - and I don't think you addressed it, though I may have missed it - the underlying basis of Divine Command Theory is the principle that Might makes Right - if the omnipotent declares something to not to be a sin, it is not, regardless of how heinous it is to any right-thinking mortal. Hence the idiocy of Craig's defence of Yahweh's command to the Israelites to murder the Canaanites. Might does not equal Right, even if the Might is the Might of the AlMighty. If Yahweh is real, he is evil. Fortunately I don't think he's real, but even if you were to prove he was, I would not worship him. That's because I derive my ethics and my sense of morality not from the alleged word of some desert deity called Yahweh, but from the basic principles that allow us to live together in peace. I will recognise Christ as God, but I will not recognise Yahweh. Indeed, with Jesus, I quote the psalmist: "ye are gods". Yes, we are. We know good from evil. But not, IMO, because a Divine Creator implanted that knowledge in us, or, worse, because some ancestral woman stole an apple, but because we've evolved that way. Possibly because an all-loving omnipotent God created a universe in which such a species would evolve, but I don't find that a necessary premise.
Thus, such an ideology, agenda and underlying worldview, pose moral hazards to our civilisation. And, as Kant’s categorical imperative reminds us, morally unsound behaviours have destructive, chaotic consequences for a civilisation.
No. The moral hazards facing us are bigotry and selfishness IMO. And both theists and atheists, sadly, are equally prone to both. It's part of the human condition, of course. But at least atheists don't start from the assumption that a creator God thinks that some of us are worthy of eternal damnation.
As we can see in the case of Aiden, and all around us in our current age.
No, "we" don't see that. What I do see is a stubborn refusal on your part to retract a specific, but unfounded, allegation, that proved false, that Aiden were promoting church-burning. They were condemning it. You really need to retract that, because it is clearly wrong, as I think you yourself now see, except that you now are offended because they were accusing theists of church-burning, and you think this is unfair. Maybe it is. But it's happened. And worse. Religion has a heavy charge-sheet, as do all ideologies. That's the point of the Aiden lyrics.
Which is the root reason for the polarisation this thread exhibits, and the tone of accusation against those who are pointing out what is after all pretty easy to show: unless the foundations of a worldview warrant OUGHT, then there will be no is that will by magic emerge later on to objectively warrant OUGHT.
And you are wrong about this, as I have yet again explained.
We need to do some serious rethinking about where our civilisation is headed, why.
Yes indeed. It is high time we got rid of these silly barriers that set up those we disagree with as enemies of society, and sought common ground instead of differences. I hope you agree. LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Again, Dr Liddle, kindly address the real issue, here. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

The truth is, just for one example of the sort of manipulation of moral sentiments you are appealing to in disregard of truth or fairness, is that the Shepherd murder used to smear Christians as murderous towards such, was utterly misrepresented (and the Dirkheising case was suppressed.) You cannot soundly answer, so you smear. And this is the second time in a few minutes I have had to deal with this sort of atmosphere poisoning from you.kairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

KF,
The very comparison of core morality to a game that we arbitrarily set up the rules for, makes the point.
Yes. It makes my point, which is that butifnot is wrong when he writes:
By its nature, the concept we’re talking about, ‘REAL morality’, would have to come externally from our ‘system’ (universe) to be real in the sense that it actually exists... An objective – and that means REAL in this case, I think – rule about interactions in the system have to come from outside the system.
That is no more true of morality than it is of poker.
Along that line, what foundational IS is there that warrants OUGHT beyond might and manipulation of sentiments and perceptions?
See my comment here.champignon_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

You are saying absolutely nothing here. This is a deep fundamental issue. All of this talk is an absolute not-answer to ought-is. And what is success? Sheer number, perpetuation of the population. Perhaps we would be more 'successful' if we didn't live in cooperative groups but some iron fisted coercive society or whatever, who knows. Everything you're saying is totally relative.butifnot_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Ch: that is now plainly an outright lie: willfully stating what is objectively false and should be known to you to be false in disregard of the truth and hoping to profit by its being taken as truth; insisted on in the teeth of abundant correction. I repeatedly have taken time to show (just one link . . . ) just what Aiden is doing, which is utterly beyond the pale of decency and is a calculated multi-layered smearing of the Christian church (having caricatured Christian clergymen as vampires hoping to profit from blood money, war mongering and protection of war criminals, also promoting genocide -- all there in the videos and lyrics folks) in the context of dismissing the gospel by smearing verbal filth over it and an invitation to violence against the church and the gospel. What is astonishing is that you and ilk seek to obfuscate the indefensible. Thanks for making my point for me, and thanks for letting me know for sure that you have no proper regard for the duty of care to the truth -- but then, might and manipulation make 'right' don't they, on your evident worldview. Good day. KFkairosfocus_{February 4, 2012
February
02
Feb
4
04
2012
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply