The New Atheists and the Age Old Problem of Evil

_{Donald McLaughlin

August 13, 2009

Atheism, Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution, Philosophy, Religion}

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

By now, most readers here are familiar with Richard Dawkins’s view of God as expressed in The God Delusion where Dawkins writes that God is “the most unpleasant character in all fiction … a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” The last time a literary character was described in such despicable terms was probably Charles Dickens’s description of Ebeneezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. “Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge!” writes Dickens, “a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.” I’ll let you decide which character is worse.

Let’s lay aside for the moment that Dawkins considers God fictional, that is to say (in Dawkins’s words) “almost certainly does not exist.” (even that betrays some slight doubt on Dawkins’s part). The real issue for Dawkins and many of his fellow ‘New Atheists’ (NA’s) such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and the like, is that humans have had a nasty tendancy to commit many acts of evil over the centuries in the name of this fictional God. As the NA’s see it, if we could only rid the world of this fiction called God and its handmaiden, Religion, then the the Golden Age of Atheism will lead the world to a Scientific Utopia, where Science and Reason rule the Mind and all humanity is rid of these childhood fantasies about God, Church, Religion and the like. In short we’ll grow up. At least, that is the upshot of most of the lectures, books, articles and blog posts coming from the NA’s and their ilk.

Unfortunately for the NA’s, there’s a huge hitch in their thinking, and it just isn’t going to go away no matter how much clever rhetoric they toss at it. That hitch is the age old Problem of Evil (PoE). According to the NA’s, if only we could rid humans of the false beliefs in this or that god or gods and/or this or that religion, then all the evils committed by humans in the name of those gods and/or religions would go away, too. Thus, Dawkins, Harris and the other NA’s mince no words in describing their disdain for anything that smacks of the supernatural. What the NA’s don’t seem to realize is that they are admitting that real evil exists, even if the God or gods in whose name(s) the evil is committed does not.

The upshot of taking evil to be real, even if the God(s) behind aren’t, is that evil still needs to be explained. For the NA’s, the only possible explanation for any behavior, evil or otherwise is evolution. Thus, for all their ranting against religion(s) and god(s), they really ought to be ranting against evolution itself. But appealing to evolution doesn’t help their case much.

On the NA’s worldview, all events in time and space are the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. That’s it. There simply are no other causal forces at work. That means that all human behaviors, good or evil, are also the end result of this same chain of evolution. We might claim we were motivated to do good or evil by our belief in some diety or religion, but the truth of the matter (on the NA’s worldview), is that evolution made us do it.

For all their complaints against religion(s) and dieties, the NA’s have no basis, rooted in evolution, to judge any act as good or evil, simply because evolution has not produced any objective standard by which to measure such things. Sure, humans might do things that NA’s (or others) don’t like, may even hate, but that doesn’t really make them evil (or good…depending on your point of view). Dawkins judgement that if the God of the Old Testament Scripture were real He’d be evil is thus not based on any objective standard, but is itself the result of the same evolutionary processes. For all the caterwauling from the NA’s against religion, they really ought to be complaining about evolution itself!

Comments

Donald @ 113, StephenB @ 114: Whether my position is best characterized as social constructivist is debatable - I am more optimistic about the capacity of science to confidently, albeit provisionally, characterize reality and truly decide difficult questions than admitted by social constructivism. But grant all of the above vis social constructionism in the domain of morals and ethics. What I am asserting is that from this vantage your moral "absolutes" are also socially constructed, including the socially constructed mythology that they are absolutes. That puts your "objective morality" on all fours with those views you seem to despise so much, claims of absolutism made from within your system of thought notwithstanding. Is this a bare assertion? Of course it is; that is the only sort of assertion there can be vis claims for a god-given moral structure of the universe (and its compliment, the absence thereof). Yours that your favorite system provides absolutes is bare assertion, too. That again puts these viewpoints on all fours with one another, your claims notwithstanding. Am I engaging in some sort of logical paradox by claiming that it is absolutely true that there are no absolute ethical truths? If I had made a claim in absolute terms that might be so, but I have not. Above I prefaced my first post with "from where the atheist and agnostic sit" and couched my assertions as arising "from that vantage." I noted that "nothing about what I have said compels" the premises from which I started. I noted, "Of course, you can construct a symmetrical, opposing claim" from your own vantage as believers. I further noted "Of course none of this compels agnosticism or atheism. Rather it is descriptive of the landscape as viewed from that particular vantage, which does not include the choice 'accept an ABSOLUTE moral system.'" I noted that "We are all similarly inextricably embedded, which is why 'absolute truth' and 'absolute knowledge' is denied to individuals," and I certainly include myself among those individuals. And so on. These are far from claims of "absolute truth" for my assertions. The claim that a paradox results is mistaken. I've ignored StephenB's "test" because it is completely off point. I've not asserted that all parties everywhere are capable of negotiating difficult issues vis fairness and justice. Specific instances of failure have no particular bearing upon what I DO assert: that parties do oftentimes in many places negotiate equitable exchanges without resort to phony absolutes, when motivated to do so.Diffaxial_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

44 StephenB "To say that something is evil, then, is a shorthand way of saying it either lacks goodness, or is a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been." Doesn't work. The Holocaust lacked goodness, or, was a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been? "..evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. People choose to rape, murder, steal, etc., every minute. They are not lesser goods.Davem_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: "Your post at 88 doesn’t convince, I’m afraid...." But I had such high hopes for you.StephenB_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
So, I asked both of you to do it for real. Come to an agreement with me. I put my morality on the table and asked both of you to put your morality on the table so that we could negotiate. Not only did both of you refuse to negotiate, you didn’t even submit your opening gambit. How can six billion people come together and socially construct an equitable agreement if you, I, and seversky cannot get together? It is only under the banner of truth that a well-ordered society be established and maintained.
Exactly.Clive Hayden_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "We are all similarly inextricably embedded, which is why “absolute truth” and “absolute knowledge” is denied to individuals. However, to understand the above is an increment in relative truth, and relative knowledge." It is important to understand the significance of your own theory. Social Contructivism, your paradigm, holds that objective truth and morality cannot be “discovered” because they don’t exist. As the story goes, they must be, and are, “created.” More to the point, they can only be created in context, that is, group A socially constructs its own truth and morality, while group B develops another one, and so on. Given that point, the thoughtful person should ask this question: What happens when group A’s truth conflicts with group B’s truth? Taking the point further, what happens when multiple groups generate isolated truths appropriate only to each group? How do you arbitrate between them? It does no good to suggest that they should work things out and create their own truth because they have already done that. Socially constructed truths grounded in moral relativism cannot be coordinated one with the other, because they are designed to serve only one group, the group that conceived them. Only if all groups agree to submit to an objective, universal truth that binds them all can they hope to settle their differences. Naturally, that binding principle must really be the truth, since, as already indicated, arbitrarily established truths always divide, whether imposed from the top down or conceived from the bottom up. I have put these points to the test several times, most recently with you and seversky. In both cases, each of you insisted that groups can come to agreement on these things even in the absence of universal principles. So, I asked both of you to do it for real. Come to an agreement with me. I put my morality on the table and asked both of you to put your morality on the table so that we could negotiate. Not only did both of you refuse to negotiate, you didn't even submit your opening gambit. How can six billion people come together and socially construct an equitable agreement if you, I, and seversky cannot get together? It is only under the banner of truth that a well-ordered society be established and maintained.StephenB_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial
As with all cultures, those cultural assumptions emerged across history and were contingent, far from absolute. To become more objective is not to consult a book in which the absolutes are codified (no such book exists, as all such books are equally the products of the cultures from which they emerged)
The claim that "no such book exists" is a mere assertion. Christians would argue that the Bible is the Word of God, and that the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write down what we now call the Old and New Testaments. If that's true, then the claim "no such book exists" is false. There's at least one. I understand that you may not accept that the Bible's origins are of divine origin, but that is a different matter.
We are all similarly inextricably embedded, which is why “absolute truth” and “absolute knowledge” is denied to individuals. However, to understand the above is an increment in relative truth, and relative knowledge.
So, the claim being made here doesn't represent abosulute truth either. So is it 65% true...78%...89%...99% and how can we know? This statement is very close to saying "its absolutely true that there is no absolute truth", which is obviously self-referentially false.DonaldM_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

...and assumed his conclusions. :)Upright BiPed_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Diff: You have inadvertently underscored the points Stephen, others and I have made about the reductio ad absurdum of evolutionary materialist a-morality and radical relativism. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 107:
Indeed, I may think that equitable consists of making you my slave. Maybe that’s my idea of justice. Indeed, history is little more than tyrants making slaves of the masses and declaring it to be just.
And they believed it, because they lived their lives immersed in the systems of assumptions about people in the world, both articulated explicitly and embedded in the background of less explicitly articulated facts, supplied by the cultures in which they lived. As with all cultures, those cultural assumptions emerged across history and were contingent, far from absolute. To become more objective is not to consult a book in which the absolutes are codified (no such book exists, as all such books are equally the products of the cultures from which they emerged); rather, it is to strive to include oneself (and one's cultural history) in one's picture of the world, and understand that what you formerly took as fact actually arises out of an amalgam of facts and one's view of those facts, i.e., to understand that the "reality" supplied by one's culture is itself contingent upon perspective, and not absolute. This is a process that is repeated recursively, as one eventually sees that this new vantage is also constructed of the seer and the things seen. We are all similarly inextricably embedded, which is why "absolute truth" and "absolute knowledge" is denied to individuals. However, to understand the above is an increment in relative truth, and relative knowledge. You, apparently, have yet to accomplish even the first of those maneuvers, and instead cling tenaciously to the system of ethics that characterizes the culture in which you have been immersed and mischaracterize this contingent system of human devising as "objective." It reads as awfully naive.Diffaxial_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: There is something very sad about the spectacles above of advocates against "absolute" morality inadvertently acknowledging the objectivity of morality even as they struggle against it. [SB has done an excellent point by point job on this.] As to the idea that by simply insisting on confusing a defense with a theodicy one can announce defeat of a defense, this simply underscores the depth of the breakdown of reasoning at work. I will focus on this front a bit: 1 --> The key challenge made in recent decades through the problem of evil, was that it entailed that the concept of God in theism was incoherent, so that it was not possible to have a God like that: omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent. 2 --> However, the challenge "contradiction" is so stringent that it is subject to a LOGICAL defense, which does not have to pass anyone's tests of plausibility. (By contrast, theodicies project that they sufficiently describe the actual state of affairs in our world, so if one objects to the described state of affairs, on personal incredulity or whatever, one can insist that the theodicy is defeated. (Whether that rhetorical tactic will stand up to Divine Scrutiny come That Day when we will have to reckon with the standard of the Man who God has revealed by raising him from the dead, is another matter. (let's just say that I would not put the weight of my soul on it.)) 3 --> It should be obvious above that Sev has again chosen to treat the Plantinga Free Will Defense as if it were a theodicy. That is a serious error on the logic involved. 4 --> As the first corrective step, we observe that the claim "contradiction" is about some set of propositions or claims, A, B, C . . . which either directly states "X AND NOT_X" or implies it. the latter being the classic reductio ad absurdum. 5 --> As such, the claim "contradiction" is vulnerable to a purely logical defence: if we augment A, B, C, etc with somethign say Z, that is such that {A, B, C . . . } AND Z are plainly not a contradiction, then neither component of the compound can be contradictory. 6 --> As the challenge and response are str5ictly logical, the only constraint of Z is that it describes a logically possible state of affairs of our world. (In short, it itself must not be logically self-contradictory, as opposed to questions of plausibility to adherents of any one worldview or another. indeed, one logically possible state of affairs is that we live in a world created five minutes ago, with all the artifacts and memories etc being formed in an instant. Not even Lord Russell who first suggested this believes it, but it is empirically equivalent to our believed actual world. thus, we know that empirical tests are not a complete test of truth, hence the need for other worldview tests such as coherence and explanatory power, and the need for inference to best explanation on comparative difficulties.) 7 --> As anyone who goes out to look a the previously linked summaries of the FWD will see, Plantinga succeeds in providing such a logically possible state of affairs. And that is a very important job indeed: we know know beyond REASONABLE doubt, that the theistic concept of God is logically coherent. [NB: in my observation, on this and other cases of logical error, the commonest rhetorical counter is to appeal to implausibility, but of course since only what fits well with one's existing views will seem plausible, this often amounts to a crude begging of the question by appeal to prejudice, often multiplied by ridicule, demonisation and dismissal. Such are of course major informal fallacies of appeal to distractive emotions.] 8 --> And as well, the FWD points us to the zone of interest for addressing the issue of the inductive form of evils, and the existential form: what could be a valid reason for God creating a world in which evil can come to be? (One possible answer is -- as noted above and consistently not addressed [no prizes for guessing why] -- is that a world in which the freedom required for love and other like virtues is a world in which free choice necessarily exists, with the consequences thereof should some creatures choose to abuse that power. So, do we want a world in which love is possible/ if so,t hat is a world in which evil is also possible, and indeed the actual world seems like that. God's answer, on classic Christian theism? redemption, driven by love and appealing to hearts and minds on truth working by concerned love. [this also explains hos often the rhetorical attack against Christianity and Christians seeks to demonise and discredit us as hateful or ignorant, or stupid or wicked. And, while indeed every one of us struggles to overcome radical evil, it is hardly a fair or balanced view to try to say assert that [against abundant evidence] Hitler was a Christian acting based on Christian thought, while gliding over say a Mother Theresa or a St Francis or even a Chuck Colson or a Billy Graham in studious silence.]) 9 --> On balance, among the informed and current, the debate over the issue of evils is now at a different level than only a few decades ago. 10 --> And one key issue on this, that evolutionary materialist atheists and fellow travellers must confront, is that on the evo mat view, there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT GAP. For, in a world of matter-energy, acted on by chance and blind mechanical forces across space-time, we may have ion channels aned voltages in neurons etc and we may have OBSERVED [not explained!] thoughts, conscience and feelings, but we do not have any grounds for saying that any one feeling is an OBLIGATION. 11 --> That is, oughtness has disappeared, swallowed up by IS-NESS. 12 --> In the very literal sense, evolutionary materialist atheism is A-MORAL. (Which should be very worrying, as amorality is often a ground for licence and cultural suicide.) 13 --> As indeed, the above exchanges abundantly illustrate. 14 --> It is therefore very understandable to see that many reason (or directly intuit) through the modus tollens: If Evo Mat then a-morality [= not-morality], but plainly -- on direct experience of the reality of oughtness -- morality; so not-Evo Mat. [And BTW, this basic reason is a major part of why regardless of how many august figures pronounce that the world is as evolutionary materialism envisions, many thoughtful people will conclude that the authorities in question MUST be wrong; even without other evidence or argument.] _____________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Your post at 88 doesn't convince, I'm afraid - it looks to be your own reflections without any real evidence to back it up. For instance, the assertion that ignorance may be a mitigating factor has no apparent objective basis. I think you are projecting your own personal views and elevating them to the position of an objective moral code, without any real justification. I can understand why, I guess we all do something similar from time to time, but it is unconvincing.Gaz_{August 17, 2009
August
08
Aug
17
17
2009
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

-----Diffaxial: “Sure I can, and sure they can. In the instance of fairness, if one desires relationships characterized by equitable exchanges, then one behaves in a manner that makes that highly probable. That probability is ample rational justification for fair conduct. As occurs daily in all walks of life, the definition of “equitable” is negotiated by the parties involved without consulting transcendental sources.” How can millions of people agree on a standard of justice or morality when you and I can’t even do it? I have provided my definition of morality, for example, but you have offered nothing. How can we work out an agreement if you don’t put something on the table? ----"Indeed, much of childhood play revolves around practicing attaining agreements vis fairness and policing violations (”thats not fair!”). That’s right, because children understand that a universal standard of justice exists. Darwinists do not. That means that, insofar as ethics is concerned, children have the intellectual edge. ----"Generalization from countless such specific examples is a simple matter. No absolutes need apply.:" The logical error in your position persists, and the question begging lingers. One cannot participate in equitable relationships without knowing what equitable means. Among other things, it includes refraining from lying, stealing, and cheating. However, you don’t think these things are objectively wrong, so you have no way of defining equitable. Indeed, I may think that equitable consists of making you my slave. Maybe that’s my idea of justice. Indeed, history is little more than tyrants making slaves of the masses and declaring it to be just. In any case, it is impossible to negotiate without an objective standard to arbitrate between the multi-varied notions about the meaning of fairness. Without it, everyone will appeal to his or her personal standard of morality, which will be different in each case, which leads to a war of all against all. As I said, you contradict your own philosophy by implying that I am in error, as if there was an objective standard of truth from which I have strayed. You continue to evade that fact. To be consistent you must concede that we are both always right because there is no objective standard to declare either of us wrong.StephenB_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

Seversky,
There are many examples of people exercising their free will in ways that displease Gc who, far from being tolerated in the interests of upholding free will, are dealt with very harshly. Need I mention the Great Flood yet again? And with out this premise, the Free Will Defense fails.
Remember the Ninevites.Clive Hayden_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 68
You are trying to treat a DEFENSE as a THEODICY, revealing your lack of currency.
It matters not. For an argument to succeed, in other words, for it to compel our agreement, it must not only have a valid form but we must also concede the truth of each of its premises. We can construct a valid argument as follows: All blergs and only blergs are splinft Zwonk is splinft. Therefore, zwonk is a blerg But it is utterly meaningless. In the specific case of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, again, it can only compel agreement if we are prepared to concede the truth of all its premises. One of Plantinga's key premises is that the Christian God (Gc) values free will so highly that he is forced to overlook other evils in order to preserve it. Is that the case? According to the Old Testament, no, it isn't. There are many examples of people exercising their free will in ways that displease Gc who, far from being tolerated in the interests of upholding free will, are dealt with very harshly. Need I mention the Great Flood yet again? And with out this premise, the Free Will Defense fails.Seversky_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 102 & 103:
You can “feel” any way that you like, but what you cannot do is provide any rational justification for your feelings...If “fairness” and “justice” do not exist as objective standards, then they obviously can’t be applied
Sure I can, and sure they can. In the instance of fairness, if one desires relationships characterized by equitable exchanges, then one behaves in a manner that makes that highly probable. That probability is ample rational justification for fair conduct. As occurs daily in all walks of life, the definition of "equitable" is negotiated by the parties involved without consulting transcendental sources. Indeed, much of childhood play revolves around practicing attaining agreements vis fairness and policing violations ("thats not fair!"). Generalization from countless such specific examples is a simple matter. No absolutes need apply.
You are assuming incorrectly that people do not do things that they believe to be wrong.
Of course they do. I doubt Vick and his companions were among them, but who knows? But you are assuming that all wrong doers believe at some level that their conduct is inherently wrongful. That is certainly not the case, as anyone who has had experience with genuine criminality (as I have, up to and including murder) will tell you. You're dreaming if you believe otherwise.
I am obviously right about this inasmuch as you have no reasonable answer except to say, “please stop!”
What, you're like in third grade?Diffaxial_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

—-Diffaxial: I need no pretend absolutes to understand that to codify a system that supports fairness and justice the standards promulgated must apply to all for the system to work at all/ If "fairness" and "justice" do not exist as objective standards, then they obviously can't be applied. All one can do is declare his or her perception of justice, persuade others, and try to mobilize a group effort to institutionalize it into law. But what if I have a different standard of justice and would prefer to institutionize my standard into law. How do you arbitrate between my standard of justice and your contrary standard of justice? It can't be done. One of us will win or lose the battle of "might makes right." In the larger picture, taking everyone else's personal standard of justice into account, it would lead to a war of all against all. The only solution is to appeal to a universal standard which binds us all. This is clear.StephenB_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: I need no pretend absolutes to understand that to codify a system that supports fairness and justice the standards promulgated must apply to all for the system to work at all.” You can “feel” any way that you like, but what you cannot do is provide any rational justification for your feelings. ----“This is patently untrue, and one needn’t look far for a counter example: Michael Vick and his dog-fighting cohorts obviously didn’t recognize that.” You are assuming incorrectly that people do not do things that they believe to be wrong. In fact, many people prefer that which is wrong for the sheer thrill of it. If sin wasn’t fun, people wouldn’t do it. Of course, it is possible to so dull one’s conscience with bad behavior that the conscience is rendered ineffective. Perhaps that is what you have in mind. I wrote: Everytime you question me about this, you contradict your own philosophy by implying that I am in error, as if there was an objective standard of truth or morality from which I have strayed. I am amazed that you don’t see this. ----“Please, no more trips around the tiresome “absolute truth” mulberry bush.” I am obviously right about this inasmuch as you have no reasonable answer except to say, “please stop!” ----"More reasoning from within culturally and socially constructed frameworks (theism, Christianity). As I said, such reasoning has no special power to compel assent." It was you who raised the issue of "humility," not me.StephenB_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 90:
If there is no such thing as objective justice or a natural moral law, then the words “right,” “wrong,” “fair, and “unfair” are meaningless. Atheists who use these words or argue on behalf of the concepts they represent, are illogical inasmuch as they are appealing to concepts that they have already characterized as non-existent.
Please put his miserable notion out of its misery. I need no pretend absolutes to recognize when I am being harmed, or to express outrage over that harm. I need no pretend absolutes to love family and community, or to express outrage when persons and communities I love are harmed. I need no pretend absolutes to abstract that reasoning and generalize it to peoples I haven't met. I need no pretend absolutes to agree with others to conduct our exchanges equitably, or to recognize when those agreed standards of fairness have been violated. I need no pretend absolutes to understand that to codify a system that supports fairness and justice the standards promulgated must apply to all for the system to work at all.
It goes a lot deeper than that. Everyone recognizes that no one should be cruel to animals.
This is patently untrue, and one needn't look far for a counter example: Michael Vick and his dog-fighting cohorts obviously didn't recognize that.
Everytime you question me about this, you contradict your own philosophy by implying that I am in error, as if there was an objective standard of truth or morality from which I have strayed. I am amazed that you don’t see this.
Please, no more trips around the tiresome "absolute truth" mulberry bush.
You have it backwards. Humility consits in submitting to God’s laws; pride consists in rejecting them and, as if often the case, rejecting God...
More reasoning from within culturally and socially constructed frameworks (theism, Christianity). As I said, such reasoning has no special power to compel assent.Diffaxial_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: 'Nor can you, from where the atheist and agnostic sit. Or, more accurately, from that vantage your claim of possession of an absolute system of morality from which you “logically declare” the wrongness of actions is perceived as false, and empty." If there is no such thing as right and wrong, then there is nothing to get outraged about. To be outraged is to declare non-verbally, "that isn't right,!"---"That isn't fair." If there is no such thing as objective justice or a natural moral law, then the words "right," "wrong," "fair, and "unfair" are meaningless. Atheists who use these words or argue on behalf of the concepts they represent, are illogical inasmuch as they are appealing to concepts that they have already characterized as non-existent. ---"There are only ethical systems of human contrivance, including that of Christianity. Reasoning to the contrary conducted from within the framework of Christianity is also grounded in premises of cultural origin and carries no special force." It goes a lot deeper than that. Everyone recognizes that no one should be cruel to animals. The term "recognize" means just what it implies---apprehension of truth, not just a feeling. Everytime you question me about this, you contradict your own philosophy by implying that I am in error, as if there was an objective standard of truth or morality from which I have strayed. I am amazed that you don't see this. ----"The spectacle that emerges is that of persons wielding yet another humanly contrived ethical system, often as a bludgeon, with complete assurance that their system is absolute and God-given." It's either God-given or it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, it can't be invented. It is impossible to inject morality into a meaningless universe. ---"Of course, you can construct a symmetrical, opposing claim: We all sit in a boat constructed by God; some of use don’t know it. So you select that view, while we select another." What is your view? Explain your morality in detail so that we can discuss it, rally around it, critique it, or discount it. ----"Ultimately, there is no place to stand from which it may be adjudicated which view is correct other than within one’s life and one’s “ownmost” death, and even your claims of absolutism become subjective. So a measure of humility is in order." You have it backwards. Humility consits in submitting to God's laws; pride consists in rejecting them and, as if often the case, rejecting God . Pride means trying to arrogate unto one's self a role that only God can play; humility means recognizing that we are mere creatures dependent on God for even the smallest detail. Pride is swollen egotism that tries to build its own separate center and its own origins apart from God, exaggerating its own importance and trying to be a world unto itself. At its worst, it becomes unteachable and even ironic as it declares that those who recognize God's law are, themselves, proud and in need of more humility.StephenB_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial,
Ultimately, there is no place to stand from which it may be adjudicated which view is correct other than within one’s life and one’s “ownmost” death, and even your claims of absolutism become subjective. So a measure of humility is in order.
Morality, in reality, is not subjective, and data lovers should read this to evidence the point: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm This is also your evidence for the Natural Law. And even your claims about subjectivity are really objective, for you assume that you are "right", and that others "should" comprehend your "correctness", and agree. On the assumption of subjectivity, you're explaining your preference in what color of shirt you like to wear, and no one "should" feel "compelled" to agree with your "argument" on those grounds, for I like different colored shirts.Clive Hayden_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 90:
...it is perfectly reasonable for a theist or anyone who accepts objective morality to become outraged on the grounds that an objective moral law was violated. On the other hand, the atheist rejects the very moral standards that Michael Vick breached. How can one breach a moral law if that moral law doesn’t exist? One can “feel” outraged, as you did, but one cannot, without appealing to the objective moral law declare that what Michael Vick did was wrong. If one cannot logically declare that wrongdoing actually occurred, then one cannot logically be outraged over it.
Nor can you, from where the atheist and agnostic sit. Or, more accurately, from that vantage your claim of possession of an absolute system of morality from which you "logically declare" the wrongness of actions is perceived as false, and empty. There are only ethical systems of human contrivance, including that of Christianity. Reasoning to the contrary conducted from within the framework of Christianity is also grounded in premises of cultural origin and carries no special force. The spectacle that emerges is that of persons wielding yet another humanly contrived ethical system, often as a bludgeon, with complete assurance that their system is absolute and God-given. We are all in the same boat. Some of us don't know it. Of course, you can construct a symmetrical, opposing claim: We all sit in a boat constructed by God; some of use don't know it. So you select that view, while we select another. Ultimately, there is no place to stand from which it may be adjudicated which view is correct other than within one's life and one's "ownmost" death, and even your claims of absolutism become subjective. So a measure of humility is in order.Diffaxial_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, I noticed you used the term "distractive issue" in #94. Is it your view that my post(s) are off topic?
Back on target, it is still manifestly the case that evolutionary materialist atheists — the modern form — have no grounds for warranting the “ought” they find in their hearts, on the IS-es that they accept.
Well, this evolutionary materialist atheist believes that even if we don't have access to objective moral law, it still makes sense to search for those basic moral principles that we can all agree on. One such example would be the 5th or 6th commandment (I go to a Protestant church :) ) which StephenB cited. As I said earlier, I don't believe that this commandment came to us from God, being an atheist, but I think it's universally accepted that it's a good rule.
Being unable to find evil other than a repugnant reality, they then too often fail to address the implications of the glaring gap in their world views, but instead tend to deflect attention from critical self-reflection; through focussing on attacking adherents of other worldviews (which have a far better warrant for addressing the nature and challenge of radical evil).
I'm not sure about the meaning of your first sentence here. I do find evil to be a repugnant reality of course. It is something else as well?David v. Squatney_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

vjtorley, Thanks for the contribution. StephenB, Thanks for post #93. It looks like we're agreed on those two points.David v. Squatney_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

PS: The existence of an objective moral law on the matter does not entail that we will not make errors -- even gross ones -- about it, if we are blinded by gaps in our thinking, or interests, or ideologies. Just the opposite. And, the issue in view on the battered wife etc is the same one as that with the schoolyard or neighbourhood bully. [Funny how it becomes ever so much clearer when put in those terms. that's because we do not have blinders on when we look at bullyism -- usually. [The bully of course is almost always the exception there . . .; but equally, it is possible to twist one's perceptions through the victimist ideology/ rationalisation of usurpation of authority and rebellion of our day, and view legitimate restraint as bullying -- I find that too much of current children's literature and/or film falls into that trap. That is why the intervention of wise counsel is often required.])kairosfocus_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

Folks: FYI, on the latest distractive issue. From C1, the apostolic teaching is that husbands have a duty of tender self-sacrificing care to their wives. From C2, spousal abuse was deemed active-form abandonment of the marriage (instead of running away, driving out the other party with blows); i.e. grounds for annulment. Back on target, it is still manifestly the case that evolutionary materialist atheists -- the modern form -- have no grounds for warranting the "ought" they find in their hearts, on the IS-es that they accept. Being unable to find evil other than a repugnant reality, they then too often fail to address the implications of the glaring gap in their world views, but instead tend to deflect attention from critical self-reflection; through focussing on attacking adherents of other worldviews (which have a far better warrant for addressing the nature and challenge of radical evil). Much of the thread above reflects this sadly typical problem. We need to move beyond such, to a serious addressing of the relevant comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power: 1 --> which worldview adequately accounts for the fact of evil and the fact that we find it self-evidently true that evil is real and radically rooted in our inner and outer worlds? Which provides a more cogent solution? 2 --> which worldview is intellectually and morally coherent? 3 --> Which worldview provides an explanatory framework tat is best able to account for the circumstances and t6o give us handles for dealing with evil in the real world of morally fallen people, not just the armchair. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

----David v Squatney: "I should make clear that these two pastors did actually discuss the responsibilities of husbands; I don’t want to portray the situation unfairly. Nevertheless, women are sometimes injured or killed by abusive spouses. If a woman feels she is in a dangerous situation, and the man is not upholding his responsibility, should she continue to submit to her husband? What is the answer according to objective moral law?" Absolutely not. Not only should she be allowed to leave him, she should be encouraged to do so---and soon. ---"Just out of curiosity, why do you think it is that virtually everyone, atheist or theist, would find Vick’s actions repugnant?" In my judgment, everyone instinctively recognizes that cruelty to animals is objectively wrong. It's more than just a feeling; it's a self-evident truth.StephenB_{August 16, 2009
August
08
Aug
16
16
2009
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

David v. Squatney Thank you for your post. You write:
If a woman feels she is in a dangerous situation, and the man is not upholding his responsibility, should she continue to submit to her husband? What is the answer according to objective moral law?
The answer is No. For an explanation of Christian moral teaching on this subject from a woman who is now a Christian, but who was raised an atheist and grew up wanting to be a CEO, please see http://www.conversiondiary.com and scroll down to the recent post on husbands and wives.vjtorley_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I should make clear that these two pastors did actually discuss the responsibilities of husbands; I don't want to portray the situation unfairly. Nevertheless, women are sometimes injured or killed by abusive spouses. If a woman feels she is in a dangerous situation, and the man is not upholding his responsibility, should she continue to submit to her husband? What is the answer according to objective moral law?
One can “feel” outraged, as you did, but one cannot, without appealing to the objective moral law declare that what Michael Vick did was wrong. If one cannot logically declare that wrongdoing actually occurred, then one cannot logically be outraged over it. All he can do is say that he just doesn’t like it or that it doesn’t “feel” right. To the question of “why,” the atheist has no answer.
My answer is that dogs can suffer, and one of the subjective moral principles I've accepted is that it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, which Michael Vick did. I can't prove this statement deductively from axioms which are know to be true, but based on my life experience I have no reason to reject it. I know I would not want to live in a society where murder was condoned. Just out of curiosity, why do you think it is that virtually everyone, atheist or theist, would find Vick's actions repugnant?David v. Squatney_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

----David v. Squatney: Writes concerning this scripture: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." ----“(To be fair, you haven’t singled this out as part of objective moral law, but as it’s in the bible, I assume you take it to be important.) ----“I saw one pastor preach a very hard line on this passage: Even if a woman is being severely physically abused by her husband, she should still submit to him, with absolutely no exceptions. He was very clear on this. Another pastor took a more reasonable approach in my view, and instructed wives that they were allowed to leave their husbands if their lives or health were in danger.” ----“What does objective moral law tell us in this situation?" The objective moral law always reaffirms Scripture and Scripture always confirms the natural moral law, so if there seems to be a conflict, and clearly your example dramatizes a real conflict, then someone, as in this case, is "stacking the deck." The pastors in question are telling only half of the story, which is why they leave out these passages that follow: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy…..husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.” Well, Christ loved the Church in a radically self-sacrificial way and “gave himself up” for it. In other words, he also submitted himself. So, where does that leave us? It means that the passage is calling for MUTUAL submission, that is, the wife submits to the husband AND the husband loves his wife in a self sacrificial way. According to the natural moral law, human beings have inherent dignity, and, although one shouldn’t have to point out the obvious to these ministers, wives also have inherent dignity. According to Christianity, the alluded to dignity stems from having been made in God’s image, which is a big part of the Gospel’s message. So, the concept of mutual submission makes sense with the concept of inherent dignity, which, in turn, confirms general Biblical teaching. Scripture must be understood and interpreted in the light of its entire teaching, which is why it is easy to take a passage or two and twist it to serve one’s own ends. ----“All I can say to your second point is that I get outraged over certain things, just like anyone else, and do not concede that I am especially illogical or irrational. Take as an example the Michael Vick case, which has been in the news lately. Let me ask you, when you first heard the details of how he treated those dogs, did you do a quick mental scan and determine which principles of moral natural law, the Ten Commandments, etc. were violated, and on that basis proceed to be outraged? That’s not how my mind works. My reaction of outrage was no more illogical than anyone else’s, and was perfectly normal and appropriate under the circumstances.” Michael Vick violated the Fifth Commandment [Thou Shalt Not Kill], which includes all wanton violence against any of God’s creatures. It isn’t just murder that is forbidden by that commandment. It includes cruelty of speech, hate, or any other kind of violence that physically or psychologically militates against any of God’s creatures. So, it is perfectly reasonable for a theist or anyone who accepts objective morality to become outraged on the grounds that an objective moral law was violated. On the other hand, the atheist rejects the very moral standards that Michael Vick breached. How can one breach a moral law if that moral law doesn’t exist? One can “feel” outraged, as you did, but one cannot, without appealing to the objective moral law declare that what Michael Vick did was wrong. If one cannot logically declare that wrongdoing actually occurred, then one cannot logically be outraged over it. All he can do is say that he just doesn’t like it or that it doesn’t “feel” right. To the question of “why,” the atheist has no answer.StephenB_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
It may be more of a disagreement over what get’s emphasized. It’s human nature to rationalize conveniently selected portions of the natural moral law when one of its tenets falls in the area of our weakness.
I would agree that must be one reason. But the end result is that these people then appear to be following a very subjective moral law. Maybe they really are as a rule "better" than atheists following guidelines that they have pieced together themselves, but it's not clear to me.
Why would an atheist go to Church? What exactly do they disagree about? In any case, atheism provides no rational grounding for morality of any kind. It is illogical for an atheist to be outraged over anything.
My wife is a Christian and prefers that I accompany her. One issue on which I've seen much disagreement is the role of the wife in marriage, as described in Ephesians 5:22--24:
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
(To be fair, you haven't singled this out as part of objective moral law, but as it's in the bible, I assume you take it to be important.) I saw one pastor preach a very hard line on this passage: Even if a woman is being severely physically abused by her husband, she should still submit to him, with absolutely no exceptions. He was very clear on this. Another pastor took a more reasonable approach in my view, and instructed wives that they were allowed to leave their husbands if their lives or health were in danger. What does objective moral law tell us in this situation? All I can say to your second point is that I get outraged over certain things, just like anyone else, and do not concede that I am especially illogical or irrational. Take as an example the Michael Vick case, which has been in the news lately. Let me ask you, when you first heard the details of how he treated those dogs, did you do a quick mental scan and determine which principles of moral natural law, the Ten Commandments, etc. were violated, and on that basis proceed to be outraged? That's not how my mind works. My reaction of outrage was no more illogical than anyone else's, and was perfectly normal and appropriate under the circumstances.David v. Squatney_{August 15, 2009
August
08
Aug
15
15
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply