Debate: Michael Egnor vs. Matt Dillahunty — now the 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 6, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, theism, worldview}

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

In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise:

[Last time out] He accused Dillahunty of using science as “a crutch” for his atheism.
But now Dillahunty asks the Big One, seriously, if there is a God, why is there evil?
News, “Dillahunty asks the 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil?” at Mind Matters News

Matt Dillahunty: I am fine with being able to make objective assessments, but I’m not aware of any model where anyone could demonstrate that there is an objective moral law that is universal.

Michael Egnor: I’m not asking whether you think people could demonstrate it. I’m asking, do you believe that it exists? [01:17:00]

Matt Dillahunty: No. I don’t believe in things that people can’t demonstrate exist.

Michael Egnor: You don’t believe that raping a baby is objectively, morally wrong. You think it’s just a matter of opinion?

Matt Dillahunty: I’m on record, for many years now, of advocating for situational morality, situational ethics, and rejecting the notion that because a culture says so that means that it’s so. I define morality as the well-being of thinking creatures. It’s not a complete definition, it’s what I think we’ve been working towards. I think anybody who’s talking about morality is probably talking about well-being of thinking creatures and humans in particular quite often. Once you decide, hey, we’re talking about the well-being of humans, now there are physical facts within the universe that are non-subjective that determine whether or not something is in our best interest or not, like chopping off someone’s head is not good for them. It’s an objective physical fact that chopping off someone’s head is in conflict with those things that are good for them. [01:18:00]

The only objection remaining is someone could say, there’s no reason why anybody has to care about well-being. and on that grounds, yeah. You don’t have to care about well-being, just like you don’t have to care about being healthy. Health isn’t particularly well-defined either, like physical health. We’re learning more and more about it, but it’s not like there’s some objective, true standard of health. Instead, there are a model of, we would like to be healthier, and we learn facts about the universe, and so we get healthier.

Michael Egnor: I had pointed out earlier that raising the question of objective morality stimulates atheists to do an incredible tap dance. [01:19:00]

Michael Egnor: Matt, I’m asking you a simple question. Is it objectively wrong…

Matt Dillahunty: No.

Michael Egnor: Is it objectively wrong to rape a baby, or is it just a matter of opinion?

Matt Dillahunty: It’s objectively wrong if the foundation of your morality holds that it would be objectively assessed as wrong.

Michael Egnor: No, no, no, no. Is it objectively wrong? Or is it just a matter of opinion? And if it is objectively wrong, what mind does that moral principle come from? [01:19:30]

Matt Dillahunty: This gets down to, how do you define morality? If you define it as well-being, once you’ve defined morality, then you can say, is this moral? If you’re just going to say right or wrong, then I need to know what standard we’re going to be using for right or wrong. If we’re going to use mine, which is…

Michael Egnor: I didn’t ask you any of that, man. I said, is it objectively wrong to rape babies? Yes or no, Matt. It’s a one word answer. Yes or no. [01:20:00]

Takehome: Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.

Next: Does morality really exist? Does it really come from God?

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

and

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Comments

chuckdarwin confuses subjective morality with objective morality. A matter of opinion is what makes it subjective.ET_{October 7, 2021
October
10
Oct
7
07
2021
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Christian apologists keep using the term "objective morality" when they mean "absolute morality." Use of the term "objective" to suggest that it is a God-given universal is unnecessarily confusing. The oft-used statement by apologists that "without God there can be no objective morality" is misleading. All social groups have an objective morality, i.e. a set of behavioral dos and don'ts along with consequences for not complying which everyone is expected to understand. The source of that morality can be by fiat or by agreement. The highest level of objective morality humans have developed is codified jurisprudence. Some apologists (including Egnor) keep referring to this as "subjective" morality because each group is different. But that is a misuse and misunderstanding of the term "subjective" which relates to solely individuals, not groups. Even more egregious is the simplistic "its just a matter of opinion" morality. That snappy phrase completely trivializes any discussion of morality. So, the emotionally laden, set up question "is it objectively moral to rape babies" can actually only be answered "it depends." The term "rape" itself does not even have an absolute or universal definition and has meant different things historically. What may be defined as rape in one culture may be acceptable in another (e.g. statutory rape vis a vis childhood marriage). That, however, does not make each of those culture's rules "subjective" or merely a "matter of opinion." Contrary to Egnor's set up, it is not a simple yes or no question. But then questions of morality are never simple yes or no questions.chuckdarwin_{October 7, 2021
October
10
Oct
7
07
2021
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

This said, I don’t know why people assume that God must necessarily be “a good guy”
No! God has created the perfect world. Again. How could God not create the best of all possible worlds? Why would He do anything less? So what does that mean? People like to use the term “evil” without understanding just what they are saying. There is apparently aspects of our world that are undesirable. They call these aspects evil. But every aspect of our world is sub optimal so literally everything is evil. We tend to focus on the most temporarily undesirable but if they were eliminated then what remained even the seemingly positive things would then be undesirable or “evil.” Whether it be moral acts committed by a person with free will or physical events theoretically under the control of God, they are sub-optimal and thus technically evil. But are such acts/events then necessary for a meaningful world? Do we live in a world of perfect seemingly apparent imperfects?jerry_{October 7, 2021
October
10
Oct
7
07
2021
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

I don’t know why people assume that God must necessarily be “a good guy”. We have no idea of what the purpose of our existence is.
:))) Impressive logic. So God created the people that can be good( if they want to)but God Himself is bad. PS: Flash News:We know the reason why God created this universe and humans. He told us.Hanks_{October 7, 2021
October
10
Oct
7
07
2021
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,,
Dawkins is saying that the truth *I do not exist, I am a neurological illusion* is hard to live with. But as Descartes has taught us no one can doubt his existence. Everything one does confirms one's existence: I think, therefore I am. I ..... (whatever), therefore I am. I doubt my existence, but in order to do that I must exist, therefore I exist. So, it is not the truth that is hard to live with, as Dawkins suggests, but rather it is intolerable to continually lie to yourself.Origenes on vacation_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

Jerry @2, "Evil" is usually what sociopaths do. They lack compassion and remorse. They are basically human predators. "Political Ponerology" by Andrew M. Lobaczewski explains this in great detail. For the 96% of humans who have conscience the acts of sociopaths are very difficult to comprehend. This said, I don't know why people assume that God must necessarily be "a good guy". We have no idea of what the purpose of our existence is. It is entirely possible that our purpose is to simulate the dynamic between the 4% sociopaths and the 96% rest of us.Eugene_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky you know less about law that you do about evolution. There is an objection, but it is not ‘badgering the witness’ he asks three question the last beginning with ‘If’. There are a number of objections such as asking a rolled up question. The question is also objectionable because it requires a a selection from only two choices 1. is it objective wrong or 2. A matter of opinion. The questions are NOT when not stop beating your wife type - that presupposes something yet to be established - that beating had been admitted or otherwise there was good evidence of it. The debate is a shambles, your man wants to debate ‘morality’ but cannot describe or define. He candidly admits his definition is unfinished, “I define morality as the well-being of thinking creatures. It’s not a complete definition.” Not a complete definition after years of talking about it?Belfast_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

This points out that there may be logical and fundamental limitations to God’s creativity. Maybe even He can’t 100% satisfy all the requirements simultaneously
I maintain. Like Leibniz, that this is the best of all possible worlds. The Christian God could do no less. The question then becomes why is this the best of all possible worlds? Aside: there are lots of things we consider very undesirable, for example a terminal tumor in a small child gets to be an extreme example. I knew of such a child who died about a year after it was diagnosed and her life was painful. She was 7 when she died. But suppose we eliminate all such things through modern medicine, then someone will see as very bad something that no one thought twice about in the past or even in our current world. It will get to the point that someone with just a limited income will be seen as extremely undesirable even though that person could support themselves or a family. Because they are not rich, it will be seen as undesirable.jerry_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Just uploaded: Is Atheism Dead? A Conversation with Eric Metaxas - interview with Sean McDowell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDOClTy0Xdkbornagain77_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Perhaps the best evidence that the atheist's claims about personhood, a person's free will, and morality, are illusions are patently false claims for atheists to make is the fact that it is impossible for atheists themselves to live their lives as if what they say about personhood, free will, and morality, is actually true.
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
Even Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be quote-unquote 'intolerable' for him to live as if his atheistic worldview were actually true:
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
Verse:
Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
bornagain77_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 6 states "Anyone can participate in a discussion about morality,,," Seversky, you are (purposely?) forgetting that, (besides your Atheistic Materialism denying the objective reality of morality), your worldview also denies the objective reality of persons, as well as denying the objective reality of the free will necessary for 'persons' to even be able to participate in logically coherent debates and/or discussions in the first place.
"Science provides clear-cut answers to all of the questions on the list: there is no free will, there is no mind distinct from the brain, there is no soul, no self, no person that supposedly inhabits your body, that endures over its life span, and that might even outlast it." Alex Rosenberg - The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions – pg. 147 “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker - Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness "There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,, - Alex Rosenberg - Professor of Philosophy Duke University - The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 Atheist Philosopher Thinks “We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts” Michael Egnor – July 20, 2016 Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso/ The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? Dr. Dennis Bonnette – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/ Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
Thus Seversky, while you rightly claimed that "Anyone can participate in a discussion about morality", you forget that, if your materialistic worldview is actually true, there are no 'anyones' to participate in logically coherent debates and/or discussions in the first place. Personhood is an illusion according to your worldview!bornagain77_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

It seems that Matt Dillahunty is just playing at his position. Otherwise, it's "might makes right." Q: Matt give me your wallet. M: Why? Q: Because, for me, it would be situationally right for you to share your wealth. M: But for me, I don't think it would be situationally right for me to be required to share my wealth with you. Q: But, I have no money. Situationally, I'm poor and all I have is my clothes and this loaded .45 I'm pointing at you. M: Oh, well in that case, I can see your point, situationally. Here you go. -QQuerius_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Jerry@4
All bad things are relative. It gets to a point where positive things become bad things as the bad things are eliminated.
I think the following is a better apologia, though still not particularly satisfying: There is the observed regularity of natural law. The basic laws of physics appear to be cleverly designed to create conditions suitable for human life and development. It can be surmised that this intricate fine-tuned design is inherently an extremely complicated series of tradeoffs and balances, allowing and fostering human existence but also inevitably allowing "natural evil" to regularly occur. In other words, the best solution to the overall "system requirements" (which include furnishing manifold opportunities for humans to experience and achieve) inherently includes natural effects that cause suffering to human beings. This points out that there may be logical and fundamental limitations to God's creativity. Maybe even He can't 100% satisfy all the requirements simultaneously. Maybe He doesn't have complete control over nature, because that would interfere with the essential requirements for creative and fulfilling human life. After all, human achievement requires imperfection and adverse conditions to exist as a natural part of human life.doubter_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

Michael Egnor: I didn’t ask you any of that, man. I said, is it objectively wrong to rape babies? Yes or no, Matt. It’s a one word answer. Yes or no. [01:20:00]
Objection! Badgering the witness! More seriously, Egnor is plainly an exponent of the fallacy of the loaded question, as in "Have you stopped beating your wife!" If Dillahunty answers "yes" he is conceding the existence of an objective morality, if he answers "no" he concedes it is not objectively wrong - and, therefore, right - to rape babies, neither of which is MD's position. This is just Egnor being boorish again.Seversky_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Anyone can participate in a discussion about morality as long as they are not stomping around insisting that their morality is the only objective - and therefore true - morality, so there can be no debate.Seversky_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Discussing morality makes sense only under the assumption that we can choose our behavior. IOWs the assumption that we are free persons. A materialist, like Dillahunty, cannot participate in a discussion about morality.Origenes on vacation_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

I think this is a harder nut to crack unfortunately.
No, very easy when outcomes are evaluated as relative. All bad things are relative. It gets to a point where positive things become bad things as the bad things are eliminated.jerry_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

The ancient Carthaginians (at least according to the Romans) culturally accepted and encouraged the burning alive of infants as offerings to their god. This admittedly would be at least one data point in favor of the 'morality is culturally and socially determined' camp. However, I think Egnor's argument still stands since there obviously is no natural law that prevents humans from through their free will choosing to commit such abominations. The free will defense - our existence would have no meaning without the human free will to choose to do and create very many things, which has to include opposing the absolute moral law. Of course this still leaves the question of the great bulk of what may be termed "natural evil", innocent suffering caused by forces of nature like earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc. etc. I think this is a harder nut to crack unfortunately.doubter_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Why evil? Answer: it doesn’t exist. First, define evil - most can’t including myself. I have been reading about it for years. (Except for one thing and only one thing) People love using the term but cannot define it. Usually they mean bad stuff happening to people. But so is a stubbed toe. Oh, we mean more serious things. Oh, evil is relative then. But evil is the lack of good - then what is good? The whole created universe is an example of the lack of good. That means everything is evil. There have been long discussions on it here. The result - people keep repeating the same arguments that are opinions and are not justified. The discussion above was about morality not evil. Aside: if God prevented some bad thing such as raping a child then the world would move on to some other bad things that should be prevented. Then when they were prevented, we will be down the list to stubbing toes.jerry_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Word games and gymnastics to avoid answering the question. Apparently sometimes it's okay according to Dillahunty, but the cognitive dissonance has to be super strong in that.zweston_{October 6, 2021
October
10
Oct
6
06
2021
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply