The $68,584 Question

_{Barry Arrington
September 3, 2014

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

There is such a thing as a professional “ethicist,” and as of this writing the median annual income of a clinical ethicist is $68,584. Here is one job description for such a position:

Offers guidance to patients, their families, and professional staff on ethical, legal and policy issues and concerns stemming from clinical interactions between health care professionals and patients. Provides guidance to the institutional ethics committee pertaining to policy formulation and educational and case review activities. Develops institutional policies concerning ethical issues such as “do-not-resuscitate” and “withdrawal of life-support”. Requires a master’s degree or doctorate related to health ethics and at least 5 years of experience in the field.

I can understand how a theist who believes in the objective reality of ethical norms could apply for such a position in good faith. By definition he believes certain actions are really wrong and other actions are really right, and therefore he often has something meaningful to say.

My question is how could a materialist apply for such a position in good faith? After all, for the materialist there is really no satisfactory answer to Arthur Leff’s “grand sez who” question that we have discussed on these pages before. See here for Philip Johnson’s informative take on the issue.

After all, when pushed to the wall to ground his ethical opinions in anything other than his personal opinion, the materialist ethicist has nothing to say. Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness.

I am not being facetious here. I really do want to know why someone would pay someone to give them the “right answer” when that person asserts that the word “right” is ultimately meaningless.

Comments

Rich @ 44:
Barry: "That statement is not true. But you believe it to be true, and as a result you have effectively demonstrated the point of the OP. Thank you." Did I miss the part where you showed it to be false? Would you mind going through it again?
No, but you did apparently miss the point of the OP.Barry Arrington_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Thus, since the emotional reactions happen before the violent images are even viewed, or before the worldwide tragedies even occurred, then we actually have very good empirical evidence supporting the assertion that objective morality exists outside space-time and is grounded in the perfect nature of God's being. Moreover, the atheistic materialist is left without a clue as to how such ‘prescient morality’ is even possible for reality. As to the second question, i.e. 'do we have evidence that man's free will decisions can 'reach back in time'?', we now have scientific evidence for that as well,,,
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel" John A. Wheeler Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - video http://vimeo.com/38508798 Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the "hidden-variables" approach. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Zoeller-Greer.html.ori The Experiment That Debunked Materialism - video - (delayed choice quantum eraser) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKUass7G8w "It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing... we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present." - John Wheeler - The Ghost In The Atom - Page 66-68
In fact, the preceding delayed choice experiment was recently refined to highlight the central importance of the observer in the experiment.
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
i.e. The preceding experiment clearly shows, and removes any doubt whatsoever, that the ‘material’ detector recording information in the double slit is secondary to the experiment and that a conscious observer being able to consciously know the 'which path' information of a photon with local certainty, is of primary importance in the experiment. Here is a good quote that sums up the 'startling' results:
"If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded." Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000).
You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained - 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4
Thus, we actually have very good scientific evidence that shows that morality arises outside of space and time, as is held in Theism, and we also have very good evidence that man's present free will choices have a tangible effect on the past,, (just as is held in the OEC theodicy that was highlighted by Dr. William Dembski). Verse and music:
Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.".. Black Eyed Peas - Where Is The Love? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc
bornagain77_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

It is interesting to note that one of the main reasons that Young Earth Creationists (YECs) disagree with Old Earth Creationists(OECs) is because of their disagreement on the ontological status of objective morality. In YEC it is held that it is impossible for death to occur in the world temporally prior to the fall of man. Ken Ham sums up the YEC position on the impossibility of death preceding the fall of man quite well in the following short video,,,
Death Before Sin? - Ken Ham - video https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/
Whereas in OEC it is held that it is possible for death to occur in the world temporally prior to the fall of man, whilst still being a result of the fall of man. Dr. William Dembski sums up the OEC quite well in the following article:
Old Earth Creationism and the Fall, William Dembski - Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 4(2011). Excerpt: My solution (to Theodicy) in my book “The End of Christianity is to argue that, just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward. What makes the argument work is the ability of God to arrange events at one time to anticipate events at a later time.,,, http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF4344.pdf
I hold that the OEC position is more consistent towards Theism than the YEC position is in regards to the ontological status of morality. ,,, Theism holds that objective morality is grounded in the perfect nature of God's being. Yet God is outside space-time, matter and energy. In fact God created space-time, matter and energy during the Big Bang. Thus since objective morality is grounded in the perfect nature of God's being, and since God is outside space-time, matter and energy, then the fall of man, (i.e. the separation of God from man), should be expected to effect the entirety of space-time, matter and energy. The YEC position, i.e. the view that death can only exist in the world after the fall of man is, IMHO, to take a naive, almost a materialistic, view towards the ontological status of objective morality in its relation to physical reality, and is to fail to fully appreciate the moral ans physical attributes of just Who was sinned against by man. But do we have scientific evidence that morality arises from outside space-time, as would be expected in Theism? And more importantly towards resolving the conflict between YECs and OECs, do we have evidence that man's free will decisions can 'reach back in time' so as to effect the past and thus provide, scientifically, a plausible mechanism by which the fall of man can reach back in time and cause death to enter the world prior to man's moral transgression against God? The answer to both of those questions is Yes! That morals that arise outside of space-time and are grounded within the perfect nature of God’s transcendent being, is established by the following evidence:
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) – (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: “But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called “presentiment,” as in “sensing the future,” but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. “I like to call the phenomenon ‘anomalous anticipatory activity,’” she said. “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It’s anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it’s an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm
As well, the following experiment, from Princeton University no less, is very interesting in that it was found that ‘perturbed randomness’ precedes a worldwide ‘moral crisis’:
Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter – Random Number Generators – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE1haKXoHMo Mass Consciousness: Perturbed Randomness Before First Plane Struck on 911 – July 29 2012 Excerpt: The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened – but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.,, Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers. ‘It’s Earth-shattering stuff,’ says Dr Roger Nelson, emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the United States, who is heading the research project behind the ‘black box’ phenomenon. http://www.network54.com/Forum/594658/thread/1343585136/1343657830/Mass+Consciousness-+Perturbed+Randomness++Before+First+Plane+Struck+on+911 Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research - Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena - peer reviewed publications http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
bornagain77_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

AB asks:
Then how do you explain the long list of misbehaving [theists]?
You seem to be confusing the existence of an objective moral standard with the ability to obey that standard. Accepting a standard as objective doesn't mean it's any easier to obey it, it just means it's necessary to obey it.William J Murray_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

AB said:
Barry, you are absolutely correct. I should have said any group’s (eg., atheists or theists) rather than anybody’s.
What difference does it make if it's a group or individuals? You're still applying for a job where it is your responsibility to determine qualitative ethical differences between choices that, in your view as stated above, have no objective qualitative distinction.William J Murray_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

AB said:
No, that is my point. Nobody, including theists, can objectively demonstrate that anybody’s morality is superior than anybody else’s. And using theistic belief as some type of barometer for morality is simply pointless.
Your point in challenging a comparison between your morals & ethics against anyone else's is to make the point that there's no way to meaningfully gauge which is the better ethical or moral behavior? Isn't that the very point that Mr. Arrington made in the first place - that moral relativists such as yourself have no grounds by which to inform others and make rulings on how others should behave, since (to you) how one "should" act is simply a matter of subjective preference? You've just proven his point! You cannot take such a job because to you there's no objective means by which to determine the difference between good and bad morality/ethics.William J Murray_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

JWTruthinLove I hope this will convey it in a manner I can not http://www.scriptureinsights.com/Exclusive.htmlAndre_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

JWTruthinLove I beg to differ people hate Christianity because it has a central claim that says..... "Nobody gets to the Father but through me" And even though all people are welcome to become Christians, other ways are not, to be a Christian means denouncing all other perceived paths and only to commit to this single path. Christianity is exclusive and that is why people find it so repulsive!Andre_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

It helps them to forget about the horrible fate that likely awaits them.
Atheists are fools to take trinitarian, islamic, and similar dogmas as the only religions available. There are religions around, which do not scare children into submission and do not claim, that people people who don't share a specific worldview deserve to be tortured forever. Hell is one of the most ridiculous ideas there is, besides Darwinism and Mormonism.JWTruthInLove_{September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

AB Take 14 minutes and watch this if you want to understand our position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQAndre_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

AB Are you searching for truth? If so I beg you to be true! Nobody says that atheists don't have morals, of course you do but here is what you need to think about what are those morals grounded in? Your personal opinion? Society's opinion? other's opinion? If you say yes then its time for you to admit that those type of subjective opinions mean that morals can change anytime anyone wants to change it. Do you understand what that means? Think about it for a while and realize its implications! Think about it! Really think about it!Andre_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

Barry: "That statement is not true. But you believe it to be true, and as a result you have effectively demonstrated the point of the OP. Thank you." Did I miss the part where you showed it to be false? Would you mind going through it again? Thanks!rich_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT}

Arcadia_Bogart
Yes, my judgement of good and bad is not based on faith. It is based on logic, reason and experience, within the context of living in a society.
The experience of living in society cannot provide a moral code because you must choose from the many codes that society offers. Thus, the question becomes, by what standard do you make that choice? It cannot be logic and reason, because logic and reason take you straight to the natural moral law and the rational order of the universe, both of which you reject. There are no logical arguments on behalf of subjective morality.
But do you seriously think that my ideas of what is good and bad will be much different than yours?
Yes, and they will be life and death issues.
If I were to hazard a guess at where we differ, assuming that you are Judeo-Christian, would centre around things like homosexuality/same sex marriage, pre-marital sex, birth control (maybe), taking the lord’s name in vain, etc.
Yes, the desire to engage in an unfettered, libertine life-style is one of the main reasons that people become atheists. That is why most atheists support abortion. Since 1980, well over 1,000,000,000 babies have been slaughtered worldwide. That is about as life and death as you can get. Also, the desire to attain unfettered power leads to atheism. Accordingly, atheistic morality denies the inherent dignity of the human person. For theists, everyone is entitled to a decent life because they are made in God's image, through which they can claim "natural rights." For atheists, there is no such thing as inherent dignity or no such thing as a natural right. Accordingly, atheists usually support the power of the state to decide who will be given or denied rights. That standard also leads to a loss of life that typically counts in the hundreds of millions. Of course, the problem of eternity looms large as well. Typically, atheists cannot bear the idea that they will someday face a Divine judge. That is why, so often, they try to remake society into their own image and likeness. Misery loves company. It helps them to forget about the horrible fate that likely awaits them.StephenB_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

@Acartia_bogart #41 Whether you want to apply your comment to "anybody" or "any group" is irrelevant. The same problem holds. Not only is it not possible on materialism to objectively demonstrate (or even argue) that the morality of one group is better or worse than another, but it is impossible to objectively demonstrate that the morality of any group or person is either good or bad at all, because there is no objective standard against which their morality can be measured. Furthermore, there is no basis for limiting the range of "groups" to simply "atheists or theists" (though perhaps you didn't intend to, since I notice you used e.g. rather than i.e.) Your comment could be applied to any group of any size. By what standard do we measure the actions of the Nazis as a group? Or the Soviet Communist Party in their promotion of Marxism-Lenninism and the rampant suffering and death that atheistic ideology caused? Or the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church? Or the behavior of any of the professed Christians and theists that you listed in comment 28? On materialism, there is none. A materialist can say he disagrees with these things, but he can't offer any coherent reason for why his opinion should be considered normative and why anyone should feel compelled to submit to it. In comment 28 you said:
All of these holier than thou attitudes against atheists but nobody has asked the difficult question. Do theists act more ethically than atheists? Theists, according to everything that has been said here, are ethically and morally superior to atheists because they believe that they have been provided with an objective set of morals and ethics to live by. Does the evidence support this opinion? Then how do you explain the long list of misbehaving [theists]?
As I've already said, whether or not one group acts more ethically, on average, than the other is not at all the point. The point is not whether it's possible for a person to abandon the logically necessary implications of their own worldview and adopt an opinion that is inconsistent with those foundational beliefs. Of course they can. The point is simply this: On theism, all those bad things you listed theists as doing can legitimately be called bad, wrong, evil, vile, and whatever other negative descriptive words you want to apply to those actions, because there is an objective standard of good and bad against which they can be measured and the committing of those sins involves people acting in a way that is objectively inconsistent with the requirements and necessary implications of the worldview they claim to hold. On materialism, however, those things can only be considered unpopular, socially unacceptable, and contrary to your personal tastes. If a materialist were to do any of those things you listed, he or she is not acting in a way that is inconsistent with the principles and logically necessary implications of their ultimate worldview. They may be acting in a way that is inconsistent with their own subjectively determined moral code, but that is quite obviously not the same thing. Subjective standards can be altered or simply ignored. And is there anything really wrong with ignoring your own moral code? Sez who? HeKSHeKS_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

BA77: "since you clearly are not even reading what I wrote but are making up your own arguments," I guess that you didn't write this: " In fact when compared side by side with Theists, atheists have a far worse track record than theists." And I guess that you didn't proceed to mention "atheist" atrocities. Clearly, you are not reading what you write. Barry: "AB @ 34: “Nobody, including theists, can objectively demonstrate that anybody’s morality is superior than anybody else’s.” That statement is not true. But you believe it to be true, and as a result you have effectively demonstrated the point of the OP. Thank you." Barry, you are absolutely correct. I should have said any group's (eg., atheists or theists) rather than anybody's.Acartia_bogart_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

@Acartia_bogart #12 You asked:
HeKs, did we read the same article?
Good question. You said:
From the OP: “I can understand how a theist who believes in the objective reality of ethical norms could apply for such a position in good faith. By definition he believes certain actions are really wrong and other actions are really right, and therefore he often has something meaningful to say.” And, by definition he is implying that a non-theist does not believe that certain actions are right or wrong.
I suppose that's one way to read it ... to say that it is due to being a theist that the person in question, by definition, believes certain things are really right and really wrong. Another subtly different way to read it is that someone who "believes in the objective reality of ethical norms" (as theists do), by definition, believes that certain things are really right and others really wrong. That, obviously, is the more sensible way to read the comment. It also benefits from being obviously true, since, under this reading, the latter actually is the definition of the former. And, of course, the article then goes on to make it very clear that the ultimate issue under discussion is not simply whether a materialist has an opinion about whether anything is really right or really wrong, but about the materialist's inability to offer satisfactory grounding for that opinion. As Barry said:
My question is how could a materialist apply for such a position in good faith? After all, for the materialist there is really no satisfactory answer to Arthur Leff’s “grand sez who” question that we have discussed on these pages before. . . . After all, when pushed to the wall to ground his ethical opinions in anything other than his personal opinion, the materialist ethicist has nothing to say. Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness.
You continued:
He then said: ” Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness.” Where is the evidence that an atheist believes that there is no ethical difference between one response and another? Just your claim.
First of all, I think it's fairly clear that he was being somewhat facetious, or at least hyperbolic, since he's not claiming the materialist would literally say that in that setting. Did you notice that I drew attention to Barry's repeated use of the qualifier, "ultimate"? The question here is of the ultimate grounding of moral claims. The materialist can give any moral opinion he likes and he is free to think things are really right and really wrong. The problem is that he has nothing upon which to ultimately ground his moral opinions. If someone disagrees with him, they need merely to ask, "sez who?" There is no satisfying answer that can be given on a materialist worldview. The moral opinions are, at best, only grounded in other opinions that can be just as easily rejected as accepted. As for your question about what evidence there is that an atheist believes there's no ethical difference between one response and another, as I've already said, the surface level opinion is not the point. That said, there are obviously many atheist materialists who assert that there is no such thing as objective moral values and duties. Surely you're aware of this. For just one example, have you read Jerry Coyne lately? There is no real good or evil, there's no free will, and nobody has any moral responsibility for any action they take because they are merely meat robots operating according to the dictates of genetic determinism. Now, you may disagree with his perspective, as may any number of other atheists, but his is the most straightforward conclusion to be derived from the materialist worldview. Those who reject this conclusion typically do so because they either haven't thought through the necessary implications of materialism or because they have but were unwilling to accept them and so attempt to offer admittedly difficult and strained attempts to avoid them. In conclusion, I will simply repeat what I said before: Fortunately, there is no rule of nature that requires atheist materialists to live lives that are consistent with their foundational philosophies. We might even say, "Thank God." Take care, HeKSHeKS_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Arcadia_Bogart
The child molesting priests?
Is child molestation a bad thing? .
The church hierarchy that covered up the child molesting priests?
Was that wrong?
The priests who steal from the collection plate to feed their gambling habit.
Is that something they should not do?
Isis?
Is their behavior evil?StephenB_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 31
..., atheists are certainly not saints either
The word 'either' doesn't belong in there. You correctly stated that we are all sinners, regardless of our philosophical worldview. However, atheists are not saints for sure, 100% certainty, but you are a saint, if you truly believe Christ is your Savior and Lord. Check the origin and meaning of that word in the NT again. :)Dionisio_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

StephenB: " You could not, in good faith, presume to give ethical advice because you cannot differentiate between good behavior and bad behavior." Again with the symantics. Yes, my judgement of good and bad is not based on faith. It is based on logic, reason and experience, within the context of living in a society. But do you seriously think that my ideas of what is good and bad will be much different than yours? If I were to hazard a guess at where we differ, assuming that you are Judeo-Christian, would centre around things like homosexuality/same sex marriage, pre-marital sex, birth control (maybe), taking the lord's name in vain, etc. Can you think of any morals/ethics that are uniquely theistic?Acartia_bogart_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

AB @ 34: “Nobody, including theists, can objectively demonstrate that anybody’s morality is superior than anybody else’s.” That statement is not true. But you believe it to be true, and as a result you have effectively demonstrated the point of the OP. Thank you.Barry Arrington_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Huh??? What???,,, I stated: "Theists are, just like everybody else, sinners (I know I’m certainly not perfect)," and you stated,,, "The Christian logic is that if someone commits an atrocity, regardless of their entire life history, they can’t be classified as a Christian because a true Christian would never do something like that." since you clearly are not even reading what I wrote but are making up your own arguments, I'm off to bed. StephenB is far mor qualified to deal with you than I am anyway.bornagain77_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

WJM: "Match yours and mine up against what? You say that as if there is some kind of objective standard that will determine which of us has a better morality." No, that is my point. Nobody, including theists, can objectively demonstrate that anybody's morality is superior than anybody else's. And using theistic belief as some type of barometer for morality is simply pointless. I was wondering when BA77 would try to bring up the body count of atheists versus theists. But, as he knows, theists (especially Christians) are playing with a stacked deck. The Christian logic is that if someone commits an atrocity, regardless of their entire life history, they can't be classified as a Christian because a true Christian would never do something like that.Acartia_bogart_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Arcadia_Bogart
Theists are no better or worse than atheists with respect to morality and ethical behaviour.
Define better. Define worse. Your words are empty and without meaning. That is the point of the post. You could not, in good faith, presume to give ethical advice because you cannot differentiate between good behavior and bad behavior.StephenB_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

WJM @ 29, 30 Good point! :) Cannibals may think it's fine to eat another person. Would AB say their behavior is wrong? How come? Based on what? That it's gross and scary? Apparently not to them.Dionisio_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

AB and your moral standard for condemning those acts commited bt Theists as evil comes from where exactly??? You can't even account for your own consciousness in your materialistic worldview, much less your own morality!!! Are you just borrowing Theistic morals so as to condeme theists as immoral??? And for your information, although Theists are, just like everybody else, sinners (I know I'm certainly not perfect), and have certainly committed sin against God, atheists are certainly not saints either. In fact when compared side by side with Theists, atheists have a far worse track record than theists. The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens - pg. 240 Excerpt: “The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists…..The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.” http://books.google.com/books?id=5kYOcqb06EEC&pg=PA240#v=onepage&q&f=false Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ also of note: Atheism's detrimental effect on mortality and morality (section 11) http://creation.com/atheism Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_healthbornagain77_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

AB said:
Theists are no better or worse than atheists with respect to morality and ethical behaviour.
You say that as if there is some objective standard by which to compare atheist and theist behavior.William J Murray_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

AB said:
I am an atheist and I will match my ethics and morals up against yours any day, and twice on Tuesday.
Match yours and mine up against what? You say that as if there is some kind of objective standard that will determine which of us has a better morality.William J Murray_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

All of these holier than thou attitudes against atheists but nobody has asked the difficult question. Do theists act more ethically than atheists? Theists, according to everything that has been said here, are ethically and morally superior to atheists because they believe that they have been provided with an objective set of morals and ethics to live by. Does the evidence support this opinion? Then how do you explain the long list of misbehaving televangelists? The child molesting priests? The church hierarchy that covered up the child molesting priests? The behaviour of priests and nuns in the Canadian residential school system? The priests who steal from the collection plate to feed their gambling habit. The Westboro Baptist church? Isis? And these are only the theists who are supposed to set the example for behaviour amongst their 'flock'. Does anybody really think that the run-of-the-mill theists are better behaved? Let's all be honest, if it is possible. Theists are no better or worse than atheists with respect to morality and ethical behaviour. If you disagree, feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.Acartia_bogart_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Mung
The atheist ethicist could ask the client about the client’s beliefs about good and bad, right and wrong, and then advise the client to do what is consistent with their beliefs about what is good and bad, right and wrong.
Begs the question. Why should the client act on his own beliefs? They might be wrong?
Then when asked to justify why they gave the advice they did they could say because it was consistent with what the client believed about what is good and bad and right and wrong.
Begs the question. Why is that a good thing to tell someone to follow his own belief system?StephenB_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

as to:
I am an atheist and I will match my ethics and morals up against yours any day, and twice on Tuesday. I might not compare well to Ghandi or the Dhali Lama, but they would never judge my worth based solely on my theology (or lack thereof). Admit it. You are applying your stereotypes (ignorance) of atheists to every individual atheist because you feel that you are superior due to your theology. Do you have any evidence to support this generalization?
,,,But of course nobody can match the morals of an atheist. Nobody, not even God, is as moral as an atheist. Don't believe me???,,, Just check out Dawkins condemning God as morally evil at the beginning of the following video:
Ben Stein vs. Richard Dawkins Interview - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
As was made abundantly clear in the preceding video, many times atheists, even though they cannot ground objective morality within their materialistic worldview, will try to claim that God, as He is portrayed in the Old Testament, is morally evil. In fact Richard Dawkins, in his cowardly refusal to debate William Lane Craig, upon Craig's tour of the UK in the fall of 2011, said he would not debate Craig because Dr. Craig supported genocide/infanticide in the Bible. This 'moral' tactic, to try to cover his cowardice to debate Dr. Craig, backfired terribly for Dawkins, because it turns out that Dawkins, hypocritically, supports infanticide when he personally sees it as the morally right thing to do,,
“Another example might be suppose you take the argument in favor of abortion up until the baby was one year old, if a baby was one year old and turned out to have some horrible incurable disease that meant it was going to die in agony in later life, what about infanticide? Strictly morally I can see no objection to that at all, I would be in favor of infanticide…..I think I would wish at least to give consideration to the person who says ‘where does it end?’ ” Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins Approves Infanticide, not William Lane Craig! (mirror: drcraigvideos) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJvhFo Richard Dawkins: 'immoral' not to abort if foetus has Down's syndrome - August 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus
Of related humorous note: Atheist Professor Larry Moran, who believes naturalism/materialism to be true, had previously denied the existence of moral absolutes, (and in that regards he was consistent). Yet, here’s Professor Moran’s new moral absolute, in all its resplendent glory:
"It is totally wrong, all the time, to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preferences… There is NEVER a time when an enlightened society should tolerate, let alone legalize, bigotry."
How fitting that Professor Moran picked that particular sin to declare off-limits for criticism! He is a pure Romans 1 poster boy. He suppresses the truth in unrighteousness by denying that God exists, then “gives approval to those who practice” exhibit A in God’s list of sins that the suppression of truth leads to.
Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:26-28 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Thus Professor Moran not only concedes that moral absolutes exist, but also proves, unbeknownst to himself, that these moral absolutes are based in the God of the Bible!bornagain77_{September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply