Nietzsche was wrong and tragic and, in the end, insane. But at least he was brave and honest. Brave enough to stare into the abyss and honest enough to report back what he saw there. He would be disgusted by the puerile, simpering cowardice that characterizes atheism in the 21st century.
In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche writes of those who have cast off the restraints and bonds of the past: “Need I say expressly after all this that they will be free, VERY free spirit . . .” And from their vantage point of freedom these new philosophers will look down with contempt on those who espouse the ideals of Christianity and liberal democracy:
What [those espousing love and the equality of man] would fain attain with all their strength, is the universal, green-meadow happiness of the herd, together with security, safety, comfort, and alleviation of life for everyone, their two most frequently chanted songs and doctrines are called “Equality of Rights” and “Sympathy with All Sufferers”—and suffering itself is looked upon by them as something which must be done away with. We opposite ones, however, who have opened our eye and conscience to the question how and where the plant “man” has hitherto grown most vigorously, believe that this has always taken place under the opposite conditions, that for this end the dangerousness of his situation had to be increased enormously, his inventive faculty and dissembling power (his “spirit”) had to develop into subtlety and daring under long oppression and compulsion, and his Will to Life had to be increased to the unconditioned Will to Power—we believe that severity, violence, slavery, danger in the street and in the heart, secrecy, stoicism, tempter’s art and devilry of every kind,—that everything wicked, terrible, tyrannical, predatory, and serpentine in man, serves as well for the elevation of the human species as its opposite . . . such kind of men are we, we free spirits!
Nietzsche identifies two types of moralities: The Master-Morality, which he advances as superior, and the Slave-Morality, which he despises. To understand what Nietzsche is saying it is important to keep in mind what he means be the words “master” and “slave.” He is not talking about institutional slavery. When he uses the word master, he means the natural aristocrat, the strong man, the one who has the ability to impose his will. When he uses the word “slave,” he means simply the opposite of master, the natural servant, the weak man, the one who if nature were to take her course would serve the master. He describes the Master-Morality as follows:
The noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: “What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;” he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF VALUES. He honours whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. . . . one may act towards beings of a lower rank, towards all that is foreign, just as seems good to one, or “as the heart desires,” and in any case “beyond good and evil”
In contrast to master-morality, slaves attempt to alleviate their condition by inducing the natural aristocracy voluntarily to cede their birthright, their right to impose their will on those who are too weak to resist:
It is otherwise with the second type of morality, SLAVE-MORALITY. Supposing that the abused, the oppressed, the suffering, the unemancipated, the weary, and those uncertain of themselves should moralize, what will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man, together with his situation. The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; . . . THOSE qualities which serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers are brought into prominence and flooded with light; it is here that sympathy, the kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence, humility, and friendliness attain to honour; for here these are the most useful qualities, and almost the only means of supporting the burden of existence.
Nietzsche is especially contemptuous of democracy, which is the political expression of slave morality, and Christianity, the religion by which slaves conquered their masters. For Nietzsche nature is cruel and indifferent to suffering, and that cruel indifference is a good thing. The strong rule the weak and that is as it should be. And why should the strong rule the weak? Because that is the natural order of things of course. In a world where God is dead, objective morality is merely an illusion slaves have foisted on masters as a sort of self-defense mechanism.
When Nietzsche urges us to go beyond good and evil, he is urging us to recognize the implications of God’s death for morality. God is the only possible source of transcendent objective moral norms. If God does not exist then neither do transcendent objective moral norms. And if transcendent objective moral norms do not exist, neither do “good” and “evil” in the traditional senses of those words. There is only a perpetual battle of all against all, and “good” is a synonym for prevailing in that battle, and “evil” is a synonym for losing. In the story of the madman Nietzsche explored the profound loss felt at the demise of our comforting God-myth:
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” — As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? — Thus they yelled and laughed.
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us — for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out.
I feel like my ears are going to bleed at the bleating of the new atheists who write in these pages. They go on and on and on and on about how morality is rooted in empathy and the avoidance of suffering. Nietzsche would have spit his contempt on them, for they are espousing the “herd animal” Christian slave-morality he disdained and which, ironically, they claim to have risen above. How many times have the atheists insisted, “we are just as ‘good’ as you”? Why have they failed to learn from Nietzsche that “good” means nothing. Why do they insist that they conform to a standard that they also insist does not exist?
The answer to these questions is the same: They refuse to acknowledge the conclusions that are logically compelled by their premises. And why do they refuse? Because they are simpering cowards.
I can respect while disagreeing with a man like Nietzsche, a man who follows his premises where they lead, even if they lead to asking questions such as “Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?” I have nothing but contempt for smiley-faced, weak-kneed, milquetoast atheism that insists that God is dead and all is well because we are just as nice as you.
There is only a perpetual battle of all against all
There is much more than that, Barry. I feel sorry for you that you can’t see it, but that doesn’t mean nobody else can either.
fG
Barry
And if God doesn’t exist then would you just throw in the towel and give up on trying to live rationally, morally and ethically? Would you rape and kill wantonly because all of a sudden there was no lawgiver to tell you what to do?
Atheists have already accepted that there are no gods and yet are not rampaging in the streets murdering and looting.
You simply misunderstand the subjectivist position. It does not entail Relativism, nor does it lead to Nihilism. You have contempt for those who do not espouse the consequences you think their position ought to have (heh!). We’ll live.
Subjectivists simply consider the moral aspect of religion to be a codification of common sentiment – distaste for killing, suffering, a favourable view of ‘neighbourliness’ … They continue to respect and respond to that sentiment, because it does not simply disappear. To a subjectivist, the moral sense is part of human nature, which came before religion and did not arise out of it. To the objectivist, morality is something external that we try to tap into, with the ‘help’ of religion.
Of course, human nature contains many conflicting tendencies as well. Either way. Is that Mr Hitler I see waiting for his entrance?
God is the only possible source of transcendent objective moral norms
You finally plucked up the courage to come right out and say it. Well done.
Comments 1-4. Astounding. In response to a post that calls them out for simpering, we get . . . more simpering.
Graham2, I’ve probably said that 100 times in the last nine years. It is kind of embarrassing if you are just now picking up on it.
I went the Nietzsche and Ragnar Redbeard route, as my books Anarchic Harmony and Unconditional Freedom attest. Fortunately, the abyss didn’t swallow me up – I turned back when I realized that freedom and self-authority, while exhilarating at first, provide no framework for substantive meaning and value. I think that’s the madness that consumes those who have the spine to take that route where it leads. I found a way back, even though I was damaged by the time I spent there.
When I was much younger and online games were in their infancy, some local guys and I were playing as a team against other city groups in some turn-based game. It was a lot of fun until one of the local guys figured out a way to cheat and then we were unstoppable and won every game. I immediately lost interest and stopped playing. I couldn’t understand how the others kept on, how they could find it satisfying to cheat. I mean, it wasn’t really winning.
I wish I had learned my lesson then. An existence without authority or rules within which one finds meaning in their efforts and value for their choices is empty. I don’t understand how anyone can find meaningful a life lived according to entirely subjective, personally-manufactured systems of value, or through systems of value held to be arbitrary social constructs.
If I call that which I prefer “good”, and that which I disdain “evil”, what possible value can I get from doing a good that is simply what I personally prefer in the first place? If that is all that a moral good is, then doing good is nothing more than self-gratification. How can that possibly be fulfilling or considered something of value worth attaining?
But then, I also don’t understand the mind that can enjoy a “win” after cheating. How can that possibly be gratifying in any substantive sense? It seems to me to be the same mentality that assigns the term “moral good” to whatever they happen to prefer in the first place. What’s the point in referring to what you do to satisfy that personal prefernce as “good”? It’s just what you want to do anyway.
AS:
Thank you for confirming what we always suspected — you come onto these pages to spew your talking points while resisting with all your might any temptation you might have to actually engage with our ideas.
A right ordained by who? You? If so, better not mention it. It is of no importance.
Barry #9
Nice to see the management being courteous and taking a real interest in outsiders contributions to UD.
WJM @7,
Well, for your fellow gamers, the game had changed. They weren’t gratified by winning the game you had previously been playing, but changed to playing a different game, or perhaps two games. The new game was how to “beat” your opponent at “winning” by any means. The second game, perhaps, was how to continue to be able to “win” without getting caught.
I don’t want to undermine any points you were making (and don’t think I have), but I think there is a point here for us. These discussions of objective vs. subjective morality are probably better understood as a case where, for the subjectivists, the game has changed. It is a game not about truth and rationality, but of how long one can hide their irrationality in subjectivist doublespeak.
AS @ 13: Maybe you don’t know what “spewing talking points” means.
Brent:
In fairness, I don’t think they are intentionally spewing irrational doublespeak. It was spewed at them. They accepted it uncritically. Now they spew it back out again. And with rare exceptions (WJM being an obvious one), they never again examine their position rationally.
It is so much easier to ignore the posts and spew talking points, as Aurelio Smith has candidly admitted he does today.
Sadly and ironically, they are indeed hiding their irrationality in subjectivist doublespeak, from themselves most of all.
AS, let me try to explain. Pay careful attention. The post up there that you admitted you ignored before you started putting your comments up is not a “talking point.” Your comment at 16 is. Think of it this way: I’ve posted an article length commentary. You try to respond to it with bumper sticker talk. Seriously, did you get that whole “coexist” thing from a Prius driving by?
Barry:
In fairness, I don’t think they are intentionally spewing irrational doublespeak. It was spewed at them. They accepted it uncritically. Now they spew it back out again. And with rare exceptions (WJM being an obvious one), they never again examine their position rationally.
It is so much easier to ignore the posts and spew talking points, as Aurelio Smith has candidly admitted he does today.
Sadly and ironically, they are indeed hiding their irrationality in subjectivist doublespeak, from themselves most of all.
You know what? I am done here. This is not a place where people with different views from yourselves are welcome. If your idea of a polite conversation is to sling insults at those who disagree with you, I won’t bother you any longer.
Have a nice day.
fG
“There is only a perpetual battle of all against all, and “good” is a synonym for prevailing in that battle, and “evil” is a synonym for losing.”
Barry, when you look at the course of hstauman history, do you see a consistent objective morality being applied, or ever changing norms and mores through cultural struggle.
In 150 years, states went from a defense of the “objective” God granted right to own colored slaves to the election of a black president.
In your lifetime, according to polls, a majority of Americans responded that it was moral to repress gays to moral to allow them to marry.
If as you say: “God is the only possible source of transcendent objective moral norms.” then those norms have failed to transcend human behavior. It turns lawgivers into soothsayers for an unknown, claiming they uniquely know the truth that no others see.
AS
In fact, we are co-existing with you. No one has silenced you or edited your comments. If only your fellow subjectivsts who rule our culture would give us the same courtesy.
Indeed, one wonders how inclusive you would be if you had the power of life over us. It isn’t the people who submit to the moral law that create all the mischief. It is subjectivists who seek to be a law unto themselves.
It’s ironic, really. Lawless Tyrants murder, mame, and torture innocent human beings by the millions– and your response is, -Why can’t we all just get along?
“No one has silenced you or edited your comments.”
Yet.
“your fellow subjectivsts who rule our culture”
Can you name one for me–an American power broker, a lawmaker, who does’t claim, as Barry does, that morality comes from the one true God.
StephenB #21
You know, after years of participating on this forum it still surprises me how much of a caricature view some of you have of those of us who disagree with you. Barry doesn’t seem interested in curbing this tendency and, in fact, seems quite comfortable with it.
Ah well, it’s your forum, you can relativistically make up whatever rules you wish.
AS, FG, REC, Jerad . . . and the simpering continues.
Nietzsche bears witness against them. They ignore him. “We are nice. Really we are! You objectivists are poopyheads!” That whirring sound you hear is Nietzsche spinning in his grave.
AS, your “coexist” question is ironic in ways you apparently don’t realize. As between Christians and atheists, there is a crackdown, a severe one, going on even as I write this. One side is bulldozing the buildings of the other. Can you guess which one is bulldozing and which side is being bulldozed?
StephenB:
Aurelio Smith:
Same here.
What are you afraid of, Barry?
skram @ 27. You’ve passed from simpering to mewling.
AS:
“I have been silenced” he said. 🙂
Barry, do you wish to dispute that my home IP address is blocked? 🙂
And is this not a form of silencing your opponents? 🙂
skram, as I write this UD has 49,195 registered users. 49 users have been banned. If your behavior was egregious enough to put you among that 49, I wouldn’t brag about it. And if you revert to the form that got you banned, you will be banned again.
I do not silence my opponents because they are my opponents. I ban trolls for trollish behavior. If I did not, this site would turn into a subjectivist paradise, i.e., the jungle. And the debate would be drowned out.
More irony: Seven opponents have jumped all over this post. Five proponents have defended it. Guess which side is mewling about being “silenced”?
Barry:
Explain why exactly you banned me. There was no notice. My comments simply stopped showing up.
At any rate, the fact is that people have been banned, and not just in the past, but also now, after the much tooted “amnesty.” Some academic freedom you have here!
UDEditors: Yes, 49 and out 49,000 have been banned.
“Nietzsche bears witness against them. They ignore him. “We are nice. Really we are! You objectivists are poopyheads!” That whirring sound you hear is Nietzsche spinning in his grave.”
Some level of discourse here. I’m not sure why it follows that:
1) We “simpering cowards” -your words-have to respect every word Nietzsche wrote (even those that seem internally inconsistent). One could be a subjectivist and let Nietzsche spin in his syphallitic grave.
2) Nietzsche’s constructions call for the revaluation of values: “Umwertung aller Werte” not the abolition of all values.
3) I personally find Nietzsche’s description of the emergence and refinement of moral values as an ongoing struggle more accurate than saying we all have obeyed one true transcendent standard from God across all time.
skram, you say it is possible for the holocaust to have been good. You are evil. We can discount everything you say as the rantings of an evil man.
Comments closed on the other thread?
Simpering coward.
Also, could you remove the quotes around the crude paraphrase of my reply, or quote the whole statement.
Barry #31
I too have been banned in the past for reasons I cannot understand.
It it your site and your rules but it would be good if you had a bit more ‘transparency’ (is the current buzz-word). Who makes the call? What are your line-crossing violations? If you were clear about the rules (had an objective standard maybe?) then we might be better able to consider our responses . . .
@Barry-sama:
Is that a “royal we”? I don’t discount an argument because of it’s user. An evil man can speak the truth. Why would anyone discount truth “as the rantings of an evil man”?
Barry, an ad hominem repeated twice is still a fallacy.
How many of those 49 thousand have ever posted anything?
UDEditors: 100%.
The whining is getting platitudinous …
On Topic: what exactly are values under materialism?
Jerad
Atheists inherited a culture. The culture they inherited already had reasons and rationale for a civil code. Society was based on the idea that there is a purpose – and essentially on the idea that God exists.
If atheists had to build their own culture, things would be a lot different.
Larry Moran at Sandwalk:
I agree with Larry.
I need some fresh air, so I’ll take leave too. If Barry wants a perfect echo chamber, let him have one.
He said on a thread in which dissenters outnumber proponents. Translation: I’ve got nothing. OK. Thanks for playing. Bye bye.
from the other thread hopefully not deemed too far off topic
Mark Frank says,
It means that you have are having an inner struggle about what your subjective opinion is – just as one has an internal debate and changes one’s mind about whether a novel is really good or picture beautiful.
I say,
I don’t think you understand
when faced with the realization that I recently condoned what I now condemn I am left with only three options
1) I was right then and wrong now therefore my “moral sensibilities” are not to be trusted
2) I was wrong then and right now therefore my “moral sensibilities” are not to be trusted
3) My “moral sensibilities” change quickly and often therefore they are not to be trusted
The honest question I have for the Subjectivist What do you do once you are faced with the obvious fact that you can’t be trusted to know what is the moral thing to do ?
Arguing that no one can be trusted or that there is no one morally right thing will not pacify my conscience or help me when the next moral dilemma comes up.
I want to do the right thing and I trust that the Subjectivist does as well.
The problem is I have no way on my own of knowing what the right thing is even if I believe morality is based on my own “sensibilities”.
Hope that makes sense
Peace
It’s telling that after some tear-jerking whining the atheists in this thread run off as if emasculate hypersensitivity means something under materialism. It underscores the point that Barry was making:
Box @ 46
“It’s telling that after some tear-jerking whining the atheists in this thread run off…”
I’m still here. At least until comments are closed.
On another thread, we were discussing Protestant Nazis who professed to objectively believe the holocaust was right. How do you know if your morality is the objectively correct interpretation or if you are evil?
Barry cries oh god, what will come in a subjectivist world. This, when history cries of the pain inflicted by those who, like Barry, just knew they were objectively right.
So, has one persistent transcendent moral standard ruled, or does history bear witness to the subjective fight Nietzsche saw?
Also, try my comment @33
UDEditors: REC, you have no authority. You say it is possible the holocaust was not evil. Anyone who says that reeks of evil themselves. You’ve lost all credibility. Go away.
REC asks
How do you know if your morality is the objectively correct interpretation or if you are evil?
I say
Forgive the long quote, but according to Christianity this is how we know..
Quote:
We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us….By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error…
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
(1Jn 4:6-10)
end quote:
There is a lot packed into that passage please take some time to digest it. Then Let me know if you don’t understand
Peace
fifth,
What in that passage tells that you are correct, and the protestant Nazis were wrong on the holocaust?
What tells you that you are right and theologians were wrong on slavery?
What gives you guidance on the morality of gay marriage?
It is a bit of a problem that many secular societies seem good, and many religions societies that read the same passages you do so seem so wrong.
“Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Presbyterian minister Benjamin Morgan Palmer, originally from Charleston, gave a sermon entitled, “The South Her Peril and Her Duty.” He announced that the election had brought to the forefront one issue – slavery – that required him to speak out. Slavery, he explained, was a question of morals and religion, and was now the central question in the crisis of the Union. The South, he went on, had a “providential trust to conserve and to perpetuate the institution of slavery as now existing.” The South was defined by slavery, he observed. “It has fashioned our modes of life, and determined all of our habits of thought and feeling, and molded the very type of our civilization.” Abolition, said Palmer, was “undeniably atheistic.” The South “defended the cause of God and religion,” and nothing “is now left but secession.”
http://www.civilwar.org/educat…..lding.html
UDEditors: REC, you have no authority. You say it is possible the holocaust was not evil. Anyone who says that reeks of evil themselves. You’ve lost all credibility. Go away.
REC asks,
What in that passage tells that you are correct, and the protestant Nazis were wrong on the holocaust?
I say,
The protestant Nazis and slave holders did not listen to the Apostles (the us in verse 6).
you say,
What gives you guidance on the morality of gay marriage?
I say,
The Spirit of Truth in me verified by the testimony of the apostles.
You say,
It is a bit of a problem that many secular societies seem good, and many religions societies that read the same passages you do so seem so wrong.
I say,
Why? Reading passages does not make one morally right following the Spirit of truth makes one morally right. In fact we are warned of this very thing.
another quote:
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and yet don’t do what I tell you?
(Luk 6:46)
End quote:
Apparently you did not take the time to digest the passage perhaps you should spend the time and think about it some more.
You say,
The South “defended the cause of God and religion,”
I say,
Quote:
They profess to know God…. but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
(Tit 1:16)
end quote:
Did you get that??? Just professing to know God is not enough. You need the Spirit of truth duly verified
peace
Box:
Emasculate hypersensitivity? If you say so.
What more is there to say? Sincere disbelievers who are not Nietszchian nihilists are simpering cowards whose arguments boil down to “We are nice. Really we are! You objectivists are poopyheads!”. Got it. The ‘repeat your opponent’s argument in a mincing manner’ school of philosophy.
Hanonasec asks
What more is there to say?
I say
How about addressing my comment in 45?
I really want to know what a subjectivist does once they realize that their “moral Sensibilities” can’t be trusted to help them know what the right thing to do is.
peace
“UDEditors: REC, you have no authority. You say it is possible the holocaust was not evil. Anyone who says that reeks of evil themselves. You’ve lost all credibility. Go away.”
So arguing morality is subjective is now grounds for banning?
My exact quotes being paraphrased as: “possible the holocaust was not evil” are: “I know because it is literally unthinkable for the holocaust to be other than evil” and “I could never force myself to believe that the holocaust was anything than evil. I could be wrong, and in fact, the Nazi Protestants would say I am OBJECTIVELY wrong.”
Some Christians might say it was all part of God’s plan. It did lead to the creation of Israel, end times, all that.
Edit: possibly not banned…..just subject to big black text.
UDEditors: Who said anything about banning you? We want to keep you around as long as possible; you are Exhibit 1 demonstrating everything that is wrong with materialism, and we want to keep that exhibit on display as long as possible. BTW, our paraphrase of your statement was spot on. First you said you believe the holocaust was evil. Then you said, “I could be wrong.” If that means anything, it means that you believe you could be wrong when you say the holocaust is evil. And that means you believe it is possible for the holocaust not to be evil.
Jerad @ 2, I don’t mean to be mean, but this is laughable because you miss the point so astoundingly:
“And if God doesn’t exist then would you just throw in the towel and give up on trying to live rationally, morally and ethically?”
If there is no God, there is no such thing as “rationally, morally and ethically?” We are just animals. For the umpteenth time, is the tiger immoral when it kills the cubs of rival male then rapes the female? There’s only one answer and it’s “no, the tiger is just being a tiger.”
The fact that you acknowledge, without even a hint of realizing your blind spot, that there is a universal human standard of morality that at least prohibits, “rape and kill[ing]…” and, “rampaging in the streets murdering and looting,” should tell you that the standard is transcendent, and that can only mean one thing.
In a world without God, who decides what is rational, moral or ethical, you or me? Or perhaps a committee? Or majority vote? But what if I disagree with you or the committee or the majority? You just assume that everyone agrees with what is rational, moral or ethical,, but if the only deciding factor is that it originates in your mind, then what originates in my mind is just as valid even if it includes raping, pillaging or any action I desire.
The fact that modern atheists won’t admit that a world with God is a very ugly place, is telling. You can’t, because to do so invalidates your belief and is not very marketable.Nietzsche was at least consistent. He followed his worldview to its logical conclusion. Modern atheists are dishonest but honesty is one of those standards that loses its meaning without a transcendent standard, so why bother.
Florabama. Amazing ain’t it. He went straight to sniveling. Why won’t they face the conclusions to which their premises must lead? As the OP declared, they are simpering cowards. It is oh so fashionable to deny objective reality. OK. Then deny it. And, as you point out, take what comes with that denial. Be a man. Don’t try to have your case and eat it too. Don’t spew your atheism while reclining comfortably in the Christian culture you inherited.
REC @ 53:
Who said anything about banning you? We want to keep you around as long as possible; you are Exhibit 1 demonstrating everything that is wrong with materialism, and we want to keep that exhibit on display as long as possible. BTW, our paraphrase of your statement was spot on. First you said you believe the holocaust was evil. Then you said, “I could be wrong.” If that means anything, it means that you believe you could be wrong when you say the holocaust is evil. And that means you believe it is possible for the holocaust not to be evil. You are despicable. Your views are ugly. We intend to keep you around as long as you consent to stay. Warning. If you do stick around, expect to be reminded of this frequently.
In a world without God, who decides what is rational, moral or ethical, you or me?
Yes. Look at history! The only difference between fifth and I is that I don’t think my sense of right and wrong is divinely granted (and, therefore, by definition, I could be wrong).
Or perhaps a committee?
Perhaps.
Or majority vote?
Sure. In some societies.
But what if I disagree with you or the committee or the majority?
Welcome to a pluralist society. Someone has always been on the losing end when the world wakes up and decides slavery, or repression of women and minorities, or repression of gay rights wasn’t right.
UDEditors: Or when evil men wake up and decide that Jews are life unworthy of life; that some eggs must be cracked to make an omelette; or that 65 million Chinese must die for the sake of the revolution. Here’s the difference. I know that Hitler, Lenin and Mao were evil. If they had prevailed, they would still be evil. I say the millions dead in the holocaust died in an evil venture. AND IT IS NOT JUST MY OPINION! IT IS GOD’S OWN TRUTH. You sniveling coward. You disgust me.
Barry-you’ve tried a silly double bind. If I say I know something for certain (I cannot be wrong) than you will call me an objective absolutist. Actually, you even jumped the gun and did so in the other thread!
If I say there is no objective transcendent law, and that I could be wrong (however slim and revolting I find that–no matter how I would fight it) then you call me evil.
It is cute, but I don’t think it would even win a high-school debate round. It is transparent and juvenile.
And I think that your objective and transcendent morality gives you clear guidance through history on only baby-torture (for fun) and the holocaust* is telling.
*Though a famous pastor with major GOP-ties (Hagee) believes God willed the Holocaust to move Jews back to Israel. An all good God can’t cause something purely evil, can it?
UDEditors: I am glad you understand the choice that must be made is inescapable. You can do logic. That you would try to escape it nevertheless makes you a coward.
Hey Barry,
Do you plan to address my argument or is an ad hominem response all you can muster?
UDEditor: You, sir, say it is possible that the holocaust was not evil. You are beneath my contempt and as such you are beneath my notice.
The moral subjectivists seem to think there is something worth pointing out if they are banned or their IP blocked, or if they are characterized negatively, as if the moderator wouldn’t be perfectly justified by his own subjective moral compass in doing whatever he wishes according to his own personal standards.
Denied any transpersonal, binding moral authority by their own worldview, one wonders what on earth they think they are complaining about? Or why they are complaining at all? Why do they keep borrowing moral objectivism to find a reason to complain about such things, when all they are really saying is: “I don’t like it when you do that!”
You can’t be that thick, Murray.
By their own subjective moral standards, being banned for disagreement is WRONG.
And that’s what they’ve been saying all along.
William J Murray,
Comments about IP bans were in response to StephenB’s statement:
Since a number of us are banned in one way or another, attempts to silence are manifest.
Whether the banning is deserved is a different question. The fact remains that people are being silenced. There is no denying that.
Rec said,
The only difference between fifth and I is that I don’t think my sense of right and wrong is divinely granted (and, therefore, by definition, I could be wrong).
I say,
What? The reason that I’m an objectivist is precisely because I know I could be wrong and therefore can not rely on my own opinion. I’m not sure how you missed that.
What I want to know is what you as a subjectivist do when you realize that your moral sensibilities can not be trusted to tell you what the right thing to do is.
peace
WJM @ 60:
It is worse than that. They can’t bring themselves to say it is impossible for the holocaust to have been other than evil. But that are certain beyond the slightest doubt that the moderation policies of this blog are wrong. They make me want to puke.
I will give them this, though. They have demonstrated the truth of the thesis advanced in the OP.
Well, I seriously don’t like it when the subjectivist dodges, dances, misdirects, engages in doublespeak, etc. to continue in their irrational views. Nothing said in this thread is new in that regard; all of those things have been said point blank to probably each and every individual subjectivist poster here. I’m not exactly sure why generalizing those points is so upsetting, and especially since those points have been made repeatedly for years here, to the very same posters, and we have indeed continued to coexist somehow.
I surmise that we have continued to coexist, at least in part, because there is a certain fondness held for these posters who we still get extremely frustrated with over these issues. At least speaking for me, and I think Barry had mentioned to MF the other day something similar, they seem like decent enough fellows. That doesn’t mean that my and our concerns are not actually grave. The subjectivist isn’t going to deny that everyone, including himself, justifies his/her actions sometimes in order to get around their own strongly held moral values. What is scary is that, on subjectivism, the doors have been opened wide and there is nothing to stop the wholesale rationalizing of each and every held value; indeed no rationalizing is necessary.
All that said, my main point is that I don’t think most (I have my doubts on some) subjectivists are playing games with US, but it is a ‘game’ for themselves, to see how long they can hold out without admitting what they must already very strongly suspect, that their subjectivist views are not truly morality at all, unless there is a ground to make them binding. I hope this is the case, and that they are just fending off the onslaught until they can finally see a way to make their idea coherent. If they still have this basic desire to get to a rational grounding, then there is still hope. I know that I still have hope for them. Perhaps that is in itself offensive to the subjectivist to hear, but how angry can one be with someone who is hoping for their good, even if he was mistaken about what that good was?
I know this all comes back to God, too. I’m sure the materialist can only see and hear from us what his fear is, really, of God. But no, God is not standing there with a big stick just waiting to get His hands on you and change you into someone you are not. You are more you with God than you can ever hope to be without Him. Paradoxically, freedom is only really freedom when it is within certain bounds. Like Chesterton said (with apologies for quoting him so often), if we are free to draw a giraffe without a long neck, then we are not free to draw a giraffe. Things are only what they are within certain bounds. We are only truly who we are within certain bounds. We are more ourselves than we can ever otherwise be when we are firmly within God’s arms.
skram said:
So? Under moral subjectivism, all you are doing is whining about what your own philosophy grants are completely moral acts in their own right by whomever enacts them.
Under moral relativism, it’s not a “question” at all. If they are banned, the fact that they are banned factually indicates they deserved being banned by the only arbiter available: the person with the power to ban them felt like doing so. You act like you have an expectation that others should adhere to your personal moral compass.
Another fact is the title of this blog, the software being used to run it and the language it appears in. So? You blither on about being silenced as if some kind of universal line has been crossed instead of it being what you insist all morality is – someone’s personal standards being forced on others.
I’d have to add the term “hypocrites” to Mr. Arrington’s assessment. You guys are like some guy claiming to be vegan because he believes all living things are sacred chowing down on salmon because, you know, fish isn’t meat, walking around in leather shoes and a belt – “oh, and occasionally I eat chicken …”
You’re not moral subjectivists; you’re just a bunch of poseurs who think it’s brave and cool to intellectually rebel against the idea of moral objectivism while in fact serving it with every word and action.
WJML
We weren’t discussing the morality of Barry’s actions. I merely pointed out that StephenB’s lofty proclamation was dead wrong.
Argue with that, genius.
“AND IT IS NOT JUST MY OPINION! IT IS GOD’S OWN TRUTH. You sniveling coward. You disgust me.”
Funny that there is a new post on the anger of atheists. On this blog. Ha!
But back to the quote–isn’t it rather, your interpretation of what you believe is God’s own truth?
What no one seems quite able to answer is why they are able to objectively conclude, without chance of being wrong, that they have got it right and the Protestant theologian Nazis, or the slave owning Christians, or Pastor Hagee (an all good God willed the Holocaust), etc. got it so damned wrong.
You soothsayers, you sole purveyors of God’s truth are no different than the Gay-haters, the lynchers, the slavers, the protestant Nazis who knew what their God demanded.
You can’t be that thick, Daniel King.
Mr. Arrington has already stated that nobody has been banned for disagreement. Since only he can know his subjective mind, all you can do is take his word for it.
Insisting that Mr. Arrington has banned someone for reasons other than those he has stated may serve your martyr complex, but so what?
In any event, even if the moderator bans you for a reason he has said he will not ban anyone for, what of it? According to subjectivists, morality is subjective; if he changes his mind or misleads you and subjectively feels at the time it is warranted, he’s just doing what moral subjectivists claim he has a perfect right to do any time he wishes.
It’s so funny to see moral outrage at several sites directed at Mr. Arrington by self-proclaimed moral subjectivists as if there is some standard of behavior he should adhere to at his own site other than doing whatever he strongly feels like doing at the time.
It’s the old “you’re not being a good christian” ploy, as if getting theists to act in a manner they (atheists) consider “immoral” somehow makes their position more tenable or laudable in comparison – all the while employing the assumption that morality is, in fact, objective in nature to give their accusations and supposedly superior moral behavior value.
REC @68,
This type of argument really gets you nowhere. While objectivists agree that an objective morality exists, we don’t agree on how it applies even if we did disagree on some of the tenets. I think the disagreements over the tenets are minor in the extreme. Where the big problem lies is in how far to spread those tenets; to whom they apply. “Who is my neighbor?”
Otherwise, objectivists need only to point to the fact that not everyone keeps the tenets, even if they believe in them. They break them, thereby creating an illusion that they don’t hold the same tenets as others. Not only do they break them while advocating them, but they also rationalize away things that, really, they do believe. Subjectivists don’t disagree with this, so, in saying that some people, somewhere, did some thing, it doesn’t follow that it shows they had a different idea of morality.
And further, when I or others point to, say, Matthew starting from chapter 5 onwards, you’ll simply laugh and say “prove it.” Most often, then, your demands to be shown this “Objective Moral Law” are simply ignored, and we continue to show you, whether or not a codified code exists somewhere to which we all agree, that it is irrational not to accept that one exists, even if we don’t exactly perfectly know it.
“This type of argument really gets you nowhere.”
In a debate, when one side says “stop saying that” isn’t it a bit of a tell? I don’t think you like being reminded how nice some secular societies are and how horrifically some “objectivist” societies have behaved.
“we don’t agree on how it (objective morality) applies”
So you’re subjective in its application. Which is evil and contemptible. Right? Barry?
“I think the disagreements over the tenets are minor in the extreme.”
Like slavery, gay marriage, the holocaust. Baby torture for fun, probably agreed.
#57
You are aware, I trust, of the many pogroms levied against the Jews in Europe long before Hitler was born? I live near York and the Jewish massacre of 1190 is infamous.
Everyone should be aware of the Christian Crusaders who, when reconquering Jerusalem during the Crusades, made the streets run with blood?
Then there’s the Albigensian and Waldensian crusades, Christians killing other Christians over (supposedly) disagreements in doctrine.
And Northern Ireland is still not settled.
Being of faith, believing in an ultimate and loving god seems to be no guarantee of civilised behaviour.
5MM #45
I did prepare a response on the other thread and then found comments were closed.
Some people’s moral sensibilities change a lot, others more slowly. Is that grounds for mistrust? It depends why they change. If you learn something new then it is completely reasonable to change – and learning something new can be, for example, getting to know a gay couple as opposed to judging from theory. If your idea of right and wrong seems to just change with the wind then clearly you might “mistrust” your decision in the sense that you may regret it tomorrow.
The important point is that exactly the same applies to an objectivist and their attempts to assess the objective truth about morality.
It is striking how much of the debate on this thread and its predecessor is about the anticipated consequences of subjectivism. Barry clearly thinks they are disasterous and we have not faced up to them.
Obviously I disagree but anyhow this is not evidence for or against the truth of subjectivism. It is just about how much Barry dislikes us. If it were true that subjectivism had all these awful consequences it might be a reason for keeping it secret, although personally I think hardly anyone except philosophers even thinks about metaethics.
MF @ 74 –
Ah, but is this dislike objective or subjective?
Jerad runs into trouble at post 2 nicely picked up on by florabama at post 54
Jerad asserts @2 ‘trying to live rationally’
Well I disagree that any such effort is being made. The atheist denys the argument from design despite the evidence. Now if they were conceding points and acknowledging that their own world view is a statement of faith then the word rational could arguably be used. So because they deny that the high levels of complexity found in biological systems are explained very effectively as the product of design (i.e. causally adequate unlike their pet theory) it is then a natural jump to denying that what appears to be a objective morality is such, having denied the first premise then denying the second is easy. ‘it only appears to be designed’ then ‘it only appears to be objective’
So at the table of discourse they demand theirs is the right view because their philosophical commitment is true, not because the evidence demands it, just like the origins debate and just as kf pointed out early in one of the other threads, it all comes down to foundational views. Now the reason they are getting heard so well by the public (aside from the brain washing at school) is not because the evidence demands them to be right (by their own admission) rather because man has gotten a good (plentiful) taste for sin and moral subjectivism. (my own personal view of course)
Now the Bible puts this in the terms ‘everyone doing right in his own eyes’ so this is not a new phenomenon and applies to believers and non believers. With out a healthy fear of God any party is subject to fall into the trap and with out a healthy love of God (putting God first as in the first commandment with our modern day ‘gods’ being money, sex, relationships, work, tv, celebrity worship etc…) the believer is just as on the road to ruin as the non believer.
Because that is how the Bible describes this phenomenon, this is the road to ruin. It is the love of sin that leads to evil. It may not be immediate but it will happen.
DillyGill #76
Well, since you’ve pretty clearly already decided that some other viewpoints are wrong and irrational there’s not much point in discussing it any further.
I was going to ask you how it is that intelligent, thoughtful, rational people can look at the same evidence and yet still profoundly disagree on it origination but you don’t think people who disagree with you about intelligent design are rational.
Never mind. You’re not really interested in understanding dissenting views at all are you? They’re just wrong.
It is hard to take anything other than a black and white view on these things when the evolutionary dept are taking the view that theirs is the absolute truth, that all descent is some mislead instinct or mental illness. They achieve this by trading on the name of science. It is not I that has insisted that all others are wrong, nay, it is the dept of evolution. There in lies the problem.
I have not always been a theist. So I am not so unsympathetic to your views as you may think from reading my post.
“UDEditor: You, sir, say it is possible that the holocaust was not evil. You are beneath my contempt and as such you are beneath my notice.”
Is it OK for a religious person to say that it is possible that the inquisition, “holy wars” and the crusades were not evil…?
Mark frank says,
Some people’s moral sensibilities change a lot, others more slowly. Is that grounds for mistrust? It depends why they change.
I say,
Often for me it depends on whether I am looking to rationalize my own behavior or judging the behavior of others. An action that is wrong for others seems to be OK when I do it.
you say,
The important point is that exactly the same applies to an objectivist and their attempts to assess the objective truth about morality.
I say,
I agree that is my point. It seems to be a universal experience that our moral sensibilities change depending on if we are evaluating the actions of others or trying to justify our own actions. If our sensibilities are so fickle they obviously can’t be trusted.
That Is why I am a Objectivist I can’t trust my own opinion on moral questions.
As far as I can tell I’m left with revelation or despair when it comes to doing the right thing.
I’m asking what the Subjectivist does when he realizes that his moral sensibilities are untrustworthy.
peace
skram:
Barry, through the loudspeaker in the ceiling:
Translation from Barryspeak: No, I don’t have an argument. Let me try an argumentum ad hominem one more time.
Jerad says,
Being of faith, believing in an ultimate and loving god seems to be no guarantee of civilised behaviour.
I say,
Yes so what does that have to do with anything? We are all sinners. That is one of the central themes of Christianity. That is why we can’t rely on our own opinions.
quote:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
(Jer 17:9)
end quote:
The point is not that belief in God magically makes you good. It’s that God is the only possible grounding of what is good.
peace
Barry,
If I may give you a piece of advice, read this column by Rabbi Freeman: Was the Holocaust a Punishment from G-d? Like you, he does not agree with the idea that the holocaust could be part of God’s plan. Unlike you, he does not think the religious people who express this idea are beneath his contempt. He at least makes an attempt at an actual argument:
Granted, this is not much of an argument. In fact, there can’t be much of an argument because no human can know the mind of God. One can simply declare “I don’t think it could be part of God’s plan.” But that’s it.
So there is a reason you avoid getting into a discussion. You have no logical response.
@ 68 REC you say
‘What no one seems quite able to answer is why they are able to objectively conclude, without chance of being wrong, that they have got it right and the Protestant theologian Nazis, or the slave owning Christians, or Pastor Hagee (an all good God willed the Holocaust), etc. got it so damned wrong. ‘
Well at the risk of sounding like a ‘soothsayer’ I would like to point you to my post @76 where I concede that the subjectivist view can be held by a theist (certainly according to the Bible it is a common and serious problem for the believer) where I say ‘everyone doing right in his own eyes so this is not a new phenomenon and applies to believers and non believers’
These peoples actions can be refuted by the Bible or explained by the Bible. So for the protestant Nazi sympathisers I would use the Bible to argue against their position thus making use of objective morality despite their justifications, they, according to the Bible, were wrong to support the Nazis. Hence the beauty of an objective moral standard.
As for slavery that is more complex. As an objective moral standard then the Bible can be used because it says ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ and ‘love your neighbour’ So what ever their (the Christian slave owners) argument or justification was (unknown to me please feel free to share if you know) then it was against the clear teaching of Christ unless they wanted to argue that they would be happy for the same to be done for them (seems unlikely)
Now the Bible (OT) does seem to take a lax line on slavery (at first blush), however it was just a way of life back in the days when it was written. Although it may seem small consolation to our modern standards the Bible was the first religion to give slaves any rights what so ever. Indeed the Israelites them selves had been slaves and were expected to apply a higher standard of ownership. Also they, under these rights’ were expected to free their slaves after a certain amount of time and it may surprise you to find out that not all slaves wanted to leave, such was the state of the world back then, that slavery under Israelite civilization was better than freedom in the world. They were in the most part well treated (certainly by the standard of the day)
Is that soothsaying? I think it is a solid enough explanation for those that able to hear it. As for Pastor Hagee he can answer for himself although there is the principle that once the supposed ‘God fearing civilization’ has accepted moral relativism that God will act, allowing them to suffer and the result tends to be that they turn back to Him. So I would say that the only thing that will get western civilizations back to Christianity will be the suffering that comes from abandoning it in favour of our own wisdom i.e. scientism
Fifthmonarchyman:
OK, since you ask nicely …
To a subjectivist, ‘the right thing’ comes from a complex mix of self-esteem, empathy and standing among peers. To the objectivist, it is an eternal matter. To take a caricatured view, ‘getting it wrong’ involves fire and brimstone and eternal torment.
Consider a practical example, less hyperbolic than the usual baby-torturing: As a young parent, I attempted to ‘modify’ my son’s behaviour through physical chastisement. Nothing excessive, but I now deeply regret it. I felt it was ‘right’ at the time; I feel it ‘wrong’ now. I don’t regret it through any consequences – he’s a great lad, we have a good relationship, but I’m pretty sure we would anyway. I’m just rather ashamed of it. It was unfair, and achieved nothing.
Should I feel angst because my moral view on the matter changed? Would I have a different, less malleable view if I were an objective moralist? OK, let’s look at the source of Objective Morality for most round here. Proverbs 13:24 says “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”. Is that OK? If I don’t whack my son with a stick, I hate him? What nonsense! Oh, it’s just metaphorical! Oh, it doesn’t mean daily, just once a month or so … rationalize away, objectivists. Ultimately, you will have a personal opinion on the matter: on the fact, circumstance and degree.
So spare me the repetitious “what about someone else who ‘prefers’ to beat the crap out their kid?” relativist rejoinders.
I’m a religious person who believes that we are here on this earth to learn – to become aware – and the only way is through suffering. So from my perspective the Holocaust may very well be part of the plan. It has certainly provided us with a lot of insight of who we are – which is paramount in my philosophy.
At the same time it is perfectly clear to me that the Holocaust is TOTALLY EVIL.
My point is: a religious concept which encompasses evil, like mine, is totally different from a subjectivist who claims that the Holocaust may not be evil. Such a subjectivist is saying something completely different and I don’t even understand what.
Just to make sure I understand you right, Box. Do you mean to say that God can make evil a part of his plan?
Barry says:
///God is the only possible source of transcendent objective moral norms///
Which is wrong. There’s absolutely no evidence that any God exists in the first place, let alone him entering the moral code of conduct into our brains. And humans have been displaying a kaleidoscope of emotions – from the good end to the bad end of the spectrum – all throughout recorded history and across diverse cultures.
It is easy to see why. Humans evolved as highly social animals depending on each other for their success and survival. Cooperation, empathy, kindness, morality all stemmed from this social coexistence because it helped the success of human societies and thereby the success of individuals in those societies.
Theists are desperate to invoke their imaginary God anywhere possible, which is easy to do because their God is such an unknown and undefined concept that he can be fit into any scenario they wish.
Atheists are desperate to imagine humans evolved from some other animal not understanding that if they are right then whatever humans do is totally acceptable.
Evolve
The assumptions you include in your response to deny evidence of transcendence are actually evidence of the same.
One evidence is the existence of “good” and “bad” – which you reference.
You’ve judged emotions as good and bad. This implies a standard and thus a purpose to human life. If life has no purpose or moral standard, then there can’t be good or bad emotions. The fact that every human being recognizes what “good” means vs “bad” is evidence that these concepts are transcendent – thus God exists.
Here you’re assuming that evolution has a purpose and that it communicated a purpose to humans. In this case, the purpose is “success and survival”. You also assume that “human societies” received this purpose from evolution.
But there is no reason for any ‘society’ of organisms to ‘cooperate’ for ‘success’ for itself.
Species are accidental groupings based on reproductive differentials. Species do not self-identify as societies and evolution does not communicate this kind of identification to groups of organisms.
The term ‘success’ is also teleological. The fact that a species becomes extinct is not something ‘bad’. There’s no moral value assigned to survival. The species itself is not aware that it is being ‘successful’ or not. The extinction of a species may be a good thing for other species – so kindness and cooperation to preserve one versus another would be harmful.
There are multiple human societies that could compete with each other – just as there are multiple animal species that do not cooperate or show any kindness towards each other.
So, things like morality, compassion, kindness and empathy — and goodness itself, are evidences of transcendent values that don’t make sense in evolutionary terms, but do make sense in theistic terms.
The short answer is: yes. However I don’t hold that God planned the Holocaust. I hold that God let’s our learning process take it course. IOW we don’t need God to come up with the Holocaust, we are ‘creative’ enough.
It’s probably more accurate to say that God has expected and allowed the Holocaust to happen, because – as I have argued – in the large scheme of things it serves a function.
Box:
In other words, it’s like earthquakes: they are a great tragedy but they serve a function and that is why God may use them as part of his plan. Why we need earthquakes.
How about the fine-tuning of the universe for one thing? Did you overlook VJTorley’s rebuttal of Krauss ? No one here has even attempted to put up a coherent defense for Krauss! IOW the case seems to be settled: science makes the case for God.
Skram,
while it is obvious that natural suffering appeals to a different kind of learning process than the man-made variety, it provides indeed an argument for a religious concept which entails that God uses ‘evil’ as part of his plan.
Silver Asiatic says:
///The fact that every human being recognizes what “good” means vs “bad” is evidence that these concepts are transcendent – thus God exists.///
No, that’s a silly conclusion.
“Good” and “Bad” are dependent on the context. For a society, “Good” means things that ensure its welfare and progress, while “Bad” means the opposite.
Evolution doesn’t have to have any purpose for “Good” and “Bad” behaviour to evolve. As with many other traits, different individuals exhibit different degrees of a certain phenotype (in this case moral behaviour). These range of behaviours increase or decrease the chances of a given community to prosper or die out. When certain behaviours turn out to be more effective in ensuring success, natural selection automatically works to select for such behaviours.
In the case of humans, our cognitive abilities rose during our evolution while our physical prowess remained pretty ordinary. We couldn’t bring down a powerful animal on our own, but could do it collectively as a group. This promoted formation of emotionally-bonded groups and societies. The behaviour of each individual, particularly selflessness, was critical to the success of the group as a whole. If one individual did anything that could harm other individuals in the group, everyone stands to lose. It’s quite clear how morality evolved this way.
///The fact that a species becomes extinct is not something ‘bad’. The species itself is not aware that it is being ‘successful’ or not. The term ‘success’ is also teleological.///
But a species doesn’t have to know all this for morality to evolve! It happens automatically! Any trait that improves the chances of survival will spread through the population (we call that natural selection).
Success is not teleological. When a bacterial population becomes antibiotic resistant, it does not have a goal of becoming antibiotic resistant. Natural selection works on the variation inherently present within the population. Resistant cells will automatically survive and spread their genes to succeeding generations, so that the whole population eventually develops antibiotic resistance.
///One evidence is the existence of “good” and “bad” – which you reference.///
Circular argument. God exists because there’s good & bad. Good & bad exists because there’s God.
Circular argument?
No. These both just happen to be true.
If God exists, then good and bad also objectively exist.
If good and bad objectively exist, then God exists.
Evolve @95,
No. You’re still assuming an objective sense of good in that you believe that “progress and welfare” are good. Good cannot mean progress and welfare. “Pizza tastes progress and welfare. Oh, that guy is a really progress and welfare man.” Um, no. It does no good to assume you haven’t made an objective judgment that it is good for humans (or species of animals) to flourish.
EDIT: Lest you baulk about changing the context, “That society is really a progress and welfare society.”
///You’re still assuming an objective sense of good in that you believe that “progress and welfare” are good.///
No, “progress is good” is not my belief, it’s what’s causing a population to survive.
If termites proliferate in my house, will I brand that “good” or “bad”? Of course for me that’s bad, but from the termite community’s perspective that’s really good!
If elephant numbers increase in Africa, is that good or bad for me? Probably neither. But it’s definitely good for the elephants.
Likewise, if human societies evolve morality and ethics which help them beat the odds it’s “good” for them.
Evolve
You’re assuming that survival of a population is ‘good’. The fact that you reference ‘good’ in this universal way, is evidence of a transcendent. Why is survival good? Evolution provides no reason for that.
You’re offering even more evidence of transcendence. You’re claiming to know how a termite community thinks about something. But there’s no evidence that a termite community thinks anything is good at all. Life is merely a different form of inanimate things. Chemicals do not think there is anything good or bad. Bacteria are merely a different form of non-living chemical matter (according to materialism) and thus there is no good or bad, no reason for survival. Death means returning to non-living matter and there is nothing ‘bad’ about that. But you bring the concepts of good and bad into the discussion – pointing to transcendent values.
What evidence is there that elephants consider that ‘good’? Why would elephants think that it is bad that they go extinct? Or that they evolve into some other form? If it was ‘good’ for them to survive, is adaptation and macro-evolution and extinction ‘bad’ – something to fight against? Why is the interest of one species, which evolved arbitrarily and blindly, ‘good’ at all, even for them?
If there is no intelligent design at work in the process, there can be no good or bad.
But we see humans recognizing good and bad universally. Humans also recognize a purpose – related to good and bad.
These things cannot emerge from blind, unintelligent forces.
The existence of good or bad is evidence of transcendent values – thus God.
The existence of God is consistent with the evidence. That’s not circular.
The lake exists because of streams and rain.
The streams and rain exist because of the lake.
Again, this assumes that it is good for human societies to exist. This posits that existence is better than non-existence.
That’s the classic argument for the existence of God.
Evolve
But physical prowess is a function of evolution. There is no reason why an individual human could not evolve to take down any animal it needed, by itself. Or, it could merely eat grass and not need to eat animals at all (a far simpler solution than having to form social bonds).
“No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point” — Jean-Paul Sartre.
I really like this quote because it it succinct and true. Indeed, the worldview that atheism hands us on a silver platter is one of meaningless and hopelessness. Yet our atheist friends continue to prattle on, telling us that we can solve these huge existential problems by creating our own temporary bubbles of meaning. For me that bubble popped long ago and the more time I spend nowadays listening to atheists like Stephen Fry, the more I think they are as blind as bats, or as Jesus said, they have scales over their eyes.
“No, “progress is good” is not my belief, it’s what’s causing a population to survive.”
This is such a ridiculous comment. How on earth do you get from “population survival” to “good”? These atheists are just so philosophically naive. They need to ween themselves from Dawkins’ breastmilk and move on to something with a bit more flavour.
CA
Great quote.
“Good” is a finite point on a scale of values. There is less good and more good. But you can’t talk about those measures without having a sense of the maximum good.
///You’re assuming that survival of a population is ‘good’. ///
But I never assumed that!!
All I said was that the meaning of good and bad is context-dependent and subjective, and that it has no objective meaning. In the case of a population, its survival is good for it, but that same thing may be bad from someone else’s perspective. I don’t understand why you guys are messing up such a simple point!
It’s theists like you who’re assuming that realization of good and bad must come from a transcendent being, when there’s no evidence or reason to believe so. You’re just fitting the data to your desired conclusion.
///You’re claiming to know how a termite community thinks about something///
Again, NO!
I did not say that termites think their survival is good for them.
///If there is no intelligent design at work in the process, there can be no good or bad.///
Of course, there is NO universal good or bad, only subjective interpretations of events.
///But we see humans recognizing good and bad universally. Humans also recognize a purpose – related to good and bad.///
That’s wrong. What’s good for humans maybe bad for something else. What’s bad for humans maybe good for something else (again from the perspective of the concerned parties). What’s good for you may be bad for me. If we attend an interview which you win and I lose, it’s good from your perspective but bad from mine.
If a lion kills a zebra, it’s good for the lion but bad for the zebra.
///The lake exists because of streams and rain.
The streams and rain exist because of the lake.///
Wrong again. Lakes can and do exist without streams and rains. Streams and rains don’t require lakes for their existence either.
In any case, lakes, streams and rivers are known entities. But there’s zero evidence for any God to invoke him wherever you please.
///But physical prowess is a function of evolution. There is no reason why an individual human could not evolve to take down any animal it needed, by itself. Or, it could merely eat grass and not need to eat animals at all (a far simpler solution than having to form social bonds).///
Evolution proceeds by chance and contingency. It is constrained by several factors too. Perhaps there were constraints in humans developing the physical prowess to tackle prey on their own. Humans evolved from monkeys and apes, most of which are not known for their physical power, but many of which have social structures in place. So perhaps, finding a social solution was much easier for evolution.
“All I said was that the meaning of good and bad is context-dependent and subjective”
If moral good and bad is subjective then you are contradicting yourself when you morally judge others, either they decide for themselves what is right or wrong (subjective) or they don’t.
You need to make up your mind.
Things I’ve learned
Even if there is a “objective transcendent morality,” we subjectively interpret it. I learned @87 that Slavery is a “more complex” issue that is hard to answer.
This destroys the idea that society only functions because we’re on the same objective transcendent moral footing. History bears witness to the fact that there has never been a single transcendent moral standard. Go back 60 years, and there are elements of US society we’d find repulsive. Go back to George Washington harassing a runaway house slave till the end of her life. We’ve evolved past slavery, repressing women, and soon, gays will be an equal part of our society. You just cannot answer why there are secular societies that are near paradise on earth compared to many of religious ones.
I also got several responses that holocaust was allowed for by an all-good God, so is could not be all evil. Must be part of God’s plan? Endtimes. How terrifying and grotesque.
UDEditors: And we’ve learned you think that Holocaust might not have been evil.
Things I have learned
Atheists claim morality as subjective and the idea that people decide for themselves what is right or wrong and yet they contradict themselves and tell other people that they are wrong even though according to them there is no real correct standard and people are meant to decide for themselves.
I learned that they bleat about evil even though to talk about evil is to assume that there is an objective standard of how things are meant to be and also pressuposes that humans are not just meat puppets determined by the laws of physic and chemistry in a meaningless universe.
Evolve
The meaning of the term ‘good’ is universally understood no matter what the context. It always refers to a polarity from what is ‘bad’. Every human society and individual knows and accepts this. The concept of good exists. It means ‘not what is bad’. The concept of bad exists as the antithesis of good.
These concepts cannot emerge from evolution since there is nothing good or bad in nature itself. Good and bad are transcendent – they cannot be found in nature. There can be no ‘success’ for chemicals. They’re blind matter. There’s no ‘progress’ or ‘goodness’ in carbon or hydrogen or ammonium. Whether such things exist or survive or not is neither good nor bad.
I’m looking at the data and recognizing that there is no evidence of this thing ‘good’ in nature – and yet every human being recognizes what it is.
You claimed their survival is good for them. That’s imposing your understanding on them. But you can’t speak for termites – they don’t tell us anything about ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
Good, universally, is ‘not bad’. But that exists nowhere in nature. It’s a transcendent value.
What is good for humans is related to purpose. Other things, like carbon or hydrogen don’t show evidence of good or bad anything.
There is zero physical, natural evidence that ‘good’ exists but you invoke it all the time also. You’re referencing a transcendent value.
That’s why it’s not predictive. Even after the fact, we don’t know.
Ok, but this is guesswork. Explaining why anything evolved more complicated and fragile means of survival, when the simpler and more robust means worked very well is difficult. But any idea whatsoever can be speculated and that’s simply not convincing.
There is a lot of self-hoisting with petards going on in this thread. I must say, bravo, Barry, for you have punctured the inner tube of the pseudoatheist’s tire, and all of the escaping air is just that..air from an empty, hollow philosophy.
To my fellow Christians, take heed of Matthew chapter 7, verse 6. I was recently reminded of this, and it is something that I have failed to properly acknowledge in my followership of Jesus.
///If moral good and bad is subjective then you are contradicting yourself when you morally judge others, either they decide for themselves what is right or wrong (subjective) or they don’t. ///
That’s always the case. What’s moral for one could be immoral for another and vice versa.
Some communities encourage flogging and spanking, some consider that a violation of human rights.
Some communities oppress and suppress women, some advocate for equal status of men & women.
Some religions encourage animal sacrifices, some hold those same animals as sacred.
Some communities consider consumption of non-vegetarian meals and alcohol as immoral, some don’t.
There’s no universally applicable good and bad, only subjective takes on various issues.
Silver Asiatic,
///But any idea whatsoever can be speculated and that’s simply not convincing.///
Let’s stop it here, because I don’t think anything is ever going to convince you. You’ve already made up your mind.
@110 Casting pearls before swine? How kind.
Yes, Jesus wasn’t only the ‘gentle Jesus meek and mild of happy infants’ school memory.’ It’s time you got over the shock, isn’t it?
Daniel King:
What I don’t get is why they think anyone else ought to care about what they subjectively feel is WRONG any more than about what they subjectively feel about ice cream.
Why should one statement elicit a different kind of reaction than the other? Why shouldn’t others just nod and smile and then go on about doing whatever they personally feel is RIGHT and GOOD when someone shares their subjective feelings on either morality or ice cream? What difference should another person’s preferences make? Why should it make any difference at all? It appears that there is an expectation that it should make a difference, but why?
Isn’t it ironic that while materialists defend subjectivism with so much obstinacy they have no theoretical basis whatsoever to accommodate the mind – the SUBJECT?
Phinehas:
Nobody asked anyone to CARE. Are you so obtuse that you don’t understand that a person can have a moral position without insisting that it be inflicted upon others?
Take gay marriage. A person can believe that it’s moral and work to change laws to allow it on constitutional grounds. That does not entail convincing anyone else that it is moral.
Morality and civil rights are not necessarily congruent.
Hangonasec said,
To a subjectivist, ‘the right thing’ comes from a complex mix of self-esteem, empathy and standing among peers. To the objectivist, it is an eternal matter. To take a caricatured view, ‘getting it wrong’ involves fire and brimstone and eternal torment.
I say,
Ok so what?
My concern was not about eternal torment it was about what you do practically in the here and now when you realize your moral sensibilities can’t be trusted.
I want to do the right thing I would assume that the subjectivist wants that as well.
I know that my moral sensibilities change often and not always for the best reasons I assume that is the experience of the subjectivist as well.
What I want to know is once you know that your personal moral sensibilities are fickle and broken what do you as a subjectivist do? Perhaps you have never been faced with this reality.
You say,
Should I feel angst because my moral view on the matter changed?
I say,
I’m not only talking about the guilt you feel for what you did to your child. I’m asking what you do now that you know that what you think is morally OK today has a good chance of causing others pain and you terrible regret tomorrow.
You say,
Would I have a different, less malleable view if I were an objective moralist?
I say,
Again I agree that my moral sensibilities are malleable. That is my whole point
That is why I despair of ever knowing what the moral thing is unless it is revealed to me.
I’m an objectivist not because I’m sure of myself but because I doubt myself.
I just don’t have enough confidence in my own opinions to be a subjectivist.
Apparently self doubt is not something you struggle with.
Peace
Youtube: Why is modern art so bad ?
Keywords: “aesthetic relativism”, “decline of artistic standards”, “no standards”, “only personal expression”, “no universal standard of quality” and so forth.
Sorry Daniel, but . . .
I honestly think this may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. I thought you should know.
Brilliantly put. Spot on.
As well as other materialists. Pure fact, paraded around here daily.
I’ve come to believe that the materialists in this thread don’t understand words. They believe in subjective, objective morals. They believe in non-transcendent transcendence. How else to explain their appeal to absolute morality, not just on things like rape and murder but even down to how the owner of this site might treat them. They just can’t face the fact that in the world they say they believe in, one person’s opinion on how to behave is just as morally valid as the next persons hence there is no right and wrong — there is only opinion.
Would you care to elaborate which aspect of that post warrants that scorn? What do you actually disagree with?
Is it that somebody can have a moral position without insisting it be inflicted on others? That seems pretty uncontroversial.
Is it that somebody can have a moral position they believe in to the point that they want to change the law of the land but do not actually want to convince others that it is moral? Again, that is just obviously true.
Or do you disagree that morality and civil rights are not necessarily congruent. You seriously can’t disagree with that, right?
Florabama: How else to explain their appeal to absolute morality, not just on things like rape and murder but even down to how the owner of this site might treat them.
The general thrust is to argue to shared values, not “absolute morality”.
Florabama – Subjectivism /= Relativism.
DK:
LoL! Gay marriage even goes against natural selection. Go figure…
Perhaps we should cave in to all minority positions.
fmm @118
So you asked a question and I answered. I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition! 😀
I’m not convinced yours change that often, at least not in fundamentals. I’m guessing that you have an active dislike for cruelty, unfairness, and have a positive view of kindness, honesty, that sort of thing. How we interpret specific moral questions in light of those things may vary. But in these discussions we rarely get onto specific moral questions, apart from ‘the obvious’ – the ones on which we agree anyway.
Probably not. They aren’t all that fickle, and I have no particular reason to see them as ‘broken’. If I realise I’m wrong, I change – or at least, apologise!
If I really think something I do today has a good chance of causing others pain and me terrible regret tomorrow, then it’s not going to be something I consider morally OK today! But, I cannot anticipate every consequence or control every variable. In the instance in question, my assessment was incorrect, as adjudicated by my later self. Whether my current self is doing something I will later come to consider wrong is certainly possible, but it’s no more a worry than (say) a scientific viewpoint I currently hold becoming untenable.
Well, I’d beware of making too much of a snap judgement based on a few words on the internet! But I guess it boils down to the fundamental question of why do we want to be moral in the first place? It appears to me to be a fundamental part of human nature, to ascribe these labels ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to our behaviours, mostly relating to behaviour affecting other people in some way. We attach them to our own behaviour, and to that of others, almost instinctively. But also, we learn. We are taught what is ‘naughty’ and what is ‘nice’ as children. We have role models (and Jesus certainly ain’t a bad one)! But that lump in your throat when you see an act of kindness, or that sense of anger when you see injustice – we nearly all ‘feel’ it. It’s fundamentally human. We seek good feelings and avoid bad ones. That creates inevitable tension with our desires, and is not the same as saying we ‘should’ all just pursue hedonism.
Imagine how you would behave if you were in a ‘God-Proof Box’ (hey, I’ve found the title of my next album!). I don’t think it would change fundamentally. I grew up in the ‘other camp’, but I still had good role models and learnt values. I simply look to those qualities that I admire in others and aim, to some degree, to emulate them. Simply because ‘it’s nice to be nice’, even if that does earn one the contempt of certain blog owners. If nihilism is simply the antonym of objective morality, then I’m a nihilist by definition, but that doesn’t mean I don’t value these things.
Barry Arrington- This is off-topic but you may like it as it proves keith s was wrong when it comes to nested hierarchies- and for the reasons I stated:
Anathema and the great anti-hero- nested hierarchy and evolutionism do not mix
Zachriel @124 when the relativists make statements like, “we are trying to live ‘rationally, morally and ethically,’ ” and “we don’t murder and rape,” or even when they say, “it is wrong,” they reveal that they believe in an absolute standard that they profess to reject.
What is moral and ethical? Where does the standard come from that against which we may measure our actions to see if we are indeed behaving, rationally, morally and ethically? There is no such thing as “shared values.” Nietzsche didn’t share those values. Marquis de Sade didn’t share those values. Slave owners didn’t share those values. The Supreme Court when it ruled that Blacks were subhuman or that babies in the womb could be killed for convenience sake, didn’t share those values. Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Mao and Stalin didn’t share those values. The KKK didn’t share those values. Islamic terrorists don’t share those values. Peter Singer (humans should die for the sake of animals) doesn’t share those values. The rapist and the pedophile don’t share those values. The serial killer doesn’t share those values.
Why are they wrong? Why should they adopt your “shared values?” Why are your values better than theirs?
DK:
Right. So, you weren’t asking anyone to care when you wrote this?
Are you certain you weren’t trying to inflict any sort of moral position at all on others? You weren’t carrying any greater expectation than had you declared your favorite ice cream flavor? Do you often find yourself calling others “thick” or “obtuse” when discussing ice cream flavors?
Face it: you are practically begging for someone to care about your point of view. Well, here’s your chance. I’d love to hear more about moral positions that are never inflicted on others. How does that work exactly? Show me someone who actually treats morality like that, and I’ll gladly admit that there is at least one subjectivist that isn’t logically inconsistent.
DK:
Wait. Are you saying that this is an example of NOT insisting that your moral position be inflicted on others? Seriously?
Florabama: Zachriel @124 when the relativists make statements like, “we are trying to live ‘rationally, morally and ethically,’ ” and “we don’t murder and rape,” or even when they say, “it is wrong,” they reveal that they believe in an absolute standard that they profess to reject.
No, it just means they are using the English language in a conventional manner while referring to widely shared moral sensibilities.
Florabama: There is no such thing as “shared values.”
Not everyone shares every value, but some people share some values. When people share values, they can then reason as to how to apply those values in various situations.
Indeed. I couldn’t care less about what you think is moral. As long as it is legal I don’t mind at all what you think.
Phinehas,
I see your point. It is indeed inconsiderate of civil rights advocates to work for equal justice when the legal consequences of their actions offend some who oppose such actions.
However, nobody is threatening those persons with imprisonment or torture unless they recant.
Zachriel @ 132
Indulge me a little, lets say there is a total break down in law and order (not to hard to imagine) and an armed gang turn up at your door saying they want to share their value of gang rape with your family. Do you think that if as a nation we had taught the truth about what the evidence from science really says about God, that morality is an objective truth and there are eternal consequences for actions and rebellion against God, would you think it more likely or less likely that you would find this gang of people at your door? and more or less likely that your neighbors would be willing to help you out of your predicament?
It is all very well playing fast and loose with words while the majority share some waning principles about what is right and wrong but it if you teach people morality is subjective they will behave like it when they have the chance, if you teach people they are nothing more than highly evolved animals they will behave like it eventually
You might be very surprised at what lurks in your neighbors heart. Dont forget it is much easier to be good when things are good and there is law and order and your needs are being met.
DillyGill: Do you think that if as a nation we had taught the truth about what the evidence from science really says about God, that morality is an objective truth and there are eternal consequences for actions and rebellion against God, would you think it more likely or less likely that you would find this gang of people at your door?
People find justification for their actions, and that they might hold a Bible or Koran in their hands doesn’t change this.
DillyGill: It is all very well playing fast and loose with words while the majority share some waning principles about what is right and wrong but it if you teach people morality is subjective they will behave like it when they have the chance, if you teach people they are nothing more than highly evolved animals they will behave like it eventually
There is no evidence of that. Rather, it appears that humans love some and hate some, then they find justification for their actions.
DillyGill: law and order
Social stability appears to be more important than some philosophical distinction.
Thanks for the answer Zachriel I was a bit worried it might have been too extreme!
Zachriel ‘People find justification for their actions, and that they might hold a Bible or Koran in their hands doesn’t change this.’
Mostly true, however a justification for that in the Bible does not exist. So true faith in the Bible does change it. There is a difference between strong faith in the Bible and proffesing Christianity. I would like to think it is just time but it is not always.
Zachriel ‘There is no evidence of that. Rather, it appears that humans love some and hate some, then they find justification for their actions.’
In fact there is evidence of that. In the UK when they had the Mark Dugan riots (or what ever his name was) a whole bunch of people with everyday moral standards got caught up in the looting because they thought they were going to get away with it. If they had truly feared the Lord, they would not have done it.
Zachriel ‘Social stability appears to be more important than some philosophical distinction’
Social stability is not assured, what we teach our children will have an impact on their lives and the type of society they find themselves in. We are headed to a totalitarian police state, and then who will watch the watchers? You know, the ones with all the power and subjective morality!
Have you seen the film ‘The purge’ ? And part 2? any thoughts?
DillyGill: Mostly true, however a justification for that in the Bible does not exist.
And yet some of history’s greatest theologians disagree with your assessment.
Hangonasec says,
Probably not. They aren’t all that fickle, and I have no particular reason to see them as ‘broken’.
I say,
Well that is apparently a difference between us. What I see often is the following scenario played out
quote:
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
(Rom 2:1)
end quote:
doesn’t that sort of thing ever happen to you?
You say,
If I realise I’m wrong, I change – or at least, apologise!
I say,
To apologize is admirable but often insufficient don’t you agree?
As for changing I often find that I make a commitment to change a behavior only to find myself back at it again when my guard is down. Don’t you?
You say,
But, I cannot anticipate every consequence or control every variable.
I say,
Agreed the problem I have is with things I can control yet don’t.
Of course at the time I don’t have any problem justifying my actions to myself.
you say,
I’m guessing that you have an active dislike for cruelty, unfairness, and have a positive view of kindness, honesty, that sort of thing.
I say,
I would like to think so. But I imagine Islamic terrorists and and Nazis think the same things about themselves,
Left to my own facilities I can’t see anything to insure that my moral opinions are any less twisted than theirs. Can you?
You say,
Imagine how you would behave if you were in a ‘God-Proof Box’
I say,
I expect I would be paralyzed with indecision or worse I would become callous to the effects of my actions upon others.
I know that I would not have any confidence in the rightness of my actions.
you say,
Whether my current self is doing something I will later come to consider wrong is certainly possible, but it’s no more a worry than (say) a scientific viewpoint I currently hold becoming untenable.
I say,
Suppose you discover your current behavior to be the equivalent of the guards at Auschwitz would that really be the same as learning that plate tectonics is incorrect?
I must say. This laze-fair attitude about something so important to be mystifying and a just a little disturbing to me.
peace
Zachriel @ 138 Please feel free to show me where it says in the Bible that in the event of a breakdown of law and order that it is okay to go and gang rape your neighbours family. Or name any theologian that says that
You are right that people can find justifications for their actions and it does not have to be consistent with what they believe, but then it is just a justification and you would have to wonder if they really believed it in the first place. That said I would prefer my neighbours to all be God fearing Christians in the example I gave and the society at large to be God fearing Christians than what we have right now (and marching further away from being God fearing)
The odd thing about the ten commandments I have found by trying my best to live by them is they bring the very thing we all (most people) crave, freedom! Who would have thought it, following certain rules brings freedom. I know in my hedonistic days I thought the path to freedom was shaking off my responsibilities, I can now see I was wrong.
God exists, the evidence from science tells us so. You can dismiss that on a technicality if you want and call it ‘not science’ (the philosophical commitment to materialism prior to the evidence being handed in) however that does not make you right and adds to the problem of dealing with reality. Stare into the abyss because that is where we are marching!
So, Arrington presupposes that if you disagree with Nietzsche, specifically on the topic of whether only gods can be the basis of values, then you are a “simpering coward” or “sniveling” or whatever is his ad hominem today. From this it logically follows that if Arrington disagrees with Nietzsche on the topic of whether only gods can be the basis of values, then Arrington is a “simpering coward” and “sniveling” and yadda yadda, ad hom ad hom. Arrington really thinks ad hom is evidence for God’s existence.
So it’s syllogistic logic.
1. If anyone disagrees with Nietzsche about atheism, on the topic of whether only gods can be the basis of values, then that person is a sniveling coward.
2. Nietzsche actually says gods NEED NOT be the only basis of values.
3. Arrington believes gods MUST be the only basis of values.
4. (From 2 and 3) Arrington disagrees with Nietzche. (Though he doesn’t know that, because Arrington is pig-ignorant of what Nietzsche wrote and gets all his philosophy, like his science, second-hand from fundamentalist ignoramuses.)
5. Therefore, Arrington is a snivelling coward. This follows from 1 and 4.
Nietzsche’s atheism was the exact opposite of what creationists/fundamentalists say it was: in fact, by accusing Nietzsche of nihilism or relativism, they are falsely ascribing to him beliefs he opposed, indeed, what Nietzsche would call an ungenuine or inauthentic atheism– they’re accusing him of believing exactly that which he considered a “brainwashing” by religion. The irony is extreme.
For Nietzsche, the belief that atheism naturally leads to nihilism, and only gods could be the basis of values, was anathema and inauthentic. Religious people conclude that atheism leads to nihilism, because religious people are brainwashed to think that only God can be the basis of values, so if an atheist agrees with that and says, “Oh yeah, I’m an atheist, so I better be a nihilist,” then that kind of atheist has actually been brainwashed by religious people. That kind of person is like an escaped hostage with Stockholm syndrome who’s been brainwashed by and sympathizes with his/her captors. That is not an authentic atheist. The despicable talking head pundit S. E. “I so wish I weren’t an atheist” Cupp comes to mind.
For Nietzsche, authentic atheism meant rejecting the belief that only gods could be sources of values, which entailed the rejection of nihilism. Of course this is the exact opposite of what Barry said he said, but that’s our Barry.
Why should we believe that only gods could be sources of values? We humans create values, so we should take responsibility for what we create.
Even in the passage Arrington quotes, Nietzsche says
Arrington, like other creationists/fundamentalists, ignorantly reverses Nietzsche’s position. He cites Nietzsche as his authority agreeing with Christians that atheism leads logically to nihilism, since Arrington is trying to prop up the ridiculous Christian belief that only gods can be the basis of morality– exactly the presupposition that Nietzsche loathed as mere religious brainwashing!
If you want to prop up your absurd belief that only gods can be the basis of morality, do it yourself, but don’t cite Nietzsche as your authority on that, because it was the very thing he recognized as religious brainwashing. If you want to brainwash other people into Christian nonsense hate/morality, fine, but Nietzsche recognized this trickery and saw through you frauds.
Anyway, there’s no positive evidence for the absurd claim that objective morality can be based on the opinions of genocidal Middle Eastern war deities. Opinion is opinion. So all fundies have left is argument from authority, which is bad, but argument from made up authority is worse. But if you’re citing an authority you should at least know a little about what they actually SAID, instead of attributing to him beliefs that he dismissed and perceptively recognized as merely religious people’s sneaky brainwashing tricks and nothing else.
No Christian has ever been able to LOGICALLY prove that gods can be the source of ANY objective morality or value (must less the only source), and philosophers have trashed the idea, so it’s DEAD. A moral system equated to the inscrutable opinions of genocidal baby-murdering gods is no more “objective” than a moral system equated to the inscrutable opinions of genocidal baby-murdering human tyrants. No Christian has ever proven the moral perfection of their genocidal baby-murdering war deity (the ontological argument is based on equivocation), so Christians just invoke circular logic, “Whatever a genocidal baby-murdering war deity does we will define to be perfect”, DUH. The God of the Bible orders genocide and infanticide and sanctions slavery and the rape of war captives, so no Christian can ever claim that values based on the Christian god’s will are “objective morality” until the day a Christian can prove the moral perfection of genocide, infanticide, slavery and the rape of war captives.
That day is not today. Thus no objective morality can be logically derived from theism, except possibly where it shares premises with atheism. It is the Christian who is stuck with nihilism, left conceiving of himself as (to paraphrase Rushdoony) a mere gibbering baboon strapped to an electric chair, with no agency and no options in a universe of brute “facts” that make no sense and can never be explained, and threatened eternally by an overwhelming, inscrutable, irrational, hostile, violent, psychopathic power. The Christian is left with nihilism shoved down his throat. Any Christian who does not recognize this irrefutable fact is a simpering, sniveling, castrated, sundress wearing, tea party with stuffed animals pretending, girly man coward. Yes I mean you, Barry.
diorgenes @141
Let me defend the God of the Bible as though the Bible were true, given that you are attacking Him using his own word, as though it were true.
There will be two Holy wars according to the Bible. One has been and gone and the other is yet to come. There was and will be a lot of blood shed at each. Now a Holy war is a scary prospect for a non believer but then we do not need God to have murder and misery on the planet, man does not need that justification, all he needs is support from his fellow man. So while there may have been religious wars fought in the name of Christianity, none of them were sanctioned by God. I understand you finding the blood shed in the OT scary, I do even as a Christian. I think you need to loose the idea that if we could get rid of the concept of God then man would live in peace. It is nieve at best and insane at worst. (john Lennon ‘imagine all the people living in harmony’ oh please!!!!)
It would seem like madness to call God good in one breath and then read about him killing people in the Bible.
So what gives? Well be sure not to put God in the ‘damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t’ position because that would be most unfair. So the common complaint from the atheist community is ‘wow look at all the suffering in the world, what an evil God the Christians worship’ and then when God does act against the wicked of the world to establish a kingdom of his own where his ways can be seen and decides to act against some of the most un-godly people in history the atheist immediately says ‘wow what an evil God the Christians worship, look he is killing innocent people. ‘
Well here is the thing. These were no innocent people that were getting killed. 400 years earlier when Abraham asked why he could not go straight to the promised land (Israel) Gods response was (of the people living there at the time) ‘their sins have not piled up to heaven yet’ Now did God give them warning and chances? Most likely it does not say though in the Bible. From Gods perspective he equipped us with the knowledge of good and evil (at the fall) and gave us a conscience and so we (they) are with out excuse.
The broad outline of the sins that enrage God the most are baby sacrifice, human sacrifice, murder, false God worship, temple prostitution and general sexual immorality including male on male gang rape, rape, general homosexuality and sex with animals (it all goes against the design and purpose of life) So these are the types of people that God demanded be wiped of the face of the earth, think ISIS/ISIL only worse and you start to get the picture.
Was it fair that he had them all killed, women and children too? You would have to understand that at the time such an act would require a response from the children (revenge killings) it was the social norm at the time. Also leaving them there in the desert with no men to defend them would have meant either a slow painful death or assimilation into slavery (a truly miserable experience for them) of another nation and that would present problems later on (revenge killings). There were no rehabilitation centres/ mass prisons in those days and some people once they had ‘seared their conscience’ (the men of these nations commanded to be wiped off the face of the earth) they are unable to come back from it
All this so God could have a ground camp and a people to launch the ten commandments and the sending of Jesus Christ. I will get onto the accusation of rape in the Bible shortly, maybe tomorrow. Just remember that God loves righteousness more than his creation. The universe was made for His purposes. We can be the beneficiaries of that or not. The choice is ours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SzIJngWqE
DillyGill: Zachriel @ 138 Please feel free to show me where it says in the Bible that in the event of a breakdown of law and order that it is okay to go and gang rape your neighbours family.
There’s all sorts of examples of approved genocide and enslavement of women throughout the Bible. Typically, the Israelites would attack a town, then kill everyone except for the virgin girls, which they would take as ‘wives’. See Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20, Judges 21, etc. etc. etc. Generally, women are considered spoils of war to be divided up, along with the cattle and dyed cloth.
For a theological argument, you might want to read Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies” for a justification for persecution. Luther’s arguments were commonly cited well into the twentieth century, such as by Southern Baptists in the U.S. This does not mean we agree with the arguments, only that among the greatest Christian theologians have found these arguments persuasive.
Nothing absolute of course. Just the courage of your convictions! But then, how does calling on objectivity help? How can you be sure you are following the ‘right’ religion, interpreting its strictures correctly, or that its strictures are actually derived from that which is objectively right?
If one’s fundamental morality involves principles of kindness and honesty, and deplores cruelty and harm, I really don’t think there’s any point in fretting whether these are ‘twisted’ moral views! We learn, growing up, which actions and behaviours are appropriately termed ‘right’ and ’wrong’, ‘nice’ and ‘naughty’, ‘good’ and ‘evil’. We have a semantic understanding of these concepts. But they don’t readily reduce to a lower definition, nor really a straightforward rationalisation of why one ‘should’ move to the left side of the pairings. But they have certain qualities in common. According to my understanding of the term ‘good’, gassing Jews is clearly not. If a guard were to insist it was, he must have a different semantic understanding than I. John Stuart Mill put it best.
Best stick with objective morality then! But I don’t see how. Do you only do ‘the right thing’ because you think you are being watched?
This is the hyperbolic way these discussions always turn! Not every moral question involves genocide or extreme horror, and I seriously doubt anything I’m currently up to is of that order! But the ‘guards at Auschwitz’ thing can be reversed. People are demonstrably susceptible to authority, to brainwashing, to herd mentality. If one surrenders to an external authority in moral matters – an influential pastor, a strong conviction among your co-religionists, a particular holy book – then one is in a different danger, that of mistaking such an influence for the real deal. Exhibit A: ISIS.
Diogenes
A couple of things … First, you state that ‘we should take responsibility’. But that’s an assumption based on a value. We could create a value that says ‘there’s no need to take responsiblity for things we create’. That’s the problem with human-created values. They’re arbitrary and subjective. They don’t even need to be logical, rational or consistent. They don’t need to exist at all.
The second problem is that values require some assessment. Is it the right value or not? Did we act according to the value or not?
Who judges such things?
As in your value: “we should take responsibility for what we create”.
Ok, who judges whether we did take responsiblity or not? What happens if we don’t take responsibility for the values we create? How do we know we created the right values? If they’re the wrong values, should we change them?
All of this points to assessment – or judgement. Someone needs to judge. But without ‘a god’, we only have humans to judge.
Humans would be:
The lawgivers, creating values that bind the person
The person bound by the values
The judge, determining whether the person did right or wrong
In any case like that, there’s a defendant and prosecutor.
The defense looks for reasons of innocence.
The prosecutor looks for reasons of guilt.
The judge makes the final decision.
Without ‘a god’ to create and judge the values – the lawgiver, judge, prosecutor, defense attorney and actor are all the same person.
Laws can be changed, loopholes can be established, confusing arguments can remain unsolved, and debates can end with no conclusion.
Where there is ‘a god’ that created and judges the values, there is a reference point for judgement.
DK:
Perhaps, though you are showing no indication that you do. I suppose this could be willful ignorance on your part though.
Either way, I’m happy to walk you through it.
The very nature of a law is that it insists that others must comply with a particular view on what OUGHT to happen. A particular view on what OUGHT to happen is a moral position. Laws typically have enforced consequences for not complying. They are constructed this way in order to make people CARE about what they OUGHT to do. As such, working to implement a law is obviously a very poor example when trying to assert that:
Which is what you offered as a response to my statement:
The very nature of a moral position is that we insist that others adhere to that position, most often on pain of consequences. Your example of a law supports this notion. It does not support your assertion that, “a person can have a moral position without insisting that it be inflicted upon others.” Though unsupported, your assertion may yet be true. So, I say again:
But all of this is very different to how we typically treat subjective feelings. Why don’t we have laws about consuming chocolate ice cream? Because we typically don’t CARE about the subjective feelings that others possess, and certainly not enough to impose laws restricting their freedom. Why should we suppose others suddenly ought to care about our subjective feelings simply because we attach a “morality” label to them?
Phinehas,
This is your claim:
It seems that you feel the need to impose your moral views upon others and take that to be a universal truth. Perhaps that’s because you think that your moral views are transcendentally correct and therefore must be accepted by everyone on the planet.
I can think of moral positions that a subjectivist might have about her own behavior that don’t require others to take those positions.
For example, she might consider infidelity immoral for herself, but be complacent about the fidelity of strangers to each other.
Or she might consider contraception a morally acceptable practice, but be tolerant of Roman Catholics who view it as immoral – as long as they don’t insist upon making it illegal.
Or she might consider it dishonorable to suppress criticism of her friend’s tobacco habit, but understand that other persons might think it wiser to hold their tongues.
DK:
First, an objectivist might also take a moral position regarding his own behavior that he would not want forced on others. For instance, he may believe that it is morally right and good to not forsake assembling with other believers on a regular basis, but would cringe at the very thought of a law forcing others to do the same.
More to the point, in describing the nature of moral positions, I am not claiming there are no exceptions. But the exceptions do tend to highlight the rule, don’t they?
Said another way, the objectivist still has a concept of inalienable rights like liberty and freedom of choice. This is also a moral position that most would insist OUGHT to be enforced. The question then becomes one of figuring out which rights OUGHT to take precedence over other rights.
Diogenes @ 141.
Nice rant. But at the end it demonstrates only that you have a profoundly stunted understanding of both Nietzsche and the nature of nihilism.
I don’t have time to educate you today. Sorry.
Hangonasec asks,
How can you be sure you are following the ‘right’ religion, interpreting its strictures correctly, or that its strictures are actually derived from that which is objectively right?
I say,
Good questions
Did you catch my quoting of 1st John chapter 4 especially verses 4 through11? It is a tightly packed well reasoned answer to each of the questions you ask.
I recommend you take some time to digest what it says and then let me know if you still are unclear as to how I can know these things. It will save some bandwidth
you say,
Do you only do ‘the right thing’ because you think you are being watched?
I say,
Of course not I think you have a mistaken understanding of the relationship I have with the source of objectivity.
According to the faith I follow my “eternal” fate is not particularly tied to my moral choices.
I want to do the right thing mostly because it’s the right thing to do. I suppose some part of my motivation comes from not wanting to disappoint someone who loves me unconditionally.
You say,
I seriously doubt anything I’m currently up to is of that order!
I say,
How can you be so sure?
I have had some discussions with wannabe Islamic Radicals and they often characterize the actions of westerners toward Islam in a way that sounds an awful lot like genocide.
Some of them would probably say that your willing participation in western society is the equivalent of the Guard in Germany who just follows orders.
or
How about those who sincerely think eating meat is murder? If killing a cow for food is the equivalent of killing a child my moral compass truly is in bad shape.
With out objective morals I can’t see how I can know that I’m correct about these very important issues and these folks are mistaken.
you say,
People are demonstrably susceptible to authority, to brainwashing, to herd mentality.
I say,
I completely agree. An objectivist who does not have the right source for his morality is just as wrong as a Subjectiveist who relies on his own opinions.
Just because it’s possible to be mistaken is no reason to give up looking for the right answer if it exists.
Don’t you agree?
peace
Phinehas @148.
Good. I think that we are now in agreement that the objective/subjective distinction hardly matters in practice.
The devil is generally in the details.
Zac @143
Martin Luther raised some interesting points. I always thought that his arguments were against the Jew that did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. There is such a thing as a Messianic Jew who properly living in fear and love of the Lord would really be the ideal of Christ. I do not think Luther was arguing against that. Certainly Jesus said some of the most condemning things about the Jewish religious establishment. The Bible is a book of patterns and types and certainly Jesus will have some very hard words against the history of the church. The take downs were as offensive as they could be btw!
As for the OT being questionable a couple of things spring to mind. Jesus Christ himself had an opportunity to point out any errors or omissions, it had all been written down at that point and yet he did not. Also why the Jews would write such a damning history of themselves if it were not God ‘breathed’ would be a mystery to me.
Also worthy of note is that just because something is mentioned in the Bible it does not mean God approves of it. I am not sure that applies to any of the queries you have bought up so I will deal with what I understand to be the general thrust of your objections.
Zac @143
Martin Luther raised some interesting points. I always thought that his arguments were against the Jew that did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. There is such a thing as a Messianic Jew who properly living in fear and love of the Lord would really be the ideal of Christ. I do not think Luther was arguing against that. Certainly Jesus said some of the most condemning things about the Jewish religious establishment. The Bible is a book of patterns and types and certainly Jesus will have some very hard words against the history of the church. The take downs were as offensive as they could be btw!
As for the OT being questionable a couple of things spring to mind. Jesus Christ himself had an opportunity to point out any errors or omissions, it had all been written down at that point and yet he did not. Also why the Jews would write such a damning history of themselves if it were not God ‘breathed’ would be a mystery to me.
Also worthy of note is that just because something is mentioned in the Bible it does not mean God approves of it. I am not sure that applies to any of the queries you have bought up so I will deal with what I understand to be the general thrust of your objections.
Zac @143
Martin Luther raised some interesting points. I always thought that his arguments were against the Jew that did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. There is such a thing as a Messianic Jew who properly living in fear and love of the Lord would really be the ideal of Christ. I do not think Luther was arguing against that. Certainly Jesus said some of the most condemning things about the Jewish religious establishment. The Bible is a book of patterns and types and certainly Jesus will have some very hard words against the history of the church. The take downs were as offensive as they could be btw!
As for the OT being questionable a couple of things spring to mind. Jesus Christ himself had an opportunity to point out any errors or omissions, it had all been written down at that point and yet he did not. Also why the Jews would write such a damning history of themselves if it were not God ‘breathed’ would be a mystery to me.
Also worthy of note is that just because something is mentioned in the Bible it does not mean God approves of it. I am not sure that applies to any of the queries you have bought up so I will deal with what I understand to be the general thrust of your objections.
Sorry by computer blipped that posted unintentionally I will get to the rest shortly
Please remember that for the moment we are suspending your disbelief as attacking the Bible as though it were true requires me to be able to defend it as though it were true!
So Zac, there is no getting away with it, the OT is an assault on our modern day sensibilities. The idea that God could approve of the wholesale destruction of a society I hope I covered in my earlier post, I would like to add that obviously these societies had stuff going for them, they were advanced and no fools, there would have been love and laughter and such however there would not have been justice for many and it would have been ruled by an elite whom would be able to do as they please and they were serving the Babylon mystery religions which includes practices that I mentioned, that God is disgusted by.
Also although Jesus came as the meek servant leader and sacrificial lamb this time around the Bible promises that at His second coming He will come as the ‘kinsmen redeemer’ a much more OT prospect and it will be to end the second Holy war and too wrap up history itself. So this first holy war is a shadow, pattern and type of what is to come. It will be total destruction.
So no apologies from God I am afraid, these people were ‘wicked’ in the eyes of the Lord. The fact that somtimes young women were given the option to integrate into the Israelite society is a sign of the times thing. The only other option would be to abandon them to their fate (eaten by wild animals or enslaved by another tribe) or to kill them. Obviously there was the don’t attack at all option which interestingly Israel started to adopt but it caused them to commit spiritual adultery. Something I may cover shortly if I have not bored you to death already!
The idea that being absorbed into a nation that had just killed everything that you knew is so alien for us now however it was common practice at the time. It was an opportunity to live rather than die. Not an appealing one I have to say and seemingly an unbearable option in my modern mind but then I have the luxury of living in the post Christian era just before it all goes to hell. There is no reported rape and certainly never ever an instruction to do so (unlike another ‘holy’ book I know of). For many it may have actually been a blessed relief in so far as they would have been marked for a life time of abuse.
Marriage was not all about feelings in those days! It was more about tribal convenience so any idea that some how they were missing out on marrying the love of their lives must be dismissed!
The Israelites got it all wrong in the end, in a pattern and type very similar to what we see going on today.
DillyGill: So no apologies from God I am afraid, these people were ‘wicked’ in the eyes of the Lord.
So your question has been answered. Slaughtering a population, then enslaving the women, is acceptable when God allows it.
DillyGill: The Israelites got it all wrong in the end, in a pattern and type very similar to what we see going on today.
A pattern repeated by Christians, as exemplified by Luther.
157 @ Zac
These were violent and ‘demonic’ people. Not incapable of all human emotion but self absorbed, violent and unrepentant causing much misery. So as the author of life God has the right to deem a people group as unfit for existence. I did say it would be an affront to the modern day sensibilities. God is not the eternal mug in the sky giving a nod and a wink as we go about our wicked ways. There are consequences.
I have to be honest, I am not very comfortable putting God in the dock like this, although it is you who is doing it I am indulging you. I have offered up an explanation, it is what it is. You will read into it as you please.
Zac ‘A pattern repeated by Christians, as exemplified by Luther.’
I am not a fan of the RCC. I will be respectful on this site because I suspect there are many that are. Certainly if it is them you are referring to I would say there are many issues that you and I would agree on even if it is for different reasons.
DillyGill: These were violent and ‘demonic’ people. Not incapable of all human emotion but self absorbed and unrepentant causing much misery.
Children too? In any case, your question has been answered. The Bible can and has been read to condone persecution, genocide, and the enslavement of women.
DillyGill: Certainly if it is them you are referring to I would say there are many issues that you and I would agree on even if it is for different reasons.
Luther was the great, learned theologian who started the Protestant Reformation.
159 Zac
Like I said, read into it what you will. If you take no account of (give no value to) sins then I am sure that it must seem unreasonable.
DillyGill: If you take no account of (give no value to) sins then I am sure that it must seem unreasonable.
We didn’t discuss any measure of ‘reasonableness’. You asked where the Bible could be read to justify persecution, and we answered your question. We also showed how this reading has been pervasive in Christian society up until the present day.
It wasn’t until 1995 that Southern Baptists apologized for their use of the Bible to justify racism. We point this out not to condemn them or the Bible, but just to note that the Bible can and has been used to justify oppression for centuries.
Let’s return to our original exchange.
DillyGill: Do you think that if as a nation we had taught the truth about what the evidence from science really says about God, that morality is an objective truth and there are eternal consequences for actions and rebellion against God, would you think it more likely or less likely that you would find this gang of people at your door?
Z: People find justification for their actions, and that they might hold a Bible or Koran in their hands doesn’t change this.
I am not sure where you are getting the racism angle from. The nation of Israel was open to everyone the only requirement being to swear allegiance to YHWH. The persecution from Gods people was against the ungodly and the persecution from God against his own people was for their ungodliness.
Do you think in your worldly wisdom that ISIS/ISIL should go unpunished if God were to raise an army against them or social Darwinists like Hitler should be just left to get on with it?
I am not the greatest of intellects unlike some on here. You are just confusing me now. I am not arguing against the idea that the Bible can and has been misused if that is what you think?
Yes people can find justifications for their actions but in the example I gave they would not find the justification in the Bible. Certainly if they were a materialist they would be able to justify their action (in the example I gave) by saying ‘well it goes on in nature’ and as for not helping their neighbor they can easily say ‘it is not in my best interests to get involved, perhaps they will leave me alone if I do not’
I am not keen on dragging this on for ages, I have made my points and stick by them. I think you have as well.
I have stuff to do, will check in later.
DillyGill: The persecution from Gods people was against the ungodly and the persecution from God against his own people was for their ungodliness.
So the answer to your question, “would you think it more likely or less likely that you would find this gang of people at your door?” depends on whether a group of people think you are ungodly for whatever reason.
DillyGill: Do you think in your worldly wisdom that ISIS/ISIL should go unpunished if God were to raise an army against them or social Darwinists like Hitler should be just left to get on with it?
False dichotomy. ISIS will be degraded by the more organized forces of nations. There have been barbarians on the fringes of settled society since people first settled into towns and villages. The Israelites were nomads who slipped between the settled areas of the Levant, and sometimes attacked those settlements. Over time, more and more of the world has become organized under the rule of law, but there are still areas where barbarians can organize in the wilderness.
DillyGill: Yes people can find justifications for their actions but in the example I gave they would not find the justification in the Bible.
That is not the opinion of many great Christian theologians, including Martin Luther.
DillyGill: Certainly if they were a materialist they would be able to justify their action (in the example I gave) by saying ‘well it goes on in nature’ and as for not helping their neighbor they can easily say ‘it is not in my best interests to get involved, perhaps they will leave me alone if I do not’
Turns out that people tend to form attachments to others regardless of their religious background. They balance this desire to help others with their own needs and their suspicion of strangers.
@ Zac
Zac ‘That is not the opinion of many great Christian theologians, including Martin Luther.’
Please provide some support of this assertion that great Christian Theologians or Martin Luther actually say ‘the Bible supports gang rape’
DK:
Certainly, so long as Subjectivists are happy to behave in a manner that is logically inconsistent. Unfortunately, some are not.
Phinehas said:
Well, to be fair, why would atheists care if they are being logically consistent or not? It’s not like they think that logic is an objective arbiter of true statements or exists outside of subjective views.
DillyGill: Please provide some support of this assertion that great Christian Theologians or Martin Luther actually say ‘the Bible supports gang rape’
What do you think it means when you accuse people of being pernicious devils, burn their homes and synagogues, then refuse to provide them safety on the roads?
WJM #166,
Taking it to the next level.
Phinehas:
Baloney. Your objectivist logic relies upon objectivist assumptions. False premises, false conclusion. Otherwise, perfectly logical.
Of course, the moral objectivists are so much more moral than the moral subjectivists. More baloney. Can I have mine with mustard on rye?
Zac @167
You missed the point I think.
So, I issue a challenge for some Christian to prove that their religion logically leads to an objective morality, and I get nothing in response, some changing of the subject.
So did anybody even TRY to prove Christianity could logically lead to an objective morality?
So, I proved Barry was ignorant of Nietzsche’s philosophy and all he’s got is “Nyah nyah, I know you are.”
Is DillyGill trying to prove Christianity can logically imply an objective morality?
This is cultural relativism, not an objective morality. You seem to be invoking “the social norm at the time” but you can’t prove an objective morality with that.
Because I said the Bible God sanctioned rape and ordered genocide and infanticide, it’s not clear what this next quote refers to– who are “they”? The babies that God ordered the Israelites to murder, or the virgins whose parents had been killed by the Israelites and who then would be kept as sex slaves as in Numbers 31?
At first the “slow painful death” line would appear to be justifying the murder of orphans (or widows?) on the grounds that it would be a “mercy killing” because they would have hard lives after God orders the murder of their parents. I thought mercy killing was objectively wrong to Christians, because it’s the basis of euthanasia. I’ve often seen creationists say, “Oh Darwinism is bad, it leads to euthanasia and mercy killing,” but if that’s bad, then God orders people to do bad things.
By contrast, the above passage assumes that mercy killing is a good thing, even when a person needs mercy ONLY because you murdered their parents on God’s orders. But this is not a proof that objective morality exists; it just ASSUMES that mercy killing/euthanasia is morally good when God’s people do it to God’s non-people after you murder their parents.
But the problem with the “mercy killing is good” hypothesis is that God commands the Israelites to show no mercy to their enemies. Thus, a Christian should not argue that mercy killing is objectively good. It’s not. Mercy killing can’t be moral because the Bible God says mercy is forbidden, although killing is mandatory.
On the other hand, the line about preventing revenge killings hints that the killing was not about mercy, but about self-interest, killing children so they don’t grow up and go Inigo Montoya on you later. But that is consequentialist ethics and pursuit of self-interest, not objective morality like I asked for.
That is consequentialist ethics. You’re arguing that the ends justify the means. The end is Christianity, which is so precious that it can justifies any crime, an unlimited number of people can be murdered in order to protect and preserve it. Such consequentialist ethics certainly justified the burning of heretics, massacre of Muslims and Cathars, etc.
I asked for proof that Christianity logically lead to an objective morality and I got none.
Directly contradicted by what the greatest theologians said. When we define Christian values, shouldn’t the opinion of the pro-slavery, pro-Crusades, pro-Conquistador big shot theologians count more than yours?
Phinehas wrote above:
I’ve been mulling this over and it strikes me that subjectivists win the morality contest, because (unlike objectivists) they behave morally without caring about the punishments of HELL or the rewards of HEAVEN that motivate theological objectivists.
We are good citizens of our communities because we want to be, not because we are threatened or rewarded for following a cult.
A famous example of objective morality vs. subjective morality is found in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Huck knew that the objectively right thing to do was to turn the slave Jim in, to return him to his rightful owner. The story is told from Huck’s point of view.
So Huck’s conscience was relieved, having done the objectively right thing.
But Huck’s subjective sensibilities, his “wicked” nature, got the best of him.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/76/76-h/76-h.htm
fifthmonarchyman
I’m afraid that just comes across as obscurantism. You point to a passage in a book, which rather vaguely refers to ‘living water’. The reality, for both of us, is that we can’t know. Pointing to passages in a book in support of the ‘rightness’ of the moral messages in the book is circular. The book itself can contain a mixture of good and bad principles.
Yes, but it does not affect the matter whether the ‘being watched’ thing is problematic because the Watcher will punish you, or simply be disappointed! I find it peculiar that people should forget who is always watching – themselves. My own motivation is partly to be a good example to my family and to be well-regarded by my peers, but also to respect myself. I am always watching! If I value honesty and integrity, kindness etc, in others, it is clear that I should also value those qualities in myself.
I don’t think that really washes. I cannot control everything my society or goverment does. I can merely make my view known. Anti-Islamic foreign policy decision were not made in my name, and I do not support them, any more than I support capital punishment or an armed citizenry.
I sympathise with that viewpoint, though I am not a vegetarian.
And I don’t see how you can know any more surely with them.
This is one of the more annoying mischaracterisations of subjectivity. Opinions don’t form morality; it is the other way around. Everybody (or nearly everybody) has a moral sense – they compartmentalise behaviours according to whether their response to them is favourable or unfavourable. If one deplores cruelty, it is not simply an opinion, but a visceral response to it.
Hangonasec
You point to a passage in a book, which rather vaguely refers to ‘living water’. The reality, for both of us, is that we can’t know.
I say,
No you are looking at the wrong book. I pointed to 1st John apparently you were looking at the Gospel of John.
The book I pointed to (1st John)gave a tight philosophical argument for how we can know the objective truth. It says things like….
quote:
“By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”
end quote:
You can disagree with the argument once you understand it but just discounting it with out even reading it is silly.
How can you claim to “know” we can’t know these things? Is it not even possible you could be mistaken?
I just don’t have the same confidence in my own opinions that you have.
you say.
And I don’t see how you can know any more surely with them.
I say,
Actually read the argument I pointed to and then get back to me. OK 😉
You say,
Opinions don’t form morality; it is the other way around.
I say,
I agree but the claim that objective morality does not exist is just an opinion is it not?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
OK, I apologise, I read the wrong passage. But even with the right passage, my substantive point stands. The objectivist is in no different a position than the subjectivist in the matter of determining a moral course, other than the ability to refer to scripture. Apart from the dubious merits of damning all theists who are not Christians (not my fight, of course), the passage has little more to offer on the matter of morality than ‘love thy neighbour’, more broadly expressed in the Golden Rule.
Sure. As an actual state-of-affairs, there could be an objective morality – something outside human heads that determines ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ on a moral question. But if we cannot reliably tune into this frequency, what use is it? How do you ‘know’ when you’re receiving?
I don’t see them as opinions! I see myself as disposed by nature and circumstance towards kindness and away from cruelty. In the modern age, I think that is the common human position, for all the horrors we are capable of visiting on each other.
Sure. But that’s true either way. It is my opinion that morality exists only in people’s heads; it’s yours that it exists outside them in some way. But that really is opinion! Matters of feeling, including moral ones, are something else. It is not my opinion that I abhor cruelty or admire honesty – I really do!
Hangonasec says,
the passage has little more to offer on the matter of morality than ‘love thy neighbour’, more broadly expressed in the Golden Rule.
I say,
You found the right passage but missed the whole point. The argument is about the nature of objective morality and how we can know it for sure.
It says things like this
quote:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.
(1Jn 4:7)
and
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
(1Jn 4:10)
end quote:
I told you it was a tight argument. Perhaps you need some more time to digest it. ask specific questions if you don’t understand
you said,
But if we cannot reliably tune into this frequency, what use is it? How do you ‘know’ when you’re receiving?
I say,
That is what the entire argument of the passage is about.
To greatly paraphrase and overly summarize so that it does not even begin to do justice
The arguement goes something like this
A Christian can know what to do morally by listening to the spirit sent to him
He can know he is receiving the spirit of objective morality if he is receiving a message of love.
He can know what true love is by understanding what God did for him and what it cost.
He can verify the truth of all of this by comparing it to the testimony of God’s chosen messengers.
The built in redundancy and error correction of the morality signal is simply over the top.
If the genuine Christian errs in moral questions it’s not for lack of knowledge.
you say,
It is my opinion that morality exists only in people’s heads; it’s yours that it exists outside them in some way.
I say,
The difference is that if you are correct you can never know period. It will always be an open question.
On the other hand if objective reality exists it’s source can reveal it to me in such a way that I can know it for sure so it becomes no longer my personal opinion but objective reality.
peace