Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

_{Barry Arrington
January 11, 2018

Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In a recent exchange in this post William J. Murray said to frequent commenter Bob O’H:

all you (and others) are doing is avoiding the point via wordplay. We all act and expect others to act as if these things are objective and universally binding, the ability to imagine alternate systems notwithstanding.

That is precisely correct, as illustrated by my exchange with goodusername in the same post. First, at comment 12 GUN professed to not even know what the word “right” means:

GUN: “What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?”

I decided to test this:

Barry @ 13:

Suppose the following exchange:

GUN: Hey, Barry is is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

Barry: Yes, GUN, it is.

Did I supply a “right” answer to a moral question?

GUN replied at 15: “Such a thing certainly shocks my sense of empathy, and so I would fight to stop such a thing, as would most others. So the answer is right in that sense.”

First GUN insisted he does not even know what “morally right” means. But when confronted with an undeniable self-evident moral truth he had to walk it back and admit he did in fact know what the right answer is. But, as WJM points out, he tried to obscure the obvious point with wordplay. So I called BS on him.

GUN’s antics are just the latest of hundreds I have seen over the years. It is amazing. They know that no sane person can live his life as if what they say were true. Yet they absolutely insist on saying it anyway. Why do they do that? Simple. Because they want to ignore the dictates of morality when it suits them. Atheist Aldous Huxley was very candid about this:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (1937), 272-73

Huxley wanted to reserve the option of sleeping with his neighbor’s wife. So, no objective morality.

Comments

CR, No, the Bible is neither a science book nor a reference on animals. Quite often when it refers to insects or animals we're really guessing which ones it's referring to. It's easy with sheep or goats, but when it gets into beetles or leviathan we don't really know for sure.OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Old Andrew
No, I asked you for evidence that we need help from Greek philosophers to reason on the Bible, and you pivoted to stating the obvious, that we need to reason. (Nice try, conflating anti-Aristotle with anti-reason. Because Aristotle is reason and the Bible isn’t, right?)
Nope. Not even close. I explained several times that the Bible is both reasonable, in the sense that it never says anything against reason, and surpassing of reason, in the sense that it provides teachings that reason cannot reach. For some reason, you cannot grasp the point. Unfortunately, your obvious disdain for reason prevents you from making critical distinctions. So it is with the remainder of your rant. The bible tells us to use our reason, but you ignore the point because for some reason you think reason is the enemy of scripture, so you keep setting up these strawmem arguments.StephenB_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

@OldAndrew Is the Bible a science book? Should we defer to it on matters of mathematics or the number of legs on insects? If not, why?critical rationalist_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

VB
VB I will let the onlookers judge who is using dishonest tactics. SJ OK. I will play it your way. How can objective morality exist when it doesn’t exist? I await your answer Hmmm let me get this straight for those who maybe following along. I asked you a straightforward question. You did not answered my question Because I asked a question you accused me of using dishonest tactics. You failed to point out why by me merely asking a question is a dishonest tactic. I left it up to the readers to judge who is the one being disingenuous You respond but no where in your response do you answer my question rather you pose a question of your own to me before giving me the courtesy of answering my question Once again I will leave in the readers hands as to which one of us is being disingenuous.
Your dodging and weaving are duly noted. The question I asked you is the same as the one you asked me, just reversing objective and subjective. Let me refresh your memory, and that of other readers, of what led to me calling your question dishonest.
JS: We all have a sense of morality, a sense of what is right and wrong. VB: What morality can you possibly be referring to? I will ask again how can this “morality” exist when it doesn’t exist?
So I simply turned the question around at you.
JS: How can objective morality exist when it doesn’t exist?
If you can answer it, then your question wasn't dishonest and I will apologize. If you can't, then I stand by my original conclusion.JSmith_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

It's Godwin's Law on a large scale. If an internet debate goes on long enough it becomes inevitable that someone will compare someone else to Hitler. This argument is essentially about "If you don't believe like me, here's where that belief leads." But the question of whether life was created or evolved or some combination doesn't hinge on "if that's true then this is where it leads." Even the debate over ID itself ultimately goes nowhere. It's just more fun and doesn't leave me feeling sick. But I can't blame anyone - nobody made me do it.OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

KF
Jul3s, pardon some observations. UD is not solely about strictly scientific topics and while indeed we often look at science and tech news and will do more of that as time goes on there are other relevant topics.
Pardon an observation. Over 80% of traffic at UD over the last thirty days have had absolutely nothing to do with science or ID.JSmith_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

J
I doubt that anything will change for the better though because most of you here only seem to care about promoting your religious/cultural’/political viewpoints.
Since ID appears incapable of separating itself from its founding religion, I have to agree with you.JSmith_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Ignore biblical commentaries, sneer at orthodox theologians, and militate against the Church Fathers, all of whom have much to teach you.
Before such so-called "church fathers" we had Jesus, a man unrecognizable in a crowd, who taught his followers - also ordinary men - to love God, one another, and to follow the teachings of the scriptures. They were to be on guard against worldly philosophies. idolatry, divisions between one another, and identifying themselves by which men in the congregation they followed. After these "church fathers" - where do I begin? Men with robes, title, and giant hats holding their rings out to be kissed? Teachers whose credentials are their education in Greek philosophy? Massive cathedrals full of statues with the toes worn off from people kissing their feet? Literally thousands of conflicting branches and schisms, many named after men? Persecuting and killing those who tried to translate the Bible into common languages so that ordinary men could read it? How did Jesus begin something that turned into something so unrecognizable as Christianity? He foresaw the question and answered it.
the servants[c] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ ...
the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil.
No, those men have nothing to teach me.
OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

You asked me for evidence from the bible that we are to use our reason and I provided it.
No, I asked you for evidence that we need help from Greek philosophers to reason on the Bible, and you pivoted to stating the obvious, that we need to reason. (Nice try, conflating anti-Aristotle with anti-reason. Because Aristotle is reason and the Bible isn't, right?)
Try reading Dante sometime. If you think that all you need to learn is in the bible, you will not be well served. Many aspects of the truth are not in the bible.
It's impossible to take that position without placing Dante, Plato, Aristotle, even Dan Brown on a level with the Bible. You really don't grasp the gulf between the Bible and Dante or Aristotle, do you? One of the whole points of teaching using the Bible is that you can contrast God's wisdom with that of men. There are a million books written by smart people. If the Bible is just one more book in a pile of books then you can't really trust any of it. When you dilute and contaminate the Bible with teachings of Aristotle and the like then there's no reason to have confidence that what you're understanding or teaching is the elevated thinking of God as opposed to the thoughts of men. You dilute it further in that including the teachings of men implicitly distrusts the Bible's assertion that the teachings of men are foolishness to God. So while placing your faith in men you simultaneously teach others to doubt the Bible. Sure, the Bible is the best, etc. etc. But if you're into reason and you want to really be enlightened, you can't get by on the Bible. How quaint. The really intellectual, wise people know that you need some Aristotle and Dante if you want to worship God with reason. I don't think you believe that you hold the Bible in contempt. But the notion that it or its reader is in any way incomplete or lacking in reason without the addition of Aristotle or Dante says otherwise. How regrettable for poor, unreasoning brutes such as David who sat in darkness with nothing but the contemptible law of God because they had the misfortune to be born before Aristotle came to enlighten them.
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Note that they didn't search the writings of Aristotle. I suppose they were unreasoning as well?
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”

For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.
It's your choice conclude that God failed to include reason in his word up to your lofty intellectual standards, or that his exalted thoughts require illumination from the wisdom of men you admire. It's your choice to conclude that others such as Thomas Aquinas who equally esteemed Greek Philosophy are somehow the "fathers" of Christianity, which came before them, not after them. The irony! You preach moral objectivism, but you're following those who themselves turned aside to follow the intellectual crowd.OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

@KF I was mistaken. The comments in question are actually #51 and #52. What's problematic is your continued reference to the definitions of words, as if that is some kind of argument. Words are shortcuts for ideas. And we should be willing to use adopt the terminology of others when having a discussion.critical rationalist_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Jul3s- The science of ID has been discussed over and over again. The nonsense of materialistic evolutionism has been discussed over and over again. Nothing has ever been presented that demonstrates evolutionism has the science and ID doesn't. Now only new discoveries get discussed as all else has been discussed already. So UD fills the time with the "other" stuff that applies to our lives.ET_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

GUN re @179: Is morality necessarily derived from empathy? IOW, if I develop behavioral parameters based on a set of rules that serves my own personal desires, is that by definition in your view ***not*** morality? Also, is there any penalty or downside for ignoring my empathy?William J Murray_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

@ Kairosfocus As I already said, the only topic relevant here apart from the science is the fact that many people have an anti-design bias. Pointing out that people's worldviews are biased against the best explanation is enough. Yes, detractors talk about religion as a way of attacking ID, but you do not need to take the bait. If they talk about the philosophical or cultural implications of ID, you can simply say "too bad. I follow the evidence, implications be damned". Sadly, you don't. Your mission in life can be to promote your worldview, I understand that. But using this site to argue with OA, claiming that since he rejects the idea that Aristotle is right and/or relevant to salvation, he therefore rejects reason is ridiculous. You are inviting readers to believe that ID is inseparable from a religious/cultural/political worldview and agenda. So if any visitor doesn't align with you politically, you are giving them a great excuse to just ignore everything you say on the grounds that you are biased and that ID is therefore not legitimate. You openly admit that you use ID to further a cultural agenda. Regardless of what that agenda is, this undermines the dispassionate objectivity of ID. Can't you see the damage you're doing? No wonder you people get called creationists in cheap tuxedos. You people are frankly a disgrace. Not because of your beliefs but because you can't help but display your beliefs in a setting which puts people off unless they already agree with you. This is a sad state of affairs. I think eventually ID will win but despite your efforts, not because of them. I have a challenge for UD. For an entire month, all posted stories can only be about the results of scientific studies. Does ID have enough scientific and emperical substance to it to go that long without promoting a certain culture? I am certain that it does, but I am equally certain that you won't be able to resist going off on some tangent about "human exceptionalism" and "objective morality" for more than 5 minutes.Jul3s_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

JSmith VB I will let the onlookers judge who is using dishonest tactics. SJ OK. I will play it your way. How can objective morality exist when it doesn’t exist? I await your answer Hmmm let me get this straight for those who maybe following along. I asked you a straightforward question. You did not answered my question Because I asked a question you accused me of using dishonest tactics. You failed to point out why by me merely asking a question is a dishonest tactic. I left it up to the readers to judge who is the one being disingenuous You respond but no where in your response do you answer my question rather you pose a question of your own to me before giving me the courtesy of answering my question Once again I will leave in the readers hands as to which one of us is being disingenuous. Vivid .vividbleau_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

PS, from current front page: Intellectual termite watch: Numbers are “social constructs” Lack of a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) leaves physicists frustrated Could a gorilla mom consciously protect her baby? Spiders and ants independently developed baskets for carrying sand “Confounding”: Moths and butterflies predate flowering plants by millions of years Evolution News: Don’t be fooled by protein design claim Father of neo-Darwinism (Fisher’s theorem) Ronald Fisher critiqued at his own memorial? Darwinism vs. mathematics in a post-modern world Animal minds: Australian birds that use fire as a tool Airspacemag: Cool it with the space alien speculations. But what about using a design inference? Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon on the recent merely “plausible” origin of life find My recent sci-tech OP's, just as a sample: An Unhappy New Year for computers and smart devices: the Meltdown & Spectre flaws in Intel, AMD and ARM processors Correcting Wikipedia on ID Guest Post — Template-Assisted Ligation: A New OOL Model What is “information”? Upright Biped’s summary on information systems in cell based life Ramesh Raskar on slow motion light — at a trillion [10^12] frames per second Is Mathematics a Natural Science? (Is that important?) FFT: Antikythera, Paley, Crick, Axe, the “first computer” claim and the design inference on sign BTB & FFT: Is it true that “ID has no . . . recognised scientists, predictive qualities, experiments, peer reviewed publications, evidence, or credibility scientifically”? RVB8 tries to dismiss ID as failed science Selensky, Shallit, & Koza vs artificial life simulations GP on the Origin of Body Plans [OoBP] challengekairosfocus_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Jul3s, pardon some observations. UD is not solely about strictly scientific topics and while indeed we often look at science and tech news and will do more of that as time goes on there are other relevant topics. However, in dealing with long-time objectors, we find that there are root, worldview level problems driving the deadlock on scientific discussions, so it is necessary to address such, including what is knowledge, what is information, how is theoretical scientific knowledge warranted, the issue of responsible rational freedom and moral government of reason, and more, including what is emerging as the destructive impact of radical fallibilism, subjectivism, relativism and emotivism on the thought patterns of many who object to ID. These have to be properly sorted out, and this discussion will naturally be the sort of sausage-making mess of a natural exchange rather than the orderly play-out in a textbook which comes along after the fact. Conflation of grounding ethics and reason with imposition of religion is a good example of the need to make and recognise key distinctions. Also, you will see that consistently it is objectors of various stripes who try to inject Bible discussions and "evil Bible" accusations to drag matters off reasonable focus. Some of these need to be answered here, others need to be redirected elsewhere. Above, there is an exchange between someone who seems to reject creedal Christian faith and theological thought informed by philosophical analysis of key concepts, with contamination with philosophical notions and someone who is trained in philosophy and in theological matters. All of these issues have major social and cultural implications -- and BTW, it is increasingly recognised that scientists, engineers and technologists of various types have major moral responsibilities, which often will be addressed in something like an "Engineer in Society" type course in a modern degree programme. KFkairosfocus_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

CR, 195, I have spoken to these matters this time around since November. You know or should acknowledge that, and particularly the framework that distinct identity grounds the first principles of right reason as instant corollaries, also number. I long since pointed one and all here on on worldviews. In the weeks since Novemeber, it is you who have tried to exert radical fallibilism against self evident first principles of reason, repeatedly ending in absurdities as would be expected. BTW, 61 and 62 supra are not from you. KFkairosfocus_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB @96
HeKS: I guess where my confusion lies with respect to my first comment is that you said you were describing what objective morality IS but then you seemed to go on to actually describe a way by which we might get to KNOW and EXPRESS (through our behavior) its particular dictates.
Perhaps this is the passage that you had in mind: “Among other things, the nature of a human being is to use his faculties of intellect and will to make decisions that will help him obtain those things that are objectively good for him.”
It was that and the sentence before it ... and the question you were responding to. I don't want to belabor the point here or get nit-picky ... I'm just trying to point out what caused my confusion and may cause confusion for others. Consider GUN's two questions, and particularly the first, which you then seem to be responding to:
GUN: Although, I’m no[t] sure what “objective” even means when referring to morality. What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?
SB: The problem with this formulation is that the second question is entirely different from the first one. Only the first question makes sense....
So it seemed you were about to answer the first question about what "objective" means when we're talking about objective morality. And then you went on to say:
When we discuss objective morality we are simply referring to the morality proper to human nature, which is obviously an objective reality in itself.
So here you seemed to say you were explaining what "objective" means with respect to morality, but then you said that it just refers to the morality that is proper to the human nature and, it seems, it is the human nature that is objective. Of course, it's true that the human nature is objective. But when talking about the objectivity of morality, we're not simply referring to the objectivity of the human nature. Instead, we're referring to the way in which that moral standard that is proper to the human nature is itself objective, independent of the human nature. You continued:
Among other things, the nature of a human being is to use his faculties of intellect and will to make decisions that will help him obtain those things that are objectively good for him. Thus, morality must be an objective set of guidelines to help humans achieve an objective end (what is good for them).
So it seemed like throughout the whole thing the objectivity was tied to the human nature and what is good for it, rather than describing the basis for morality itself being objective independent of human nature. Again, like I've said before, it's not that I think anything you were saying here was wrong really ... it's just that it all seems like an answer to a question other than "what does 'objective' mean when referring to morality". When we talk about what "objective" means when referring to morality, we're talking about that which grounds morality within reality apart from any human nature or mind. Do you understand where I'm coming from now? If not, that's fine. I'm not gonna beat this dead horse anymore :)HeKS_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

OA, I asked a question that is highly relevant, what makes shocking evils evil. Your over the top reaction is less than helpful. KFkairosfocus_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

OA
Unless he’s wrong. Hard to say, because what he wrote isn’t in the Bible.
Aristotle isn’t wrong. I can go through all the virtues and show you how they represent a mid point between two extremes. This is consistent with biblical teaching even though it is not made explicit in the bible. Try reading Dante sometime. If you think that all you need to learn is in the bible, you will not be well served. Many aspects of the truth are not in the bible.
So now what the Bible says is explained by something that may or may not be true. There’s still an implication that our understanding of the Bible is incomplete without some words of wisdom from Aristotle.
That’s just a silly strawman. Aristotle is merely an example, a symbol of reason. We can do without Aristotle, but cannot do without reason, even though you seem to be contemptuous of it. You asked me for evidence from the bible that we are to use our reason and I provided it. Then you start obsessing over Aristotle again. A reasonable person would accept the evidence in context and acknowledge the point.
As the above demonstrates, attempting to introduce him is at best useless, or at worst clouds our understanding of what is true with what isn’t.
You want to separate faith from reason. You will never get much truth that way. But it doesn’t cause me any grief. Just keep shooting from the hip and ignoring your education if you like. Dismiss reason at every turn if it makes you feel better. Ignore biblical commentaries, sneer at orthodox theologians, and militate against the Church Fathers, all of whom have much to teach you. Maybe you can persuade people by relying solely on your faith and your emotions. If you can do it, more power to you.StephenB_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

Jul3s,
Shut up about morality
Well said. That's what I'm going to do.OldAndrew_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

"You seem to be saying the exact opposite, that not only is the moral objectivism relevant to Intelligent Design, but that accepting it is a requirement before moving on to ID. You’ve tied moral objectivism to your religion, which means you’re tying your religion to ID. Mixing the two is very harmful to the discussion of ID. People google “Intelligent Design,” read the twisted Wikipedia page, and then come and see these truly bizarre discussions that support Wikipedia’s claim that ID is about religion. This is shooting ID in the foot with an AK-47." Just thought this excellent comment by OldAndrew needed to be repeated. This site and evolutionnews.org claim ID is based on science but you all spend far more time defending your religious beliefs. Most of you here are doing a massive disservice to ID. Here's some suggestions: Shut up about morality, euthanasia, "materialism", "naturalism", "human exceptionalism". If you still want to talk about philosophy, the only discussion that needs to be here is about the anti-design bias that many people have. Talk about actual RESEARCH in biology and how it contradicts orthodoxy or supports design. Talk about testable predictions or implications of ID. For example, biology at its heart is information processing technology. The designer was obviously much smarter than us but chose carbon to be chemical basis over silicon. This implies that sci-fi dreams of making silicon AIs that are superior to us won't work. I doubt that anything will change for the better though because most of you here only seem to care about promoting your religious/cultural'/political viewpoints.Jul3s_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

However, after learning from Aristotle that virtue is the midpoint between two extremes, I can understand the meaning of moderation better than if I had not read Aristotle.
Unless he's wrong. Hard to say, because what he wrote isn't in the Bible. So now what the Bible says is explained by something that may or may not be true. There's still an implication that our understanding of the Bible is incomplete without some words of wisdom from Aristotle. It isn't. As the above demonstrates, attempting to introduce him is at best useless, or at worst clouds our understanding of what is true with what isn't.
If the bible says I have a soul, and if Aristotle tells me the same thing, that is important to know. It tells me that God’s word makes sense from the perspective of reason, which makes it DIFFERENT from all other religions
That's the problem. The Bible says this. Does it make sense from the perspective of reason? Let's see what Aristotle says. Aristotle said that homosexual sex was like nail biting. Apparently in this case the Bible doesn't make sense from the perspective of reason, because it doesn't agree with Aristotle. What has Aristotle added? At best, nothing. At worst one might start rethinking how they understand what the Bible says so that it fits better with Aristotle.
But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God (Job 13:3).
Read the book to its ending. There's a twist. God
Who is this that is muddling a discussion without knowing anything about it?
Job
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.
Job was a wise man, surely more so than Aristotle. But not longer after Job said the words you quoted, God spent some time setting him straight regarding human wisdom versus God's. Job got the point.
Come now, let us reason together
Surely you don't suggest that this was God asking to be informed by the wisdom of men.
Paul reasoned with Unbelievers, even alluding to their “unknown god.”
When Paul reasons with someone and it's recorded in the Bible, that's the Bible. It makes a case for reason from the Bible. I don't see how it makes a case for Aristotle.
Jesus asked His disciples to make a thoughtful decision about Him. “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am” (Matthew 16:15)
He asked them to express themselves. He already knew what they thought, but he dignified them by allowing them to say it. He also set an example for others to teach by asking questions. How does him asking or them answering suggest that we need Aristotle or that he's even helpful?
Islamists fly airplanes into buildings because they do not integrate their faith with reason.
So if we kept the scriptures and ditched Aristotle, Christians would fly planes into buildings? Because the Bible says to fly planes into buildings and Aristotle says not to? The scriptures cast no positive light on philosophies of men. The only explicit mentions are warnings. You have quite a high hurdle to overcome to justify that we should use them to expand our understanding of the scriptures, or even consider them worthwhile. You haven't justified it at all. In fact, you've underscored the danger that the scriptures themselves warn of.OldAndrew_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

OA
Are you actually saying that we can’t truly understand the words of those Bible verses you cited without help from Aristotle’s Golden Mean? Did Paul add a footnote after “Let your moderation be known unto all men” that said, “Read Aristotle, then you’ll know what I meant?”
I place the Scriptures higher than Aristotle because it is the word of God. However, after learning from Aristotle that virtue is the midpoint between two extremes, I can understand the meaning of moderation better than if I had not read Aristotle. The bible doesn’t tell me explicitly that courage is the midpoint between recklessness and cowardice. Aristotle does. So I can use the information to understand the Scriptural teaching on virtue more profoundly. If Aristotle were to say something that contradicts the Scriptures, I would ignore him, because the scriptures come first.=
It’s as if you bought stock in Aristotle and want it to go up. I bought stock in the Bible and I haven’t diversified.
Good Metaphor!!! (though that is not my position.)
Aristotle mentioned homosexuality in the same sentence as nail-biting. So having “illuminated” the scriptures with Aristotle, have we determined that homosexuality is as harmless as nail-biting, or have we determined that nail-biters shall not enter the Kingdom of God?
No, we would characterize Aristotle’s position as inferior to the bible and recognize that he doesn’t know enough in this case to help us. Even a close friend can say something that will help you to understand the bible better because we often get different subjective meanings from objective truths. That doesn’t mean that they displace the bible as the authority..
Why would I elevate the writings of Aristotle if I have to examine every word he wrote to determine which agree with the Bible and which don’t?
Don’t elevate them, just use them the same way yo8 would use anything that it truthful. Truth illuminates truth because truth has unity. If something is true, then it is true. If the bible says I have a soul, and if Aristotle tells me the same thing, that is important to know. It tells me that God’s word makes sense from the perspective of reason, which makes it DIFFERENT from all other religions, So we can use reason to show that the Christian religion is true and the other religions are false.
Do you disagree? Disagree using the Bible. Show me where the Bible says that I should use Greek philosophy to understand it.
The bible is the highest authority but it is not the only authority. Human reason is limited, but it can be very helpful. So saith the Scriptures. . But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God (Job 13:3). "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool" (Isaiah 1:18). Paul reasoned with Unbelievers, even alluding to their “unknown god.” . They came to Ephesus, and he [Paul] left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews (Acts 18:19) Jesus asked His disciples to make a thoughtful decision about Him. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am" (Matthew 16:15 And so it goes. Islamists fly airplanes into buildings because they do not integrate their faith with reason. Indeed, they don't use their reason well enough to show them that their religion is false. If a faith system contradicts reason, you should not believe it. Period,StephenB_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

SB,
Reason tells me that God exists. Reason tells me that I may not commit murder. The bible tells me the same thing, but it also tells me much more.
You've failed to demonstrate where Aristotle comes in. You seem determined to justify his seat at the table. He doesn't get one. He had his own ideas. Some of them intersect with the Bible. Whatever does we don't need, because it's in the Bible. Whatever doesn't is his opinion, sort of like Dear Abby. She gets things right once in a while. Among the damaging effects of the admiration of secular philosophers is that the drifting congregation felt the need to establish its own canon of wise men, just as the Israelites learned to build idols from the Canaanites. The Greeks had Plato and Aristotle. They had Origen and Aquinas, who happened to be students of Plato and Aristotle. The blind led the blind.OldAndrew_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

@KF A conversation implies a response. And you have yet to respond to the specific questions in #61 and #62. You still haven't explained how reason does not have its say, first.critical rationalist_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

You get points for honesty. You don’t get objective morality from scripture, you get it from what you judge to be self-evident. I know that includes that genocide and child torture, and I’m sure I’m with you on a lot of other things.
I think we agree on most things. Please let me clarify, though. I get objective morality from both scripture, which I take on faith, and the natural moral law, which can be derived from self evident truths. One comes from revelation, the other comes from reason. The difference is that the bible can take me to the highest place, reason cannot. Reason tells me that God exists. Reason tells me that I may not commit murder. The bible tells me the same thing, but it also tells me much more. God is in three persons. Not only can I not commit murder, I also may not murder reputations will slander or murder friendships with cruel speech. The bible surpasses reason and Aristotle in every way, but that doesn't mean that the latter cannot be useful. I cannot depend solely on reason; it only gets me so far. After that, faith must take over and illuminate my reason.
But to assert that what you perceive to be self-evident is objective reality? No. That’s as subjective as it gets, even when you’re right.
All self evident truths are in the realm of objective morality, including law of non-contradiction, law of identity, law of causality, principle of sufficient reason, and the natural moral law. I don't just perceive that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same sense, I know it to be objectively true. It would be true even if I, the subject, had never existed.StephenB_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Aristotle did NOT support man sex with boys. Please retract that claim.
I retract my claim. He said that man sex with boys was a bad habit like nail biting, but that it's in some people's nature.OldAndrew_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Have you never heard of Aristotle’s “Golden Mean?”
Are you actually saying that we can't truly understand the words of those Bible verses you cited without help from Aristotle's Golden Mean? Did Paul add a footnote after "Let your moderation be known unto all men" that said, "Read Aristotle, then you'll know what I meant?" You just inserted Aristotle into a list of scriptures, effective equating them. He didn't add anything. If he added anything I'd reject it because it came from Aristotle, not from the Bible. If he didn't add anything, then, well, we don't need him, do we? It's as if you bought stock in Aristotle and want it to go up. I bought stock in the Bible and I haven't diversified. Aristotle mentioned homosexuality in the same sentence as nail-biting. So having "illuminated" the scriptures with Aristotle, have we determined that homosexuality is as harmless as nail-biting, or have we determined that nail-biters shall not enter the Kingdom of God? Why would I elevate the writings of Aristotle if I have to examine every word he wrote to determine which agree with the Bible and which don't? And I start trying to understand what in the Bible any differently so that it fits with Aristotle, then I've lost my way. So no, Aristotle illuminates nothing and adds nothing. Do you disagree? Disagree using the Bible. Show me where the Bible says that I should use Greek philosophy to understand it.OldAndrew_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

No. I didn’t claim to derive objective morality from scripture. Objective morality is derived from self evident truths.
You get points for honesty. You don't get objective morality from scripture, you get it from what you judge to be self-evident. I know that includes that genocide and child torture, and I'm sure I'm with you on a lot of other things. But to assert that what you perceive to be self-evident is objective reality? No. That's as subjective as it gets, even when you're right. Personally I don't regard myself as wise enough to base what's right and wrong on what's self-evident to me. I have to get mine from the Bible.OldAndrew_{January 14, 2018
January
01
Jan
14
14
2018
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply