Why there is no “scientific” explanation for evil

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 27, 2011

Mind, Science}

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

Recently, there have been a number of attempts to use science to make evil intelligible. Canadian columnist David Warren reflects here, regarding a recent riot in Vancouver:

I am trying to draw attention to the very “zero” at the heart of that mob, and ultimately, any violent mob. The participants behave in ways that are finally unintelligible. To say they behave as animals would be unfair to animals, which are purposeful, and even merciful by comparison. (What they have no business with, they leave alone.)

It’s not that the books don’t explain anything. They tend to explain – either well or badly- how sociopaths or people with autism behave. And what they explain isn’t the evil and doesn’t finally shed much light on it.

The question isn’t whether science can do it. Nothing can. The project is like trying to come up with a rational value for pi, which is irrational by nature.

The best that can be done is to shed more light on the circumstances under which people are led to do evil.

See also: “Slacker sociopath” says “Science of Evil” empathy test flawed

Humans evolved to get revenge

Evolutionary psychology has a go at autism

Evil as “empathy deficit disorder”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Denyse O’Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

Comments

Lizzie and others, I want to draw your attention to Dr. Robert Sheldon's Remarks on how atheists depend on arguments against the morality of the Christian God in order to form their own sense of morality. This can be found in the new post: The Multiverse Gods, final part. and in the more detailed linked essay found here: http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/06/30/the_multiverse_gods,_final_part.thtml Dr. Sheldon states: "The Anthropocentric Fallacy - Many times one will come across an atheist argument intended to attack a personal Creator, where the atheist will say something like "only an insane god would create mosquitos" and then argue that atheism is far better than madness. The examples are too easy to find and too easy to create to make it worthwhile listing them, but Darwin made these sorts of arguments, and I've seen them applied to sloths, to the recurrent larygeal nerve in giraffes, human tailbones-appendix-tonsils etc. One can find this sort of argument expressed in morals too, as in "only an evil god would allow child-molesters" etc. As CS Lewis observed, the implication is that we are smarter, more moral, more rational, more whatever, than God. Such a view is already atheist even before it concludes that God doesn't exist, because it assumes that the Creation can judge the Creator, using some standard that evidently is clear to us but not to God. In other words, it already assumes man is God, and that the god who apparently had previously ruled is no match for our newly enlightened intellect (= god is dead), so the conclusions are all contained in the assumptions." Yes, the conclusions are all contained in the assumptions, and this is an important point. Arguments from morality to support atheism fail because they start with the assumption of atheism. They don't start with the possibility of theism. If they did, they could find a god outside of Christian theism, which would be more to their moral liking. Some have done so, and usually end up rather than theists, deists. The atheist could then ask, "well yes, but what would be the point of believing in such a god if I see no evidence?" And this rather than supporting atheism emphasizes the whole point of moral arguments being insufficient (for atheism, but not for theism). That the new atheists resort to such moralizing should lead to some healthy skepticism. Why? Because they don't reach the logical conclusion that such a moral god does not exist; only that they find such a moral god as quite unlike the god they could imagine if such a god exists. This is hardly an argument when you take into consideration that human thinking is often quite wrong. What we imagine a god to be like is then irrelevant. One must refer to arguments that all could see as reasonable rather than simply as something someone doesn't particularly like.CannuckianYankee_{June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PST}

Lizzie, CY: "I’ll make this brief. One could indeed translate Christian understandings into other idioms. This does not make such translations justified, but I don’t have a problem in doing so." EL: "Cool" Given your last post I think it's now time to elaborate on this. I do not believe one can derive morality from atheism. I can see no logical way that one could, and if atheism was the only belief system among humans, humans would be amoral. Therefore, atheists derive their sense of morality out of the larger community of non-atheists: be they Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. However, the deception of this all is that while Christians, Jews, Hindus (not all, to be sure) ground their morality in some sort of higher power, atheists borrow from the ethics of others, believing that they are not derived from some higher power. Now let's look at some of your answers, and see how this is so: EL: "Well, first of all, it depends what you mean by “justice”. On the one hand (as I see it) “justice” means that people treat each other fairly – that people don’t starve while others feast." Yes, we both agree on that, which indicates that both you and I have a sense of what justice means. I derive my sense of justice from scripture, and you derive yours from the community. Not all atheists do this though. There are atheists who are amoral. They don't do what the community demands. There are Christians who are also amoral, who don't do what the community demands, but they also disobey what the scriptures demand. Now the problem here is that if the larger community did not exist; if there were only atheists, your view of justice could not have any basis. The amoral atheist would be just as "moral" as you. You would have no basis other than the community of atheists from which to derive your morality, and there exists no higher power from which anyone derives it. So the amoral atheist's amorality should be just as acceptable as your morality. Well first of all, if you lived in such a system, I don't believe that you could be moral yourself, which is why the amoral person would be the norm. It's a live and let live sort of system that has no other foundation. You could not derive any laws, which prevent the amoral atheist from doing the extreme thing if he/she so chooses. See how far your disinclination towards retribution gets you in a system like that. You would have no disinclination towards anything, because you would be amoral. "Secondly, there is “justice” in the sense of people getting what they “deserve” – if they behave badly, then, in the name of “justice” they should be punished." This is true. However, people don't always get caught. That seems to be the motivation for a lot of people who do evil things. They believe they will not get caught. That belief would be totally illogical if it were not a fact that some people do not get caught or punished for evil doing. In an atheist system then, there are people who do not get caught nor punished. They die, like the rest. Now of course in the Christian "system" there is the issue that none are really just. All humans do evil. However, Miss Lizzie Liddle, who may have told a lie when she was 9 and since then has lived a pretty upright life, writing good books for children, and helping people to understand science - she's certainly at a polar opposite on the moral meter than an Osama Bin Laden or a Hitler. But it's the Hitlers and the Osama Bin Ladens that an atheist system has no recourse or logical basis for justice to deal with other than ending their lives. And if you think that in an atheist system there would be no OBLs or Hitlers, you're mistaken. OBL used religion for the convenience of justifying his evil. If he lived in an atheist system he would find some other means for justifying his evil, and it would actually be much easier for him. So given all of that, here's where I believe you're wrong: CY: “Evildoers do get off scott free apart from the consequence of death, which is no different than anyone else” EL: "No, they don’t. We institute penalties, as I said. And while I am deeply opposed to the death penalty, untimely death is certainly different from being allowed to live out your span – it, literally, deprives you of the benefits of living." Well, yes they do. The ones who don't get caught or punished die just like the rest. That's it. There's no justice. In the Christian "system" (I put that in quotes because it's not exactly a system but for the sake of the argument) Hitler and OBL, though they have passed from this life, still face judgment for their crimes. They have not got off scott free. And since none of us is completely innocent, we all face the same judgment. It's this that I think atheists object to the most, but their objection I believe is misplaced. they tend to completely dismiss the gospel, while focusing on how unjust God is, and while having absolutely no moral compass for judging God in the first place. But let's go back to the issue of Hitler and OBL. They killed people. God loves the people they killed. God also loves them. A choice must be made here. Do I simply forgive them, and allow them to enjoy the benefits of the afterlife? Well If God did that, then any other Hitler or OBL would be justified in killing millions of people, because there is no reason not to. There's no punishment in the end. Without a consequence for wrongdoing, there can be no wrongdoing. Without a benefit for doing good, there is no good. So love is not simply a warm fuzzie, love is just. Atheists like to borrow the parts of theistic morality they like, and discard those parts they dislike, and then they turn it around and criticize those who hold onto the parts they have chosen to dislike. That's what's really going on. Atheists then insist that they can be as moral if not more moral than others, since they have chosen the "correct" parts of Christian or other theistic morality, while rejecting the "incorrect" parts; completely ignoring or denying the fact that their morality derives from Christian or other theistic morality. They think it comes from within them, when the fact is that morality is learned. It is not something that comes from within the individual. If a person has not been taught to be good, such a person will not be good. If you were to ignore your son's misdeeds, he would continue doing them and believe that it was ok. You corrected him, and he learned to behave himself. Morality is learned, and it is not some internal thing that an atheist society could possess and be moral. The atheist society thus has no foundation from which to derive any morality.CannuckianYankee_{June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PST}

...any known way to produce it [by means of chance and necessity]junkdnaforlife_{June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PST}

Mung: "Wow. So they can rule out intelligent design?" I would say Mung, just the opposite. The information on the Shroud is so highly specific and functional while lacking any known mechanism to produce such information, that it resembles in many ways the origin of life CSI.junkdnaforlife_{June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PST}

OK, I see I have some homework waiting for me :) CY @ 72:
Lizzie, My posts get longer by the minute. Must learn to condense. Thanks for the response. It is not my view that since God is watching we should be careful about doing good. It is; however, my view that one cannot excuse him/herself in doing evil because God IS watching. God is an overseer against evil as much as a motivator towards good. I simply don’t see him in the same light from one situation to the other. It’s not that God changes his character; both are one essence of His perfect character. I think it’s a valid point that the evildoer should not think that he/she will ultimately get off scott free. Why? because in God’s perfect love is perfect justice. He would not be loving us perfectly if he turned a blind eye to evil. Justice is part of perfect love in a world where evil exists. That we don’t always see justice done is in my view indicative of God’s patience and mercy towards us in this time; Ultimately the end of the world may be God’s final judgment; but that’s not (to quote one of Dr. Dembski’s titles) “The End of Christianity.” That end is the Kingdom of God. Not some earthly Kingdom, but a place and time whereby all of the perfections God intended for His creation are realized. It’s hard to describe my conception of God in this respect, simply because there are many aspects of His likeness that are indescribable, and there are many things that we simply don’t know about what such a Kingdom will be like. If God is perfectly loving, then any idea that such a “realm” will be lacking in anything that presently interests us or excites us is in my view misplaced; since God knows perfectly the workings and desires of the human heart. So you can see that God as our overseer is not a hindrance to our freedom; rather an assurance of our destiny with Him. That’s basically how I view God’s knowledge of us. He’s in us, about us, intimately acquainted with us; knows what motivates us, our strengths and weaknesses. He loves us more than we understand that He does even given our knowledge of Jesus’ death for us. In his nature He couldn’t not be ever present with us. So I believe that the purpose for God’s presence among us is not so that he can pick out every flaw and judge us, but because He loves us and “desires” (probably not the best term) to be present with us (not that He needs us in any way – and it may be even more than that, but that’s as much as I currently understand). However, the evildoer (and we all are such at one time or another) fails to understand first of all that God is present, and 2nd of all the purpose for His presence.
OK. I can sort of buy that. In the sense that it's the sort of thing I might have written myself (sort of - I have a little bit of unease at some of it, and I think that's because of where I see it heading...
So I can’t really fault Chris in pointing this out. I don’t have a tendency to say that evildoers are necessarily atheist; I simply could not know that. Perhaps Chris’s understanding of this may be peculiar to certain situations and experiences of his that are not my own. But Chris’s conception of God’s presence and my own are not necessarily incompatible; the two examples are two entirely different situations involving the same loving God. Furthermore, I think the most significant point that can be drawn here is that in atheism there is really no justice.
...and we are getting closer...
Evildoers do get off scott free apart from the consequence of death, which is no different than anyone else. Where’s the justice in that? Where’s the love?
And we are there! That's the problem, IMO, right there. Actually several. Let me take this in bits: 1. "in atheism there is really no justice" Well, first of all, it depends what you mean by "justice". On the one hand (as I see it) "justice" means that people treat each other fairly - that people don't starve while others feast. There's plenty of that kind of justice "in atheism" - or rather, atheists are just as capable of figuring out that a just society is worth having, and worth working for. Secondly, there is "justice" in the sense of people getting what they "deserve" - if they behave badly, then, in the name of "justice" they should be punished. And the two concepts are related - in order to ensure a just society, it is important to institute penalties for those who behave in a manner that promotes in-justice (in the first sense) - those who steal from others; those who exploit others for there own gain; those who deny others the right to live for their own benefit, or even pleasure. And so, again, atheists are as capable as anyone else of instituting fair legal systems in which, in furtherance of a fair society, those whose actions undermine that society are penalised, to discourage them (by showing them that rendering injustice is to their own detriment), to discourage others (deterrence), to physically prevent further unjust actions (incarceration); to teach them how to choose their actions more wisely (rehabilitation). Yes, retribution is not on that list. 2. "Evildoers do get off scott free apart from the consequence of death, which is no different than anyone else" No, they don't. We institute penalties, as I said. And while I am deeply opposed to the death penalty, untimely death is certainly different from being allowed to live out your span - it, literally, deprives you of the benefits of living. 3. "Where’s the justice in that?" I assume you mean - where is the justice in both good and evil doers going into benign oblivion? That is a use of the word "justice" I just do not accept. That's why I left off "retribution". Justice, to me, is a fair society, and to ensure a fair society, it we need to penalise those who would undermine it. After someone is dead, what use is there in further penalty? The only answer is "retribution". I do not understand the concept of retributive justice. And that is no only why I oppose the death penalty, it is also why I find the idea of a retributive God incompatible with: 4. "Where’s the love?" Where is the love, in a God who demands eternal penalty? Now the answer given, often, is: "aha - but God doesn't actually penalise, as long as we accept the gift of his only son Jesus, who suffered the penalty on our behalf". And now is my turn to ask: where is the justice in that? You posit a retributive God (where retribution to me is not even a Good), but who lets people off the retribution, not because they behave well, but because some other person, some innocent, gets it instead. That makes no sense to me, and never has. It posits a vengeful God who compounds vengefulness with capriciousness at the expense of his innocent son. Now, I am sure people are going to come on me like a ton of bricks for this description, but my challenge is: In what sense is that characterisation incorrect? And what is retributive justice even supposed to be for?
You talked about love in a post on another thread, and I mentioned it in an earlier post here. I can’t really conceive how one can believe in love (maybe warm fuzzies?) and not believe that justice is concurrent with it.
I do believe that, as long as "justice" does not include the element of "retribution". I love my son, and was always very mindful of the fact that to love him well, I sometimes had to thwart him. I also had to demonstrate to him the consequences of unjust actions (not often, I have to say - he's sweetie, but sometimes not all that considerate, re shall we say, domestic stuff). But I would never thwart him in "retribution" (I would consider that a failing in me a parent, and I would certainly consider it absolutely appalling to inflict "retribution" on his (non-existent) sister even if she begged me to let the punishment fall on her. Yet that seems to be what your posited God is supposed to be like!
So atheism is missing the very essence of perfect love, which lends it power; to do justly. Without justice, love is just a warm fuzzy.
Without courage sometimes to constrain, yes. But that is not what we are talking about here. And atheists are just as capable of love-with-firm-constraint as anyone else.
“Yes indeed. But it’s relatively easy to translate that into atheistic terms (as, for example, Buddhists do): “to love your neighbor is to do good to them because one recognizes that they are human beings created by a God who cares for them like you.”” I’ll make this brief. One could indeed translate Christian understandings into other idioms. This does not make such translations justified, but I don’t have a problem in doing so.
Cool :) As always, I appreciate your posts, even though we may profoundly disagree on some things. You always make me think :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PST}

Mung,
Wow. So they can rule out intelligent design?
Would it be possible to use the Explanatory Filter on the shroud? How would you go about ruling out divine action?WilliamRoache_{June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PST}

It is not the product of an artist. Wow. So they can rule out intelligent design?Mung_{June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PST}

Of related interest: "Evolution and the Problem of Evil" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-29T16_09_40-07_00bornagain77_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PST}

Sorry, guys, had a horrendous day today, won't be out of the woods till late tomorrow if then! Haven't forgotten you (nor Upright BiPed) it's just that RL sometimes intervenes.... Will try to address some of the posts that have been addressed to me. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PST}

Epic irony. dmullenix: but I think Bishop Pierre d’Arcis’ evidence was more extraordinary when he wrote to the Pope in 1390 stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the forger had confessed. The problem with what the Bishop said, is that is in empirically refuted by modern science: "In 1978, a group of scientist [STURP] conducted a round-the-clock examination of the Shroud for 120 hours." And what did they conclude after 120 hours of intense scientific scrutiny... "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist." http://www.shroudstory.com/topic-sturp.htm The STURP team finally concludes: "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved." Are you really taking the word of a Bishop over the scientific method? You can't invent better irony. This illuminates with striking clarity how quick the ideological atheist will flush science down the toilet and quickly quote a bible thumper if it will somehow advance their dogma. The problem is, once this is exposed, how then do you go back and sell neo-darwinism with any credibility? Some vids on the Shroud carbon dating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKj56swhuVQ&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z59857muRYQ&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llMnmYDXqRg&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmO6PRoHkpQ&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsMdvSDNvBQ&feature=relatedjunkdnaforlife_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST}

Very kind words, especially coming from someone as capable and as knowledgeable as your good self, CannuckianYankee. Thank you, sir.Chris Doyle_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PST}

Chris at 82. Your post is definitely a keeper. Thanks for the insight.CannuckianYankee_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PST}

Correction: "He is also the moral overseer of evil." should read "against evil." KF, I'm glad you decided to chime in. I mentioned the problem with atheism's ability to derive an "ought" form an "is" in my last reply to DM. I hope he reads your more in-depth handling of the issue.CannuckianYankee_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PST}

Good Afternoon Lizzie, Please, no apologies are necessary, I positively welcome a slightly slower pace to debate than occurs here sometimes and you are central to most of the threads anyway (most of us love top quality opposition here)! Again, some quite strong stuff will follow and I apologise in advance if you find it hard to stomach. Remember, I'm attacking the atheistic position. I'm absolutely NOT attacking you, Lizzie! Now then, your response to my post (51). You expressed many thoughts, but alas, I don’t believe you actually answered my questions. They were: 1. Why should such a miserable atheist bother with life at all? 2. How do you dissuade an atheist from free-riding? Looking at the first question, it seems that you think a miserable atheist simply needs to recall that “one of our drives is to be, simply, happy.” But I don’t think a miserable atheist needs reminding of this fact, do you? He is all too aware that happiness is what he wants but he is struggling and suffering on a regular basis. Even if a miserable atheist does experience glimpses of happiness, they are all too brief and soon disappear to be replaced by the norm: drudgery and hopelessness. You then point out that “We are… therefore able to transcend ourselves.” Again, I don’t see how this provides a reason for the miserable atheist to bother with life at all. If he can feel another’s pain, then that is only adding to the pain he is already experiencing on a daily basis! So again, I’d be grateful if you could tell me what you, an actual atheist, would say to a fellow miserable atheist who no longer knows why to bother with life at all. Stick to atheists, don’t worry about believers. If you want to know why a miserable believer should bother with life at all, then let actual believers answer that question. Looking at the second question, you first of all appeal to the “collective” over the individual. If we had all been assimilated by the Borg, then resistance to that argument would indeed be futile! But, we’re not. And an intelligent, rational, logical but selfish atheist knows just how to exploit that. He knows that the moral society we live in isn’t about to break down just because he is free-riding on it. He “can look at that situation logically and decide that as long as he maintains a public appearance of moral steadfastness, he can commit immoral acts whenever he desires as long as he avoids detection.” And, your very interesting response to this was: “Well, sure, but so can a theist.” Woah! Blink and you miss it! Let’s rewind and slow that down before getting ahead of ourselves. A rational atheist can logically free-ride: maintaining a public appearance of moral steadfastness while committing immoral acts whenever he desires (as long as he avoids detection) and your response is “Well, sure...” I think we should pause there for a moment, Lizzie, to let that important fact sink in rather than trying to gloss over it by changing the subject to theism. If you agree that a rational atheist can logically choose immorality then atheistic morality fails. The whole point of morality is that it should take precedence over all other considerations. Morality is easy when the right thing to do is the thing we want to do. But, as soon as the wrong thing to do is the thing we want to do then, providing we can get away with it (or can live with the consequences) then atheistic morality is over-ruled by logic and reason. Taking that further, we can now argue that it would be irrational and illogical for an atheist to choose morality when there are literally no drawbacks to the immoral choice. Free-riding is undoubtedly the best course of action available to intelligent, rational and logical atheists (especially ones who are more selfish than selfless). And, if the more selfless atheists ever truly realise that they are needlessly denying themselves on many occasions, then what is to stop them saying “well, if you can’t beat them, join them!” Based on your responses so far, Lizzie, absolutely nothing. Let me close with some thoughts about the way theism crops up, inappropriately, in these discussions. I find that when I’m discussing the evidence for evolution with people there is often a pattern to the discussion. It goes like this: Me: Why do you believe in evolution? Them: Because of all the overwhelming evidence? Me: Such as? Them: Peppered moths. Me: (to cut a long story, short) No, try again. Them: Embryos. Me: (to cut another long story, short) No, try again. Them: Dinosaurs. Me: How do you date dinosaur fossils? Them: Carbon Dating. Me: (to cut yet another long story, short) No, try again. Them: So, what are you saying then: it was all Created? No way! And so, despite the weakness of their arguments, they draw huge comfort from their conviction that the argument for Creation is a lot worse than theirs. I think this is *missing the point completely*. We already know that atheists reject the Creator. This is supposed to be because the evidence in favour of the atheistic worldview is so overwhelming. But if it turns out that the only thing really supporting that worldview is in fact the rejection of the Creator then that worldview is in a whole lot of trouble. It turns out that most people believe in evolution not because of the evidence (because the evidence they present cannot withstand scrutiny) but because they do NOT believe in the Creator. A very similar pattern can be observed when it comes to discussions about atheistic morality. Me: Why should an atheist be moral? Them: Because we must all be compassionate. Me: Why? Them: Because its human nature. Me: (to cut a long story short) No, try again. Them: Because of the Golden Rule. Subjective is the new objective! Me: Rules are for fools (at least, any rational atheist can successfully argue that), try again. Them: Because if we were all immoral then where would we be? Me: That’s the beauty of free-riding on a religiously-based society. So you agree that quite often the rational, logical thing for an atheist to do is free-ride: commit immoral acts whenever he wants and can get away with it? Them: Well, sure, but so can a theist. Once again, despite this fatal weakness in atheistic morality, atheists draw huge comfort from their conviction that theistic morality fails too. Once again, this *misses the point completely.* We already know that atheists reject religious morality. This is supposed to be because we don’t need it any more, there are other compelling reasons to be moral, reasons that will over-ride all other considerations. But it turns out that perfectly rational and logical considerations and desires can over-ride atheistic morality with ease. Yet, even when faced with this uncompromising truth, atheists think it is okay to shrug it off with comparisons to theistic morality. Well, it’s not okay. If atheistic morality fails then let’s be honest and admit that openly rather than try to change the subject to religion or pointing out that some atheists don’t need a good reason to be really nice people.Chris Doyle_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST}

DM, Another long thread I'm afraid. :) CY at 57: “Perfect love” is hopelessly vague and meaningless. I’m looking for something absolute. If you think perfect love as objectively exemplified in a person giving up his/her life for another as opposed to putting his/her self-interest above another is hopelessly vague and meaningless, then I'm afraid that there is no hope for you in understanding morality, and it then becomes your pronouncements on morality that are vague and meaningless. Sorry to say it so harshly, but it's a reality that perhaps even some of your atheist supporters on here could agree with. There's no sense in talking about evil and then morality without some ideal purpose behind it. otherwise, as I've pointed out in several posts now, it becomes simply self-serving rule following - rules that can be twisted and bent to serve whatever purpose you desire them to serve. There's no real morality in that whatsoever. DM: "My reason for asking for an absolute moral code is because I’m often told by Christians that they have one and I’d like to see it." This is duly noted: however, you haven't established that Christianity is simply a set of absolute moral codes. I established in my arguments that it is not. In fact the whole message of Christianity is that humans are incapable of following rules perfectly, and require intervention from the source; namely God. What do you think the gospel if about? Do you think it is merely pithy moral sayings from the lips of Jesus? Some people believe that; but they ignore the larger part of the scriptures - that God planned, pronounced and fulfilled a prophesied event intended to redeem human beings from the consequences of their sins. It is that you have to contend with. What some Christians practice regarding that is irrelevant. Christians can be wrong. DM:"As I said yesterday, God’s perfect loving character is very much in dispute. Remember that if evolution didn’t do it, then God made the malaria parasite." That the ones disputing it are largely the new atheists doesn't make it so. Please try to be more objective. It isn't "very much in dispute." It is in dispute among a small group of atheists who reject it not on rational ground, but on moral grounds; and it isn't the moral grounds that you think it is. Others who reject it and who aren't militant atheists simply aren't interested in it enough to care. That seems to be where a majority stand. So they aren't "very much disputing it" as much as they are ignoring it. Atheism is motivated out of a need to avoid a consequence for evil acts. I'm not in this stating that atheists are any more evil than anyone else. Human nature is evil. That should be something that causes you to question the motives behind those who leave no recourse or rational basis for a process of justice. As I stated and as others have stated, if theism is not true; there's no justice. The evildoer gets off scott free if he/she is not caught. Furthermore, any talk about evil and morality are meaningless. Dm: "I think you’re unduly mystifying evil." How so? I'm not a mystic, so how am I mystifying evil? Can you justify the charge in any meaningful way? I said straightforwardly that evil is the negation of perfect love as objectified in human terms as a person laying down his/her life for another as opposed to asserting his/her own self-interest above another. If that is mystifying evil, I think you need to go back and study what mysticism really is; if that's what you meant by it. Frankly I don't really know what you mean by the charge. It sounds like you're simply throwing words out in order to make an argument; because the word you used has no relation to the argument I made whatsoever. My argument may be wrong, but it certainly isn't mystical. Dm: "Why people sometimes do evil things isn’t really a mystery. Remember, doing evil frequently pays. If I steal your purse, I’m better off by one purse." And that's an objective example of serving your own self-interest above another. I.e., not loving them as you should. Dm: Re: "Ditto with the conscience. Remember, we’re social animals. Living and working with other people pays off amazingly well and has throughout human and pre-human history. Generally, when our conscience bothers us, it’s because we’ve done something that hurts group unity such as theft or murder." Let me ask you this: when you feel guilty about something you have done, do you immediately think: "Whoops, I've disturbed the unity of the group?" I think that is quite preposterous. No the reason why a person feels guilty is because they are aware that they have deviated from an accepted ethical code. It has nothing to do with group unity. The group you're in could be in complete disunity, and you would still feel guilty. That has the smack of a typical Darwinian just-so story, which even some Darwinists reject. DM: "My point about different religions having different conceptions of God’s character is that it obscures God’s character which prevents us from using it to form our morals." Which do you think is more objectively moral? Assume that you really do believe there's a danger in donating a kidney: "If I donate a kidney to my friend, my friend will live. However, this might endanger my life. I'll do it anyway, because I want my friend to live." "If I donate a kidney to my friend, my friend will live. However, this might endanger my life, so I won't do it." The first example is what Christianity would say is the moral thing to do, given just that information. Of course there may be other factors for which one could justify the 2nd choice, but on the face of it, the 1st one is the moral choice. It is objective because it follows the ideal of perfect love. The other choice follows self-interest. Not all situations are that cut and dried, but I think you can see that it then becomes irrelevant what varying religions teach. DM: "You’re right that both Osama bin Laden and St. Francis Assisi could be wrong and my human judgment agrees with your human judgment that St. Francis was a better man than Osama. But when Christians say they have an objective moral code, they are saying they have something that transcends human judgment. I’d like to see it so I wouldn’t have to rely on my fallible human morality." That you are able to distinguish the morality of Osama from that of St. Francis demonstrates that you already have the ability to judge what is moral. What do you think is the distinction here? What did St. Francis do that Osama bin Laden did not do, which makes him more moral than Osama? I think you will find that my "meter" between perfect love and self-interest is very helpful. I also think you will find that St. Francis falls on one end of such a "meter and Osama probably falls at a polar opposite. If that is not a good system for judging morality, then I don't know what is. Such "meters" are a basis for human laws in many societies. If you kill someone but did not intend to, then such an act was not necessarily out of self-interest. It could have been out of self-defense, and you would rightly be acquitted. If you murdered them because they harbored some damaging secret about you that they threatened to expose, then your murder of them could be objectively shown in a court of law to be self-interest; which is what makes it murder as opposed to self-defense. DM: "Again, when you talk about difficulty in recognizing evil, you’re unduly mystifying evil." Saying this again does not strengthen your charge. "Speaking as an atheist, I say that I don’t think there is a God. I see no good evidence of His existence and plenty of evidence that He’s not there. But what I see is also consistent with a God that exists but just doesn’t want to be seen, so I can’t say that His non-existence is proven. An intelligent God is just very unlikely." I believe you're making a category error when you say that you see no evidence. I'm guessing that your belief is that since you can't see God, He must not exist. It's a category error because if the God we speak of does exist, He can't be seen. He's not a part of the physical universe, but the creator of the physical universe. Therefore, He is something other than matter. Furthermore, not all evidence can be seen in such a way as you imply. You can't see evidence for a lot of things, yet you accept that they exist. There are other ways of detecting that they exist other than seeing them. I personally believe that there is evidence for God that you can see. Not every piece of evidence can be looked at in such a way as you consider the one bit of evidence and conclude that God exists. However, if you consider the whole collective of arguments and evidence for God's existence, in my view theism is a whole lot more rational than atheism. CY: “You could say that the God of scripture is not that loving God (which I don’t believe you have any well-founded reason for)” Dm: "Well, there was that little incident where he allegedly killed everybody in the world except Noah and his family “because they were evil.” Sorry to go Godwin on you, but that really is a Nazi-quality justification. Hitler killed the Jews because he thought they were irredeemably evil." The first thing you have to consider is that God is not a human being; he is the creator of the universe and the designer of life. He is also the moral overseer of evil. As I stated earlier, He could not be a God of love without being a God of justice. He doesn't turn a blind eye to evil. The only way your argument could be sound is for you to go back in history and demonstrate that the people God killed in the flood were not evil. As moral overseer of justice and all that is Good, God is the only one who is justified in such a judgment. He could not do otherwise or He would not be loving. Without judgment the Nazis you mentioned would also get off scott free. However, scripture indicates that they will not. So it's not exactly a Nazi-quality justification as you say. The Nazi's killed people because of prejudice and bigotry. God killed people because they did evil, and He did so out of His perfect character as judge and ruler over His creation. Your argument is lacking in any relevancy. CY: “This [burning at the stake is good for you] would be true under only one condition, and that condition is that humans do not have the capacity to do evil;” DM: Huh?? I think the actual justification was that it would keep the heretic from doing even worse evil. I think you misread me. I'm not justifying burning people at a stake. I'm actually condemning the act based on my criteria for the measurement of morality; pointing out that humans have a capacity to do evil. Please do try to pay attention to my argument without assuming that I disagree with your moral ability to recognize witch burning as evil. “…but you couldn’t be consistent by denying that such a God exists. DM: "My view is that IF the God of scripture (or even the God who made this world and malaria parasites) existed, He would be evil." Where you would be wrong is that if God does exist, and He is evil as you say, you wouldn't be able to find examples of goodness in the world. The idea of good and evil would be meaningless; so such an argument simply doesn't ring true. Goodness comes from that which is good if God exists. That there is evil in the world is no argument for the non-existence of God. In fact, it is supportive of the existence of God. All of my arguments in other posts make this quite clear that since evil exists and we are able to identify it as evil, then there is an objective means to determine what is evil and what is not. You couldn't have such an objective means without the existence of God; because without God morality and evil in fact are meaningless. You can't derive an "ought" from an "is." Without God the world just is, and there is nothing that cares whether you live or die, there is not even a value for survival as Darwinists insist there is. What would be the point of biological organisms surviving if there wasn't some kind of law that they should or must survive? On grace: I think that doctrine was great marketing by Paul. Well at least we know what books you've been reading. Might I suggest that you also look into other sources? The idea that Paul invented Christianity has been quite sufficiently refuted. There's no rational basis for the charge. Even some atheists agree. I would suggest you start with the writings of NT Wright. His particular expertise is Paul. He's written several books on him, as well as several scholarly books on the beginning of Christianity: "The New Testament and the People of God," "Jesus and the Victory of God" and "The Resurrection of the Son of God." I think you will find these three books rather enlightening judging by the material I believe you've been reading. So I think I can safely leave out much of what you've stated below until you can substantiate such claims. You don't seem to rely on references for any of the assertions you make; which leaves me to assume that they are either nonexistent or few. To be fair, I have given few references, but I'm giving you reasonable argumentation rather than assertions. If you'd like, I could provide you with reading material, which will take you reasonably in another direction than what you seem to be so certain of here. I think it would be beneficial. For you there's no stakes involved in going in other directions, since atheism is utterly devoid of meaning anyway; you will die and decay. That's the only meaning it provides. CY: “That Christians won’t show you one [an absolute code] is because most Christians, don’t believe that one can be explicitly expressed such that if you follow such a code, you are righteous.” DM: "They sure do like to talk about their absolute morality though. You’d almost think they could show it to you." There are an estimated 1 Billion Christians in the world. Have you talked to all of them? Chris at 65: That’s the purest example of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy that I’ve seen in a long time. You even got the country right. No true Christian would be a hooligan, so those hooligans can’t be Christians. CY at 69: “The person who takes on the discipline of working towards righteousness does not do so because they believe that God will reward them, but because they believe that this is what God designed or purposed them to do.” DM: "The atheist who works towards righteousness doesn’t do it expecting reward, but because they believe that is the best way to live their lives." That's great. What is the source of such a belief? What drives an atheist who works towards righteousness? Does he/she derive such righteousness from atheism alone? CY: “So to answer the question; to love your neighbor is to do good to them because one recognizes that they are human beings created by a God who cares for them. It becomes more of a celebration of life and truth rather than a task of obligation.” DM: "Atheists just do it because they are human beings. It’s our way of celebrating life and truth rather than a task of obligation." I agree, and it's quite admirable; but in my view such a virtue is learned. It doesn't derive from a worldview that offers no basis for it.CannuckianYankee_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PST}

Darwinists have nothing of value to say about the origin or meaning of evil because Darwinism negates the value of life. According the Bible, God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. This makes life the highest value known to man. “In him was life, and this life was the light of men.” By this light, it is possible to make absolute, objective value judgments. Anything that builds up and nourishes life is good, while anything that detracts from life is evil. The holiness of life is reflected in “all of the law and all of the prophets,” which depend on just two commands—love God first, and love your neighbor as yourself. The first and greatest commandment preserves one’s own life, since to put God before all other loves is to follow the path of life and well-being. And of course the “other” commandment preserves the lives and well-being of others. What is the origin of evil? According to the Bible, it came into the world when Adam and Eve literally chose death over life. They were motivated by vanity. They wanted to be “like God.” They wanted to worship themselves, and so their sin was against the greatest commandment. And the next major sin was against the “other commandment,” when Cain killed his brother out of envy. In the Biblical view, then, evil comes from vanity, or excessive self-love. The evil effects of vanity are magnified by the fact that we live in “bondage to the grave.” We are made in God’s image and know the value of life, but we ourselves are mortal. We despise our mortality, our nothingness, and this bondage causes us to want to glorify ourselves and our desires at God’s expense and aggrandize ourselves at the expense of others. This account of the origin and meaning of evil is highly precise because it is based on an absolute standard of value—the holiness of life. It is worth noting that the philosophers were also aware of this value, as reflected in their deferential use of the word “being.” In fact Aristotle, after fumbling around for several pages in an attempt to clearly articulate his notion of the good, finally gave in and equated Supreme Being with life itself. Darwinism, however, devalues life, and therefore it cannot produce any precise or objective account of evil. While in the Bible life comes directly from God, and is therefore a sacred value, in Darwinism it is claimed to have come from nothing more than a chemical reaction in warm pond, making it seem rather trifling and small. This was done to glorify men. In the middle of the gloomy century, there were many who were willing to make a clean break from God and Transcendentalism and seek to create “new gods and new ideals” through human values. The “blond beast” was emphatic about what must be done in order for the superman to come into being through the will to power. The value of life must be negated. But if life loses its holiness, then any objective discussion of good and evil becomes impossible. Life is unique in the sense that it is something men know and yet it is also absolutely different from them and their limitations. Mortals are alive and know the value of life; but they are also mortal, and therefore life is their “light.”Life is not divided, like intellect, between immanence and transcendence. Life is both an immanent and a transcendent value. Life is the only transcendent value known to man in his own being, and therefore it is the only purely objective value he knows. The description of evil found in the Bible is objective because it does not depend upon any one man or group of men or their ability to judge. It depends upon the holiness of life. This objectivity enables the Bible to be both definitive and precise. No such precision is possible once we negate the value of life. Through Nihilism, which is the negation of life and “being,” every man becomes his own standard of value. There can be many opinions about evil; there may even be a consensus in one area or another and in a given time and place. But there can be no definitive answers. The highest possible value in Darwinism is Natural Selection. That which survives is good, or worthy to survive. This tautology produces self-contradictory views of evil. It leads to narratives about unsavory behaviors being bred into men by Natural Selection, but by the light of Natural Selection these behaviors are actually good. They lead to survival. Hence among the children of Darwin there are two strains of thought about evil. There are the Sensitive Plants who exhort us to make a conscious decision to overturn the evolutionary heritage they describe and take up the Golden Rule. And then there are the Nihilists who claim that the path to salvation lies in embracing those same rapacious impulses and dominating others through the will to power. Those who advocate the Golden Rule have no rule—no objective value—to support them because they have negated the value of life. Those how advocate Nihilism would have us “go beyond good an evil,” in which case they can offer no insight into evil itself.allanius_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PST}

Onlookers, For record. Re:
[DM:] “So to answer the question; to love your neighbor is to do good to them because one recognizes that they are human beings created by a God who cares for them. It becomes more of a celebration of life and truth rather than a task of obligation.” Atheists just do it because they are human beings. It’s our way of celebrating life and truth rather than a task of obligation.
This is little more than a clever way to dress up the admission that evolutionary materialist atheism has in it no IS that is capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. That is, in the teeth of abundant and objective evidence that we are in fact morally obligated, such evolutionary materialist atheism is blatantly and insistently amoral. Let us therefore also listen very carefully indeed to the moans of the ghosts of over 100 million victims of such atheistical regimes over the past 100 years, when we hear the self-justifying rhetoric of atheists who wish to paper over the significance of that amorality and its implied moral absurdities. As I keep pointing out, and as such atheistical advocates keep on pointedly ignoring [Wilson's evil advice in the notorious Arte of Rhetorique is to ignore what is inconvenient if you can get away with it . . . ], we were long since warned by Plato in the Laws, Bk X, in 360 BC, on the consequences of being naive in the face of such rhetoric: ___________ >> [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >> ____________ We can hardly say that we were not warned in good time. GEM of TKI PS: And, BTW, how does an evolutionary materialist atheist who is amoral, define truth, and does he see himself as bound by a duty of care to be fair and accurate? A duty, of course, is . . . an ought. PPS: And, how does one who sees himself as having no duty of care, so no duty of care to truth or fairness, define "good"? Or, in absence of a serious grappling with the issues of the IS-OUGHT gap of evo mat atheism, are these little more than perfumed words to take in the unwary? (Notice, DM has already indulged in slander, scripture twisting and racist rhetoric, as I know from having had to personally deal with him in recent days here at UD.]kairosfocus_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PST}

Chris at 56: What do you mean atheistic morality can’t handle free riders? A free rider would be someone who follows atheistic morality without being an atheist. Christianity and other religions are all free riders. Religions typically start out with idiosyncratic moral codes (Mormon polygamy, early Christian communism as examples) and then adopt more common morals as they attain power and respectability. (Modern Mormons and Christians, as examples) We atheists handle that pretty well. It’s the religious morals they retain that upset us. (Thou must not allow a witch to live, kill all those who worship a different god as examples.) CY at 57: “Perfect love” is hopelessly vague and meaningless. I’m looking for something absolute. My reason for asking for an absolute moral code is because I’m often told by Christians that they have one and I’d like to see it. As I said yesterday, God’s perfect loving character is very much in dispute. Remember that if evolution didn’t do it, then God made the malaria parasite. I think you’re unduly mystifying evil. Why people sometimes do evil things isn’t really a mystery. Remember, doing evil frequently pays. If I steal your purse, I’m better off by one purse. Ditto with the conscience. Remember, we’re social animals. Living and working with other people pays off amazingly well and has throughout human and pre-human history. Generally, when our conscience bothers us, it’s because we’ve done something that hurts group unity such as theft or murder. My point about different religions having different conceptions of God’s character is that it obscures God’s character which prevents us from using it to form our morals. You’re right that both Osama bin Laden and St. Francis Assisi could be wrong and my human judgment agrees with your human judgment that St. Francis was a better man than Osama. But when Christians say they have an objective moral code, they are saying they have something that transcends human judgment. I’d like to see it so I wouldn’t have to rely on my fallible human morality. Again, when you talk about difficulty in recognizing evil, you’re unduly mystifying evil. Speaking as an atheist, I say that I don’t think there is a God. I see no good evidence of His existence and plenty of evidence that He’s not there. But what I see is also consistent with a God that exists but just doesn’t want to be seen, so I can’t say that His non-existence is proven. An intelligent God is just very unlikely. “You could say that the God of scripture is not that loving God (which I don’t believe you have any well-founded reason for)” Well, there was that little incident where he allegedly killed everybody in the world except Noah and his family “because they were evil.” Sorry to go Godwin on you, but that really is a Nazi-quality justification. Hitler killed the Jews because he thought they were irredeemably evil. “This [burning at the stake is good for you] would be true under only one condition, and that condition is that humans do not have the capacity to do evil;” Huh?? I think the actual justification was that it would keep the heretic from doing even worse evil. “…but you couldn’t be consistent by denying that such a God exists. My view is that IF the God of scripture (or even the God who made this world and malaria parasites) existed, He would be evil. On grace: I think that doctrine was great marketing by Paul. Judaism came up with The Fall – a rather poor explanation for how an omnipotent, omniscient God could make a world as noticeably nasty as the one we live in: He made it Good, then Eve and Adam screwed things up. That doctrine had a lot of problems, like an omniscient being should have known this would happen and taken steps to prevent it and punishing Eve and Adam’s descendents for something their parents did before they were even born, but it was about as good as they could do and still keep an omnipotent and omniscient God. Paul came up with the idea that Jesus’ death on the cross somehow made it possible for God to give us grace – a pardon from our great great great great great etc ancestor’s sins. Better yet, from a marketing viewpoint, this grace came not in this world, which remained very obviously full of malaria and other horrors, but in Heaven which would conveniently happen after you were dead, thus making it impossible to show the promise was false. I don’t think The Fall or Grace were very good theology, but market-wise grace was a best seller, especially after the Romans adopted Christianity. “That Christians won’t show you one [an absolute code] is because most Christians, don’t believe that one can be explicitly expressed such that if you follow such a code, you are righteous.” They sure do like to talk about their absolute morality though. You’d almost think they could show it to you. Mung at 61: “How do you know that you didn’t have to [hit someone and take their money]. I’m a conscious being. “How do you know it was bad for me?” I don’t. You may be the one out of a thousand people who enjoys being hit on the head and having his money stolen. But from experience and history, I know that the vast majority of people don’t like it. “How do you know whether, even if it was bad for me, that it was not as a result better for others?” I KNOW it would be better for me – I’d have your money. Me: “I invite everybody to write down their objective moral codes here.” “I invite you to give us a reason to accept your moral code.” You show me yours and I’ll show you mine. Chris at 65: That’s the purest example of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy that I’ve seen in a long time. You even got the country right. No true Christian would be a hooligan, so those hooligans can’t be Christians. Junkdnaforlife at 73: “I submitted a source for an objective moral code, and I have presented evidence to validate the source. Exactly what you asked me to do.” Are you referring to reply 44 where you list the New Testament as the source and the Shroud of Turin as evidence to validate that claim? The New Testament is a lot of things, but it’s not an Objective Moral Code. If it contains an OMC, please tell us where it is in the text and the rules you use to distinguish the text containing the OMC from the rest of the NT. The Shroud certainly is “extraordinary” all right, but I think Bishop Pierre d'Arcis’ evidence was more extraordinary when he wrote to the Pope in 1390 stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the forger had confessed. To quote Ken Ham, “Were you there?” The Bishop was. CY at 69: “The person who takes on the discipline of working towards righteousness does not do so because they believe that God will reward them, but because they believe that this is what God designed or purposed them to do.” The atheist who works towards righteousness doesn’t do it expecting reward, but because they believe that is the best way to live their lives. “So to answer the question; to love your neighbor is to do good to them because one recognizes that they are human beings created by a God who cares for them. It becomes more of a celebration of life and truth rather than a task of obligation.” Atheists just do it because they are human beings. It’s our way of celebrating life and truth rather than a task of obligation.dmullenix_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PST}

Junkdnaforlife, Thanks. I should also ad; given those two choices I mentioned at the end of my last post: eternity or death and decay; which would be the most logically desirable for someone who carefully considers such arguments? It really baffles me that atheist believe what they do. It baffles me further when they are presented with logical arguments, which refute their claims on warrant, and yet they still desire the outcome of atheism. When I ask why this is so, the only conclusion I can understand is because atheism is an issue of morality and has nothing to do with rational thought. The atheist does not have to answer to a righteous and just God. That seems to be the motivation; not "rationalism;" which they claim as their own. I would go further in stating that the atheist does not understand the perfect love of God. If they did; they would not seek to find fault with God by picking out parts of scripture they find objectionable. I think relative morality is what is meant in scripture as "a form of godliness." A morality that is simply the keeping of rules is the form of godliness, which denies the power of God; because it is God who is able to make us righteous, not the following of rules. Rules can be bent and twisted to such an extend as to reverse any direction towards the ideal of perfect love. So if you're a rule keeper, you can't really objectively decide which rules you should keep and which you should discard. You need the source for the direction you must go. Atheism is lacking a belief in the source. Therefore, atheistic morality can and does go in the opposite direction. Not always, but it has that potential; which is why we find such evils perpetrated in the name of atheism. Theism can also go in such directions, and has done so; however, theism - particularly Christian theism does not lend any warrant for such bending of the rules. It is also my belief that atheism borrows the most significant moral laws and codes; which drive one in the direction of perfect love, from theism. They don't originate in atheism. They couldn't.CannuckianYankee_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PST}

good stuff Cannuckjunkdnaforlife_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PST}

Junkdna, Lizzie, Dm, others JDNA: "Moreover, the fact that the brightest atheists thinkers along with their spit shined collective arguments are repeatedly stuffed by a single Christian apologetic is also telling. Either WLC is legions more intelligent than all the leading atheists combined, or more likely, the Christian argument is simply better." Allow me to shed a little perspective on this issue. At posts 46 and 47 DM challenged theists to share what they believe to be the objective moral code, which if followed would make us moral. DM: "junkdnaforlife at 44: You too seem to be in possession of an absolute moral code. Please share it here with all of us. If it is really objective, I would expect it to be substantially identical to Chris’s." I responded at 50 and again at 57 and 58, rounding out my thoughts on the matter. My conclusion is that moral codes are imperfect, but the source for morality is perfect; a perfectly loving God. Also, that one could have objective morality practicing a discipline which moves one closer to the ideal of perfect love; which has as it's ultimate expression among humans when a person lays down her/his life for another. This in contrast to acts of evil, when one places his/her own self interest above the needs of others. Evil is thus; the negation of perfect love. Lizzie then asked the question at 59 with: "Do you think that, on balance, atheists tend to be less moral (in the simple sense – less well-behaved, less altruistic, more selfish etc) than theists?" I don't think that question can be answered objectively, because we don't have data on the moral behavior of every atheist compared with every theist. I also believe that whatever answer we could find to such a question would be irrelevant to the issue of who's morality is more correct. I was thinking a much better question might be: be which societies have been more moral in history; Christian or theistic societies or non-theistic societies? But even that assumes that there are no non-theistic influences, which would cause such a theistic society to adopt a more secularist moral construct. It also assumes that there are no theistic influences in a non-theistic society; which could also alter it's moral construct. I give you two examples at one particular time in history: The United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The United States as predominantly a Christian nation (while secular in political structure), and The Soviet Union (A completely secular and atheistic political structure), but with remnants of theism present from it's Christian past. Any argument you give would have to consider these elements. I don't like to speculate, but given what I discussed in those three posts mentioned above, let's imagine two societies: One that is completely secular with no religious influences. It is for all intents and purposes; a completely atheistic society. The other is a completely Christian theistic society. It has a secular government for reasons I'll explain, but every citizen is a follower of Christian theism. Out of which of those two societies would you find the most moral behavior; assuming that you had some sort of measure for morality. OK, such a question does not present one without it's own difficulties, and I think I covered this in my 3 posts. One of those difficulties stems from DM's suggestion that there could be some sort of measure for objective morality defined in a moral code. My posts offered up that such is not the case; since morality is not the keeping of such codes, but working towards an ideal of perfection; a perfection that is not defined in terms of codes, but in terms of perfect love. However, I personally believe that one society would have a focus on moral codes, while the other society would be focused on exemplifying the ideal of perfect love. Guess which one wins out in the end? Well I think the atheistic society would be the law keepers. I actually think they would do quite well individually, but collectively it would be an absolute mess. No moral consensus could be reached because everybody has a different picture of what represents the moral ideal. Such is not the case in the Christian society; while they too would have their problems, and different factions would arise as to what interpretations of scripture are correct, etc; but ultimately, the understanding of the goal towards a righteousness exemplified in love, would be a common theme. It is already a common theme among a majority of Christian churches in a largely secular world. So while the Christians are not concerned with law keeping; they would actually fare better than the atheists, since they have a sense of the direction morality must take (however imperfect their expression of that morality). The world is full of laws and law-keepers. Our whole lives are structured around rules, which we believe if kept will lead us somewhere we are currently not. The rules differ in different societies, in different cultures, nations, states, and even from town to town, and family to family. Yet we insist that by following the correct rules, we sill succeed in life. To an extent there is some truth in that. But ultimately morality is not the following of rules. Jesus condemned some of the best rule keepers in history - the pharisees. They were justly condemned because the truth, which they ignored was a part of their daily ritual: that God is one, and we should love God above all, and love our neighbors as ourselves. The pharisies followed the letter of the law, but they did not direct themselves towards the ideal in following such rules: namely the perfect love of God. So they did not follow the "spirit" of the law. In Jesus' view they were highly immoral men. Thus rule following is not what makes one moral. Now here's the important point as it relates to debates between Christians and atheists. William Lane Craig is a very careful thinker. He truly believes in what he presents in his debates, and he isn't a law-keeper. He has a higher goal in mind: to present to the world the love of God by arguing largely for His existence. Many Christians believe that presenting theism is a way of doing pre-evangelism; because there are people who's worldview has not prepared them to consider Christianity as an option. So Craig feels that his mission in life is this sort of pre-evangelism; preparing secularists, skeptics, atheists and agnostics to accept the rationality of a theistic worldview; with the highest goal that they become believing Christians. Craig believes that this is an act of exemplifying the perfect love of God towards those who don't believe. Now if God does not exist, it could hardly be seen how Craig would have much success in such an endeavor. His success does not prove God's existence, but it does lend some credibility to Craig as a forceful debater. I think the reason why atheists don't fare well in debates with Craig (in addition to perhaps their poor preparation and their poor substantive argumentation) is ultimately because they lack a motivation outside of atheism. After all in atheism, why should it matter that others agree with me? What benefit is there in actually believing in atheism? Atheism lacks a certain conviction that it is true. It's promoters' only concern is that certain rules; certain codes are followed, and ultimately since it doesn't really have a source outside of naturalism for such a set of rules and codes, they mean nothing. They are not able to exorcise their own demons, and they are not able to conjure the sense of conviction that theists sense when based on the ideal of God's perfect love, they are doing something right; which has eternal benefits involving the very creator of the universe. This does not make theism true; but it does lend some insight into why theism is attractive and even intellectually persuasive. Following rules is great if such rules have some sort of goal in mind. Atheism is not able to articulate any kind of goal for its rule following. It ends up sounding rather mundane. Ultimately Craig offers a direction towards eternity; while his opponents offer a direction towards confusion and eventually death and decay.CannuckianYankee_{June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PST}

Liz: "Yes, of course, atheists inherit a large theistic tradition of moral structures, and we should not underestimate that. But with the best comes also the worst – crusades, religious wars, inquisitions, the burning of heretics, massacres, all directly in the name of religion. Atheists have killed more people in a single century than the entire 2000 year history of Christianity. I would think given that such a small percentage of the worlds population [ideologically speaking] is accountable for the some of the greatest massacres in earthling history is enough data to reasonably refute any philosophical argument about human morality an atheist can lawyer up. Especially when it includes otters. Moreover, the fact that the brightest atheists thinkers along with their spit shined collective arguments are repeatedly stuffed by a single Christian apologetic is also telling. Either WLC is legions more intelligent than all the leading atheists combined, or more likely, the Christian argument is simply better.junkdnaforlife_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PST}

Liz: "And what should people do who are even now unconvinced by the authenticity of the Shroud?" What do you do when people are unconvinced by neo-darwinism? Develop your argument. I submitted a source for an objective moral code, and I have presented evidence to validate the source. Exactly what you asked me to do. Apply the same scientific method to the Shroud as you would do for the best abiogenesis hypothesis you can dig up, and see how the two stack up. Which pieces of evidence will trigger astronomical amounts of fantastic conjecture, and which evidences will trigger epic hyperskepticism? And then argue that ideology does not drive science.junkdnaforlife_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PST}

Lizzie, My posts get longer by the minute. Must learn to condense. Thanks for the response. It is not my view that since God is watching we should be careful about doing good. It is; however, my view that one cannot excuse him/herself in doing evil because God IS watching. God is an overseer against evil as much as a motivator towards good. I simply don't see him in the same light from one situation to the other. It's not that God changes his character; both are one essence of His perfect character. I think it's a valid point that the evildoer should not think that he/she will ultimately get off scott free. Why? because in God's perfect love is perfect justice. He would not be loving us perfectly if he turned a blind eye to evil. Justice is part of perfect love in a world where evil exists. That we don't always see justice done is in my view indicative of God's patience and mercy towards us in this time; Ultimately the end of the world may be God's final judgment; but that's not (to quote one of Dr. Dembski's titles) "The End of Christianity." That end is the Kingdom of God. Not some earthly Kingdom, but a place and time whereby all of the perfections God intended for His creation are realized. It's hard to describe my conception of God in this respect, simply because there are many aspects of His likeness that are indescribable, and there are many things that we simply don't know about what such a Kingdom will be like. If God is perfectly loving, then any idea that such a "realm" will be lacking in anything that presently interests us or excites us is in my view misplaced; since God knows perfectly the workings and desires of the human heart. So you can see that God as our overseer is not a hindrance to our freedom; rather an assurance of our destiny with Him. That's basically how I view God's knowledge of us. He's in us, about us, intimately acquainted with us; knows what motivates us, our strengths and weaknesses. He loves us more than we understand that He does even given our knowledge of Jesus' death for us. In his nature He couldn't not be ever present with us. So I believe that the purpose for God's presence among us is not so that he can pick out every flaw and judge us, but because He loves us and "desires" (probably not the best term) to be present with us (not that He needs us in any way - and it may be even more than that, but that's as much as I currently understand). However, the evildoer (and we all are such at one time or another) fails to understand first of all that God is present, and 2nd of all the purpose for His presence. So I can't really fault Chris in pointing this out. I don't have a tendency to say that evildoers are necessarily atheist; I simply could not know that. Perhaps Chris's understanding of this may be peculiar to certain situations and experiences of his that are not my own. But Chris's conception of God's presence and my own are not necessarily incompatible; the two examples are two entirely different situations involving the same loving God. Furthermore, I think the most significant point that can be drawn here is that in atheism there is really no justice. Evildoers do get off scott free apart from the consequence of death, which is no different than anyone else. Where's the justice in that? Where's the love? You talked about love in a post on another thread, and I mentioned it in an earlier post here. I can't really conceive how one can believe in love (maybe warm fuzzies?) and not believe that justice is concurrent with it. So atheism is missing the very essence of perfect love, which lends it power; to do justly. Without justice, love is just a warm fuzzy. "Yes indeed. But it’s relatively easy to translate that into atheistic terms (as, for example, Buddhists do): “to love your neighbor is to do good to them because one recognizes that they are human beings created by a God who cares for them like you.”" I'll make this brief. One could indeed translate Christian understandings into other idioms. This does not make such translations justified, but I don't have a problem in doing so.CannuckianYankee_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PST}

CY: Oddly enough, I understand the view of Christianity you present very well, I think, as it was very close to my own. Indeed it's still there in atheistic form now! You wrote this:
So to answer the question; to love your neighbor is to do good to them because one recognizes that they are human beings created by a God who cares for them. It becomes more of a celebration of life and truth rather than a task of obligation. The desire to reflect the love of God is a result of the discipline towards righteousness and knowing God.
Yes indeed. But it's relatively easy to translate that into atheistic terms (as, for example, Buddhists do): "to love your neighbor is to do good to them because one recognizes that they are human beings ~~created by a God who cares for them~~ like you." You rightly (IMO) lampooned this God:
You seem to think that because Christians believe in some sort of old guy with a beard in a rocking chair who’s ever present in their living rooms and dare I say bedrooms, observing every little thing they do; that this is what motivates them to do charitable acts towards others; and as such, this renders such acts as disingenuous.
That was never my conception of God and I'm glad it is not yours. But Chris Doyle wrote:
So, they’re not atheists like you, Lizzie. But, they are atheists nonetheless. They actively don’t believe that God is watching so think they can get away with murder. And most of the time, they do. Very sad, but that’s what happens when morality becomes watered down by Golden Rules and Subjectivity.
And it seems to me (unless I've misunderstood Chris, which I hope I have) that his conception of God is much closer your guy in the rocking chair than yours (or mine) is. And given that conception, I guess I can see why a Christian might think: hey, there's no God so nobody's watching, I can do what I like! But that argument, I suggest, doesn't work in your case. Perhaps you might imagine that without that conception of "the face of Jesus in everyone" there would be no motivation to love our neighbours, but there is. We just cut out the middle man :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PST}

oops: wrote: "managed to escape a great deal of cruelty and abuse dealt at the hands of those parents (especially gays) and also of people in religious authority." meant: "managed (especially gays) to escape a great deal of cruelty and abuse dealt at the hands of those parents and also of people in religious authority."Elizabeth Liddle_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PST}

Lizzie, I have a longer response that I'm saving up; not sure if it's appropriate, so I'll hold out on it for now. "Which is more moral – to care for your neighbour out of love, or care for her out of fear that if you don’t, something bad will happen to you?" I think this would be a valid point if the reality was that God struck down or punished a Christian every time he/she did something bad, or didn't do something good. However, such are not the motivations for Christians in general. Christians are just as capable of behavior they don't believe they will get caught doing; or because they believe that grace excuses them. Such is a faulty belief, but it is a reality among many Christians. The person who takes on the discipline of working towards righteousness does not do so because they believe that God will reward them, but because they believe that this is what God designed or purposed them to do. In Christian theism the purpose of life is to know God; not to appease Him with outwardly good behavior, while inwardly despising such a task. There's a difference. So to answer the question; to love your neighbor is to do good to them because one recognizes that they are human beings created by a God who cares for them. It becomes more of a celebration of life and truth rather than a task of obligation. The desire to reflect the love of God is a result of the discipline towards righteousness and knowing God. This does not mean that if one is not so motivated that they shouldn't help their neighbor; but that in doing good, one fulfills the true desires of the heart as God intended. Think about this; because I think you're missing one key aspect here on how Christians think. We believe that God exists and that He has a purpose for our lives. This understanding leads us to also consider our fellow human beings as also having great value and purpose; such that to do good to them we are fulfilling and exemplifying the character of God's perfect love (though in an imperfect way). Secondly, the Christian theist does not believe that such behavior comes natural to human beings; rendering what you say about motivation as invalid. Nobody does acts of pure and perfect love apart from God. There is always another factor involved; such as human self interest in doing good. The task of the Christian is to grow from one who does good because of human self-interest to one who does good out of the pure joy of knowing the perfect loving God. There's an interesting little movie - it's not really well done IMHO, but it has a great message. It stars that kid (an adult now) from the popular thriller "The Sixth Sense," Haley Joel Osment. You know the movie I'm talking about? "Pay it Forward?" It was a secular movie, but it reflected a motivation in the thinking of this kid to do good things for others, and to watch such acts spread throughout his community. The point is not that this kid did these acts out of religious motivations, but he did it out of the pure joy of doing so. You seem to think that because Christians believe in some sort of old guy with a beard in a rocking chair who's ever present in their living rooms and dare I say bedrooms, observing every little thing they do; that this is what motivates them to do charitable acts towards others; and as such, this renders such acts as disingenuous. Such is not the case, and quite frankly, it is a gross mischaracterization of Christian motivations. Nobody is perfect in this to be sure; but you simply can't assume that Christians don't do good things for the joy of it because God's constantly watching. That's not the sort of God we believe in. God is gracious towards us and forgives us for our sinfulness, and we gain in knowledge and experience of this grace when we reach out to those in need. We are reflecting towards them God's own attitude towards us as well as them. It is an act of pure joy and celebration that God cares for them and cares for us to the degree of inviting us to be a part of that expression. I say this with caution because doing something out of joy does not mean that we don't feel the tragic nature of what has befallen those in need. We are humanized by seeing the needs of others and realizing that we have something to give. It's human nature to resist this behavior; I know this full well from my own nature. Christian discipleship motivates us to resist our human nature in order to be truly human. When we come to the realization that it isn't a task so much as activity that we were meant to do, which has further meaning towards the purposes of the very Creator of the universe, quite often we are met with an epiphany (not simply a feeling); a confirmation in the form of conviction that what is being done is right, and that it didn't originate from us. Have you ever had one of those? Naturalism can't explain why we experience them in such situations. I know it tries, but there are things in life that have no explanation outside of that perfect ideal that becomes a reality when God moves us to action.CannuckianYankee_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PST}

@ Chris, #51 Evening, Chris! Sorry to keep you waiting!
Morning Lizzie, Some brutal stuff being discussed on this thread. And some clarification is needed on two points. First of all, the meaning of “meaning”. This could be as simple as the answer to “Why bother?”. If that question can be answered rationally and compellingly then there is your meaning. If not, then what you’re left with is meaninglessness. If life is comfortable and filled with Joy then you might offer that as meaning. On the other hand, you can have meaningless Joy too. So maybe we’re grasping for something more meaningful that overcomes the sheer futility of a brief existence that ends in oblivion. The problems for atheism become overwhelming if life is not comfortable: if it is a daily struggle with plenty of suffering and absolutely no Joy whatsoever. Ask an atheist who leads such a miserable existence, “Why bother?” and he’ll struggle to convince himself never mind anyone else. Why should such a miserable atheist bother with life at all, Lizzie?
I'd ask why any miserable person should bother with life :) That's not to evade, actually, although it might seem so. I would certainly agree that people need "meaning" if life, in the sense you give (which is the sense I hope you meant it) - a reason to "bother". People who have no reason to "bother" often become deeply ill. So why should we "bother"? One clue is to look at animals - why do they bother to enjoy life (as they often do). Look at otters, for intance, or dolphins - animals that clearly "play". Or a cat, sunning herself in the window, lying on her back for a tummy rub when she hears you coming (mine does, anyway, daft thing that she is). Whether or not you think that we are related to cats and otters, it seems clear that as animals, one of our drives is to be, simply, happy. Now human beings are more complicated than cats and otters, in many ways, and one of those ways is that we are able to see things from a different (literally) point of view - we have what is termed "Theory of Mind" capacity (ToM - means that in childhood we develop the "theory" that other people have "minds" like ours). We are able therefore, literally in some senses, to "feel another's pain" - to wince when someone else is injured, to weep when someone else is in distress. We are, unlike (probably) other animals, therefore able to transcend ourselves. And, it seems, that is a source of joy to most of us (and was what I used to call, as a well-brought up Quaker girl :)) "that of God in every one" (George Fox). However, there are plenty of other drives that are less sublime. Fortunately, however, what comes with the ToM package is our social nature and habits. And while one person might say - well, what the heck, I might be able to feel your pain, but it doesn't hurt half as much as my own does, and in any case, I really fancy your stuff, so I'll have it", collectively, we can see that if everyone thought that, we'd all be worse off. So, collectively, we figure out structures that supplement the reward that comes from empathy, and impose penalties if people help themselves to the rewards that come from selfishness. And partly those structures are our legal systems and social mores, but they are also reflected in our culture (including our religions) and traditions. And atheists are perfectly capable of doing this as well as religious people - of figuring out what laws and ethical principles will benefit us all, and discourage both ourselves and others from defaulting to selfishness when the result is to the detriment of someone else's wellbeing. Sorry, long answer, but I hope that helps!
Secondly, any atheist would be well within his rights and reason to state that rules are there to be broken: especially Lizzie’s Golden Rule! Given that we live in a moral society, any given atheist can look at that situation logically and decide that as long as he maintains a public appearance of moral steadfastness, he can commit immoral acts whenever he desires as long as he avoids detection.
Well, sure, but so can a theist. And if the only reason a theist doesn't is because he believes in a celestial CCTV camera at St Peter's gate, then that belief isn't what I would call imparting morality any more than a CCTV camera anywhere makes people more moral - it just discourages them from behaving badly, which actually isn't the same thing. Which is more moral - to care for your neighbour out of love, or care for her out of fear that if you don't, something bad will happen to you?
Naturally, the meaning of terms like “moral steadfastness” and “immoral acts” would be very different for this free-riding atheist. After all, he realises that Moral Law is something that only comes from God. By rejecting God, he has rejected Moral Law and any Divine reward or punishment. That means there is no moral wrong or right. There is only enjoying life while it lasts and going out in a blaze of glory. Right is self-interest, wrong is anything that is detrimental to that. Woe betide anyone who stands in his way!
Well, no, it doesn't. For a start, atheists don't "reject" God (though they may "reject" religion, often for ethical reasons - the way the church treats gays, for instance). They simply don't believe there is one (or that there is no evidence for one). And they don't believe that "Moral Law is something that only comes from God". Most atheists think that moral law is something that as human beings we have devised, by virtue of our capacity to understand how other people feel, and to reify abstractions using our language capacity, in order to ensure that our communities function - after all, if everyone behaves well, we are all better off in the not-so-long run. So an atheist is as indignant as any theist about people who "free-load". And (just hope Ms O'Leary isn't listening....) there is even evidence that we have inbuilt "cheater detector" mechanisms!
Please remember, I acknowledge that there are plenty of good and moral atheists out there (though not ones who can offer any meaning to existence: contrary to your claims, the vast majority of atheists admit that life is utterly meaningless).
Well, Chris, I know a large number of atheists, and none of them think that! And they include some of the kindest, most generous (seriously generous - as many of them, particularly Americans, find themselves ostracised from their Christian communities, and don't readily have the support network that churches can provide, I've seen them dig deep to help each other in all kinds of ways, practically, financially, and well, spiritually if that isn't an oxymoron, which it sort of is, but also sort of isn't!), most open-hearted people I've ever met :)
But when atheists are moral, it is purely a product of their upbringing: by religious parents and other authoritative figures and institutions in a religious society. Even if an atheist’s parents are atheists then it is highly unlikely that their parents’ parents were atheists and so their grandparents religious values are still shining through. But the danger is, atheists would be well within their rights and reason to question everything about their upbringing and then reject all religious influences in it: including morality. How do you dissuade an atheist from free-riding, Lizzie?
No, this isn't true, Chris. Or, at least, again, going on my own experience, I've met every single combination you can imagine - some, indeed had religious parents, and managed to escape a great deal of cruelty and abuse dealt at the hands of those parents (especially gays) and also of people in religious authority. And yet they've found their own, better, morality. I'm not saying all religious parents are like this (I was a religious parent myself!) but some are. And conversely, I've met atheists brought up by atheists, again, deeply ethical people, their ethics deeply rooted in their worldview - not for nothing is the major atheist organisation in the UK called the British Humanist Association, and not for nothing do we have the word "humane". And, indeed "humanity". Yes, of course, atheists inherit a large theistic tradition of moral structures, and we should not underestimate that. But with the best comes also the worst - crusades, religious wars, inquisitions, the burning of heretics, massacres, all directly in the name of religion. Atheists, in some ways, I would argue, strip ethics of all that baggage and boil it down to, ironically, the Golden Rule that Jesus taught as one of the two "Greatest Commandments" (or even the One - he also told us simply to "love one another", as well, of course, as saying that "whatever you do to the least of my brothers you do for me".) Out with the gay bashing, the intrusive sexual hygiene rules, the arbitrary arguments about angels and heads and pins, the tribalism, the doctrinal dogfights, and Back to Basics: Do as you would be done by. It works :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PST}

I'd be the first to agree that there are those with religious beliefs who behave appalling and they should know better. But, on balance (which was how you framed the original question), there is no doubt that when you ask the more immoral members of our society if they believe in God they would answer "I don't believe in any of that religious nonsense" (and that includes many of the Old Firm fans that you were referring to). So, they're not atheists like you, Lizzie. But, they are atheists nonetheless. They actively don't believe that God is watching so think they can get away with murder. And most of the time, they do. Very sad, but that's what happens when morality becomes watered down by Golden Rules and Subjectivity. Lizzie, I know that the number of demands placed on you here exceed anybody else by a long way (and I admire you for it!), but I'd be very grateful if you could answer my questions in Post 51 on this thread. I think we'll make more progress there.Chris Doyle_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PST}

Well, I think that sort of makes my point, Chris. Atheists - people who have made a conscious decision that they do not believe in God are not the same of people who nominally believe in God but don't pay any attention to the implications of their beliefs. I put it to you that atheists are no different from conscientious Christians in that regard - they know what they believe, or do not believe, and figure out how to behave on that basis. I would agree with you that people who don't care about behaving well don't care about behaving well - but it seems circular to say: therefore they must be atheists! I'd say: therefore they must not have thought seriously about what constitutes ethical behaviour. A very different matter!Elizabeth Liddle_{June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PST}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply