Image by topicagnostic via FlickrWhile I was um...in deliberation with Golmer on Twitter yesterday, another person calling himself _7654_ wanted to throw his hat into the ring.
_7654_
What follows is what he wrote. From here my comments are in red. A pparently, this was actually also directed to someone else.
Well, this looks like a booklet rather than a question, but never mind that,
i will try to answer your concerns, after i sort them out :-)
----------------------
That is right nice of him
-1a- You find my moral standing regarding questions of morality to be good and correct.
But you can't see how Atheism can lead to a good coherent set of moral values.
-----------------------
question -1a- is very similar to the last question -1g- but i will address them each.
A good set of morals, as opposed to a not so good set of morals will inevitable lead to a
more prosperous, stable and peaceful society. As a direct consequence, the individuals in this society
would enjoy the benefits of compliance. There is also the matter of the golden rule, with a bit of
atheist twist to it :-) "Do NOT do onto others, what you DO NOT want done onto yourself" ... merely to
negate the negative effects of bad taste :-)
I've heard this argument used before. The problem is that this twist is 1.) was not first coined by an atheist - can trace it back to a Jewish Medieval Rabbi (I can find his name later if anyone is interested). However it does not match what Jesus taught. Jesus' scope was broader! "DO unto others as you would have Done unto you." See the difference? WE are not merely to avoid doing harm because we don't want harm done to us. Jesus commanded that we do the good to others - even if they hate us and are our enemies - that we want done to us. See completely against human natural tendencies that is? I' ve got problems doing that. That is a high standard not easily met.
ok, so those interesting immoral activities that seem to beneficial but are considered immoral never the less due,
according to you, to heavenly guidance.
Since I was privy to the conversation being referred to, I'll ignore this part
rape: sure it potentially leads to more offspring, but that offspring will lack a full family, will
likely need more care from society to become a normally functioning member, and even then, runs the
risk of becoming a weak member of that society. So rape may NOT be beneficial, not even in the medium run.
Never mind the harm done to the raped female, being hurt by the experience and may never rear another child as a result.
rape is not beneficial. therefore it is not moral ...
murder: Well, this one is a no brainer, a society that allows murder will likely dwindle in size very quickly,
so there would be none left ... it is immoral to murder.
What happened to "Survival of the fittest"? What? No "Natural Selection"? Why not apply it now and be consistent. Maybe a person who isn't smart enough to avoid being killed or strong enough to fend off an opponent doesn't have the right to propogate his/her weaker genes? Riddle me this: Why not? If I can kill you just because I think you are ugly or disgust me and you can't stop me because I outsmarted you or overpowered you why shouldn't? Who can I appeal to if the rest of society agrees with me? Hitler and the Nazis come to mind? They should. Because under your argument we had no reason or right to go into Germany and stop their genocide programs. But see, my world view does not have this problem. Murder is wrong because it is wrong not because it has a negative impact on society.
theft: it is important to note, that the most successful societies are the once that allow and facilitate the
amicable and fair distribution of resources between it's members. Theft in general disrupts this distribution,
and that is what makes it immoral to do.
And for the sake of fairness, I am aware of societies, mostly nomadic in nature, where theft is part of the wealth
redistribution mechanism of the society, and these societies do not consider it immoral .
lying: it is quite disruptive to the functions of society and even the individuals of a society when truth is
not propagated properly on the transaction and dealings. It is an obvious one, you didn't bring it up, but
never the less.
How do you definte Truth? I agree it's an obvious point, but you just invoked it without explaining what truth is. You argue that morality is subjective but here you argue assuming the existence of objective truth? I don't think you can one without the other. You said in a tweet that you can have hamburger without relish but it is still a hamburger, but in this case it's like trying to have a hamburger without the beef patty. All you end up with is an empty bun not a hamburger. Empty just like your point.
adultery:This is actually linked to human nature, having an extra marital affair is not desirable, and mostly
by the other participant of the marital relationship. And it end up undermining the stability and viability
of this relationship, children also suffer the side effects, in a negative way, and it is not difficult to
why this one is also immoral.
What happened to what the wife don't know don't hurt me? No harm no foul. Or Richard Dawkins' contention that it doesn't matter what two consenting adults do with their bodies sexuallty in prvate? This would mean that the spouse and children would not know so how would the stability and viability of the relationships be in jeopardy. So why is it wrong again? Wha about the situation where the husband and wife are legally married but they openly swing or have sex with other people? Is that still adultery? I'd argue "Yes" because the words "marriage" and "adultery" have meanings that we can't just redefine to legitimate something we want to do. There is a standard, but you have nothing to tell the adulterer that he is wrong and hurting himself, family, and society. If there is no standard what make you right and him wrong. Is there even rightness or wrongness? His ideas are just different. Shouldn't they be respected? God Forbid! Adultery is wrong but not just becuase of the evil it perpetuates in society.
child[abuse][rape][etc]: Society requires, needs, would like to have mentally, psychologically and physically
healthy and strong individuals. These heinous acts damage and or reduce these and many more aspects of the
individual when they grow up. It is an obvious negative for a society that allows this, and needless to
point out that it is immoral.
Who defines what "mentally, psychologically and physically healthy and strong individuals" means? You? Me? What criteria do you use? In American slavery it was okay to keep a slave illiterate, nourished just enough to work backbreaking labor in the cotton fields all the while being told that they didn't even deserve the little they did get. Is that what "mentally, psychologically and physically healthy and strong individuals" means? To many white southern slave holders it did. How would you tell such a man that he was wrong? He might say "The ##$#$%@#% is breathing isn't he?" What do you say? Or to the rapes in Africa being used as a weapon of war or a thought-to-be cure for aids? How do you tell them that they are wrong? If there is no objectvie moral standard their morality and definitions are just as valid as yours.
-1b- You grapple with individual moral values, testing their validity from the theist and the atheist view point,
that is great. But you cant see how a godless system would function.
-----------------------
Me neitther
Well I guess by individually detailing many major immoral acts in section -1a- I would have derived the reasoning as
to why there is no need for a god to dictate morals to people. it looks very much to be a innate capability in humans.
Innate? Then everyone would agree that rape and murder were wrong and would not do it.
We humans are capable of moral behaviour as an individual, a family, a small group, and a society. And can make and live
and prosper under natural moral systems.
Agreed! I would never suggest otherwise. I am saying that without an objective moral standard no one can dentify what that behavior should be without challenge. and majority rules. That's fine as long as you are in the majority. Being an African American means that I come from a people who know all about what happens when the majority's morality decide that ensuring their prosperity means denying you yours. And without a moral standard defined about them and us, my people would still be chains or dead in stead of a Barack Obama sitting in the Oval Office.
The golden rule, being a rule, also comes in handy when we want to judge an unknown situation "Do NOT do onto others,
what you DO NOT want done onto yourself".
I already handled this. Please stop misquoting Jesus.
anything on atheism, it's an evolved, man-made idea to manipulate people to do what only some with power or influence may want."
-----------------------
Indeed, right and wrong are words... but they do carry meaning, specially in regard to what I have answered so far.
it is right if it falls under "moral" and acceptable by the known moral rules of society ... it is wrong if it does not.
The moral standard accepted by society supersedes the application of the golden rule. Needless to say if society
has no previous exposure to the event or the deed, we need to apply the golden rule.
Um have you really considered the statement above. If "right" and "wrong" are determined by society then what is right is subject to change. Seventy years ago it was "right" to pick a black man at random and at random times and lynch him to keep all the others in . Today we balk at the very thought. Was it always wrong or is it only wrong now that the majority of Americans now agree that it's wrong? It has always been wrong but you can't prove that without an objective moral standard.
Lets apply it to bone marrow transplant.
- It is a good case to apply, because, let's say, we don't have a moral/immoral society level rule. because it is new,
and we have not addressed it before. This is for the sake of argument here.
- would I like to get a bone marrow transplant if I needed it, say, to save my life? :: yes I would.
- would I be willing to donate bone marrow, to save someone else's life. Knowing that the procedure would be a bit
painful, but would have no lasting effects?
# at this point we have applied the golden rule with
positive outcome.
since the sick individual will be cured, and I won't be harmed in any meaningful way. And thus we can add this to the
"moral" side of society rules ... to make future decisions simpler.
Finally something I can agree with but you have got to realize that the Golden Rule does not stand without objective morality. What do you do about someone who says...I don't want to experience the pain, and it's my bone marrow - you can't have any? If a person needs bone marrow they should not survive because a natural disease is going forth. Relatively speaking a person has every right to that decision. Stupid, yes, but without a moral standard on what basis can you tell them they are being selfish and stupid?
# obviously you have noticed that we have added the bone marrow transplant to the moral rules of society based on our example.
This is to demonstrate why the atheist moral system evolves and adapts along time and space. and how that is a good thing.
-1d- The issue of the lack of afterlife , heaven and hell, grave torment (Islam), karma etc... and how would that
influence the Atheist regarding the leading of a morally acceptable lifestyle.
-----------------------
facts and observations that is) based. And as a consequence of there being no evidence of these afterlife events what so ever.
We correctly arrive at the conclusion that these events and places do not exist :-) Pure and very simple isn't it.
As a consequence of this and the other factors regarding moral behaviour, we only have this life to do good to our
society and to ourselves.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Without an objective morality how do you define doing "good to our society and to ourselves." I mean Hitler really thought that he was doing good for Germany and himself. Napoleon really thought that he was doing good for France and himself. Gengis Khan thought he was doing good for the Mongols and himself. I could go on, but in each of the cited cases most of us would disagree with them and if you had have walked up to either one of them and told them you disagreed they would have just killed you moved on. Your answer strikes me as hollow as a meatless hamburger.
If some of us end up doing bad,immoral deeds, then we duly expect our punishment to happen here in this life, severely
reducing our ability to fully enjoy it. And believe me, that is a very big deterrent for an Atheist :-)
Good, I agree. The Bible says that is part of God's judgement. But just wait worse is coming.
-1e- "its is wrong to force your morality on others" , "Might Makes Right." & And this is exactly what we see (& would expect to see)
in the animal kingdom.... How to set moral values in a society, and how to make that work.
-----------------------
Moral behaviour, or what we call moral behaviour in Humans, is in fact remarkably wide spread among animals in nature.
# many animals do mate for life ...
# cannibalism is very rare. And when it happens, it is mostly directed against the members of a different group or pride.
# Most animals take care of their offspring, for varying length of time and to varying degrees. Very few species leave their
offspring to the elements. And even those would have millions of offspring from one copulation.
# Many animals do compassionately care about each other and their offspring in times of crises.
If you do take away our complex human behaviour, and interactivity, we do have a lot in common with the moral behaviour
of animal, and to be specific mammals in particular.
Would that not be an argument for an objective morality - one that extends to even the animal kingdom? Why, yes, I think it does. Yay!
living in a different environmental and temporal setting. For one, the sets of moral rules would not be appropriate or
adequate for the other society, but most importantly, morality is inane, and moral rule sets need to be arrived at with
consensus to be effective.'
I'm confused you said earlier that morality is innate. IF that were true then why would we need a consensus we would all automatically know how to treat each other. The good of the society would be worked towards by everyone.
Many Non theists ( Atheists ) do find a multitude of the bible moral guidelines to be unacceptable for this environment and time.
And the stunning thing is, most Christians will find them equally repugnant too.
Oh you mean some of the Old Testament laws? You mean for an ancient, theocratic kingdom surrounded by people and countries bent on their annihilation? (wow, some things never change!).what happened to:
You can not force a morality of one group (society) living in one environmental and temporal setting onto another societySo it's okay to judge Israel's laws immoral from 4000 years later from behind a keyboad but not any other society? The sad thing is that many Christians don't know what's in the Bible and we should.
living in a different environmental and temporal setting. For one, the sets of moral rules would not be appropriate or
adequate for the other society, but most importantly, morality is inane, and moral rule sets need to be arrived at with
consensus to be effective.'
for example we don't consider stoning our children practical when they curse us.
Refer to Tekton for the asnwer to this point. I'll note the number to pay close attention to - read #4
We do not advocate the stoning to death of those who work on Saturday.
Look carefully at the law. It was not a capricious thing. People equate this with executing someone for a minor offense. The law in Israel was that the Sabbath was a holy day....not a personal day when you get to do what you want to do. It was a day of rest from your daily grind, not a day of lounging. The idea was to honor God that day. It ws such a great offense because here is God giving you a day or rest and they have spit it back into God's face saying I will take this day and spend it as I see fit. In later centuries this law was added upon and conditioned so much that Jesus' critics wanted to criticize him for healing people on the Sabbath. I'll end this section with Jesus' answer.
23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."
27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." - Mark 2:23-28
And what would your reaction be if you married a woman and she lied to you that she was a virgin? I would not kill her but some men even today would. In that culture, marriages had economic value. When a man married a woman, he had to pay a dowery to her father. If the girl and her father claim she is a virgin when she wasn't - that's fraud and it was taken way more seriously in ancient Israel than it is today. This showed how important God views chasity and honesty. You could loose your life if you renounced eiither. I should also point out that if a man or a woman was caught in adultery the couple was executed. If a man lied on his wife for not being a virgin he was punished.Deuteronomy 22:13-25 covers all of this.
nor do we find it acceptable to offer up our daughters for rape to strangers.
The Bible describes such a thing twice, and neither time is it portrayed as the thing to do! It was descriptive not prescriptive.
We also find slavery to be, you know, unacceptable.
I dealt with one at length. Read it here.
And religion has this caveat that you have to take all or be damned , you can't cherry pick... not a very flexible approach :-)
I can tell from above that you don't really know the context and reasons why those laws were put in place. You can't cherry pick if you don't understand what you are rejecting.
-1f- "It might not be socially acceptable or it might be taboo for humans to rape another, but there's nothing really objectively wrong with it. Naturalistic evolution is divorced from any concern with or sense of truly objective morality." The question of objective / subjective morality ... relative / absolute morality ... ok, will address it that way.
-----------------------
absolute / subjective and objective morality. I think i have provided plenty of examples for both, and how this works out.
Sorry....but I'm still left with "Wheres the beef?!" You basicelly said that all those things were wrong because they are not beneficial for society, but if they were good for society than they would be moral. I stated situation where the objections you raised would no longer be bad for society. Are those things still wrong?
-1g- "See, you have the good moral values, but you don't have any objective basis for those values. You should consider
a belief in God so that when you're fighting the "evil" & promoting the "good", you have an objective transcendent
basis on which to make your moral claims, which I as a theist can believe are really "good"." ... to wonder if you
need a god to have moral values ...
-----------------------
In my answers, you will find that reason , knowledge , rationality and human ingenuity are quite potent tools to guarantee a
morally and humanly acceptable answer without the invocation of supernatural and or mythical powers.
Actually the tweeter made a valiant attempt to answer the question, but I don't think he made it. Human reason, knowledge, and ingenuity is not something I want to entrust my well-being to. He doesn't address why people have propensity to harm others while protecting themselve and those they "love". - Sin. My biggest objection to atheism is that if offers no remedy for my faults and no protection from the faults of others. We all know how we find ourselves doing things that we know are not good for us but we can't stop. Yes, some people quit drugs or alcohol on will-power alone, but there are those who need to be delivered from lying or cheating and they can't stop any more than the addict that requires intervention. so. Eveyone is bound by something or multiple things - some character flaws standing in the way of being a better person. How does a godless system help one with those things. How does a subjective morality give you the measuring stick to know what that means? It doesn't.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uAGpZE9ahS4cceB3JFN_DJdhLEpxAdfdzLQkiAt56B2XQ08ucC2ZzCHg9TrJBhTKP20l1OIpIhyOU6Q4Ckw2s055xr64ZoPyAa4c-VtuhjSKPfcMiufO5uzA_PXyNYMFaKWufRe8Gj_kZnVXwDPEks=s0-d)
No comments:
Post a Comment