I deciding to post my recent posting, titled “Nature and Convention” on an Atheist Web site called www.mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com. I thought I would do this to see what response I would get to my argument. One thinker by the name of “John Morales” responded and I’m not sure by his words if he thinks my post is good or if he is taking the Mickey of me. But for one thing he thinks that I am close to making a contradiction in my thinking. So it is this claim that I will be responding to. For some it might be wise to re-read my post…
John Morales wrote,
Interesting rant, Richard.
How's it go?
"If one wants to be a true atheist and live according to true morality, then he must live according to nature"..."The law of nature is basically the law of anarchy. Rape, murder, lust, greed is all part of our nature. This is what our nature desires"..."The problem with the atheist is that a godless universe is a goodness free and evil free world"..."Our minds just know deep down that something’s are wrong no matter what people views are on it".
Wow. You may be undermining your strawman with a contradiction, but you sure know how to project.
I think John is hinting that if I am making the case “that all our desires are part of nature” then aren’t the desires that feel that some things are just right and wrong independent of peoples opinions just desires from our nature. So what is my point, aren’t I just saying that objective morality is part of nature as well. So in fact my strawman to refute the atheists foundation for morality is basically refuting my own evidence. But I don’t think this is the case and I don’t think my argument is a contradiction. John is right, it would be a contradiction “if” I assumed the atheist’s worldview, but I don’t. There is a great difference between the two worldviews. Atheism’s “true” morality is basically just what “is” and my Christian foundation is that morality is not what “is” but what we “ought” to do and our human nature is inherently good but fallen, which is very different form the worldview of atheism that says our nature just “is”. It hasn’t been made or created to act good, but just according to what it does and feels.
I also think the atheist’s argument fails for a number of reasons,
1.If objective morality theories were just part of our nature, then it would be just another desire among millions of subjective choices one can choose. If this is the case then its claims have no more power or worth greater than any other.
2. From an atheist worldview there is no moral law written on our hearts, our inner being dose not have knowledge of goodness according to our inherent ontological good nature. So is left with intuition reasoning upon random blind choices.
3. Atheist also can’t defend Objective morality independent of human beings, which Michael Martin tries to do. It is one thing to have a knowledge of a good moral subjective theory, but to state it is objective independent of people assumes that it exists somewhere out there and this is the question we need answered, “Where is this standard located”? If it is not part of objective reality then it is just an invention. Can Martin’s or the atheist give us a foundation for these claims, I think not. Morality exists in moral beings, not impersonal parts of matter or atoms floating around in space.
4. Living for the good is also meaningless if there is no such thing as an ontological foundation for human dignity and worth. Responsibility is meaningless without a good nature that seeks an absolute standard of goodness.
5. Also in an atheist worldview, is the ‘good’ good because one says its good or is the act good because it corresponds to what is ontologically good?
The reason why the atheist knows right from wrong, is because he is made in the image of God with his laws written on their hearts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The strawman is this: If one wants to be a true atheist and live according to true morality, then he must live according to nature
Your justification is this:So what is my point, aren’t I just saying that objective morality is part of nature as well. So in fact my strawman to refute the atheists foundation for morality is basically refuting my own evidence.
That’s the point – a straw man is easy to knock down.
But I don’t think this is the case and I don’t think my argument is a contradiction. John is right, it would be a contradiction “if” I assumed the atheist’s worldview [POV], but I don’t. There is a great difference between the two worldviews.
Your post is written so that you expound on what you think “the atheist’s” POV is. Then you knock that POV down. Sort of.
This is the substance of your post:
[1]Atheism’s “true” morality is basically just what “is” and my Christian foundation is that morality is not what “is” but what we “ought” to do and our human nature is inherently good but fallen, which is very different form the worldview of atheism that says our nature just “is”. It hasn’t been made or created to act good, but just according to what it does and feels.
I will list assertions:
1. Atheist morality= what is.
Christian foundation= what ought to be
2. Atheist nature = what is
Christian nature = fallen, but inherently good
Now, my response was based on your comment, where some other assertions were made. So, is the “atheist’s argument” (1 & 2) only or does it include the assertions you initially made:
3. For atheist’s who believe in a godless universe the concepts of absolute good and evil, right wrong become very hard to define.
4. If one is seeking to find “what is’ and not what some one thinks “ought to be the case” one must study nature.
5. For nature is “what is” it can not be any other way.
6. For the atheist humans have a nature, that is not corrupted or immoral.
7. It acts according to its nature.
8. Our nature has desires and we act on them.
9. Good and Evil are not exactly the products of the will, but they are the reflection of it.
10. The will is blind and can not give us a rational justification for the ultimate ends that we pursue.
11. If one wants to be a true atheist and live according to true morality, then he must live according to nature, which is what “is”.
12. All actions are right as they reflect our nature to desire.
13. If we want an objective standard that reflects a godless universe that has nothing to do with human edict, customs and rules, that is in no sense fabricated or dependent on what anyone says or does.
14. Then we must seek “nature”.
15. The laws of nature are not things that are so because someone has decreed that they should be so, or because people have become accustomed to so regarding them.
16. They are so everywhere, no matter what anyone might think or do.
17. They are not relative, then, to customs, laws, opinions, or conventions.
18. For they are true by nature.
I note it is syntactically unclear how many of these declaratives apply to the claimed atheistic view and how many to the author’s.
Then, Do atheists want to live according to their “true” morality, that being “anything goes”.:
19. The law of nature is basically the law of anarchy.
20. Rape, murder, lust, greed is all part of our nature.
21. This is what our nature desires.
22. Nature also does not show us that all humans are created equal.
23. If one wants to keep to “true’ morality then the idea of human rights becomes an illusion.
24. We are in fact suppressing individual rights to do what they want.
I note elements of this set are clearly all attributable to the claimed atheistic view.
Care to clarify what exactly is my claim? I am an atheist, and though you write as if you know what I believe (or is that what I should believe) I assure you my beliefs are nothing similar to your claim.
Addressing 1 and 2, but not persevering with 3..24, I suggest you’re restricting domains unfairly – it should more properly go thus:
1. a Atheist & Christian morality= what is.
b Atheist & Christian foundation= what ought to be
1a: Both A and C are humans, and for all humans, their morality is what it is.
1b: Both A and C are humans, and for all humans, they will act morally according to their version of what ought to be.
So, claim 1 is tautological.
2. a Atheist nature = what is
b Christian nature = fallen, but inherently good
2a: Similarly, all humans have the nature they have (by definition). Again, a tautology. Unless you want to argue Christians don’t have the [morality that is].
2b: More interesting. This is the one claim that separates out the bulk of the atheists from the Christians. I’m quite sure some atheists believe they’re “fallen, but inherently good” (Raelians, for instance), but the bulk of us probably think differently.
My personal view (and atypical) is that humans are improvable but not perfectable, and rationality, science and technology are a good start.
You might wish to refine your claim.
Hi John
Thanks for your e.mail and for the respectable tone in which you write. You say that I set up a straw man just to knock it down, this however was not my intention or motive. I believe I have represented the atheist’s worldview fairly. As an atheist one is bound to the explanations of evolution and naturalism for which I have based my case against. An atheist cannot believe anything that he want’s, his beliefs must be grounded from out of his worldview. For example if you don’t believe in the supernatural, you can’t believe in miracles. You charge me with making up a straw man position that does not reflect an atheist worldview, so I ask you now to explain what you worldview is?
How on earth do you justify the existence of goodness right and wrong, good and evil from your worldview? How does your worldview justify beings that are inherently good? Doesn’t that imply that some objects in nature (human beings) have been judged and fashion to act in a special way according to an outside standard?
In your worldview does goodness have an ontological existence? Or is it just an invention of the mind? How do you explain freewill? Do you control your brain or does your brain control you? These are just some of the question you need to answer.
Please name any one of my arguments that does not represent an atheist, being honest to his worldview.
Not sure if Raelians are atheists, if infact im sure their not. They believe in Aliens and UFO's which would imply some suppernaturalism or supper beings.
Thanks for your e.mail and for the respectable tone in which you write. You say that I set up a straw man just to knock it down, this however was not my intention or motive. I believe I have represented the atheist’s worldview fairly.
I accept you didn't mean to. I think it's because you're having difficulty with the concept that there is no single atheist worldview.
As an atheist one is bound to the explanations of evolution and naturalism for which I have based my case against. An atheist cannot believe anything that he want’s, his beliefs must be grounded from out of his worldview. For example if you don’t believe in the supernatural, you can’t believe in miracles. You charge me with making up a straw man position that does not reflect an atheist worldview, so I ask you now to explain what you worldview is?
Look for my acquiescence here.
How on earth do you justify the existence of goodness right and wrong, good and evil from your worldview? How does your worldview justify beings that are inherently good? Doesn’t that imply that some objects in nature (human beings) have been judged and fashion to act in a special way according to an outside standard?
To answer you meaningfully, I need to know what concepts you attach to those terms.
[1]In your worldview does goodness have an ontological existence? [2]Or is it just an invention of the mind? [3]How do you explain freewill? [4]Do you control your brain or does your brain control you? These are just some of the question you need to answer.
1. Yes and no, depending upon whether you mean the concept of goodness as something applicable to people and subjectively quantifiable, or a Platonic form.
2. Yes.
3. I understand the concept, but I don't know if free will exists or not. From my perspective (the subjective) experience is that it does. From the perspective of some putative entity outside spacetime observing my 4-dimensional timeline, it may not. That I don't know the answer doesn't cause me any existential angst.
4. In my opinion, that which is I is an epiphenomenon of the ongoing chemistry within my physical substrate.
Please name any one of my arguments that does not represent an atheist, being honest to his worldview.
I see no need to do so; however:
"19. The law of nature is basically the law of anarchy."
Not sure if Raelians are atheists, if infact im sure their not.
They say they are.
Raelians
===
Moreover, like Buddhism, Raelianism is an atheist religion that is to say, it does not believe in a ‘god’ because god does not exist. One only needs to go back to the original Hebrew Bible to realize that it is written ‘Elohim’ (and not ‘God’) which is plural and literally translates to ‘those who came from the sky.’ Having said this, it is important to understand that Raelians still accept the notion that there are Creators who came to the Earth a long time ago in physical form (because they are human beings like us) and scientifically engineered all life forms – a huge contrast when compared to an immaterial, supernatural, and almighty ‘god’ who created everything (including the universe) with a magic wand.
===
Wikipedia:
---
Raëlians emphasize secular and hedonistic ideas, rather than worshiping a supreme metaphysical deity.[1] The Raëlian Church members follow a UFO religion that favors physicalism - the belief that everything consists only of physical properties.[2] Raëlians deny the existence of the ethereal soul and a supernatural god[3], and believe that the mind is a function of matter alone—a paradigm which William James (1964) would call epiphenomenalist.[4]
---
Hi John
“I accept you didn't mean to. I think it's because you're having difficulty with the concept that there is no single atheist worldview. “
Yes I am having difficulty with the concept that there is no single atheist’s worldview. Its seems to be an easy stance to hold too. How can I address the errors of your thinking if your beliefs have no relationship in grounding them in reality. If your views are never concrete or based on any system of thought about reality how on earth can you criticize another view as being false.
Yes it is honest for one to say that they haven’t got a clue about what reality is so there is no point in making dogmatic claims. But the problem I find with many atheists is, it might be one thing to reject belief in God, but then the atheist still must give an explanation on where we came from and how we function out of that process. I also think many atheists haven’t even looked at this question or at grounding it in a worldview to work from. Is it honest to reject belief in God if you haven’t even got some sort of concrete answer to explain reality. Before you think Im just attacking the atheist, I think there are many on both sides who live from ignorance, just living in a world of nice beliefs, which they can have any concept, substance, entity they want to make life sane.
“To answer you meaningfully, I need to know what concepts you attach to those terms.
[1]In your worldview does goodness have an ontological existence? [2]Or is it just an invention of the mind? [3]How do you explain freewill? [4]Do you control your brain or does your brain control you? These are just some of the question you need to answer.
1. Yes and no, depending upon whether you mean the concept of goodness as something applicable to people and subjectively quantifiable, or a Platonic form.
2. Yes.
3. I understand the concept, but I don't know if free will exists or not. From my perspective (the subjective) experience is that it does. From the perspective of some putative entity outside spacetime observing my 4-dimensional timeline, it may not. That I don't know the answer doesn't cause me any existential angst.
4. In my opinion, that which is I is an epiphenomenon of the ongoing chemistry within my physical substrate.”
1. Well if you’re an atheist I doubt you hold to platonic forms. So I guess you would hold that goodness is just a concept. But is the concept describable? Meaning does it relate to a context or is the concept of goodness just an empty word, which you fill in with what acts you like or is the concept of goodness an absolute standard knowable to all people?
2. If goodness were an invention, then would you say that goodness could have been something very different? Also if goodness is an invention should all people have to accept its reality as binding to the universe. I mean flying pigs exist in our minds, an invention, but does this mean all people are bound to hold to that reality. As for God we have freedom to choose, but can we do this we morality.
3. I understand you…
4. Would you say then that you are not the same person as the person you were when you were five, the same “I”? As every seven years every cell is renewed over this time. If changing our brain chemistry can dissolve personality, should we blame our chemistry for our crimes, which we have no control over. Would you reject the idea of evil and just say we need to change chemicals in the brain to function different. You say we have some kind of freewill, so I guess you would blame the person, but is that fair, real justice?
5. would you say that many atheist believe in UFo's and Aliens?
Yes I am having difficulty with the concept that there is no single atheist’s worldview. Its seems to be an easy stance to hold too.
It's evident if you look at the atheosphere. The spectrum of atheists' beliefs spans the human range, their only common characteristic is their lack of belief in deities.
How can I address the errors of your thinking if your beliefs have no relationship in grounding them in reality. If your views are never concrete or based on any system of thought about reality how on earth can you criticize another view as being false.
It is not the case that my beliefs have no grounding in reality. In fact, by not unnecessarily assuming the existence of the supernatural, it's arguable they are more grounded in reality than yours. My views are based on a system of considering new information, and revising them on an on-going basis.
I can criticize other views (specifically, that there is a common atheist worldview) by, in this case, pointing to the empirical evidence, or, in the case of your original disquisition, by noting contradictory or arbitrary claims.
Yes it is honest for one to say that they haven’t got a clue about what reality is so there is no point in making dogmatic claims. But the problem I find with many atheists is, it might be one thing to reject belief in God, but then the atheist still must give an explanation on where we came from and how we function out of that process.
I didn't say I didn't have a clue; but I only have a limited understanding. Again, it might be arguable that I have at least as much of a clue as you do.
I don't reject belief in God; I just can't seem to bring myself to believe in the supernatural without some sort of credible evidence. And, of course, the Christian god-construct "God" has nonsensical and contradictory attributes.
Why must I give an explanation of where we came from and how we function out of that process? I'm not a scientist, I just live here. And note that saying "God did it." is an explanation in the sense "Because." is an explanation.
I also think many atheists haven’t even looked at this question or at grounding it in a worldview to work from. Is it honest to reject belief in God if you haven’t even got some sort of concrete answer to explain reality. Before you think Im just attacking the atheist, I think there are many on both sides who live from ignorance, just living in a world of nice beliefs, which they can have any concept, substance, entity they want to make life sane.
Yes. But look around in the Web, where this question is and has been discussed ad-nauseam in the atheosphere. Note the testimony of those who are ex-Christian - they haven't changed to different blinders, they've removed them.
“To answer you meaningfully, I need to know what concepts you attach to those terms.
But you haven't yet. I didn't say I'd prefer for you to, I said I needed for you to.
I'll try.
1. Well if you’re an atheist I doubt you hold to platonic forms. [1]So I guess you would hold that goodness is just a concept. [2]But is the concept describable? [3]Meaning does it relate to a context or is the concept of goodness just an empty word, which you fill in with what acts you like or is the concept of goodness an absolute standard knowable to all people?
1.1 Not just a concept, a concept that relates to something which, in some non-trivial sense, exists for humans.
1.2 To some arbitrary degree of accuracy in a given context, yes, to epistemological verity, no.
1.3 It relates to a context.
2. [1]If goodness were an invention, then would you say that goodness could have been something very different? [2]Also if goodness is an invention should all people have to accept its reality as binding to the universe. [3]I mean flying pigs exist in our minds, an invention, but does this mean all people are bound to hold to that reality. [4]As for God we have freedom to choose, but can we do this we morality.
2.1 Not in the general sense, unless human nature were other than what it is. The specifics of how goodness is judged are known to be culturally determined.
2.2 I don't tend to prescribe. But I note that for someone to not consciously accept what they consider reality to be would be perverse.
2.3 First, note that there are multiple ontological categories of non-physical concepts, and a mental image is not in the same category as a set of mental predispositions (goodness).
Second, by saying "exist in our minds" you're saying it exists, and that its existence is in the mind. By "that reality", you either refer to "I mean flying pigs exist in our minds" or you refer to the interesting idea that, since it exists (in our minds), it's real outside. I refer you to 2.2 as to prescription.
2.4 I may lack freedom to choose, because I somehow cannot bring myself to believe in concepts that are incoherent and unsupported by evidence.
As to choosing, you can only choose from what you know; I suggest learning about logic, moral systems and ethics, societal laws and customs and history and anthropology to would lead to a more informed choice than blindly accepting what you're told.
4. [1]Would you say then that you are not the same person as the person you were when you were five, the same “I”? As every seven years every cell is renewed over this time. [2]If changing our brain chemistry can dissolve personality, should we blame our chemistry for our crimes, which we have no control over. [3]Would you reject the idea of evil and just say we need to change chemicals in the brain to function different. [4]You say we have some kind of freewill, so I guess you would blame the person, but is that fair, real justice?
4.1 Ever heard of Grandfather's old axe?
4.2 Brain chemistry is the phenomenon, consciousness the epiphenomenon, the law determines to what degree a person is responsible. As to having control over brain chemistry, consider psychotropic drugs.
4.3 No.
4.4 I said "I don't know if free will exists or not.". As to Justice, that's a concept you really need to define before I can meaningfully answer you.
5. would you say that many atheist believe in UFo's and Aliens?
I'd say the proportion of atheists who believe in aliens would be slightly lower than the proportion of all people who do. Many atheists are also rationalists, many others are apatheists.
Post a Comment