 |
| Imagine no religion. |
China Daily reported "It has long been a folk tradition to eat placentas in China." And "A test from the national customs office and institute of scientific investigation in South Korea showed the content of the pills received by the television team was 99.7 percent identical with humans, the program said." The article entitled, "Ministry investigates pills made of 'baby flesh'" of August 10, 2011, has more details.
 |
| Imagine this is your vitamin. |
The part represents the whole. Is there any ethical problem with dead baby pills in an atheistic society? Whether the story proves to be true or not, there isn't really an ethical problem for atheists here because there is no ultimate standard for ethics. Because the pills seem to pragmatically kill two birds with one stone, helping to resolve overpopulation and the need for more stamina to work in the sweat-shop factories, these pills can be "rationalized"on a certain level, no matter how grotesque it may seem at first. Judging from the philosophical trends in society, high-tech cannibalism seams to be on the menu.
In "Answering Atheists" Dinesh D'Souza noted how atheists sometimes don't want to put two and two together: "Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine. It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy.."
Related:
Why the God Debate is Valid and Necessary
Why Atheists Fear Debate
Back to square one about atheism? Though there is some progress at least, this time no Hitler. However, I am amazed how ignorant about atheism and history you are, Rick.
ReplyDeleteBut since it is quite entertaining to poke holes in your logic, I am going to rant a little about your post.
1) The Chinese culture is much older than the Christian one. Its traditions are also different. For a long time they used human foetuses in medicine and that has nothing to do with atheism. Furethemore, what the company did was considered illegal by the "evil" communist authorities and an investigation is being carried away.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that the "evil" communist authorities in China also banned the practice of maiming the feet of little girls (at the time small feet were considered "sexy")? Now that is something I consider immoral (sarcasm off).
2) Since you still do not get it I will have to repeat this: What Stalin and Mao did has nothing to do with atheism. They built theire countries with a dogmatic idealogy just like Christian rulers did before them. Communism at the time was no different from a religion, monopolizing the cultural sphere of the nation, refusing to accept any alternative to its thinking. What is scary about religion is not its views on life, but its DOGMATIC teachings.
One can find quotes about the exact same concept of theist ethics from a variety of different theist sources but some atheists will never acknowledge the concept simply as a concept. With no absolute standard of ethics, atheist ethics are ipso-facto subjective. With the example of God as the absolute of truth, love and justice in one, there is such an absolute standard of ethics in theism. Some atheists don't want to acknowledge the reality of this concept of ethics. Others don't want to acknowledge the possibility of the God behind this concept.
ReplyDeleteRavi Zacharias explained the concept in this way:
"Without God, morality is reduced to whatever mode of behavior human beings agree on. There is no action that is objectively right or wrong. Rape, hate, murder and other such acts are only wrong because they have been deemed to be so in the course of human evolution. Had human evolution taken a different course, these acts might well have been the valued elements of our moral code. Even Nazi morality would be right had the Nazis succeeded in their quest for world dominance. Unless the world contains behavioral guidelines that transcend human decisions, there is no reason why anyone should object to such conclusions."
http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/10420/cbmoduleid/1133/default.aspx
There may be an atheist who reads this post and does understand both the basic concept of an absolute ethical standard and the nature of the God behind the concept.
William Lane Craig outlined a simple example of the moral argument for God's existence, of which there are many:
ReplyDelete1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/02/04/william-lane-craig-five-arguments-for-god/
If God does not exist, then there's no basis for objective moral values. No atheist has a basis for condemning a society for making and consuming Chinese dead baby pills if that is something the society comes to believe is necessary.
Dawkins’s Response to the moral argument:
In fact, Dawkins himself seems to be committed to both premises! With respect to premise 1, Dawkins informs us, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”17 But although he says that there is no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference, the fact is that Dawkins is a stubborn moralist. He says that he was “mortified” to learn that Enron executive Jeff Skilling regards Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene as his favorite book because of its perceived Social Darwinism.18 He characterizes “Darwinian mistakes” like pity for someone unable to pay us back or sexual attraction to an infertile member of the opposite sex as “blessed, precious mistakes” and calls compassion and generosity “noble emotions.”19 He denounces the doctrine of original sin as “morally obnoxious.”20 He vigorously condemns such actions as the harassment and abuse of homosexuals, the religious indoctrination of children, the Incan practice of human sacrifice, and prizing cultural diversity over the interests of Amish children. He even goes so far as to offer his own amended Ten Commandments for guiding moral behavior, all the while marvelously oblivious to the contradiction with his ethical subjectivism!21
http://thegospelcoalition.org/pdf-articles/Craig_Atheism.pdf
Rick, you never seem to amaze me. I have just told you that the use of human foetuses in chinese medicine has nothing to do with atheism since the practice existed before the concept of atheism. Instead of admiting you were wrong about this particular case, you are trying to change the subject.
ReplyDeleteAnd since when there is an absolute code of morality? Different cultures have different interpretantions of what is right and what is wrong. Why the Christian code is absolute? Just because it was successfuly incorporated in Europe which managed to baptize a good chunk of the world with blood and fire? What is the difference between the possibility of Nazi morality prevailing in this case?
What is even more suprising, is that you believe the Bible to accuretely portray from the beginning a suiatable modern moral code. Most of its commanments are blurred and open for interpretantion. Not to mention there are planty of "exeptions" in this particular holy book, where rape, murder and hate are acceptable.
I believe your quotes of Dawkin to be inaccurate. I have not read his book, but so far you often ommited some key parts of his sentences and taken them out of context. This time you oversimplify his point of view.
Atheists have a moral code, but it is based not on some blurry religious scripture open for interpretantion, but on common sense. What is good for a society and a human being? In most cases that moral code considers any unneccessary harm to be evil (Personnaly, I do not believe in evil, instead I believe in stupidity). On the other hand, religious morality is too rigid and unable to answer progress. Do I realy need to provide examples? The way the Curch banned the study of corpses since it was "immoral" or the huge scandal in the muslim world with the transplantation into the human body of mitral valves from "unclean creatures" pigs?
It's funny how atheists in denial can so persistently resist acknowledging the truth of simple examples.
ReplyDeleteSome atheist may say, Oh, eating aborted fetuses is a cultural thing in China, so it's OK. No, it's not OK. And it doesn't matter if a person is Chinese or Zambian.
People have noted that China has a morality crisis, and it's not just about eating aborted fetuses:
“Nowadays all men in China enjoy prostitutes whenever an opportunity is provided. It doesn’t matter how properly behaved they are otherwise.”
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=20e72a6f1f8c08f7c4cfc2b65b7a3224
An atheist may say, prostitution is fine, we aren't Victorians, after all.
But what is the view of a local Chinese person?
“The problem isn’t that people don’t follow moral standards; the problem is that there no longer exist moral standards,” says Jiang Qing. He attributes the loss of morality to five decades of atrophy under Communist political power, plus two decades of corrosion under the money and wealth brought by the Western market economy."
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=20e72a6f1f8c08f7c4cfc2b65b7a3224
- No matter what is spoken and written, no matter how many times it may be brought up, some atheist somewhere will persistently insist that "atheists have a moral code based on common sense."
What is the reason for this moral vacuum in China?
Consider who is being killed there:
BEIJING, CHINA (BosNewsLife)– Thousands of Chinese Christians have been killed for their faith since the year 2000, according to an investigation of senior Christian rights officials published Monday, September 3.
“In the last seven years 3,000 Christians were killed,” said Ulrich Delius, the Asia expert of the German-based Society for Threatened Peoples, which campaigns against all forms of genocide and “ethnocide”. The allegations were expected to further increase international concerns that China’s pledged economic reforms are not backed-up by more religious and poltical freedoms.
Most Christians however, about 34,000, were murdered in the first decade of China’s Cultural Revolution, launched in 1966, said Heinz Muller, chairman of the German Working Group Evangelical Missions (‘Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft Evangelikaler Missionen’), an influential group of 89 evangelical mission groups and related organizations and churches.
Muller said about 30 million Chinese people were killed in that period, making Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung probably one of the biggest “mass murderers” in human history, along with the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin, Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler and Saloth Sar, better known as Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge and prime minister of Cambodia.
The testimony of Richard Wurmbrand confirms that a central aspect of atheistic communism has been the deliberate killing and torture of Christians:
He was arrested again in 1959 and sentenced to 25 years. During his imprisonment, he was beaten and tortured. Psychological torture included incessant broadcasting of phrases denouncing Christianity and praising Communism. His body bore the scars of physical torture for the rest of his life. For example, he later recounted having the soles of his feet beaten until the flesh was torn off, then the next day beaten again to the bone. This prolific writer said there were not words to describe that pain.[5] However, Wurmbrand considered worse than torture the coerced denunciations of parents by their own children.
http://www.weirdasianews.com/2007/04/02/cannibalism-in-china-acceptable-if-for-health/
Incredible, are you dogeing the topic on purpose? Because while I am trying to talk about cars, you start ranting about squirrels for some reason (at least that is what it looks to me). Let us both calm down and try to restart from the top.
ReplyDeleteR:Some atheist may say, Oh, eating aborted fetuses is a cultural thing in China, so it's OK. No, it's not OK. And it doesn't matter if a person is Chinese or Zambian
You are completely missing my point, Rick. The fact is that many cultures evolved differently in the world. And in those cultures some things we both find unpleasant (like cannibalism) were considered acceptable or even praiseworthy. And that has NOTHING to do with atheism or christianity like in the case of the chinese foetuses.
R:People have noted that China has a morality crisis, and it's not just about eating aborted fetuses
No offense, Rick, but the morality crisis is worldwide, it is not limited to China. According to you, that moral crisis is closely linked to the deterioration of the Christian Church. However, do you really think that the moral crisis in the muslim world and in China, where christians were almost always a minority, is because of that? What is the scope of influence of 100 000 or even less chinese christians to a population of 1.4 billion? Let us be realistic.
R:But what is the view of a local Chinese person?...
ReplyDeleteMost of these reports can hardly be considered statements from locals, since those people live outside of China in their majority. Though, it is not really important.
But here lies the huge difference between atheistic morality and religious morality. Why should we follow the Christian moral code? Well, because if we do not follow it, we will be send to hell for eternal damnation, isn t that so? Enforcing a model of behaviour through fear and force is not something I would deem moral, even if it would surely be effective. On the other hand, atheistic morality can provide a sound explanation WHY a person should behave morally and WHY it is beneficial to its current life on Earth in the PRESENT.
R:What is the reason for this moral vacuum in China?
There is a huge number of reasons. We might discuss them, but the decline of religion and especially christianity is definitely not the primary reason.
R:The testimony of Richard Wurmbrand confirms that a central aspect of atheistic communism has been the deliberate killing and torture of Christians
ReplyDelete2) Since you still do not get it I will have to repeat this: What Stalin and Mao did has nothing to do with atheism. They built theire countries with a dogmatic idealogy just like Christian rulers did before them. Communism at the time was no different from a religion, monopolizing the cultural sphere of the nation, refusing to accept any alternative to its thinking. What is scary about religion is not its views on life, but its DOGMATIC teachings.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe main point of my article is show that atheism has no solid basis for an objective moral code, as opposed to, say, a traditional Judeo-Christian moral code. As an atheist, you have offered “common sense” as a basis of your moral code, which is a subjective basis.
Eating human fetuses would not be condoned in a society based on Judeo-Christian values, first because abortion is considered murder as the scriptures show life begins at conception. And second, humans are not considered animals in a Judeo-Christian perspective. But, because atheists consider humans to be animals, many do not see a difference between eating duck soup and baby soup. I’m not making this up. There are very graphic photos on the Internet showing this mentality is alive and well, especially in China. I did not want to have to show this link but here are some rather graphic photos to help you understand the harshness of your moral dilemma:
http://www.weirdasianews.com/2007/04/02/cannibalism-in-china-acceptable-if-for-health/
"Ms Liu then escorted the reporter to a location where a fetus was being prepared. A woman was chopping up a male fetus and making soup from the placenta. During the process, the woman even tried to comfort everyone by saying, “Don’t be afraid, this is just the flesh of a higher animal.”"
Now, let’s cut to the chase, Anonymous, the heart of our argument. If you as an atheist can give me a convincing, objective reason why eating baby soup using a human fetus, that would have been aborted anyway, should be considered immoral, please offer your evidence.
This challenge may hopefully help you to understand the full implications of your moral dilemma. According to its definition, objective reality can only be understood as such when it is observed from an isolated and separated perspective. It is described in medicine as such: “observable: describes disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill.”
Objectivity is described in philosophy as such: “existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception.”
Because Christianity is based on a transcendent, spiritual moral standard, the standard is truly objective, as outlined in the 10 Commandments. Do I believe the world will wholeheartedly adopt the 10 Commandments? No. Scriptural prophecy shows the world will become increasingly immoral. But in presenting a moral argument for God’s existence, any open-minded atheist, who is ready to admit it, will see one of the many reasons why atheism doesn’t work, either as a personal belief or as a foundation for society.
R:The main point of my article is show that atheism has no solid basis for an objective moral code, as opposed to, say, a traditional Judeo-Christian moral code
ReplyDeleteWell, that is the problem. The fact that chinese use foetuses for gastronomical and medical use has nothing to do with atheism. It is like condeming atheism for the way vikings made raids on Europe to pillage, murder and rape. Are we going to agree, that you made a mistake here or are you still going to avoid taking responsibility?
R:But, because atheists consider humans to be animals, many do not see a difference between eating duck soup and baby soup.
There is a huge difference between humans and animals, you oversimplify the idea of atheism. Atheists, who consider humans and animals to be the same, are a minority. Though, I must admit that a human being in most cases can be easily turned into an animal.
But the difference between humans and animals is even reflected in the practice of cannibalism. Many tribes, practising it, believe that through consumption of a human being one is able to absorb the qualities of the victim (strenght, courage, wisdom and so on). Funny thing is that cannibalism was also well spread in the Christian world. Medicine with egyptian mummies at the base were very popular and expensive.
The main point of argument would be when is foetus considered human? Is it human, when it is two weeks old, when it has not formed even a ressamblance to a human form? What about when it is only about sperm and ovigerm? What about cloning? There is no consensus on the issue here - that is a fact. And is it ok to consume the placenta, since it is not about the baby?
As for the Christian scripture, the problem is that some of it points are valid, but it does not provide a reason to follow them, apart from the statement that God wants us to and is going to punish us for disobeying him.
P.S. You have already provided the link about the gastronomical preference of some chinese in your previous post. However, that is not relevent to atheism, I repeat.
R:Now, let’s cut to the chase, Anonymous, the heart of our argument. If you as an atheist can give me a convincing, objective reason why eating baby soup using a human fetus, that would have been aborted anyway, should be considered immoral, please offer your evidence.
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all it is bad for one s health.
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/pop/articles/0712flashcannibal-CR.html?&wired
There is just no meanimg in cannibalism today. Modern technologies offer enough food for everyone on the planet, therefore there is no need for that. Furthemore, giving birth to and raising a human being takes a considerable amount of effort and it is just a shame to turn a human being into barbecue. Using human beings as food is just a waste of resources.
If we talk about abortion, I believe it is better to use the foetuses to save someone s live (stem research) than to just throw them away. However, I believe the foetuses to be too precious to just be eaten by some rich "gourmet".
R:Because Christianity is based on a transcendent, spiritual moral standard, the standard is truly objective, as outlined in the 10 Commandments.
That transcendent, spiritual moral standart root of Christian morality still needs to be proved. And the 10 Commandments were often interpreted differently according to the situation, as we can see through history. How can a truly objective moral code be prone to manipulation? Furthemore, is it realy ok to have a rigid moral code, where nothing can be questioned? Will it really work in any situation? Personnaly, I can think of several moments when the morality of the 10 Commandments are not so obvious. Not to mention, the rest of the Bible.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete"The fact that chinese use foetuses for gastronomical and medical use has nothing to do with atheism. It is like condeming atheism for the way vikings made raids on Europe to pillage, murder and rape."
R: Anonymous, the vikings were fairly simple pagans and they didn't have a system of state atheism, torture and propaganda. the type of which China embraces.
There is no mistake in my singling out China as an example of an atheist society precisely because it has been intentionally built upon a system of state atheism through the intentional killing and torturing of theists, in addition to continuous atheist propaganda in government and the education system. This is where the rubber hits the road, Anonymous. Do these facts make you uncomfortable for some reason?
Perhaps it is you who is mistaken about the true nature of- and ramifications of atheist society when atheism is taken to its logical and extreme ends?
I notice blogs hits from Russia increase when you post and so it seems that you reside presently in Russia. Are you lingering in the faded glory of Mother Russia and the Soviet Union?
You seem to have a determination to prove that atheist society is a good thing but are unwilling to draw comparisons between a theist society, based on the teachings of Christ, and an atheist one, based on the teachings of the most successful atheist political leaders.
A: There is a huge difference between humans and animals, you oversimplify the idea of atheism.
R: Oh really? We are focusing on morals and values. As an atheist, please tell me what the huge value difference is between humans and animals?
A: Is it human, when it is two weeks old, when it has not formed even a ressamblance to a human form?
R: As a theist, I find your question odd. A human egg and sperm are human when conception begins. They are not dog flesh or duck flesh. For the theist this line of reasoning about development is somewhat of a moot point with regard to human cannibalism. A human is sacred, as created in God's image, and not to be consumed in soup or in dead baby pills for this reason alone. It doesn't really matter if it is a small fetus or a fully grown person.
Now that I have answered your questions, you have yet to answer my main question:
As an atheist, give me a convincing, objective reason why eating baby soup using a human fetus, that would have been aborted anyway, should be considered immoral, please offer your evidence.
It seems your view of atheist society as a neutral, if not morally benign, society is misplaced. As the name implies, "a" means "opposed to" and "theism" is, well theism. You seem to be supporting a kind of agnostic ideal of society, such as a Buddhist one. Buddha did not deny God's existence. He acknowledged we have very limited perceptions.
ReplyDeleteAn atheist society, however, holds ideals antithetical to theist ones. It is not simply neutral. If theism promotes respect for individuality and human life, atheism tends to promote the opposite. I've already mentioned the documented case of Richard Wurmbrand, but you don't seem to be open to the truth of what I am presenting. This short video of his testimony, entitled the Beauty of Nothing, may perhaps help you to understand the essence of what a full-fledged atheist society entails morally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqdPkDPMCwk&feature=player_embedded
Rick, it seems you've fallen for William Lane Craig's failed argument from morality.
ReplyDeleteHis first premise is never secured, and in fact there are proposed systems of morality which purport to be both objective and non-theistic.
Hi second premise, that objective morals exist, fails as there are a number of systems of morality which do not purport to rely upon some objective standard.
Since no theist, least of all WLC, has shown that all of these alternative, non-theistic systems of morality are false, his argument fails.
In fact, if you watch his recent debate/discussion with Shelly Kagan on exactly this topic - morality - you'll see Craig get taken to school on the topic.
Since you're so keen on debate being a fantastic means of truth finding, you'll admit that your claims regarding morality are false after this viewing.
R: Anonymous, the vikings were fairly simple pagans and they didn't have a system of state atheism, torture and propaganda. the type of which China embraces
ReplyDeleteSame thing with China. The practice of consuming baby foetuses existed even BEFORE modern era, it is pagan. Or do you believe that Mao established a communistic regime in China in 1000 BC? Beijin is fighting with that practice and not encouraging it.
R:I notice blogs hits from Russia increase when you post and so it seems that you reside presently in Russia. Are you lingering in the faded glory of Mother Russia and the Soviet Union?
Yes, I am from Russia, but what does it have to do with the topic? It is the same way as you being an American missionary. Trying to find a pretext for some ad hominem attack? 8)
And statisticly Russian people lived better at the times of the late Soviet Union (prior to Gorbachev s reforms) than in the modern CIS (or at least in most of it states). I am a little nostalgic about the past, but I also understand that going back is impossible.
R:You seem to have a determination to prove that atheist society is a good thing but are unwilling to draw comparisons between a theist society, based on the teachings of Christ, and an atheist one, based on the teachings of the most successful atheist political leaders
What criteria would you like to use? The level of crime and prostitution? Or should we compare income levels? I do not understand which theist society are you refering to and I believe that you are hinting at China as a atheistic one.
R: Oh really? We are focusing on morals and values. As an atheist, please tell me what the huge value difference is between humans and animals?
Humans are both social and individualistic creatures. They have a complex outer and inner system unlike animals
R: As a theist, I find your question odd.
ReplyDeleteJust trying to broaden up your horizon, Rick 8)
The fact is that the theist point of view is not the only one. Obvious things for you are not so obvious for others.
R:As an atheist, give me a convincing, objective reason why eating baby soup using a human fetus, that would have been aborted anyway, should be considered immoral, please offer your evidence.
I gave you three reasons in my previous post
1) It is bad for one s health
2) There is no objective need
3) It is a waste of valuable resources.
R:If theism promotes respect for individuality and human life, atheism tends to promote the opposite
Why would you think so? The only examples you provide are the early and bloody communist regimes of Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao, which were just other dogmatic forms of religion
Havok,
ReplyDelete"There are a number of systems of morality which do not purport to rely upon some objective standard."
As usual, you don't offer any summary or any link in order to understand what you are referring to.
Please briefly summarize some, or at least one of these systems.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteRegarding why you believe atheists eating human fetuses is immoral you wrote:
1) It is bad for one's health.
- So, according to this line of reasoning, eating fried food is immoral because it is bad for people's health?
2) There is no objective need.
- Going to fly a kite in the sky could be considered immoral under this premise, right?
3) It is a waste of valuable resources.
- Here you have touched upon an atheist tenet of morality. However, you are on the wrong side of the coin. :)
Many prominent atheist environmentalists see the elimination of humans not as immoral, but as moral :)
It is not considered a waste of resources but is considered necessary for saving resources:
"One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshis. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."- Jacques Cousteau (UNESCO Courier, November 1991).
“Just as the human body uses a fever to fight off an infection, Gaia is raising Her temperature to expel a harmful parasite – humans." - James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Hypothesis.
"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." - Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
http://green-agenda.com/
So, Anonymous, your moral foundation is either illogical on two points or contrary to the fashionable trend among atheists on your third point.
Shall I order a new baby soup menu for you, anonymous? It seems to be completely moral according to the big boys who wield the power in atheism today. The Soviet Union is, after all, a little out of date in these things you know.
And I'm sure it wouldn't be out of the question regarding your "systems of morality" Havok. We could work it in somehow. I don't want you to feel left out.
Rick, how long do you intend to ignore the initial point about the obvious mistake in your article? Your accusation of atheism promoting a pagan practice is false. Yet, you spend a week trying your best to change the topic. Are you capable of recognizing your own mistakes? Or you have the arrogance to pretend to be perfect? I f you pereservere, you may end up being regarded as a narrow-minded coward.
ReplyDelete1) So, according to this line of reasoning, eating fried food is immoral because it is bad for people's health?
I do not believe that eating fried food is immoral. However, I do beleive that eating poison is immoral. And an excessive consumption of fried food is poison, therfore, immoral.
2) Going to fly a kite in the sky could be considered immoral under this premise, right?
Unlike yours, my code of moral is flexible and not absolute. There are some possible situation where I do not believe I have a moral right to condemn people. Rick, would you really blame the survivors of the crushed Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 for eating their fallen comrades to escape death by hunger?
3)Here you have touched upon an atheist tenet of morality. However, you are on the wrong side of the coin
Again, Rick, you oversimplify atheistic views. My argument still stands. The fact that we are both managing human and natural resources foolishly has nothing to do with the discussion. The wish to decrease the population through birth control and the value of existing human life are not mutually exclusive.
P.S. Could name me one distinguished Atheist who considers the consumption of baby soup moral? So far it was only your delusional thoughts about the subject without concrete evidence
"Your accusation of atheism promoting a pagan practice is false."
ReplyDeleteR: I never suggested that atheism promotes cannibalism, rather, I said that specific kinds of cannibalism can be justified morally by atheism, which cannot be justified by theism.
A: "Unlike yours, my code of moral is flexible and not absolute."
R: Exactly, and so atheists can justify this type of thing, as you've shown by your answers.
A: The fact that we are both managing human and natural resources foolishly has nothing to do with the discussion."
R: According to your answers, pragmatism is the basis of your morality. That is the foundation of your morality. How does it have nothing to do with the discussion?
A: The wish to decrease the population through birth control and the value of existing human life are not mutually exclusive.
R: Yes, I agree. But the thing is, you only seem to value human life for pragmatic, utilitarian reasons. As a theist, I understand that life has a sacred quality.
A: Could name me one distinguished Atheist who considers the consumption of baby soup moral?
R: This is known as Red Herring fallacy, distracting with an irrelevancy. Wealthy and famous people obviously wouldn't announce this practice because it is illegal. The fact is, though, that it is popular in Russia also, not Just China and Asia. And, as you know, Russia was dominated by the same atheist Soviet mentality.
Read some headlines: Two Russian Cannibals Eat Their Own Brother
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Two-Russian-Cannibals-Eat-Their-Own-Brother-109566.shtml
Russian cannibal who ate mother has sentence reduced 'because he was hungry'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/6543233/Russian-cannibal-who-ate-mother-has-sentence-reduced-because-he-was-hungry.html
"Seven young members of a satanic cult have gone on trial in Russia for the ritual sacrifice of four people. The gruesome murders occurred in a remote forest near Yaroslavl. Victims were stabbed 666 times in homage to the "Number of the Beast" before being dismembered and having their body parts cooked up and eaten by the cult members." "Satanists believe that, when they eat the flesh of an enemy, they are demonstrating their final and crushing blow against him, plus they believe they are incorporating the strength of their conquered foe into their being, making them stronger in the Craft. "
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1468.cfm
When I asked you to explain as an atheist why these things should be considered immoral, your answers were awfully weak.
And yet these practices are universally outlawed in contemporary society.
If the world does generally live as though objective morality exists, and If atheism cannot account for objective morality, but theism can, this suggests that theism is a more valid basis of morality. This suggests theism is true and atheism is false.
Rick: As usual, you don't offer any summary or any link in order to understand what you are referring to.
ReplyDeleteSo as seems usual for you, you're happy to make sweeping pronouncements on a field you know nothing about.
Rick: Please briefly summarize some, or at least one of these systems.
On of what systems?
An example of moral realism or an example of moral-anti-realism?
A quick look at, for example, the Stanford encyclopaedia of Philosophy ought to give you pointers on examples of both for further reading.
Rick: R: I never suggested that atheism promotes cannibalism, rather, I said that specific kinds of cannibalism can be justified morally by atheism, which cannot be justified by theism.
ReplyDeleteRick, I think you mean you believe the act cannot be justified by Christian theism - theism is a far more general claim which would seem to support many and various moralities.
Even narrowing your claim this far, I doubt the answer is as clear cut as you would like to believe, since Christianity does call for the (non-symbolic as far as the RCC is concerned) eating of flesh and drinking of blood.
R:I said that specific kinds of cannibalism can be justified morally by atheism, which cannot be justified by theism.
ReplyDeleteI would like to remind you that anything can be justified if you distort a belief system well enough and that includes both theism and atheism.
R: Exactly, and so atheists can justify this type of thing, as you've shown by your answers.
So under no circumstances cannibalism can be acceptable even if it can save a "sacred" life? Organ transplantation can also be perceived as a form of cannibalism, since a person absorbs a part of another being. Or is it an exeption? And if so, how many exeptions do we need?
R: According to your answers, pragmatism is the basis of your morality. That is the foundation of your morality. How does it have nothing to do with the discussion?
I am speaking about personal morality, since it is the only one I can and should be accountable for. Shifting morality to the scoop of humanity is deriving from the topic at hand.
R: This is known as Red Herring fallacy, distracting with an irrelevancy. Wealthy and famous people obviously wouldn't announce this practice because it is illegal.
I disagree. One may be hypothetically neutral or even consider such practice positive without engaging in it. So far you only provided a hypothesis without evidence. It is no more convincing than the accusation of Templar knights being Satanists.
R:Shall I order a new baby soup menu for you, anonymous? It seems to be completely moral according to the big boys who wield the power in atheism today.
I am asking you to provide evidence for your statement. Please, also clarify who are the "big boys who wield the power in atheism today". And be careful not to be accused of slander.
R:The fact is, though, that it is popular in Russia also, not Just China and Asia. And, as you know, Russia was dominated by the same atheist Soviet mentality.
Very commandeble, Rick. You found three sapareted cases and made the conclusion that Russia is a cannibalistic country, because atheism used to be the oficial idealogy for a long time. Let us forget about all the other social and economic factors. (sarcasm off)
This might suprise you, but statistics are much more reliable in making your point. I am too lazy to search for the exact numbers right now, but the crime rate in Soviet Russia in the second part of the 20th century was much lower than in the rest of the world. Even more funny, serial killers and cannibals were virtually unknown. Somehow, it is difficult for me to understand your logic, giving the facts.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: A quick look at, for example, the Stanford encyclopaedia of Philosophy ought to give you pointers on examples of both for further reading.
R: I found what you are referring to, Havok. Here's an excerpt from the "Moral Realism" article:
"David Hume seems to have been, in effect, pressing this point long before Moore, when he argued that no moral conclusion follows non-problematically from nonmoral premises (Hume 1739). No “ought,” he pointed out, followed from an “is”—without the help of another (presupposed) “ought.” More generally, there is no valid inference from nonmoral premises to moral conclusions unless one relies, at least surreptitiously, on a moral premise. If, then, all that science can establish is what “is” and not what ought to be, science cannot alone establish moral conclusions."
- The article you referenced Havok basically establishes what W.L. Craig and most other theists have been saying - atheist morality isn't grounded. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the implications.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Anonymous had made a point, "no intelligent atheist..." would adopt cannibalism, but I'd like to point out that since atheist morality isn't grounded, even the most advanced industrial societies can organize systems that are found to be horrific morally in retrospect.
Consider Nazi Germany. I viewed gloves made out of human flesh in the WW2 museum in Kiev, Ukraine. Gloves, lampshades, fertilizer and many other products were made out of human flesh in an advanced society specifically because of this relativistic morality.
There are many foolish people who try to claim that Hitler and Nazi Germany represent Christianity but, the fact is, Christianity is based on a specific text, the New Testament, and if actions are in direct opposition to that text, obviously, the actions and people do not represent Christianity. The same holds true for many of the doctrines and actions of the Catholic Church, which holds that the Pope's word and church tradition on an equal or greater status than the original scriptural text. Big mistake.
H: Even narrowing your claim this far, I doubt the answer is as clear cut as you would like to believe, since Christianity does call for the (non-symbolic as far as the RCC is concerned) eating of flesh and drinking of blood.
ReplyDeleteR: As I just pointed out in my previous note, the Catholic Church is way off the mark in many respects because it has a very low view of scripture. If you read the original text where Jesus organizes the first "communion" you will see he is not offering his literal body, he is offering physical bread and wine at the table. (Corinthians 11:24) Jesus didn't rip off a piece of his arm and pass it around, he broke bread and passed it around.
The Catholic Church endorses many false practices and teachings, including praying to saints and the "veneration" (i.e. worship) of saints, practices basically forbidden in the scriptures (1 Timothy 2.5 and Exodus 20.3).
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteA: I would like to remind you that anything can be justified if you distort a belief system well enough and that includes both theism and atheism.
R: Not so. If absolute truth exists as a basis for morality, then all actions are weighed with respect to that absolute truth. In theism there is no statute of limitations on crimes and sins:
“And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.” (Acts 10:42)
A: Organ transplantation can also be perceived as a form of cannibalism, since a person absorbs a part of another being.
R: Organ transplantation is not consuming flesh and is not seen as a desecration of the body. An example of desecration may be seen in this court case: "A woman who pleaded guilty to attempted desecration of a dead human body after the body of her newborn was found inside a small cooler in a car trunk has been sentenced to 15 days in jail."
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=8418199
Cannibalism is considered legal desecration and is illegal in all civilized countries today. Transplanting organs is generally not considered desecration, neither in law books nor specifically in scripture. However, if these organs are removed from political prisoners in China against their will, as is the case today, then it is immoral.
A major consideration in moral issues has to do with motive, or the lack thereof. The fact that there are awkward and irregular circumstances does not negate the reality that objective morality exists.
Rick: - The article you referenced Havok basically establishes what W.L. Craig and most other theists have been saying - atheist morality isn't grounded. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the implications.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't Rick.
If you were actually interested in learning, rather than simply "being right", you'd have found some references to some non theistic moral realism systems (both naturalistic and non-naturalistic), realise that there are currently quite a few live options, and retract your foolish points concerning the lack of an "objective morality" without God.
This link is argument for a variant of non-theistic moral realism (it also makes points against the theistic morality of WLC).
Try reading it through and trying to honestly understand it instead of simply looking for "gotcha" phrases you can produce in order to avoid expanding your knowledge.
Rick: Anonymous had made a point, "no intelligent atheist..." would adopt cannibalism, but I'd like to point out that since atheist morality isn't grounded, even the most advanced industrial societies can organize systems that are found to be horrific morally in retrospect.
ReplyDeleteWell Rick, since neither you nor anyone else has established that, in fact, objective morality of the sort you're arguing for actually exists, you can't really say that any morality is definitely grounded.
Rick: Consider Nazi Germany. I viewed gloves made out of human flesh in the WW2 museum in Kiev, Ukraine. Gloves, lampshades, fertilizer and many other products were made out of human flesh in an advanced society specifically because of this relativistic morality.
There are quite good arguments that ALL moral systems are relative. It is quite certain that morality changes through time and between cultures, even those who have been expressly Christian (and therefore would have been most likely to have an "objective" moral system).
Rick: There are many foolish people who try to claim that Hitler and Nazi Germany represent Christianity but, the fact is, Christianity is based on a specific text, the New Testament, and if actions are in direct opposition to that text, obviously, the actions and people do not represent Christianity.
Christianity is based upon the OT, NT, writings of various early Christians, and millenia of tradition.
Your interpretation of the text may be in opposition to the text, but some rather horrific things have been justified by reference to the NT and OT. Luther justified antisemitisim by reference to the Christian bible - Christianity for Luther was definitely anti-Jew.
To make the claim that YOUR understanding is the correct one is naive to say the least, given the thousands of different sects of Christianity with differing interpretations today and the varying interpretations throughout history.
Rick: The same holds true for many of the doctrines and actions of the Catholic Church, which holds that the Pope's word and church tradition on an equal or greater status than the original scriptural text. Big mistake.
So you say. The Catholics beg to differ, and have their own arguments to back up their claim.
Rick: R: As I just pointed out in my previous note, the Catholic Church is way off the mark in many respects because it has a very low view of scripture.
I doubt there would be any Catholics who would agree with you there Rick.
Rick: If you read the original text where Jesus organizes the first "communion" you will see he is not offering his literal body, he is offering physical bread and wine at the table. (Corinthians 11:24) Jesus didn't rip off a piece of his arm and pass it around, he broke bread and passed it around.
Catholic's have arguments to the contrary. In fact, the passage you cited (1 Corinthains 11:24) seems to favour the Catholics. Jesus is using the bread as a symbol of his crucifiction/death. The bread IS Jesus' broken body.
Now, perhaps instead of simply repeating WLC's assertions that his premises 1 & 2 hold, you could go to the trouble of arguing that they're true.
A: I am asking you to provide evidence for your statement. Please, also clarify who are the "big boys who wield the power in atheism today". And be careful not to be accused of slander.
ReplyDeleteR: You are referring to my statement “It seems to be completely moral according to the big boys who wield the power in atheism today.” “It”, in a general sense, may be considered the desecration, genocide, and use of human life in a form that has been considered immoral in our Judeo-Christian society.
This issue gained new life with Galton, who coined the term eugenics. This “science” opens the door to a myriad of inhumane kinds of activity based on the presupposition that humans are of no greater value than lab rats to be manipulated in order to produce a better species. Support by famous names and institutions is well documented at this link:
http://www.milkingtheherd.com/culling.htm
The Judeo Christian concept of human exceptionalism has been a foundation of Judeo-Christian morality. This concept of intrinsic and equal human value was adopted into the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…” However, Nietzche and other philosophers opposed this view and this paved the way for the gas chambers and human products factories of Nazi Germany.
http://www.wellsphere.com/bioethics-article/nietzsche-opposed-human-exceptionalism-too/678990
Today, moral issues raised in eugenics and genetics are causing human exceptionalism to become increasingly abandoned. One big boy on the scene is “bioethicist” Alasdair Cochrane, who is, “a deep thinker at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights in the UK.” He “argues against intrinsic human dignity as a basis for establishing bioethical policies.”
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/01/05/pushing-a-dangerous-anti-human-exceptionalism-undignified-bioethics/
According to this modern-day Nazi, humans should be considered merely natural resources. Now, consider that cows have been fed meat scraps for food as a staple in the U.S. and the only reason this practice was stopped was because Mad Cow Disease broke out.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/01/26/mad.cow/
And consider, if there was a way to feed human scraps to humans, according to the rationale of this atheist bioethicist, then why not do it? There is no reason why Soylent Green could not be incorporated according to his sphere of ethical standards.
So who are the ones at the upper echelon of society wielding the power regarding these types of decisions for society? This question relates to the secret societies and the push for a New World Order as verified in such landmarks as the Georgia Guidestones.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-the-georgia-guidestones/
R: Not so. If absolute truth exists as a basis for morality, then all actions are weighed with respect to that absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteEven if absolute truth does exist (which I doubt) it still can be easily distorted. History provides enough evidence. How would you explain otherwise the inquisition and religious wars in the Christian world? Even in Nazi Germany many Christians supported Hitler without any concern that his ideas might go against the initial teachings of their bible. Even if you claim that those people do not represent Christianity, they themselves had a different opinion.
Now, the question would be which belief system is more easily distorted? A rigid one, where every point is absolute and can not be questioned? Or a flexible one, based upon reason and encouraging to doubt every kind of initial premises?
R:Transplanting organs is generally not considered desecration, neither in law books nor specifically in scripture. However, if these organs are removed from political prisoners in China against their will, as is the case today, then it is immoral
Thankfully, modern law is mostly based on reason and not on scriptures. As for the scriptures, it is a problem of interpretantion. Not every one in the Christian world agrees even about the practice of blood transfusion, but the Church was smart enough to provide a support for it.
As for the alleged forceful removal of organs from political prisoners in China, I have not seen any convincing evidence. Furthemore, if we take into account the possible damage to the reputation of Beijin, it seams highly unlikely.
I would also have a question to you. Why is it morally ok to save a "sacred" live by transplanting an organ of one human being to another, but is immoral to save that "sacred" live by consuming the flesh of a deceased?
R:This issue gained new life with Galton, who coined the term eugenics
ReplyDeleteGalton lived in the 19th century. Modern sciense considers his views wrong. And biological, chemical, nuclear weapons most likely evolved independently from eugenics or religion. You provided a very interesting link, but it has little to do with the topic.
Besides, some Christians consider AIDS a positive phenomena since it targets "immoral" people like homosexuals, so the inplication of Christian scientists is as plausible. The fact that science can be used for harming others is not new, but its positive influence on life by far outweights the negative one.
R:However, Nietzche and other philosophers opposed this view and this paved the way for the gas chambers and human products factories of Nazi Germany
What Nietzche meant was that animals are often more moral than humas even by the human standart, since they are honest. Maybe his point of view was distorted and used to pave way towards Aushwitz. However, the same thing could be argued about Christianity wich historically was not very kind towards jews.
P.S. And no, I do not consider the ideals of the American constitution to be self-evident.
R:One big boy on the scene is “bioethicist” Alasdair Cochrane, who is, “a deep thinker at the Centre for the Study of Human Rights in the UK.” He “argues against intrinsic human dignity as a basis for establishing bioethical policies.”
Interesting, however, I would like to read Mr Cochrane s own article before commenting on the issue and not base my opinion on the sypnosis of some other researcher. Unfortunately, I am not that keen to purchase it.
R:And consider, if there was a way to feed human scraps to humans, according to the rationale of this atheist bioethicist, then why not do it?
We already covered this issue. It is bad for one s health, there is no objective need and it is a waste of resources.
R:This question relates to the secret societies and the push for a New World Order as verified in such landmarks as the Georgia Guidestones.
I find the notion on some world-wide conspiracy of secret societies to be extremely improbable and childish.
I have heard of the Georgia Guidestone, but how on earth does it point at a secret society? Frankly speaking, I find these commandements very rational and wise. Though, I still consider it a mistake to put them in such a form. Since people are stupid, some already see in this monument a call towards mass genocide and the establishment of an authoritarian regime with eugenics.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: Now, perhaps instead of simply repeating WLC's assertions that his premises 1 & 2 hold, you could go to the trouble of arguing that they're true.
R: You know, it's a funny thing. I was considering what example I could use and the one you offered as a reference is a perfect example.
You had written, "This link is an argument for a variant of non-theistic moral realism (it also makes points against the theistic morality of WLC)."
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Wielenberg-In-Defense-of-Non-Natural-Non-Theistic-Moral-Realism.pdf
This link shows Wielenberg's proposal that atheist morality can be grounded in situations that are "states of affairs" that "just exist." He does a little name dropping counting Alvin Plantinga as another believer in the theory. There are "states of affairs concerning justice, and that when individual people have the property of being just." And we interact with these states of affairs; "For instance, I hold that it is just to give people what they deserve; thus, any- one who gives others what they deserve thereby instantiates the property of justice." and he goes on, "The state of affairs that it is just to give people what they deserve obtains whether or not any people actually exist.."
"My view does violate the principles that (i) all values are properties of persons and (ii) all values have external foundations.46 I suggest that the lesson to be drawn from this is that (i) and (ii) are false; certainly Craig and Moreland provide no arguments for such principles."
Well, sorry to burst your bubble, Wielenberg, but the hole in your argument is so big you could drive a truck through it. The main problem begins with your first few words…"For instance, I hold that it is just to give people what they deserve…" And because you hold this to be a good thing, therefore it is?
Let's consider the morals of another atheist. Let's consider Nietzsche, who had, and still has, no small following. He proposed humans should embrace a superman mentality. Not the do-gooder super man of Marvel Comics, but the superman with a will to power, a superman who despises weakness and understands the strong survive in this dog-eat dog world, social Darwinism par-excellence.
According to social darwinism, fairness and justice can be viewed as themes for the losers in society who also believe in notions such as mercy. Nietzsche wrote, “Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves”
In light of Nietzsche, Wielenberg's example of moral objectivity falls flat on its face. His argument underscores the truth that God alone can be the basis of truly objective morality.
Rick: In light of Nietzsche, Wielenberg's example of moral objectivity falls flat on its face. His argument underscores the truth that God alone can be the basis of truly objective morality.
ReplyDeleteSorry Rick, but your argument falls flat. In fact, you didn't even address the claims of Weilenberg. All you did is highlight an issue for your morality as well.
Assuming God exists, I can still ignore this beings supposedly objective moral dictates in the same fashion you perceive Nietzsche ignoring the objective "states-of-affairs" which Weilenberg argues for.
Perhaps you could try again, this time arguing for premises 1 & 2. Now you should remember that showing a single non-theistic account of moral realism invalid (or even every current non-theistic account) doesn't demonstrate premise 1. You need to show that there simply cannot be such an account. The best showing all current forms of non-theistic moral realism shows is that such an account is unlikely/improbable.
Since Craig, in the Q&A of his debate with Harris admitted that his claim for 1 rests on his own ignorance or lack of imagination:
“Well, that would be my second contention that in the absence of God, I can’t see any foundation that would be left for affirming the objectivity of moral values and particularly the value of human beings and conscious life on this planet.” (found at the 1:43:58 mark in this video)
That's an argument from personal incredulity, not a logical proof.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: Sorry Rick, but your argument falls flat. In fact, you didn't even address the claims of Weilenberg.
R: What exactly did I not address?
His central thesis is that moral "states of affairs" are objective and "just exist" irrespective of human interpretation, but he fails miserably when contrasted with atheists such as Nietzche.
Weilenberg offers a specific example: "For instance, I hold that it is just to give people what they deserve…"
But, as I've shown, this moral state of affairs is not self explanatory and contradicts the moral interpretation of social Darwinism as a virtue.
Erik J. Wielenberg's title is "IN DEFENSE OF NON-NATURAL, NON-THEISTIC MORAL REALISM" but he fails miserably to defend his premise.
Contrary to his claims, his premises are "floating" and "ungrounded" to any objective moral standard, though he denies they are.
Is Wielenberg the best example of atheist morality you have, Havok?
I can understand why you would be in a state of denial. :)
Rick: His central thesis is that moral "states of affairs" are objective and "just exist" irrespective of human interpretation, but he fails miserably when contrasted with atheists such as Nietzche.
ReplyDeleteWhich is simply a case of disagreement. It doesn't show that moral states-of-affairs are not objective nor that morality is not grounded in them. You need to argue against Weilenberg's claims, rather than simply saying there are other opinions concerning morality out there. In fact, if your point here was actually successful against moral "states-of-affairs" then it would also be successful against theistic morality.
Not only did you not engage with Weilenberg, but you seem to have missed the point he makes concerning theistic morality - that they too (at least of the variety put forward by R.M. Adams and promoted by William Lane Craig) require the existence of substantive brute facts, independant of God, much like Weilenberg. This means your own claims, which are reliant upon WLC fail to ground all ethical facts in God.
Rick: But, as I've shown, this moral state of affairs is not self explanatory and contradicts the moral interpretation of social Darwinism as a virtue.
According to Weilenberg, these are simply brute facts, So being "self explanatory" doesn't seem to be required (and as pointed out above, theistic morality has similar requirement, so it's not a point in favour of your option).
It also doesn't matter that it social darwinism is not in line with Weilenberg's claims, since social darwinism is immoral on Weilenbergs morality.
As I pointed out above, if this were a valid point, then your theistic morality, which also contradicts the moral interpretation of social darwinism as a virtue, would therefore fail as well.
Rick: Contrary to his claims, his premises are "floating" and "ungrounded" to any objective moral standard, though he denies they are.
Rick, his brute ethical facts are the standard on his view. They're not "floating" around. Since your theistic account also requires similar brute ethical facts, your claims also fail if Weilenberg's do.
Rick: Is Wielenberg the best example of atheist morality you have, Havok?
It was an example, Rick, one which I'd recently read, and which pointed out difficulties for your own position.
There is an entire field of moral philosophy, very little of which appears to be theistic in nature. You'd do well to read further and try to understand instead of simply trying to be right.
Rick: I can understand why you would be in a state of denial. :)
I understand why you feel the need to be right instead of correct Rick. I don't really understand why you must continually apply motives and desires to other people without providing evidence of this (Like just what it is I'm in denial of).
You might be interested in this debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan (Craig prefers to call it a "discussion"). In it, it becomes obvious that Lane Craig needs to further his knowledge when it comes to moral philosophy, as Kagan takes him to school over and over again.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, Lane Craig's support of his first premise seems to come down to an argument from personal incredulity, and if I recall correctly, this becomes even more obvious during this debate
Havok,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"It doesn't show that moral states-of-affairs are not objective nor that morality is not grounded in them. You need to argue against Weilenberg's claims, rather than simply saying there are other opinions concerning morality out there. In fact, if your point here was actually successful against moral "states-of-affairs" then it would also be successful against theistic morality."
1) I disagree. Nietzsche's perspective does conclusively show that Weilenberg's claims are subjective. Why? Because they are both basing their morality on the same basic worldview and they've arrived at very different conclusions, according to the naturalist framework. If Nietzsche had one or two followers you would have some support for your point, but, he's still very popular. And so is Weilenberg's position.
2) You wrote, "if your point here was actually successful against moral "states-of-affairs" then it would also be successful against theistic morality."
R: Havok, You fail to acknowledge that theism is based on something entirely different than these two, it is based on a transcendental objective morality. W.L. Craig makes that quite clear and it's an important differentiation between Weilenberg and Nietzsche. Why? Go back to the definition of the word objective.
3) When you understand the nuances of the word objective and the differences between theism and atheism, you will understand why the Christian view is uniquely objective.
On August 15th I posted the definition of the word objective. It is described in medicine as such: “observable: describes disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill.”
In this case, it's emphasized that the observer must be separated from the state of affairs (disease) in order to objectively evaluate the state of affairs. In naturalism, the observer can never be removed from the state of affairs because the mind is purported to develop out of the state of affairs, from natural selection. However, theism offers the mind is spiritual in nature and is absolutely from another dimension and therefore its perceptions can be truly objective. Whether or not you believe God exists, the theist view, as a pure concept, is objective in a manner naturalist philosophies cannot be.
A philosophical definition of objectivity reads: “existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception.” If justice was a strong and independent moral "brute fact" such as the law of gravity, then there wouldn't be much of an argument as to its nature and implications. But this isn't the case for atheists. The concept of justice, according to these two atheist philosophers, apparently does not include enough information to be a guide as a moral state of affairs.
However, in theism, we have more information. Jesus Christ walked the Earth as a perfectly righteous and just individual. He is the example of perfect and absolute justice. His disciples lived with him for just over three years and did not challenge his assertion that He was without sin.
These two points, 1) the transcendent spirit and mind, and 2) the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ, give Christianity a unique moral foundation and objectivity. You can claim you don't believe in God, but you cannot claim Christianity has the same conceptual and moral basis as Nietzsche and Weilenberg.
I asked you if Weilenberg was the best possible example of atheist morality you had to offer. You wrote,
ReplyDelete"It was an example, Rick, one which I'd recently read, and which pointed out difficulties for your own position.
There is an entire field of moral philosophy, very little of which appears to be theistic in nature. You'd do well to read further and try to understand instead of simply trying to be right."
R: With all due respect, I don't see the point of investigating other atheist moral philosophies because, according to what you've presented here, they will all likely have the same basic problems. They would not do me well and have certainly not done society well. I am quite happy with the truth I have found and I'm not surprised that theists are generally healthier than atheists, according to a Gallup poll.
According to the Gallup Organization, "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."[42]
Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx
Because atheists aren't objectively and morally grounded, there is less reason not to commit suicide when their apparent lack of deep meaning in life is recognized.
"Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health
Perhaps it would do you well, Havok, to look into the nature of God who loves you so much He allowed His one and only son to die for your sins in order that you might have eternal life in God's presence. God loves you, Havok. That's a brute fact.
Rick: 1) I disagree. Nietzsche's perspective does conclusively show that Weilenberg's claims are subjective. Why? Because they are both basing their morality on the same basic worldview and they've arrived at very different conclusions, according to the naturalist framework. If Nietzsche had one or two followers you would have some support for your point, but, he's still very popular. And so is Weilenberg's position.
ReplyDeleteAgain you are missing the point Rick.
Weilenberg's "states-of-affairs" are objective, in that they're independent of minds - they exist as facts of reality.
That people come to different conclusions, if fatal to non-theistic moral systems, is therefore just as fatal to theistic morality, as there are many different moral systems which include a God or gods.
So your point here continues to fail.
Rick: R: Havok, You fail to acknowledge that theism is based on something entirely different than these two, it is based on a transcendental objective morality.
It depends on the variant, Rick. You seem to think that there is only a single theistic system of morality but this is hardly the case, even within Christian theism. For example, Wes Morriston argues against WLC's claims, and argues for a sort of platonic moral standard which God just happens to instantiate (avoiding the arbitrariness horn of Euthyphro).
Rick: W.L. Craig makes that quite clear and it's an important differentiation between Weilenberg and Nietzsche. Why? Go back to the definition of the word objective.
You fail to see that Weilenberg (and others) promote objective moral systems (all theories of moral realism are "objective").
Rick: 3) When you understand the nuances of the word objective and the differences between theism and atheism, you will understand why the Christian view is uniquely objective.
It sounds as if you're either simply mistaken, or you're stacking the deck in your favour - that would appear to be a case of special pleading (and it seems it's something that WLC does in his moral argument as well). It consists of deciding that objective morality can only be satisfied by your system, rather than being more open minded about the possibilities.
Rick: In this case, it's emphasized that the observer must be separated from the state of affairs (disease) in order to objectively evaluate the state of affairs. In naturalism, the observer can never be removed from the state of affairs because the mind is purported to develop out of the state of affairs, from natural selection.
This is simply mistaken, Rick. All variants of non-theistic moral realism are objective - they're not observer dependant.
Rick: However, theism offers the mind is spiritual in nature and is absolutely from another dimension and therefore its perceptions can be truly objective.
Except that there is still the problem of it's opinions being subjective. This is why WLC and others try to argue for "Good" being grounded in God's nature, but as Weilenberg points out, this still requires the existence of brute ethical facts external to God's nature, and so your arguments against Weilenberg actually reflect on your own position as well.
Rick: Whether or not you believe God exists, the theist view, as a pure concept, is objective in a manner naturalist philosophies cannot be.
No Rick, theism doesn't posit "pure concept". That would be more akin to some form of moral platonism, and that is certainly not what WLC is arguing for (nor does it require theism).
Rick: A philosophical definition of objectivity reads: “existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception.”
ReplyDeleteAnd with this simple statement you undermine your position further. Your claims for morality are not independant of (God's) mind, therefore by your own claims, your moral system is subjective. Whoops! :-)
Rick: You can claim you don't believe in God, but you cannot claim Christianity has the same conceptual and moral basis as Nietzsche and Weilenberg.
Well, since as Weilenberg points out, your moral system requires appeal to some of the same brute ethical facts as his claims, then ALL of your points which you think invalidate his claims invalidate your own.
Rick: With all due respect, I don't see the point of investigating other atheist moral philosophies because, according to what you've presented here, they will all likely have the same basic problems.
I agree. You're likely to misunderstand any and all other systems of morality in order to bolster your belief that Christianity is the only possible solution.
Rick: They would not do me well and have certainly not done society well.
Actually, an informed view of morality has done society well. It's the rigid intransigence found in moral systems like that of Christianity (and other ideologies) that tend to do the most harm.
Rick: I am quite happy with the truth I have found
And here we have the problem. You believe without sufficient justification (and without the ability to honestly investigate) that you know what is true. Yet you do not even seem to understand what it is you claim is true, nor the arguments against it. You do not understand alternative moral systems, even those which are compatible with your basic worldview (such as Wes Morriston's form of moral platonism).
So, while it is possible that you're correct, you simply don't know enough to actually make that claim ;-)
Rick: Perhaps it would do you well, Havok, to look into the nature of God who loves you so much He allowed His one and only son to die for your sins in order that you might have eternal life in God's presence. God loves you, Havok. That's a brute fact.
Rick, if there is a God, then it being the God of the OT & NT, the God of Christianity, is so vanishingly small as to be undeserving of consideration, due to all of the logical, historical and scientific problems.
I think I'll stick with withholding my belief until I'm able to justify it, thanks.
Perhaps Rick, instead of simply trying to be right, you could try to actually understand, and offer valid critiques of non-theistic morality, rather than simply writing throwaway lines which lack substance.
ReplyDeleteThus far we have valid systems of non-theistic moral realism, which you're yet to offer a justified refutation of (Weilenberg's "states of affairs").
We also have no proof that moral realism is correct, and therefore systems of moral anti-realism are also on the table (sophisticated moral relativism, moral error theories, etc).
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: "Weilenberg's "states-of-affairs" are objective, in that they're independent of minds - they exist as facts of reality."
R: No Havok, on the contrary, Weilenberg's affairs may be abstract and not observed, but his moral justice is nothing less than his personal interpretation of a state of affairs:
"For instance, I hold that it is just to give people what they deserve; thus, any- one who gives others what they deserve thereby instantiates the property of justice."
Look carefully at what he is saying. The actual and objective act is to "give others" something. But when he writes to give others "what they deserve" this is no longer objective, it is subjective. According to atheism, who is to say what someone deserves and why?
His justice is in no way independent of a mind, only the action the "giving" is conceptually objective in his example, not the interpretation of the action.
H: "Wes Morriston argues against WLC's claims, and argues for a sort of platonic moral standard which God just happens to instantiate (avoiding the arbitrariness horn of Euthyphro)."
R: Not exactly sure what you mean by this. You could clarify what you are talking about. In any event, the two aspects of Christianity I mentioned are foundational to Christianity, 1) the mind and spirit are transcendent. 2) Jesus lived as a concrete and perfect example of moral integrity. Whatever Wes believes, these two points lay the foundation for Christian morality. If a person does not believe these two foundational points, he or she is not talking about the Christianity of scripture.
H: "all theories of moral realism are "objective""
R: No, not according to the definitions of the word objective I've just posted. And not according to your example. There is obvious confusion as to what "brute facts" entail. A person's moral interpretation of possible events and scenarios is not a brute fact, it is completely subjective.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: "It sounds as if you're either simply mistaken, or you're stacking the deck in your favour."
R: Christian morality is objective conceptually and practically. The implications of the theist worldview may imply I'm trying to "stack the deck" in your opinion, but the life of Christ is the reason why everything I am writing about can be shown to exist in reality, as a brute fact, to anyone who has an open mind to receive the truth.
H: Actually, an informed view of morality has done society well.
R: Very funny. Atheist systems of morality have justified horrific genocides. As I pointed out, the Inquisition was not justified by scripture. And personally I don't find documented depression and increased suicide levels very good things for society, as I just pointed out. It seems you are in a state of denial, Havok:
According to the Gallup Organization, "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."[42]
Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx
Because atheists aren't objectively and morally grounded, there is less reason not to commit suicide when their apparent lack of deep meaning in life is recognized.
"Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health
H: This is simply mistaken, Rick. All variants of non-theistic moral realism are objective - they're not observer dependent.
R: Observer independent, yes, but very subjectively interpreted, as I've just pointed out.
H: Your claims for morality are not independant of (God's) mind, therefore by your own claims, your moral system is subjective. Whoops! :-)
R: God is absolute reality and does not require justification. God is the reference point itself. The problem with atheist philosophers is that you have a difficult time considering a perspective outside your atheist lens. I should probably write an article on this problem because I find it is a recurring one. If you know about Cartesian mathematics and how the origin point is the reference point for all other points, then you may understand why relational meaning and justification from a human perspective are quite different than when considered from God's perspective.
H: the God of Christianity, is so vanishingly small as to be undeserving of consideration, due to all of the logical, historical and scientific problems.
R: So far, it seems it is actually your view that is illogical, philosophically ungrounded, unhealthy and confused. As for history, we know what atheism has brought us and high-tech cannibalism seems to be a small appetizer on the menu of our next phase of brutal atheist history that's just around the corner.
Your atheist Komrad Anonymous in Russia seems to like the Georgia Guidestones and the forced reduction of the Earth's population to 500,000,000 people. At least that's what he wrote 3 days ago:
"I have heard of the Georgia Guidestone, but how on earth does it point at a secret society? Frankly speaking, I find these commandements very rational and wise."
Rick: No Havok, on the contrary, Weilenberg's affairs may be abstract and not observed, but his moral justice is nothing less than his personal interpretation of a state of affairs:
ReplyDeleteNo Rick, this is not Weilenberg's position.
"It is widely held that if moral properties are exemplified at all, they supervene on non-moral properties."
and
"On my approach, the supervenience relationships under discussion here are logically equivalent to certain basic ethical facts. For example, the claim that the property of intrinsic badness supervenes on the property of pain is logically equivalent to the claim that necessarily, pain is intrinsically bad."
So on Weilenberg's view, it is not simply his personal opinion that X is good, but it is a brute fact of reality that X is good.
Rick: The actual and objective act is to "give others" something. But when he writes to give others "what they deserve" this is no longer objective, it is subjective. According to atheism, who is to say what someone deserves and why?
I've looked closely Rick. The brute ethical fact of justice exists when someone is given what they deserve (which is basically the definition of justice). Now, there may be some debate as to whether some punishment or reward is just (or cruel etc), but that would, on Weilenberg's view become more of an epistemological matter, rather than an ontological one.
Rick: His justice is in no way independent of a mind, only the action the "giving" is conceptually objective in his example, not the interpretation of the action.
And you don't seem to understand just what Weilenberg is saying.
When someone is punished or rewarded in an appropriate manner, then "justice" supervenes on this act. This is, according to Weilenberg, independent of mind.
Rick: Not exactly sure what you mean by this. You could clarify what you are talking about.
Morriston (who is a Christian) argues that someone is "good" to the extent that they exemplify good making properties, such as kindness, justice, wisdom, etc.
God (if he existed) would be the highest good simply because he would instantiate these good making properties to the highest degree.
In the absence of God, you and I could still be good to the degree to which we exemplify these good making properties.
In short, Morriston claims there to be a standard external to God (these good making properties) to which we can appeal. It is a sort of moral platonism.
Rick: In any event, the two aspects of Christianity I mentioned are foundational to Christianity, 1) the mind and spirit are transcendent. 2) Jesus lived as a concrete and perfect example of moral integrity.
Point 1 is undermined by neuroscience, and is a superfluous, possibly incoherent, and likely unverifiable claim, and as such should be viewed with some scepticism.
Point 2 is a latter Christian embellishment, is unsupported by the earliest Gospel (GMark has Jesus coming to John the Baptist to be baptised for the forgiveness of sin, and it is only after this baptism that Jesus is annointed by God). Not only that but Jesus (and God throughout both testaments) approves of things like slavery, and so claims of his moral integrity are hollow.
Sorry, but if they're foundational to your Christianity, then all the worse for your Christianity.
Rick: No, not according to the definitions of the word objective I've just posted. And not according to your example.
Rick, it's the definition of moral realism - it's moral theories which claim the existence of moral facts "out there" in reality, with at least the same reality as "2 + 2 = 4" being a fact of mathematics.
Rick: There is obvious confusion as to what "brute facts" entail. A person's moral interpretation of possible events and scenarios is not a brute fact, it is completely subjective.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is your mistaken interpretation of Weilenberg, not his actual position.
Rick: Christian morality is objective conceptually and practically.
No Rick. It may be human mind independant, but the variant of Christian morality you're championing is subject to the mind of God (if it existed). There are attempts to avoid this conclusion (like positing that God's nature is necessary), but they still are mind dependent.
Rick: The implications of the theist worldview may imply I'm trying to "stack the deck" in your opinion,
No Rick. I'm saying you're stacking the deck because it seems that the only theory of morality which would be suitably objective to you is one which posits God as the source of all morality. You're basically assuming that there is only one possible solution to the puzzle, and that solution happens to be yours. So when you're presented with alternatives, you fail to recognise them as being suitably objective, even when they're independent of opinion, sufficient to make them "objective" on any reasonable account.
Rick: but the life of Christ is the reason why everything I am writing about can be shown to exist in reality, as a brute fact, to anyone who has an open mind to receive the truth.
And now you're claiming that I'm being stubborn and closed minded.
You have not (and likely can not) show that what you're claiming exists in reality, you've not shown me to be closed minded to your supposed truth. You simply assert things with no justification and expect this to carry your argument.
Rick: Very funny. Atheist systems of morality have justified horrific genocides.
Please actually read what I write, Rick. I said an informed view has done well, and that rigid ideological systems tend to be bad (such as your own morality appears to be, and the communists also appeared to have).
Rick: As I pointed out, the Inquisition was not justified by scripture.
Not justified by your interpretation of scripture. It was certainly justified by the Church's interpretation of scripture at the time.
Rick: So far, it seems it is actually your view that is illogical, philosophically ungrounded, unhealthy and confused.
Funny. Since you're unable to justify your initial point of this post (since the practice you're objecting to pre-dates communism), nor have you justified the 2 premises from the moral argument from WLC, you seem to be the one who is confused.
Rick: As for history, we know what atheism has brought us and high-tech cannibalism seems to be a small appetizer on the menu of our next phase of brutal atheist history that's just around the corner.
An appeal to emotion is not an argument Rick.
Perhaps you can continue to try to demonstrate that moral realism requires God, and that morality requires moral realism.
I don't have high hopes however :-)
Rick: Your atheist Komrad Anonymous in Russia seems to like the Georgia Guidestones and the forced reduction of the Earth's population to 500,000,000 people. At least that's what he wrote 3 days ago:
ReplyDeleteAs "anonymous" said, I don't see the big problem with the guide stones. The figure of 500 million seems a little silly, as advances in technology would make it redundant, and the "perpetual balance" seems a little to idealistic, since it would be a dynamic balance. The idea that we ought not to cause a collapse of ecosystems through over population is a reasonable one.
#2 seems a little too like social darwinistic for my liking, but it would be difficult to put a nuanced statement in such a short sentence.
The rest of the statements seem quite reasonable to me, however.
I wonder why you are so up in arms about it (is it simply that it doesn't mention your God?)
Havok,
ReplyDeleteQuoting Weilenberg: "For example, the claim that the property of intrinsic badness supervenes on the property of pain is logically equivalent to the claim that necessarily, pain is intrinsically bad."
So on Weilenberg's view, it is not simply his personal opinion that X is good, but it is a brute fact of reality that X is good.
R: In the quote I cited, Weilenberg made a moral claim based on his personal opinion:
"For instance, I hold that it is just to give people what they deserve; thus, any- one who gives others what they deserve thereby instantiates the property of justice."
And now you offer another claim: "the claim that necessarily, pain is intrinsically bad." This may not be Weilenberg's claim, per se. But it is an opinion that is not grounded in any absolute "brute" fact. For example, John Doe capitalist believes that pain is good because when he and his workers are in pain they believe they are pushing the limits of their endurance. The motto at his factory is "No pain no gain." In this case pain is seen as morally good.
You see, Havok, without an absolute reference point, your search, and Weilenberg's, for "brute facts" about morality is a futile endeavor. It is subjective and arbitrary. The morality of Christianity is grounded in the specific person (life, words and actions)of Christ and has a tangible objective basis. When will you admit that atheists have no solid basis for objective morality? How many examples do I need to disprove? You want to offer some more? :)
Regards,
Rick
Havok,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Now, there may be some debate as to whether some punishment or reward is just (or cruel etc), but that would, on Weilenberg's view become more of an epistemological matter, rather than an ontological one."
R: If there is an absolute standard, then there should not be much of a debate. But, yes, according to the atheist view, there must be a constant debate because there is no absolute standard for comparison.
According to the theist view, justice reigns according to the letter of the law and is not always the best outcome. Mercy and love, forgiving someone's debt or offense, simply out of kindness, is a higher good than justice. But, as in the case of Nietzsche, there is no reason whatsoever for atheists to see mercy as a good thing, according to social Darwinism in this dog-eat-dog world.
This isn't merely an epistemological issue. A person may not be aware of Christ's examples of mercy as an ideal. However, a person's ignorance does not negate the fact that this higher form of morality exists and is real.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope and limitations of knowledge. But objective morality does not depend on subjective understanding. It is easy to understand why atheists would believe there is no such ideal, however.
-
Havok,
ReplyDelete"And you don't seem to understand just what Weilenberg is saying.When someone is punished or rewarded in an appropriate manner, then "justice" supervenes on this act. This is, according to Weilenberg, independent of mind."
R: You don't seem to understand that your logic (and Weilenberg's) is viciously circular.
Who is to decide the "appropriate manner" in which justice supervenes? You are in an infinite regression because your morality is not grounded in anything absolute and specific. Whether Weilenberg admits it or not, his "objective morality" is likened to a dog chasing its own tale. Don't you get it? it just doesn't work and it never can because there is no solid foundation.
H: "In short, Morriston claims there to be a standard external to God."
ReplyDeleteR: He may be a Christian but I don't find any scriptural support for this concept. Scripture emphasize that God is the ultimate standard: "Your Mercies, Oh Lord, endure forever." "All your ways are righteous and true." "There is no one like you." Holy, holy is the Lord.
As soon as you try to disembody morality from God, as exemplified in Christ, you end up in a philosophical, relativistic moral quandry.
H: "In short, Morriston claims there to be a standard external to God."
ReplyDeleteR: He may be a Christian but I don't find any scriptural support for this concept. Scripture emphasize that God is the ultimate standard: "Your Mercies, Oh Lord, endure forever." "All your ways are righteous and true." "There is no one like you." Holy, holy is the Lord.
As soon as you try to disembody morality from God, as exemplified in Christ, you end up in a philosophical, relativistic moral quandry.
August 30, 2011 2:45 PM
Rick Warden said...
2) Jesus lived as a concrete and perfect example of moral integrity.
Havok,
You wrote "Point 1 is undermined by neuroscience" (the mind and spirit are transcendent.)
R: Links, examples are necessary because I've shown specific examples of NDE that confirm this in my article "How Identity Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence."
H: Point 2 is a latter Christian embellishment, is unsupported by the earliest Gospel (that Jesus lived as a concrete and perfect example of moral integrity.), and it is only after this baptism that Jesus is annointed by God). Not only that but Mark has Jesus coming to John the Baptist to be baptised for the forgiveness of sin Jesus (and God throughout both testaments) approves of things like slavery, and so claims of his moral integrity are hollow.
Sorry, but if they're foundational to your Christianity, then all the worse for your Christianity.
R: The fact that Jesus went to Mark to be baptized was example for us to follow. It's pretty difficult to baptize yourself in the water, after all. :)
Jesus did not make any moral statement with regard to the morality of slavery. Can you point one out? What he did do was to inform slaves that physical freedom is not as important as spiritual freedom and helping others to find spiritual freedom is more important than seeking your own physical freedom. Jesus did not advise an armed rebellion but emphasized that love and contentment in God are supreme. The Bible advised slaves to serve sincerely as though personally serving God and this applies to all kind of Christian workers, not just slaves. This is because God is seen as the ultimate giver of justice in eternity (1 Corinthians 7.21)
It was actually Christians, such as Wilberforce, who helped end legal slavery. And, according to theism, human beings are created in God's image and therefore have inherent value independent of their utility or function. A slave in a theist paradigm is more safe than a free citizen in an atheist paradigm because there is no objective reason not to use cruelty.
In your recent post you wrote: "As "anonymous" said, I don't see the big problem with the guide stones." Two of the "Ten Commandments" of Mother Earth:
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
You said it was "silly" to reduce the population to 500,000,000 but not immoral.
And "#2 seems a little too like social darwinistic for my liking, but it would be difficult to put a nuanced statement in such a short sentence."
If you do some research on this subject you'll see that the New World Order paradign supports a two-tiered system, the elite and the serfs. The latter will essentially be the slaves of the former. This is essentially what Soviet socialism was, though not outwardly acknowledged.Ultimately, it seems you and your comrade are supporting neo-slavery.
There will be a choice for the average person: Be a slave to the state and live - or die.
http://www.dailypaul.com/112093/american-slaves-now-content-in-their-chains
Rick: R: In the quote I cited, Weilenberg made a moral claim based on his personal opinion:
ReplyDeleteIt was not based upon his personal opinion, Rick. You seem unable to understand the point Weilenberg is making.
Weilenberg is saying that if his account of morality is correct, then giving someone what they deserve instantiates the property of justice. This would be an objective property of reality.
Rick: And now you offer another claim: "the claim that necessarily, pain is intrinsically bad." This may not be Weilenberg's claim, per se. But it is an opinion that is not grounded in any absolute "brute" fact.
You don't seem to understand Rick. On Weilenberg's account, brute fact is that pain is intrinsically bad. There is nothing further to account for.
Rick: For example, John Doe capitalist believes that pain is good because when he and his workers are in pain they believe they are pushing the limits of their endurance.
The pain would still be bad, on Weilenberg's account, though the results of the pain may be beneficial (think of vaccination - a little bit of pain, but the end result is beneficial).
Rick: The motto at his factory is "No pain no gain." In this case pain is seen as morally good.
The pain would not be morally good, Rick. It would be intrinsically bad, but the sacrifice of some pain on the part of the individual for the good of the collective would be seen as a good.
Rick: You see, Havok, without an absolute reference point, your search, and Weilenberg's, for "brute facts" about morality is a futile endeavor.
This may be the case, but you certainly haven't shown it, through your misunderstandings and failing examples.
Rick: It is subjective and arbitrary.
Not if Weilenberg is correct. You seem to be mistaking ontological claims (what there is) with epistemological claims (how we know).
Rick: The morality of Christianity is grounded in the specific person (life, words and actions)of Christ and has a tangible objective basis.
And yet supposed Christian morality is not a single unified thing, but is fractured and contrary. If there was truly an objective standard which was superior to that proposed by Weilenberg, then it seems unlikely that this would be the case.
Rick: When will you admit that atheists have no solid basis for objective morality?
Why would I admit that, Rick?
You completely misunderstand and misrepresent other systems of morality which are different to your own in order to prop up your own claims. You've not addressed the points Weilenberg makes regarding your own variety of theistic morality being reliant upon similar ethical brute facts to his own, facts which are not and seemingly can not be grounded in your God.
Rick: How many examples do I need to disprove? You want to offer some more? :)
You need to disprove all of them and demonstrate that it is impossible for any such system to succeed, or prove your own variant is actually correct (along with demonstrating that morality is actually objective).
Rick: If there is an absolute standard, then there should not be much of a debate.
ReplyDeleteAgain you undermine your position, since there is continuing debate even in theistic circles.
Rick: But, yes, according to the atheist view, there must be a constant debate because there is no absolute standard for comparison.
On Weilenberg's account, as well as others, there is indeed an objective standard. As I mentioned above, you confuse ontological and epistemological aspects of morality.
Rick: According to the theist view, justice reigns according to the letter of the law and is not always the best outcome. Mercy and love, forgiving someone's debt or offense, simply out of kindness, is a higher good than justice.
This is certainly a matter of debate, Rick. Also, this seems to fly in the face of your concept of God punishing people for eternity simply because such punishment is "Just".
Rick: But, as in the case of Nietzsche, there is no reason whatsoever for atheists to see mercy as a good thing, according to social Darwinism in this dog-eat-dog world.
Rick, Nietzsche is not the final word in non-theistic morality. Why do you treat him as such?
Rick: This isn't merely an epistemological issue. A person may not be aware of Christ's examples of mercy as an ideal. However, a person's ignorance does not negate the fact that this higher form of morality exists and is real.
That's funny Rick - you will not grant a similar claim to non-theistic morality, and yet you require it for your own. This is special pleading, and you should avoid it.
Rick: But objective morality does not depend on subjective understanding. It is easy to understand why atheists would believe there is no such ideal, however.
Again, on Weilenberg's account, the ethical brute facts simply exist, and disagreements about them would be epistemological in nature.
You've undermined your own claims here by conflating epistemological and ontological claims regarding non-theistic morality, and yet have just above ensured that such concerns are and must be taken separately for theistic morality such as your own.
Rick: Who is to decide the "appropriate manner" in which justice supervenes?
ReplyDeleteThis is an epistemological issue, not an ontological one, and one which the theist, as you admitted in previous comments, is in no better position to deal with.
Rick: You are in an infinite regression because your morality is not grounded in anything absolute and specific.
Weilenberg's morality is indeed grounded in something absolute and specific - his ethical brute facts. You seem unable or unwilling to understand this simple claim.
Rick: Whether Weilenberg admits it or not, his "objective morality" is likened to a dog chasing its own tale. Don't you get it? it just doesn't work and it never can because there is no solid foundation.
You claiming this to be the case doesn't make it so, and all of your arguments trying to establish this thus far have failed miserably.
Not only that, but you've failed to address (completely ignored more accurately) Weilenberg's observation that your own theistic morality relies on some of the very same sorts of ethical brute facts his own account relies upon, and therefore your arguments against his position, if they were successful (which they're currently not) are also arguments against your own position - Weilenberg is not relying upon anything which your own theistic morality doesn't already require.
Rick: He may be a Christian but I don't find any scriptural support for this concept. Scripture emphasize that God is the ultimate standard: "Your Mercies, Oh Lord, endure forever." "All your ways are righteous and true." "There is no one like you." Holy, holy is the Lord.
ReplyDeleteNone of those quotations, and nothing I can remember ever having read in the bible, seems to favour your position over that of Morriston. On his account, God is righteous and true, holy, etc, because he exemplifies the properties which are Good.
Rick: As soon as you try to disembody morality from God, as exemplified in Christ, you end up in a philosophical, relativistic moral quandry.
You don't seem to understand Morriston's point, in a similar fashion to you not understanding Weilenberg's claims.
It seems that because you believe you "know" the truth regarding morality, that you don't need to understand any other view.
Rick: Links, examples are necessary because I've shown specific examples of NDE that confirm this in my article "How Identity Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence."
ReplyDeleteNo you did not Rick. You presented examples of NDE's, but your interpretation of them is far from the only one, nor even the most probable. You already believe in souls etc, and so you're predisposed to accept a supernatural explanation, but you've failed to substantiate this specific explanation as being correct.
Meanwhile neuroscience has shown a very strong correlation between mental and brain events, has demonstrated that memories, personality, reasoning, etc are all dependant upon the brain, can be suppressed or removed entirely through drugs, brain stimulation, or damage to the brain.
So, as it stands, you're claims are far from substantiated.
Rick: The fact that Jesus went to Mark to be baptized was example for us to follow. It's pretty difficult to baptize yourself in the water, after all. :)
He went to John (not Mark) in the Gospel of Mark, and John was specifically performing baptism's for the forgiveness of sin. Ergo, Jesus had sinned and needed forgiveness.
Rick: Jesus did not make any moral statement with regard to the morality of slavery. Can you point one out?
The OT is rife with commendations of slavery. Since God in the OT is supposed to be God in the NT, then the God of the NT approved of slavery. And since the NT does not speak out against the institution of slavery, and does have several statements of approval (Paul sending a slave back to his owner) we can assume that the Christian God approves of slavery.
Rick: The Bible advised slaves to serve sincerely as though personally serving God and this applies to all kind of Christian workers, not just slaves.
Which indicates approval of ownership of people, which I hope you agree is immoral.
Rick: It was actually Christians, such as Wilberforce, who helped end legal slavery.
And Christians opposed Wilberforce and others, and had strong scriptural arguments in favour of the institution of slavery.
Rick: And, according to theism, human beings are created in God's image and therefore have inherent value independent of their utility or function.
No, they don't have inherent value on (your variant of) theism - they have value simply because God values them. This is not intrinsic value, but is extrinsic value.
Rick: A slave in a theist paradigm is more safe than a free citizen in an atheist paradigm because there is no objective reason not to use cruelty.
False Rick, since your contention that atheism leads to cruelty is unsupported.
Rick: You said it was "silly" to reduce the population to 500,000,000 but not immoral.
It would depend on the means of population reduction, Rick. Voluntary birth control doesn't seem immoral, while death camps would be.
Rick: If you do some research on this subject you'll see that the New World Order paradign supports a two-tiered system, the elite and the serfs. The latter will essentially be the slaves of the former. This is essentially what Soviet socialism was, though not outwardly acknowledged.Ultimately, it seems you and your comrade are supporting neo-slavery.
Stop putting words in my mouth Rick. You do this over and over, and it does not help the discussion.
I also notice that you seem to be something of a conspiracy nut, though you don't seem to produce much in the way of evidence in support of these claims.
Rick: There will be a choice for the average person: Be a slave to the state and live - or die.
Or the more likely third option - the whole New World Order conspiracy talk is simply nonsense.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: "Weilenberg is saying that if his account of morality is correct, then giving someone what they deserve instantiates the property of justice. This would be an objective property of reality."
R: And that's the issue, who's going to judge "if his account of morality is correct"?
Justification requires a basis of justification.
H: "On Weilenberg's account, brute fact is that pain is intrinsically bad. There is nothing further to account for."
R: On his account, i.e., in his opinion = subjective.
H: Rick, Nietzsche is not the final word in non-theistic morality. Why do you treat him as such?
R: He's an excellent object lesson.
H:The pain (working hard) would still be bad, on Weilenberg's account, though the results of the pain may be beneficial (think of vaccination - a little bit of pain, but the end result is beneficial).
R: No. I'm sorry, but working very hard and testing your limits isn't morally "bad" - no way.
H: This may be the case, but you certainly haven't shown it, through your misunderstandings and failing examples.
R: So you really believe working hard is morally bad? I won't tell your employer this, don't worry. But there's a special hospital down the street with padded walls in case you voluntarily want to check out of life.
H: The pain would not be morally good, Rick. ("No pain no gain.") It would be intrinsically bad, but the sacrifice of some pain on the part of the individual for the good of the collective would be seen as a good.
R: Again H., "No pain no gain" is not morally bad. No way. It makes gyms lots of money and makes macho men buff for their sweethearts.
H: And yet supposed Christian morality is not a single unified thing, but is fractured and contrary.
R: I'm not talking about organized religion. That's what many atheists can't understand. I'm talking about the person of Christ dwelling inside. There is no fracture or contradiction.
H: Why would I admit that, Rick? (atheists have no solid basis for objective morality?)
R: i'm giving you lots of examples. You still haven't justified your point that pain is bad.
H: You need to disprove all of them and demonstrate that it is impossible for any such system to succeed, (How many examples do I need to disprove? You want to offer some more? :)
R: Maybe you should think long and hard for a while and come up with your very best examples so I only have to refute a few.
H: On Weilenberg's account, as well as others, there is indeed an objective standard.
R: OK, pain is bad. That's a standard. But it doesn't work.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: This is certainly a matter of debate, Rick. Also, this seems to fly in the face of your concept of God punishing people for eternity simply because such punishment is "Just".
R: Theologically, we are born in original sin as a result of satan's rebellion and man's rebellion. God is not punishing people and sending them to hell, hell was forewarned as the consequence of rebellion. Unless we receive salvation, we are all on the way to hell, death and separation from God.
H: That's funny Rick - you will not grant a similar claim to non-theistic morality, and yet you require it for your own. (a person's ignorance does not negate the fact that this higher form of morality exists and is real.)
R: In theism, there's an objective source of morality in God's existence, irrespective of a living human person and a human mind. But your moral brute facts don't have an anchor. It doesn't work for living humans, let alone in an abstract sense when no humans are thinking about it. I.e., your "pain is bad" doesn't fit physical reality or abstract reality because it has no absolute foundation. These repeated kinds of phrases "according to" "his account of" "if it's true" all show this. Think it through. It's an endless regression if there's no absolute reference point.
H: Again, on Weilenberg's account, the ethical brute facts simply exist, and disagreements about them would be epistemological in nature.
R: Again, I point out "ethical brute facts" aren't objective if the "ethical" aspect of the brute facts have to be subjectively interpreted in each case. I agree that brute facts exist, but there can be no absolute objective evaluation without an absolute objective standard.
H: You've undermined your own claims here by conflating epistemological and ontological claims regarding non-theistic morality, and yet have just above ensured that such concerns are and must be taken separately for theistic morality such as your own.
R: You've made conclusions before hearing my answers on your points. I disagree with your conclusion based on the rebuts I've offered.
H: This is an epistemological issue, not an ontological one (Who is to decide the "appropriate manner" in which justice supervenes?), and one which the theist, as you admitted in previous comments, is in no better position to deal with.
R: A person can be questioned civilly or waterboarded and perhaps tortured. They are both forms of inquiry. The first is civil and moral in my opinion as a Christian, the second is considered OK by many neoconservatives who hold an extremely liberal view of scripture or none at all. I don't believe the question of "appropriate manner" is an epistemological one in this case but one of values and ethics.
H: Weilenberg's morality is indeed grounded in something absolute and specific - his ethical brute facts. You seem unable or unwilling to understand this simple claim.
R: I wrote I agree "brute facts" exist in and of themselves. But there is no such thing as "an ethical brut fact." The "pain is bad" issue points this out.
H; You claiming this to be the case doesn't make it so, and all of your arguments trying to establish this thus far have failed miserably. (his "objective morality" is likened to a dog chasing its own tale.)
R: Justify your assertion "pain is bad" without referring to mere opinion.
H: You don't seem to understand Morriston's point, in a similar fashion to you not understanding Weilenberg's claims.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that because you believe you "know" the truth regarding morality, that you don't need to understand any other view.
R: to be honest, I don't have a great desire to make an in-depth study of these people because I see through it immediately. It's not that I'm anything special, the most basic logic requires that objective morality requires an absolute reference point. If I'm wrong, justify your assertion "pain is bad" without referring to mere opinion. For a visual construct imagine doing 3D geometrical algebra without the origin point. The absolute reference point, or origin point, is implied in 3D equations, even if it is in itself is not used in the equation.
H: Meanwhile neuroscience has shown a very strong correlation between mental and brain events, has demonstrated that memories, personality, reasoning, etc are all dependant upon the brain, can be suppressed or removed entirely through drugs, brain stimulation, or damage to the brain.
R: Those are very interesting points I'd like to study. But, if you recall, in my Identity-Logic-Physics article, I quoted Reynolds "The saw thing that I hated the sound of looked like an electric toothbrush and it had a dent in it, a groove at the top where the saw appeared to go into the handle, but it didn't ... And the saw had interchangeable blades, too, but these blades were in what looked like a socket wrench case ...” She was observing someone getting ready to cut into her skull from a position of elevation, floating in the room. Her testimony of this and a conversation among doctors was verified by the doctors. And this type of experience happens to others, as I pointed out referenced to a peer-reviewed article.
H: He went to John (not Mark) in the Gospel of Mark, and John was specifically performing baptism's for the forgiveness of sin. Ergo, Jesus had sinned and needed forgiveness.
R: Scriptures call Jesus our example: "Jesus Our Example. Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again.." His baptism was an example for new Christians to follow. "It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Jesus didn't begin his ministry work until he was baptized at age 30. It was a sign of presentation to God and to Israel and it was when he became empowered for ministry. It says the Spirit descended on him and he performed his first miracle about 40 days later.
H: The OT is rife with commendations of slavery.
R: I asked for an example in Jesus' life about slavery.
H: Which indicates approval of ownership of people, which I hope you agree is immoral.
T: Like Wilberforce, I believe it is immoral.
H: No, they (humans) don't have inherent value on (your variant of) theism - they have value simply because God values them. This is not intrinsic value, but is extrinsic value.
R: I believe in this case it is both intrinsic and extrinsic. If something beautiful is made by an artist, does it lose it's value and beauty when the artist dies? No, actually it often becomes more valuable, it has intrinsic value. Scripture shows we are created by God, in His image. If we are created in God's image, as described, then theologically we, as humans, are to have that aspect of respect for the image of God in others as well. There are other verses that imply intrinsic value: Jesus said Matthew 10:31 "Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows." "He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished." The adulterer.
H: False Rick, since your contention that atheism leads to cruelty is unsupported. (slave in a theist paradigm is more safe than a free citizen in an atheist paradigm because there is no objective reason not to use cruelty.)
ReplyDeleteR: I've just shown why this is true (Created in God's image). But Your New World Order - reduce the world to 500 Million people - I have no problem with that - answer, also proves my point.
H: It would depend on the means of population reduction, Rick. Voluntary birth control doesn't seem immoral, while death camps would be.
R: Do you seriously believe this would happen by voluntary birth control? Not unless we all had some brain chips implanted to help us choose the NWO way.
H: I also notice that you seem to be something of a conspiracy nut, though you don't seem to produce much in the way of evidence in support of these claims.
R: I base my opinions on sure things, the word of God, logic and valid science.
H: Or the more likely third option - the whole New World Order conspiracy talk is simply nonsense.
R: Frankly, I doubt if you would believe the Bible even if we were all forced to wear microchips on our foreheads, the Jewish temple were to be rebuilt in Jerusalem and the rapture of the church took place, all as prophesied
I know I am being ignored again, but I still can t help myself.
ReplyDeleteR: No. I'm sorry, but working very hard and testing your limits isn't morally "bad" - no way.
So if a person dies from overworking themselves and testing their limits it is perfectly moral? And why is there a need to push ourselves to the limit in the first place?
R: i'm giving you lots of examples. You still haven't justified your point that pain is bad.
You are providing some isolated examples which have little to do the common trend. Besides, there is an infinitely bigger number of immoral systems from religious people.
R: Maybe you should think long and hard for a while and come up with your very best examples so I only have to refute a few.
If my memory serves me right, you still have not managed to refute any single atheistic model of morality. Namely - the "utilitarian" model I spoke about in your blog and Weilenberg s one about the existance of "brute ethical facts".
R:Unless we receive salvation, we are all on the way to hell, death and separation from God.
Isn t God supposed to be omnipotent? I am no expert on the subject, but I believe an omnipotent being should be able to save humanity without sacrificing his only son or casting away a good chunk of humanity to eternal damnation.
R: Again, I point out "ethical brute facts" aren't objective if the "ethical" aspect of the brute facts have to be subjectively interpreted in each case. I agree that brute facts exist, but there can be no absolute objective evaluation without an absolute objective standard.
That is only your own opinion. Those "brute ethical facts" are the point of reference for Weilenderg, the original point in the 3D equation. He does not interpret them, according to him, they are the only self-explanatory truth that exist. I disagree with him, but I do admit that it is hard to refute him. With that ethical system smelling a daisy might be the heaviest crime of all. Weilenberg himselve is unable to give an accurate asessement what the exact points are, he is only guessing.
R: Again, I point out "ethical brute facts" aren't objective if the "ethical" aspect of the brute facts have to be subjectively interpreted in each case. I agree that brute facts exist, but there can be no absolute objective
ReplyDeleteR:Her testimony of this and a conversation among doctors was verified by the doctors. And this type of experience happens to others, as I pointed out referenced to a peer-reviewed article.
With all due respect, I will have to repeat that modern science does not have enough information aboyt out-of-body experiences. For now it is no more convincing than UFO and poltergeist speculations. And even if the existance of a metaphysical world is possible, it does not prove that God is real.
R: I believe in this case it is both intrinsic and extrinsic. If something beautiful is made by an artist, does it lose it's value and beauty when the artist dies?
Your example seems poor, imho. The value and beauty of something made by an artist is defined by the public. However, if no one recognizes the beauty of an object of art it becomes useless and it does not matter if the public is wrong.
R: I've just shown why this is true (Created in God's image). But Your New World Order - reduce the world to 500 Million people - I have no problem with that - answer, also proves my point.
We still have not established the validity of a God paradigma. The fact that you subjectively feel him around you is not evidence.
And I just do not understand why do you consider the possibility of reducing the population of the Planet such a horrible tragedy? Our resources for now are limited and they cannot sustain an illimited number of residents. If we ignore that fact we might just repeat the tragedy of Africa in the 20th century, where modern medicine managed to drasticly decreased the number of deaths, but where cultural traditions for huge families and the same technologies for cultivating the soil remained. As a result a food crisis occured which led to millions of death from malnutrition.
And why do you believe this reduction is only possible with deathcamps and so on? China with its one-child policy managed to reduce its population in a perfectly moral way even by your standarts I think.
R: I base my opinions on sure things, the word of God, logic and valid science.
That is why you are so amusing, Rick. The Bible is extremely unreliable for a lot of reasons and most of the so-called prophecies are only your own interpretantions no more reliable than the words of Nostradamus. You wish the Bible to be true so you unconcsiously look for evidence which would support your view. Your logic and "valid" science are also flawed. You only consider evidence that might be compatible yur beliefs.
Rick: R: And that's the issue, who's going to judge "if his account of morality is correct"?
ReplyDeleteAnd who's going to judge if your account of morality is correct?
You're in the same bind as everyone else, Rick.
Rick: Justification requires a basis of justification.
And Weilenberg attempts to spell that out in the paper. Since he points out that your own system of morality apparently relies upon just the same sorts of brute ethical facts that his relies upon, you don't seem in any position to call him out on it.
Rick: R: On his account, i.e., in his opinion = subjective.
And on your account, God is the source of morality i.e. your opinion = subjective. You're in the same boat as he is, Rick.
Rick: R: He's an excellent object lesson.
As I understand it, Neitzsche is a moral nihalist. Not all non-theists are nihalists. Even as far as moral anti-realism goes, there are many views here which do not match Neitzsche's.
So why do you try to cram every non-theistic moral philosophy into what Neitzsche thought?
Rick: R: No. I'm sorry, but working very hard and testing your limits isn't morally "bad" - no way.
You're missing the point. Working hard is not "pain". The "pain" you feel while working hard would still be bad. It lets you know you're hitting your limits (which is a beneficial thing) but that does not indicate that the pain itself is not "bad".
Rick: Again H., "No pain no gain" is not morally bad. No way. It makes gyms lots of money and makes macho men buff for their sweethearts.
I wonder if you're intentionally missing the point.
Think about it Rick. On Weilenberg and other's accounts, "pain" has intrinsic negative value of a sort. The "no pain no gain" mantra is a "good" thing precisely because pain is bad - you're undergoing hardship to bring about some larger good. This is why it is "good".
Rick: : I'm talking about the person of Christ dwelling inside. There is no fracture or contradiction
Well, this "person" of Christ seems to have thousands or millions of personalities Rick, because you folk can't agree on what this person says or wants.
Rick: R: i'm giving you lots of examples. You still haven't justified your point that pain is bad.
Intrinsic value, brute fact. Call it what you will, on many non-theistic accounts of morality, pain is simply bad.
Rick: Maybe you should think long and hard for a while and come up with your very best examples so I only have to refute a few.
Or perhaps you should reduce your ignorance and swallow some of your arrogance, admit you don't actually have all the answers, and educate yourself?
Rick: OK, pain is bad. That's a standard. But it doesn't work.
So you've asserted, but you're a long way from demonstrating it. You're arguments against Weilenberg's position in the paper I linked to have failed to justify your claims.
Rick: Theologically, we are born in original sin as a result of satan's rebellion and man's rebellion.
ReplyDeleteNice dodge, but you didn't actually address the point.
Rick: In theism, there's an objective source of morality in God's existence,
As Weilenberg points out, even if you grant God's existence, there still seem to be some ethical brute facts (as he calls them) which cannot be grounded in this fact.
Plus, of course, there's no good objective evidence for the existence of the Christian God, nor any interventionist deity, nor even for Deism.
Rick: But your moral brute facts don't have an anchor.
You obviously don't have a clue what "brute fact" means.
Rick: These repeated kinds of phrases "according to" "his account of" "if it's true" all show this. Think it through. It's an endless regression if there's no absolute reference point.
And your own claims are also all "if it's true" and "according to" ("according to R.M. Adams, William Lane Craig", "If it's true that Christianity is correct").
You undermine your own point in your attempts to undermine those of others.
Rick: Again, I point out "ethical brute facts" aren't objective if the "ethical" aspect of the brute facts have to be subjectively interpreted in each case.
Ethical brute facts could exist, and we could still have some disagreements about what they were - there is a difference between ontology and epistemology, and difference you are consistently blur for moral systems apart from your own. You're engaging in fallacious reasoning if your system requires this special treatment.
Rick: I agree that brute facts exist, but there can be no absolute objective evaluation without an absolute objective standard.
So on your account brute ethical facts could exist (ie. exist independantly of God)? That is a departure from what appeared to be your initial point, that morality was dependant upon your God.
Besides, if brute ethical facts exist, then we can appeal to those rather than to God (they would be the absolute objective standard - this is basically Morriston's position, i think).
Rick: They are both forms of inquiry. The first is civil and moral in my opinion as a Christian,
Which, according to your own arguments, is simply a subjective opinion, and should simply be treated as such (after all it's only "your opinion").
Rick: the second is considered OK by many neoconservatives who hold an extremely liberal view of scripture or none at all.
Actually, it seems the other way around. It's the literalist evangelical types who seem more in favour of torture, the death penalty etc, and the liberals who tend not to feel this way.
Rick: I don't believe the question of "appropriate manner" is an epistemological one in this case but one of values and ethics.
It is a matter of how you know what is right and wrong - it's a matter of knowledge and therefore epistemology.
Rick: I wrote I agree "brute facts" exist in and of themselves. But there is no such thing as "an ethical brut fact." The "pain is bad" issue points this out.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if you'd made your case this would be more obvious.
You may want to read through Weilenberg's paper. Also, chapter 2 of his book "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe" is quite interesting and can be read in almost entirety through google books and/or amazon (if you swap between the two you can read it all).
Rick: Justify your assertion "pain is bad" without referring to mere opinion.
To be correct, its Weilenberg's claim.
Pain is bad is on his account, as I understand it, simply a brute fact. We can know this to be the case through intuition (Weilenberg follower Huemer regarding Intuitionism, I think - you'd need to read him to get an understanding of what is meant there).
Rick: to be honest, I don't have a great desire to make an in-depth study of these people because I see through it immediately.
There's that arrogant "I know I'm right, so they must be wrong" attitude I was alluding to.
Rick: It's not that I'm anything special, the most basic logic requires that objective morality requires an absolute reference point.
No it doesn't Rick. "Objective" morality simply requires there be facts "out there". You're claim is basically that, to navigate objectively, we need an absolute reference point. But we don't need one (nor do we have one). We can and do navigate using relative reference points (ie. Canada is north of the USA).
Rick: For a visual construct imagine doing 3D geometrical algebra without the origin point. The absolute reference point, or origin point, is implied in 3D equations, even if it is in itself is not used in the equation.
The origin is completely arbitrary, and any point would do as well - see my geography example above.
It seems that you can only be happy with an absolute "starting point", but this examples only shows that the starting point is likely to be arbitrary (who determines it and why?)
Rick: She was observing someone getting ready to cut into her skull from a position of elevation, floating in the room.
ReplyDeleteNo she wasn't. She remembers doing that, but these sorts of OBE's can be stimulated physically - there is no need to introduce "spirit".
Also, you never bothered to articulate how it is that these "spirits" or "souls" can see - how do the photons interact with the "soul particles"?
Rick: Her testimony of this and a conversation among doctors was verified by the doctors. And this type of experience happens to others, as I pointed out referenced to a peer-reviewed article.
And the veridical parts of her testimony happened before "brain death". As I recall, she incorrectly remembered the saw thing.
Rick: His baptism was an example for new Christians to follow.
To wash away sin - Jesus, if GMark is taken as historical (which is a stretch), had sinned and desired/needed forgiveness. As you point out, it is only after the baptism (in GMark) that Jesus is said to be God's son.
Rick: I asked for an example in Jesus' life about slavery.
Supposedly the same God who is unchanged and unchanging, isn't it?
Plus, there's the complete lack of speaking out against slavery coupled with Paul sending a run away slave back to his master.
Rick: Like Wilberforce, I believe it is immoral.
And like Wilberforce you'd be going against very strong scriptural arguments to get to that position.
Rick: believe in this case it is both intrinsic and extrinsic.
Some of it is intrinsic and some of it is extrinsic?
Sounds to me like you're endorsing ethical brute facts and values independant of God (again...)
Rick: If something beautiful is made by an artist, does it lose it's value and beauty when the artist dies?
Of course not. It isn't beautiful because the artist is alive. It's beautiful because of the pigment on canvas. Analogy fail.
Rick: I've just shown why this is true (Created in God's image).
It seems the Israelites had little regard for this "image of God" in other peoples, nor does God have that much respect for it either (specifically the OT here, but the NT doesn't fare much better, it just has less war and genocide).
No Rick, slavery is fully supported in the bible. There is no getting away from that and your "image of God" argument is unsupported by the same book.
Rick: But Your New World Order - reduce the world to 500 Million people - I have no problem with that - answer, also proves my point.
And of course you completely missed any sort of nuance in my answer and leap to the "death camps" as the means to achieve this, and therefore I must support death camps.
Rick: Do you seriously believe this would happen by voluntary birth control? Not unless we all had some brain chips implanted to help us choose the NWO way.
Of course you completely overlook the fact that Western countries have neutral or negative growth rates (population increases due to immigration) and that birth rates decrease with increased education.
A little reading goes a long way...
Rick: I base my opinions on sure things, the word of God, logic and valid science.
Funny. the word of God is a mess, you seem to have trouble with fundamental logic, and "valid science" only seems to cover things which match up with your presuppositions.
"Sure things" is a vastly incorrect term to use for yourself.
Rick: Frankly, I doubt if you would believe the Bible even if we were all forced to wear microchips on our foreheads, the Jewish temple were to be rebuilt in Jerusalem and the rapture of the church took place, all as prophesied
ReplyDeleteSince the rapture/parousia/second coming/whatever was supposed to have happened close to the first century (the Gospels tend to claim it happening within a generation, while the book of revelations seems to require the Roman empire to be still in existence), you can't really claim anything which happens is according to those prophecies.
You'll rationalise it all away somehow (as you likely do for the numerous other failed prophecies in the bible, such as those of Ezekial regarding Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre and Egypt).
Epic fail! :-P