The name Ecclesiastes is translated from Latin into The Preacher. So what exactly is the connection between philosophy and a preacher preaching the gospel? Well, as I’ve written various articles on Christianity, I've found that few atheists are interested in reading them. However, when I've pointedly challenged the philosophical roots of atheism, I've found some atheists eager to step up and defend their beliefs through dialogue and debate. Philosophical questions and challenges are at the core of the book of Ecclesiastes and there is an undertone of evangelism. There's a saying “You can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.” But, as we'll see in Ecclesiastes, you can attract even more bees by prodding the beehive. But you'd better be prepared for what you're getting into.
Ecclesiastes 12.11 states: “The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails--given by one Shepherd.” (NIV)
Goads are pointed prods that are used to help direct cattle and sheep. Pointed moral questions help to prick the conscience and guide people towards moral and ethical reason. The firmly embedded nails signify the fixed principles of logic and the reality of absolute truth. Logical arguments help to pin people down who have developed a false paradigm and a false view of reality. Logical arguments help people to see that their beliefs are not in harmony with reality.
When you challenge atheists with words of truth and the need to logically defend their beliefs, you are bringing the message close to home; you are prodding their comfortable beehive. Some will fly away and never think twice about it, but many will sense the need to try and defend their beliefs. Of these, some will be sincere seekers of truth.
In the book of Proverbs, Solomon described honey as something good to eat: "Eat honey, my son, for it is good; honey from the comb is sweet to your taste."[3] Many vegans today don't eat honey because they believe it's abusive to bee colonies and it's immoral because it treats bees as slaves. However, the benefits of fresh, raw honey seem to outweigh the offenses that would be suffered by the worker bees in a sustainable bee hive. How can we discern what is actually moral and immoral? Well, for the theist there is a fixed standard in the scriptures and the words and life of Jesus Christ. For the atheist, there is no objective fixed standard for morality and therefore justification for actions is ultimately based on personal opinion or a collective vote. In terms of morality, we theists understand that humans are created in God’s image and this gives human life a more sacred aspect than animal life, though all life has a sacred value in theism. Solomon wrote a proverb outlining this truth. Proverbs 12:10 shows, "The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel." (NLT) The question of morality is a good one and our viewpoint depends on our worldview.
The Absolute Truth of Christ
How can we know if there really are "firmly embedded nails" of absolute truth? In order for objective and absolute truth to exist, there must be a fixed reference point. The centrality of Christ and the crucifixion are a key to understanding the reality of this fixed reference point. Christ lived without sin and was a perfect example of morality. His life and teachings are the touchstone of moral and absolute truth. Physical nails were driven into the person of Christ as a means of bringing redemption to the world and to you personally. This redemptive act transcended the physical realm, having a far-reaching spiritual impact. The fact that the Redeemer is also the Creator shows that objective morality is wholly dependent upon the nature of God. The main message is that God loves you so much that He would be willing to offer his own Son as a sacrifice for your sins so that you could know God personally. Jesus' giving of His own life on the cross exemplifies the ultimate fulfillment of the moral code and justice.
The philosopher Erik Wielenberg is somewhat popular today for attempting to make a case that objective morality exists for atheists. He states "I call such facts basic ethical facts. Such facts are the foundation of (the rest of) objective morality and rest on no foundation themselves."[4] He is correct in stating his atheist ethical facts "rest on no foundation" but incorrect in implying they are resolute, fixed and objective nonetheless. This is noticeable as soon as he attempts to describe specific ethical subjects. He writes, "For instance, I hold that it is just to give people what they deserve…"[5] Well, for people who follow Nietzsche and social Darwinism, it may be better to cheat in order to beat out the competition rather than to be just and fair. If it's an atheistic dog-eat-dog world, then who cares about justice? Wielenberg fails here.
Wielenberg states "pain is intrinsically bad" and "not explained in terms of other states of affairs"[6] but he fails to offer concrete examples of how his "brute ethical facts" apply in various cases. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and a host of other neoconservatives believe that painful waterboarding is a good thing. I flatly disagree with them. Also, consider the attitude of weight trainers. "No pain, no gain" is a very common and self explanatory mantra. And so pain is not really "intrinsically bad" in the sense that Wielenberg has proposed, void of a "states of affairs."
In a similar vein, you cannot say "all pleasure is morally good." It just doesn't work. Solomon offered that the question of pleasure and satisfaction has deep implications. He pointed out that physical forms of satiation do not satisfy the inner man: "All man's efforts are for his mouth, yet his appetite is never satisfied."[7] This holds true no matter how skillful a gourmet chef may be. And this doesn't just apply to food, it applies to all the physical senses: "the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing."[8]
Meaninglessness and Materialism
There is a wealth of insight in the book of Ecclesiastes, but you can break down the main philosophical aspects into three main points:
1. The Emptiness of Worldly Pre-occupations - Eccl. 2:1-11
2. The Brevity of Life - Eccl. 12:1-8
3. The Only Logical Purpose in Life - Eccl. 12:13-14[9]
Solomon begins Ecclesiastes 1.2-3 announcing "'Meaningless! Meaningless!' says the Teacher. 'Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.' What do people gain from all their labors at which they toil under the sun?" How discouraging can you get? The key to understanding the book of Ecclesiastes is to understand that he makes many false statements based upon a materialist perspective, in viewing everything "under the sun” as meaningless. Solomon addresses common materialist idols in society and shows why these are meaningless and empty pursuits. Solomon tries learning, laughter an liquor in an attempt to find satisfaction, but he's left empty.
Solomon was the perfect candidate to dispel the illusion that wealth and physical pleasure can bring the kind of deep fulfillment we're searching for in life. As the wealthiest man in history he had everything available at his fingertips. Whatever he desired, he could have. But time after time he was struck by the emptiness of all these material allurements.
Common folks don’t have the money to be able to fulfill whatever whim we may have. In society we are led to believe that if we just had a bigger house, a better job, a more pleasant husband or wife, or whatever it may be, then we would be happy. For us common folks, happiness may seem as though it’s always just around the corner. If only… then I’d be happy. But Solomon became the ultimate object lesson in this regard because he was able to try anything and everything he wanted and he finding out first-hand that materialism represents a sad and vacuous existence compared to theism.
King Solomon of Israel wrote the book of Ecclesiastes after he had backslidden to a certain degree. He had known what was right, but disobeyed God in his life and took on many wives, horse stables and wealth, though these things were forbidden for a king of Israel. Deuteronomy 17:16-17 outlines:
"Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses; because Yahweh has said to you, You shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart not turn away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."
It seems Solomon allowed his great wisdom get to his head, so to speak, and to fill him with pride. His heart gradually became dulled to God's presence and purpose. But, nevertheless, God disciplined him and allowed him to see his folly. Though he had made mistakes, Solomon offers that truth is still truth and a person should continue to teach the truth as God guides:
“And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.”[10]
Though he learned lessons the hard way, Solomon gave "good heed" to present the truths that he learned and to help teach people his wisdom. It seems he may have been the first "life coach." In the United States the "pursuit of happiness" is considered a fundamental right from the Declaration of Independence. But this pursuit, in and of itself, can become destructive when relativism rules. A 2011 study shows the 10 countries with the highest suicide rates tend to be countries where atheism has predominated. Most on the list are countries of the former Soviet Union where atheism was enforced by the state for over 70 years.[11] Other statistics bear out the fact that atheists are more prone to suicide than theists. The American Journal of Psychiatry published an article December 2004, Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt, with some basic conclusions:
"CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention."[12]
Two key aspects were cited in the AJP article: less aggressive behavior and a moral objection to suicide. The decrease of aggression in spiritual people may have to do with the knowledge that there is in-fact deep meaning in life. Sometimes intellectuals are prone to suicide. Solomon confirmed that materialist knowledge without spiritual truth brings grief: "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief."[13]
Like Solomon, people who have large IQs can tend to have inflated egos. In 2010, in an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Stephen Hawking declared that heaven is a "fairy tale" for fearful people.[14] He is correct in one sense that Christians are fearful in that we fear God with a sense of awe and wonder at his majestic wisdom and power. In contrast to Hawking, the Jewish physicist Alan Sandage was an atheist most of his life but simply could not dispel all the evidence he had seen in the cosmos pointing to God's necessary existence. He became a Christian at age 60, explaining, "I could not live a life full of cynicism. I chose to believe, and a peace of mind came over me."[15] One of the reasons Sandage believed was the complexity of the universe: "The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone."[16]
It doesn't take a great mind to understand what Solomon and Sandage knew, it only takes an open mind. Three decades ago, Stephen Hawking declared humanity was on the verge of discovering the "theory of everything" with a 50 per cent chance of knowing it by 2000. But by 2010 Hawking had given up hope.[17] If only Hawking had read the book of Ecclesiastes, he could have saved a lot of wasted time: "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."[18] Hawking is a good example showing that intelligence and wisdom are two very distinct things.
The "one shepherd" mentioned in Ecclesiastes 12.9 seems to portray Jesus. In John 10.11, Jesus is quoted as saying “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." NIV Jesus is also referred to as the "word made flesh." In this sense Jesus is the source of all truth and spiritual satisfaction, as implied by Psalm 81:16. "I would satisfy you with wild honey from the rock", Jesus being the rock of our salvation.
The Logical Conclusions
One of the conclusions of Ecclesiastes is that we can live a live of true joy when God is the foundation of our lives:
"It is good and fitting for one to eat and drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labor in which he toils under the sun all the days of his life which God gives him; for it is his heritage. As for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat of it, to receive his heritage and rejoice in his labor—this is the gift of God. For he will not dwell unduly on the days of his life, because God keeps him busy with the joy of his heart."[19]
Another conclusion is that there is ultimate justice in the world and this knowledge has ramifications for a healthy personal life and for a healthy society:
"Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil."[20]
We will be less prone to bitterness when we realize God will address all injustice in the future. And we understand why corruption is rampant today in society because many people do not believe there is any kind of accountability to our Creator. People assume that they can do anything they can get away with. Hopefully more people will recognize that atheism neither works as a personal philosophy nor as a good basis for society.
Even Communist China sees that theism is pragmatically more effective and beneficial than an atheistic model of society: "The officially atheist Chinese government is surprisingly open to Christianity, at least partially, because it sees a link between the faith and economic success, said a sought after scholar who has relations with governments in Asia."[21] Dr. William Jeynes, senior fellow of The Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., outlined this fact. But the truth is a dangerous thing and has a way of shaking up deceptive paradigms: "Jeynes concluded by saying that the key message he wants to convey is that China is both open to Christianity and nervous about the religion because of the potential problems it could bring to the communist government."[22]
References:
[1] American Journal of Psychiatry, Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt, Kanita Dervic, M.D., Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., et al., Am J Psychiatry 161:2303-2308, December 2004 (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303)
[2] Raving Theist, Peterson Mother Commits Suicide After Reading Atheist Blog, (http://ravingatheist.com/2003/05/peterson-mother-commits-suicide-after-reading-atheist-blog/)
[3] Proverbs 24.13, NIV
[4] IN DEFENSE OF NON-NATURAL, NON-THEISTIC MORAL REALISM" Erik Wielenberg FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY, Vol. 26 No. 1 January 2009 (http://philpapers.org/archive/WIEIDO.1.pdf)
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ecclesiastes 6.7 (NIV)
[8] Ecclesiastes 1.8b, KJV
[9] Ecclesiastes: Guide to Evangelism (http://www.discoveret.org/lcoc/news/01n0606.htm)
[10] Ecclesiastes 12.9, KJV
[11] Top 10 Countries With Highest Suicide Rates – 2011 (http://www.top-10lists.com/2011/05/top-10-countries-with-highest-suicide.html)
[12] See American Journal of Psychiatry
[13] Ecclesiastes 1.18
[14] The Guardian, Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story', (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven)
[15] The Telegraph, Allan Sandage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/8150004/Allan-Sandage.html)
[16] Leadership U, A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth15.html)
[17] New Scientist, Stephen Hawking says there's no theory of everything, September 2, 2010,
(http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/09/stephen-hawking-says-theres-no-theory-of-everything.html)
[18] Ecclesiastes 3.11b, NIV
[19] Ecclesiastes. 5:18-20
[20] Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, NIV
[21] The Christian Post, Scholar: China Notices Link Between Christianity, U.S. Economic Success (http://www.christianpost.com/news/scholar-china-notices-link-between-christianity-us-economic-success-50287/)
[22] Ibid.
Related:
How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-identity-logic-and-physics-prove.html
Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/proof-moral-relativism-is-false.html
The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html
As always you never fail to amuse me, Rick. It is incredible how narrow-minded you are.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to believe that only Nietzsche s moral code can exist among atheists while numerous others exist. And even if you judge Weilenberg s ethical system to be ridiculous, your opinion on the matter this time is irrelevant. No matter how how ridiculous an idea may sound, they still might be people who would follow them, leading a moral life even from your perspective (though, for different reasons). By the way, Weilenberg ideas are not that popular as far as I know. At least I have not heard of them before Havok posted them.
Your statement that religious people are more happy than atheist one is true. However, simpletons are usually also much more happy than smart people. Statisticly most atheist have a better education based on critical thinking unlike religious people. Call it vanity or whatever, but this is a fact. You are confusing cause and effect.
Furthemore, the study you mention says that depressed religious people are less prone to suicide, but it does not say that they any happier or more productive than their atheistic conterparts.
Religion is not needed fo a person to be happy. I suggest you read about Maslov s theory of needs.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm
Religion is the crutches of humanity. Crutches can help an injured human to walk forward, but they become a hindrance for a healthy one.
A: You seem to believe that only Nietzsche's moral code can exist among atheists while numerous others exist.
ReplyDeleteR: Not at all. He's just a great example of why Wielenberg's defense of moral realism doesn't work.
A: Statisticly most atheist have a better education based on critical thinking unlike religious people. Call it vanity or whatever, but this is a fact. You are confusing cause and effect.
R: Solomon confirmed that materialist knowledge without spiritual truth brings grief: "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief." Ecc. 1.18 Perhaps I should add that point to the article. Learning isn't the cause but, rather, a perceived lack of meaning is the problem.
A: Furthemore, the study you mention says that depressed religious people are less prone to suicide, but it does not say that they any happier or more productive than their atheistic conterparts.
R: Actually, it does at the very end show that Christians are generally more productive than atheists, according to some research in China.
A: Religion is the crutches of humanity. Crutches can help an injured human to walk forward, but they become a hindrance for a healthy one.
R: Personally, I don't believe a proclivity to suicide is a sign of a healthy person or society. But we all have our opinions.
Rick: Not at all. He's just a great example of why Wielenberg's defense of moral realism doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteYour point seems to be "atheists disagree on morality, therefore atheist morality fails". This is simply a case of special pleading on your part Rick - theists disagree on morality, therefore theistic morality fails.
If you'd stop thinking that you already know the answers to some difficult questions, and actually try to understand what people write, perhaps you wouldn't make so many logical blunders when you write?
H: Your point seems to be "atheists disagree on morality, therefore atheist morality fails".
ReplyDeleteR: No, I've already pointed out that Wielenberg's statements about pain fail. Weilenberg's failure doesn't depend on Nietzsche.
But I would be curious to ask you a question: Can you show me that Nietzsche is incorrect according to the basic presupposition of atheism?
Rick: No, I've already pointed out that Wielenberg's statements about pain fail. Weilenberg's failure doesn't depend on Nietzsche.
ReplyDeleteYour point about pain regarding Weilenberg failed to find it's mark Rick.
Perhaps you should try again?
Rick: But I would be curious to ask you a question: Can you show me that Nietzsche is incorrect according to the basic presupposition of atheism?
I probably couldn't prove it, since moral nihilism is a live position within moral philosophy (and one which many theists seem committed to), but I could points out where and why (and if) I disagree with him.
Can you show me that morality is objective, and must be wholly dependent upon the nature of God?
If you can, there's a number of journals who would love to publish your work :-)
H: Your point about pain regarding Weilenberg failed to find it's mark Rick. Perhaps you should try again?
ReplyDeleteR: I had quoted Wielenberg: Wielenberg states "pain is intrinsically bad" and "not explained in terms of other states of affairs"[6]
And I offered two concise examples of how pain is NOT considered "intrinsically bad" and does in-fact require interpretation in terms of "states of affairs" contrary to what Wielenberg stated. - bulls eye.
H: I probably couldn't prove it (prove that Nietzsche is off according to atheism)
R: Thank you.
H: Can you show me that morality is objective, and must be wholly dependent upon the nature of God?
R: "The Absolute Truth of Christ: How can we know if there really are "firmly embedded nails" of absolute truth? In order for objective and absolute truth to exist, there must be a fixed reference point. The centrality of Christ and the crucifixion are are a key to understanding the reality of this fixed reference point. Christ lived without sin and was a perfect example of morality. His life and teachings are the touchstone of moral and absolute truth. Physical nails were driven into the person of Christ as a means of bringing redemption to the world and to you personally. This redemptive act transcended the physical realm, having a far-reaching spiritual impact. The fact the the Redeemer is also the Creator shows that objective morality is wholly dependent upon the nature of God."
Rick: And I offered two concise examples of how pain is NOT considered "intrinsically bad" and does in-fact require interpretation in terms of "states of affairs" contrary to what Wielenberg stated. - bulls eye.
ReplyDeleteNo you didn't Rick.
The pain in your examples would still be intrinsically bad, it is the acceptance of the pain in service of some other good which was laudible - hence your point failed since you failed to actually address Weilenberg's point.
Also, this would get us into an epistemological discussion rather than one of ontology. I understand that you're fond of confusing the two when it suits you, and distinguishing them at other times, but do try to be consistent.
Rick: "The Absolute Truth of Christ: How can we know if there really are "firmly embedded nails" of absolute truth? In order for objective and absolute truth to exist, there must be a fixed reference point.
As I demonstrated with my geography analogy, this is not necessarily the case - we can have objective relative truth.
Also, why cannot the universe serve as the reference point (as it does in the sciences, and in general everyday life)?
Rick: The centrality of Christ and the crucifixion are are a key to understanding the reality of this fixed reference point.
Except of course that the Christ myth is largely a-historical, which doesn't aid your case one bit.
Rick: Christ lived without sin and was a perfect example of morality.
And yet he went to John to be baptised for sin, and behaved immorally (eg. sending the swine to their deaths certainly isn't loving or compassionate).
Rick: His life and teachings are the touchstone of moral and absolute truth.
And yet his moral teachings are generally either obvious (having been put forward by others independently of him) or not moral (no pronouncements against slavery, approval of thought crimes, etc).
Rick: Physical nails were driven into the person of Christ as a means of bringing redemption to the world and to you personally.
Many people were crucified - most of them suffered for longer than Jesus is said to have done (it could last days). The crucifiction narrative is largely a-historical (the scene of PIlate releasing Barabas is an obvious clue to this).
Rick: The fact the the Redeemer is also the Creator shows that objective morality is wholly dependent upon the nature of God."
That doesn't follow Rick - you'll need to expand on this claim in order for it to be successful.
I didn't ask for a sermon - you'll need to present your point and rebut the arguments against this sort of position (one of which Weilenberg points out, and which you've completely ignored - the fact that your position requires the existence of brute ethical facts in the same fashion his does).
H: The pain in your examples would still be intrinsically bad.
ReplyDeleteR: The feeling of pain is the essence of pain, therefore the feeling is intrinsic. So, according to your statement, all pain is apparently morally bad mainly because it "feels" bad.
Frankly, I find this a bit absurd. If you say "It feels bad, therefore it is morally bad" what gives you and Wielenberg justification for such notions?
Rick: The feeling of pain is the essence of pain, therefore the feeling is intrinsic. So, according to your statement, all pain is apparently morally bad mainly because it "feels" bad.
ReplyDeleteNot according to me, but according to Weilenberg (and others). Pain is intrinsically "bad" on this view. I think morality comes into it when we decide on what is moral behaviour (ie. causing pain, in the absence of other circumstances which could effect such a judgment, is morally wrong.
I stated in the other thread that Weilenberg relies upon Ethical Intuitionism following Huemer, and that you'd need to read further. The wiki link above might be a useful point for your ongoing education :-)
Rick: Frankly, I find this a bit absurd.
And I find the concept of God both absurd and incoherent.
Finding something absurd is not an argument that it is wrong, especially when that feeling of absurdity (ie. subjective opinion) is not all that widely held. Most people it seems do trust their intuitions when it comes to morality, which I believe does give some support to this theory.
Rick: If you say "It feels bad, therefore it is morally bad" what gives you and Wielenberg justification for such notions?
I find your continued misrepresentations of morality in general, and your seeming refusal to expand your knowledge quite telling as to your motivations - you're mounting an apologia for Christianity, rather than attempting to find out about reality as it is.
Perhaps you could, as I've suggested above and previously, read more about ethical intuitionism. Perhaps you could respond to the points that your moral claims stand or fall for the same reasons Weilenberg's does.
Of perhaps you could continue your current behaviour of misinterpretation, simplification, ignorance and misunderstanding :-)
Rick, it looks to me as if your theistic morality relies upon intuitionism of a sort, so perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss other position simply because they also rely upon it - you may find your own position undermined :-)
ReplyDeleteH: Not according to me, but according to Weilenberg (and others). Pain is intrinsically "bad" on this view. (as a pure feeling)
ReplyDeleteR: So, do you agree or disagree with Wielenberg here? It seems a bit absurd.
H: I think morality comes into it when we decide on what is moral behaviour (ie. causing pain, in the absence of other circumstances which could effect such a judgment, is morally wrong.
R: Yes, I agree. Context is necessary. But we're debating Wielenberg's argument here, who apparently you don't agree with.
H: I stated in the other thread that Weilenberg relies upon Ethical Intuitionism following Huemer, and that you'd need to read further.
R: Well, I've looked into it and it does not seem to justify his proposition: "Pain is intrinsically "bad" on this view. (as a pure feeling)"
H: And I find the concept of God both absurd and incoherent.
R: What specifically do you find illogical?
H: you're mounting an apologia for Christianity, rather than attempting to find out about reality as it is.
R: Christianity happens to be the only logical explanation, as my article on Identity, Logic and Physics pointed out, so what do I need to find out?
Atheism, however, is illogical and out of touch with reality. Anyone with an open mind reading these quotes by Wielenberg and your justifications can see this.
H: Rick, it looks to me as if your theistic morality relies upon intuitionism of a sort, so perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss other position simply because they also rely upon it
R: Ethical Intuitionism seems to just be an atheist explanation of the conscience. In theism we understand the conscience is a mechanism that reflects an absolute moral law given by God.
We theists don't hold the conscience mechanism as any kind of objective absolute, but it is simply a gauge with respect to the absolute reference point of God.
Ethical Intuitionism, however, seems to place an extreme amount of importance on feelings, because, as Weilenberg admitted, "such facts... rest on no foundation themselves."[4]
As many have pointed out, atheist morality will forever remain floating and unanchored. Admitting that it is primarily based on feelings and intuition is perhaps digging the grave a little deeper, as far as there being any objective basis of atheist morality is concerned. :)
Rick: Not according to me, but according to Weilenberg (and others). Pain is intrinsically "bad" on this view. (as a pure feeling)
ReplyDeleteNo Rick, not as a "pure feeling", as far as I understand it. You'll need to do further reading to understand Weilenberg's view here.
Rick: Yes, I agree. Context is necessary. But we're debating Wielenberg's argument here, who apparently you don't agree with.
I'm not particilarly convinced that morality is an objective feature of reality. My position is similar to that described by Massimo Pugliucci as rationalism.
However, you asked for some objective moral philosophies which are non-thiestic, and I provided.
Rick: Well, I've looked into it and it does not seem to justify his proposition: "Pain is intrinsically "bad" on this view. (as a pure feeling)"
You've read Huemer's work on ethical intuitionism?
Remember, you're the one adding "pure feeling" here Rick (and you're also relying upon similar intuitions yourself when it comes to moral epistemology, which is what we're talking about here).
Rick: What specifically do you find illogical?
Mostly that any and all God concepts I'm aware with seem to be contradictory.
Start with "The Impossibility of God". There is also a discussion of it in "Theism and Explanation".
You can also find various disproofs of the God as traditionally conceived (a tri-omni, disembodied being) around the interwebs.
You might also find some interesting material egarding logical and evidential arguments against God.
Rick: Christianity happens to be the only logical explanation, as my article on Identity, Logic and Physics pointed out, so what do I need to find out?
Since the article you mentioned is incredibly flawed, I suggest you need to find out more on basically everything.
Not to mention your "challenge" concerning biblical historicity and accuracy also fails, which seems required to buttress your claims.
Rick: Atheism, however, is illogical and out of touch with reality.
If so you'll need to demonstrate it. Thus far I don't think you've risen above argument-by-assertion.
Rick: Anyone with an open mind reading these quotes by Wielenberg and your justifications can see this.
ReplyDeleteDon't presume to understand what a person with an open mind would see things the same way you do. You need to develop the argument as to why your position is the correct one, and so far you haven't achieved this.
Rick: In theism we understand the conscience is a mechanism that reflects an absolute moral law given by God.
In other words, in theism you rely upon exactly the sort of mechanism to understand what is right and wrong, and therefore rely upon intuitionism.
Rick: We theists don't hold the conscience mechanism as any kind of objective absolute, but it is simply a gauge with respect to the absolute reference point of God.
And ethical intuitionism is an epistemological claim, not an ontological one - you need to keep these things distinct for other thesis apart from your own Rick.
Rick: Ethical Intuitionism, however, seems to place an extreme amount of importance on feelings, because, as Weilenberg admitted, "such facts... rest on no foundation themselves."[4]
Such facts are ontological claims. The intuitionism is an epistemological claim - a claim to how we might know about these facts, rather than an explanation of the facts themselves.
Rick: As many have pointed out, atheist morality will forever remain floating and unanchored.
And as Weilenberg has pointed out, and you refuse to even acknowledge let alone rebut, your own theistic morality relies upon exactly the same sorts of ethical brute facts, independant of your God in order to be successful.
Rick: Admitting that it is primarily based on feelings and intuition is perhaps digging the grave a little deeper, as far as there being any objective basis of atheist morality is concerned. :)
Of course, if you bothered to take the time to try to understand other positions, rather than try to smugly parade your perceived superiority, you might be able to actually provide arguements against them and in support of your own position instead of flailing around as you seem to currently do.
H: No Rick, not as a "pure feeling", as far as I understand it. You'll need to do further reading to understand Weilenberg's view here.
ReplyDeleteR: In my article, I quoted the person you offered as a good source of objective atheist morality: Wielenberg states "pain is intrinsically bad" and "not explained in terms of other states of affairs"[6]
The most "intrinsic" and essential aspect of pain is a feeling. I don't need to do research to understand that pain is a feeling.
H: I'm not particilarly convinced that morality is an objective feature of reality.
R: Hmmmm. I guess you have now flip-flopped from your position August 18th at this article "Atheism and Chinese Dead Baby Pills: Any Connection?"
Your quote: "realise that there are currently quite a few live options, and retract your foolish points concerning the lack of an "objective morality" without God."
So which is it Havok? Your first "live option" seems to be quite dead, according to your present opinion. :)
H: You've read Huemer's work on ethical intuitionism?
R: Why? To waste time reading about another dead option?
H: Mostly that any and all God concepts I'm aware with seem to be contradictory. Start with "The Impossibility of God". There is also a discussion of it in "Theism and Explanation".
R: I asked for a specific example of why theism is illogical and, again, you want me to do your homework for you.
H: Since the article you mentioned is incredibly flawed, I suggest you need to find out more on basically everything.
R: You seem to have a serious problem with generalities. Point out a specific point in the article or a specific comment at a specific date that is illogical.
H: If so you'll need to demonstrate it. Thus far I don't think you've risen above argument-by-assertion.
R: I've simply displayed how Wielenberg's own quotes show his "objective" atheist morality is based on subjective feelings. That is an illogical premise and shows that he is severely lacking in judgment. Your back-peddling on the subject (the best example you chose to give) underscores how weak the premise of objective atheist morality is.
H: Don't presume to understand what a person with an open mind would see things the same way you do.
ReplyDeleteR: Most people would agree, at least grudgingly, that the principles of logic apply in our world.
H: In other words, in theism you rely upon exactly the sort of mechanism to understand what is right and wrong, and therefore rely upon intuitionism.
R: No, the conscience is indeed a real mechanism, but it is only a mechanism. Like a compass, it points to the true north of moral absolutes. Unlike the compass and the physical Earth, the compass of morality is attuned to the transcendent existence and fixed righteousness of God. It's an airtight and absolute basis of objective morality, unlike your fantasies of atheist objective morality.
H: And ethical intuitionism is an epistemological claim, not an ontological one - you need to keep these things distinct for other thesis apart from your own Rick.
R: You (and your fellow philosophers) still need to resolve the basic underlying problem, you don't have an anchor for your "objective" morality. Show me the anchor, Havok, or at least summarize what it is. :)
H: Such facts are ontological claims. The intuitionism is an epistemological claim - a claim to how we might know about these facts, rather than an explanation of the facts themselves.
R: Intuition, feelings, mental and epistemological interpretations...these are all subjective.
Show me the objective atheist moral anchor, Havok, or at least summarize it. :)
H: And as Weilenberg has pointed out, and you refuse to even acknowledge let alone rebut, your own theistic morality relies upon exactly the same sorts of ethical brute facts, independant of your God in order to be successful.
R: No, Havok, we've been down this road recently. I'll offer it again. Remember yesterday. You asked me: "Can you show me that morality is objective, and must be wholly dependent upon the nature of God?" I answered by quoting the article:
"The Absolute Truth of Christ: How can we know if there really are "firmly embedded nails" of absolute truth? In order for objective and absolute truth to exist, there must be a fixed reference point. The centrality of Christ and the crucifixion are are a key to understanding the reality of this fixed reference point. Christ lived without sin and was a perfect example of morality. His life and teachings are the touchstone of moral and absolute truth. Physical nails were driven into the person of Christ as a means of bringing redemption to the world and to you personally. This redemptive act transcended the physical realm, having a far-reaching spiritual impact. The fact the the Redeemer is also the Creator shows that objective morality is wholly dependent upon the nature of God."
H: Of course, if you bothered to take the time to try to understand other positions, rather than try to smugly parade your perceived superiority, you might be able to actually provide arguements against them and in support of your own position instead of flailing around as you seem to currently do.
R: my arguments haven't changed on the issue of theist objective morality. You, however, are flopping around so much it seems that you've been caught like a fish. I love fishing when you catch a big fish and it puts up a fight. But it's also nice to relax after it's in the boat shining in the sun and you get the grill ready. Great memories. Have you ever gone deep sea fishing, Havok?
R: Not at all. He's just a great example of why Wielenberg's defense of moral realism doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteCould you clarify that point more thoroughly? Personnaly I do not see the corollation
R:Learning isn't the cause but, rather, a perceived lack of meaning is the problem.
I completely agree with you on this point. However, I do not think the world needs the concept of God to have meaning.
R: Actually, it does at the very end show that Christians are generally more productive than atheists, according to some research in China
Well..from the point of view of the government it is the only thing needed. A country is content when its residens are productive even if they are miserable. Personally, I disagree and consider an unhappy productive individual not much better than a dead being.
P.S. The idea of Christianity (protestantism to be exact) promoting productivity is quite old. It was first voiced by Max Weber at the end of the 19th century, I think. However, modern sociologist consider confuciusm just as effective at boosting the economy. Besides, even if religion is quite good at encouraging productivity it is not the only and even not the most effective way to stimulate the economy.
R: Personally, I don't believe a proclivity to suicide is a sign of a healthy person or society. But we all have our opinions
Again, you are missing the point, Rick. Of course suicide is an unhealthy practice, no one is going to contest that. But religion is not much better even if it is a better alternative to ending one s life.
The problem is that you are completely dependent upon the concept of God. You are unable to accept a world without a divine presence. It helps you to live your day-to-day live and to overcome many hardships. Unfortunately, it also narrows your perception of the world. You refuse to accept any facts that might come into conflict with your idealogy.
And as a theist could you explain me why an omnipotent, all-wise and all-benevolent being (God) could not think of a better way to save his beloved creations but to send his only son to a most painful death and doom a good chunk of humanity to eternal damnation? I know it is a common question to theists, but I still do not understand your way of thinking.
Rick: The most "intrinsic" and essential aspect of pain is a feeling. I don't need to do research to understand that pain is a feeling.
ReplyDeleteYou seemed to be stating that "pain is intrinsically bad" is a pure feeling. Sorry that I misunderstood.
Pain is a feeling, and according to Weilenberg (and many others who hold intrinsic values exist), this feeling is intrinsically bad.
Rick: Hmmmm. I guess you have now flip-flopped from your position August 18th at this article
No flip-flopping. In that article I presented a live objective moral options which didn't rely upon God, as well as asking you to demonstrate that morality is objective. I didn't say I actually endorsed objective morality - you seem to have just assumed this.
Rick: So which is it Havok? Your first "live option" seems to be quite dead, according to your present opinion. :)
I can't prove it incorrect Rick (and neither have you), so it is certainly a live option. I don't find it convincing either.
Rick: Why? To waste time reading about another dead option?
I didn't realise omniscience was one of your traits Rick. You seem to know exactly what you'll find even though up until a short time ago it seems you had no idea what ethical intuitionism was.
Rick: I asked for a specific example of why theism is illogical and, again, you want me to do your homework for you.
Give me a concept of God which you believe to be coherent and I'll see if it seems so to me. If I don't know what it is that I'm arguing against I can't very well present arguments against it can I? You could very well state that the God which is demonstrated to be incoherent or illogical is not the God you believe in, and we'd go round and round.
Rick: You seem to have a serious problem with generalities. Point out a specific point in the article or a specific comment at a specific date that is illogical.
The discussion on that article is ongoing.
Rick: I've simply displayed how Wielenberg's own quotes show his "objective" atheist morality is based on subjective feelings.
Not yet you haven't Rick, though you've repeatedly asserted as much.
Rick: That is an illogical premise and shows that he is severely lacking in judgment. Your back-peddling on the subject (the best example you chose to give) underscores how weak the premise of objective atheist morality is.
And since you've studied moral philosophy so deeply, you know this to be the case. Another example of your omniscience Rick?
Rick: Most people would agree, at least grudgingly, that the principles of logic apply in our world.
ReplyDeleteWhich doesn't mean that they'll agree with your position.
The principles of logic were developed to describe the world Rick.
Rick: No, the conscience is indeed a real mechanism, but it is only a mechanism. Like a compass, it points to the true north of moral absolutes.
Which seems rather similar to ethical intuitionism. It seems I was correct in thinking that your position relied upon it.
Rick: Unlike the compass and the physical Earth, the compass of morality is attuned to the transcendent existence and fixed righteousness of God.
Here's where you would depart from a non-theist. They could say, with just as much authority, that it's attuned to objective moral values however they're construed). Very similar still.
Rick: It's an airtight and absolute basis of objective morality, unlike your fantasies of atheist objective morality.
It not airtight since morality is so variable throughout history and between cultures, which is why moral anti-realism is a going concern.
It's not necessarily theistic (as I noted above).
Rick: You (and your fellow philosophers) still need to resolve the basic underlying problem, you don't have an anchor for your "objective" morality.
It seems you'll only accept a "being" as an anchor, which is special pleading. You haven't argued against Weilenberg's point that states-of-affairs are real things and that ethical brute facts supervene on them.
Rick: Show me the anchor, Havok, or at least summarize what it is. :)
You've read the Weilenberg paper. You know his anchor. You don't find it convincing. That's not the same as it being incorrect.
Rick: Intuition, feelings, mental and epistemological interpretations...these are all subjective.
And you rely upon them for your own moral epistemology, as you admitted above. If these make a moral system subjective, then your own is in the same boat.
Rick: No, Havok, we've been down this road recently. I'll offer it again. Remember yesterday. You asked me: "Can you show me that morality is objective, and must be wholly dependent upon the nature of God?" I answered by quoting the article:
Which was a sermon rather than an actual argument. I critiqued it, remember :-)
Rick: You, however, are flopping around so much it seems that you've been caught like a fish.
No Rick, I've been simply trying to educate you, though you're putting up quite a fight.
H: No flip-flopping. In that article I presented a live objective moral options which didn't rely upon God, as well as asking you to demonstrate that morality is objective. I didn't say I actually endorsed objective morality - you seem to have just assumed this.
ReplyDeleteR: No, I don't think so. Here's your full quote from Augist 18th:
"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."
In your final statement you did NOT write: "retract your foolish points concerning the lack of EXAMPLES OF objective morality without God."
No, you wrote: "retract your foolish points concerning THE LACK of objective morality without God."
Perhaps you assumed you had written the former, but you didn't.
I hope you understand the critical difference in meanings between the two sentences.
You basically stated that it is foolish to believe there is a lack of objective morality without God.
Then, however, on September 13th you wrote:
"I'm not particilarly convinced that morality is an objective feature of reality."
This does in-fact seem to be an official flip flop. It's not worth debating ad infinitum, but it does reveal the kinds of problems which arise when one does not have an objective basis for truth and morality.
Your flip-flop was on September 13th and occurred after I had dismantled your Wielenberg example. If you remember, you had linked that Wielenberg article just after you stated I was foolish for not believing in atheist objective morality.
H: I can't prove it incorrect Rick (and neither have you), so it is certainly a live option. I don't find it convincing either.
R: I "Can't prove" that Wielenberg is incorrect? What? Are you joking?
Just look at his "pain is morally bad" example. Pain is a feeling. Wielenberg's intrinsic feeling cannot be a basis for objective morality because feelings are subjective. It's pretty simple, Havok.
I can truly understand why you would want to flip-flop and distance yourself from Wielenberg as you did, but then one would think you would also be open to acknowledge the flaws of Wielenberg's argument.
This would be logical.
Rick: Perhaps you assumed you had written the former, but you didn't.
ReplyDeleteRather a slim semantic ledge to hang your argument upon isn't it?
Besides, whether I flip-flopped or not is completely beside the point. You've failed thus far to undermine Weilenberg's argument, much less your grandiose claim that non-theistic moral realism is an impossibility.
Rick: I hope you understand the two sentences have two different meanings and the sentence you used basically states that it is foolish to believe there is a lack of objective morality without God.
It is foolish to claim, as you do, that objective morality requires God, when there are so many options available which are not theistic (and so many problems with theistic morality of the sort you're pushing). You may have taken it to mean more than this, and I apologies for not being clearer.
Rick: Pain is a feeling. Wielenberg's intrinsic feeling cannot be a basis for objective morality because feelings are subjective. It's pretty simple, Havok.
And still you just don't get it Rick.
Pain is a feeling, but if we accept intrinsic value exists, as Weilenberg seems to, pain (yes, the experience of pain), is objectively bad - it has an intrinsic negative value.
Just because "pain" is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist objectively. You're equating the experience of pain with a preference ("I like chocolate icecream"), and it simply isn't, nor is Weilenberg relying upon it being this way.
Besides, if something being subjective means it cannot be objective, then you're own morality, where all moral values are subject to God's will/nature fails - since God's will or nature are subjective (even though, as with pain and my own preference for chocolate icecream, they may have objective existence).
Rick: I can truly understand why you would want to flip-flop and distance yourself from Wielenberg as you did, but then one would think you would also be open to acknowledging the flaws of Wielenberg's argument. This would be logical.
I am open to flaws in his argument - after all I don't find it convincing. I do find it interesting, especially as it undermines your own moral claims, since both Weilenberg and yourself rely upon ethical brute facts (external to God in your case).
So, as far as Weilenberg is concerned, as he points out your own position commits you to a similar claim as his own - the existence of substantive ethical brute facts, independant of God. Regardless of whether you find his example convincing of pain, this is still very much the case.
ReplyDeleteThis means that should you undermine Weilenberg's position (you haven't by the way), you've undermined your own.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: Besides, whether I flip-flopped or not is completely beside the point.
R: I would offer that both your flip-flopping and your denial of your flip-flopping both have implications with regard to your basic philosophical foundation.
This short video clip is an example of how flip-flopping and denying the flip-flopping undermines a person's credibility:
http://vodpod.com/watch/9243735-in-denial-gingrichs-problems-worsen-as-he-flip-flops-lies-palin-talks-goofy-media-games
If you do some research about Gingrich you will see that he's been active in the Bohemian Grove, a pagan playground for the rich and powerful. The thing is, he tries to present himself to the public as a conservative, family-values, religious Catholic.
Being duplicitous undermines the credibility of a person, and the person's argument.
Gingrich is a classic example of a neoconservative, a relativist willing to distort the truth in order to achieve his goals. This is contrast to the definition of a Paleoconservatism:
"Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for a conservative political philosophy found primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
The reason I have to make a point about nailing down your quotes is because relativists are adroit at changing their opinions and flip-flopping. There are times when candor shines through though, and the logical inconsistences become obvious. Richard Dawkins is a classic example of this.
In 2008 Dawkins called the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" a "major outrage" because it implied that the theory of evolution and Darwinism were a philosophical basis of Nazi Germany. The New York Times stated:
"People who have seen the movie say it also suggests that there is a link between the theory of evolution and ideas like Nazism, something Dr. Dawkins called "a major outrage.""
[No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html?ref=science)]
Yet, Dawkins confessed in an interview July 30, 2005 [Austrian newspaper, Die Presse "Darwinismus: Rebellen gegen die Gene") the following:
“No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.”
http://diepresse.com/home/techscience/wissenschaft/155678/Darwinismus_Rebellen-gegen-die-Gene
Here in his 2005 interview, Dawkins admits that Darwinism, as a philosophical underpinning of society, can in-fact lead to fascism. According to his statement a "a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws" is dangerous. And yet, this is the sole view that is allowed in the public school system based on atheist hegemony.
Dawkins' flip flopping helps to reveal his own duplicity and the logical inconsistencies of atheism.
H: It is foolish to claim, as you do, that objective morality requires God, when there are so many options available which are not theistic.
R: So many? You've offered one example, Wielenberg and now you've admitted you don't agree with him.
cont.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: And still you just don't get it Rick. Pain is a feeling, but if we accept intrinsic value exists, as Weilenberg seems to, pain (yes, the experience of pain), is objectively bad - it has an intrinsic negative value.
R: It seems it is you who don't get it, Havok. You are not offering a justification of your claim:
"if we accept intrinsic value exists."
For an argument to be valid, each claim requires justification. Any moral argument requires a basis for justification.
Here's a summary:
"Intrinsic value exists" I will ascribe "good" and "bad" values to feelings based on the assumption that "Intrinsic value exists" and each feeling is either morally good or bad.
Is pain morally bad because it is unpleasant?
So what is unpleasant is always immoral?
Why can't pain be morally neutral?
These types of questions have to be addressed.
The bottom line is that Wielenberg needs some kind of objective reference point in order to justify his claims, but he doesn't have one.
H: I am open to flaws in his argument - after all I don't find it convincing.
R: At first you said I was foolish for not believing atheist objective morality existed (August 18th at this article "Atheism and Chinese Dead Baby Pills: Any Connection?"
Your exact quote: "realise that there are currently quite a few live options, and retract your foolish points concerning the lack of an "objective morality" without God.")
Wielenberg was the exact example you offered with a link when you made that statement.
However, you are increasingly distancing yourself from Wielenberg. As of yesterday, this is your current stance:
"I am open to flaws in his argument - after all I don't find it convincing."
You offer me your best example and yet "don't find it convincing."
This implies that you in a state of denial.
H: I do find it interesting, especially as it undermines your own moral claims, since both Weilenberg and yourself rely upon ethical brute facts (external to God in your case).
R: No, again I'll try to explain. The basis of theist morality is God Himself. God is transcendent and there is no correlation between Wielenberg and theism.
Morality has an anchor, a foundation, a fixed reference point in theism, while Wielenberg has no such foundation. Hopefully someday you'll be able to see it. But I'm afraid you are in a deep state of denial and may never have the courage to be honest with yourself because of your ideological commitment to atheism.
I pray God will help you to see through your blinders. I pray for other atheists who read these comments they will also be able to receive the truth.
Rick, the attention whore and the pedantic fascist in me do compel me to insert another of my two cents, which will be most likely ignored.
ReplyDeleteI do not see any flip-flops in Havok s, Cline s or Dawkin s stance.
In Havok s case, he presented to you Weilenberg s theory not because he believes it to be the most accurate, but because it relies upon the same arguments as religion. And you still can t rebuke him. You may find the idea that "brute ethical facts" impossible, but you still need to prove that point. Right now you are asking for an anchor to the anchor of Weilenberg s system. It would be like asking for the anchore or reference point to God s existance.
With Austine Cline you proudly declared your victory and post a quotation out of context without even trying to understand what was told to you.
And as far as Dawkin is concerned, Nazism and Darwinism have little in common and you would realize this if you did trouble yourselve with some studying. Though, a primitive Darwinistic approach to society would indeed be harmful and inhuman it does not change the fact that it would not be Nazism. However, I also understand that in your book there is most likely no differense even between Nazism and Communism. Apple or orange, what is the difference?
That is precisely what I was talking about in my previous post. Rick, you are unable to accept an alien to christianity idea. Furthemore, you can t even understand the difference between them, to you Nietzhe and Willienberg are almost synonyms. In that sense you are a cripple. Though, it is still fun to poke holes in your logic and observe how you ignore them.
Rick: I would offer that both your flip-flopping and your denial of your flip-flopping both have implications with regard to your basic philosophical foundation.
ReplyDeleteThis is irrelevant to the point at hand - you're tryng to introduce a read herring and derail the conversation.
Deal with the arguments Rick, and stop with the silly distractions.
Rick: So many? You've offered one example, Wielenberg and now you've admitted you don't agree with him.
And since you've completely failed to demonstrate Weilenberg's argument fails, my work is done - I don't need to provide more for you to impotently address, nor should I need to do your homework for you.
If you want to read and understand further moral systems, then you'll need to do that on your own.
Rick: Is pain morally bad because it is unpleasant?
No, and this highlights your lack of understanding of what Weilenberg is saying.
Pain is bad, full stop. It is intrinsically bad. It isn't bad because it is unpleasant - that would mean that unpleasantness was intrinsically bad, which is not what I take Weilenberg to be saying.
Rick: Why can't pain be morally neutral?
It could be, in a different system of morality.
For example, pain would seem to have no intrinsic value in your own moral system. It would only have extrinsic value.
Rick: The bottom line is that Wielenberg needs some kind of objective reference point in order to justify his claims, but he doesn't have one.
And you simply don't get it.
"Pain has intrinsic value" is an ontological claim. Pain is the objective referent in this case.
Intuitionism is the epistemological position which would justify our knowledge that pain is bad, but on this view pain would be bad even if you and I thought it was good or neutral.
Rick: Wielenberg was the exact example you offered with a link when you made that statement.
Irrelevant.
"Live options" simply means they have not been found to be impossible at present. I accept that morality may be objective, and so accept these as live options. I don't currently find the arguments in favour of objective morality of this sort convincing, but there is a difference.
So basically you're flapping on about a minor semantic quibble and failing to address the actual meat of the discussion.
Rick: You offer me your best example and yet "don't find it convincing."
I offered you an example.
I don't think morality is objective, but you requested an example of non-theistic objective morality. I provided one, and you've failed to demonstrate it to be false (though both of us find it unconvincing).
Rick: No, again I'll try to explain. The basis of theist morality is God Himself. God is transcendent and there is no correlation between Wielenberg and theism.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have completely missed a part of Weilenberg's paper. You certainly have not dealt with it.
"Adams’s view commits him to the existence of basic ethical facts in my sense—ethical facts that are substantive, metaphysically necessary, and brute. Among such facts are the following: That the Good exists, that the Good is loving, that the Good is merciful, and that the Good is just. It might be thought that Adams’s theory does provide a foundation for such ethical facts; doesn’t the theory tell us, for instance, that the fact that the Good exists is grounded in the fact that God exists? The answer is no; since the Good just is God, the existence of God can hardly explain or ground the existence of the Good. In the context of Adams’s view, the claim that God serves as the foundation of the Good is no more sensible than the claim that H2O serves as the foundation of water. Indeed, once we see that, on Adams’s view the Good = God, we see that Adams’s theory entails that the Good has no external foundation, since God has no external foundation. It is not merely that Adams’s view fails to specify where the Good came from; the theory implies that the Good did not come from anywhere."
Adam's is "R.M. Adams" whose divine command theory is followed by William Lane Craig, who you are following. Therefore, it does indeed seem that you are commited to just the same sorts of claims as Weilenberg is. Now perhaps this is not the case, but you would need to argue against Weilenberg rather than simply making assertions to the contrary.
Rick: Morality has an anchor, a foundation, a fixed reference point in theism,
As Weilenberg points out, you rely upon God as well as other substantive brute ethical facts. No single referent for you Rick.
Rick: while Wielenberg has no such foundation.
And you keep completely missing his point. Weilenberg makes an ontological claim - substantive brute ethical facts exist. He sketches a defence of this claim by appealing to Huemer's intuitionism, as a means of explaining how it is that we might know these brute ethical facts exist.
You have not addressed this, nor do you seem to understand it.
Rick: Hopefully someday you'll be able to see it.
Perhaps if you could actually demonstrate this through argument and evidence, then I'd see it.
But I'm afraid you are in a deep state of denial and may never have the courage to be honest with yourself because of your ideological commitment to atheism.
Belief what you want Rick, but please try to address the arguments rather than questioning my motives or reliability - it's a red herring which seems to be an attempt at distracting us from the fact that you're simply unable to justify your claims.
H: This is irrelevant to the point at hand - you're tryng to introduce a read herring and derail the conversation.
ReplyDeleteR: It may seem like a red herring, but your flip-flopping is a perfect object lesson. I've given you reasons why Wielenberg's system is not objective and you refuse to acknowledge them. In a similar manner, I had pointed out how you flip-flopped on your stance regarding the existence of atheist objective morality and you refused to acknowledge you did this. In both cases there is a sense of denial.
Another point. If there is no objective basis of morality, as you claim now to believe, then flip-flopping is perfectly justifiable and acceptable so you probably shouldn't get your undies in a bundle. Why not just admit it?
H: And since you've completely failed to demonstrate Weilenberg's argument fails, my work is done.
R: I believe I pointed out some fatal flaws. There is an inexplicable leap from "Intrinsic value exists" to "pain is intrinsically bad" that neither you nor Wielenberg have accounted for. Am I to consider this a leap of faith?
H: If you want to read and understand further moral systems, then you'll need to do that on your own.
R: As I've stated, it's illogical to assume there is a valid, objective moral system if there is no objective reference point for truth and virtue. The atheist moral system is logically subjective. My critique of your best example, Wielenberg, underscores this.
H: Pain is bad, full stop. It is intrinsically bad. It isn't bad because it is unpleasant - that would mean that unpleasantness was intrinsically bad, which is not what I take Weilenberg to be saying.
R: So pain is intrinsically bad but unpleasantness is not intrinsically bad? At what level of annoyance does unpleasantness become pain? At what level does the merely annoying feeling become an immoral one?
For a person with a low tolerance for annoyance, what is moral for others may be immoral for him personally? Does this mean that Wielnberg's objective morality is objective only on a personal level? Help me out here.
I hope you can see what I'm getting at. We are discussing a subjective phenomenon and it's not a valid basis for objective morality.
H: It could be, in a different system of morality. (Why can't pain be morally neutral?)
R: If pain changes in moral value from one moral system to another, then it can't be an objective basis of morality.
H: And you simply don't get it. "Pain has intrinsic value" is an ontological claim. Pain is the objective referent in this case.
R: But you just stated that pain can be morally neutral, depending on the system. How can it then be considered any kind of "objective referent?"
H: "Live options" simply means they have not been found to be impossible at present.
R: I believe I've shown Wielenberg's model to be impossible as an "objective" basis of morality.
H: I provided one, and you've failed to demonstrate it to be false (though both of us find it unconvincing).
R: I believe an objective, open-minded observer would find my critique of Wielenberg adequate. This brings me back to the question of denial. A person who refuses to give up his or her worldview will be unlikely to admit logical errors, no matter how obvious. Flip-flopping and not admitting it is a sign of a person in denial.
Cont.
H: You seem to have completely missed a part of Weilenberg's paper (his critique of theism). You certainly have not dealt with it.
ReplyDeleteR: You're right. I haven't even heard about it. Thank you for bringing it up.
I've addressed Wielenberg's own basis of "objective" morality according to his own quotes in context. I've found that people in denial won't even take their own specific quotes in context as valid. Like your own flip-flopping quotes. You still haven't admitted that you flip-flopped.
Now, let's consider Wielenberg's critique of theism that you have quoted.
His first statement: "Adams’s view commits him to the existence of basic ethical facts in my sense—ethical facts that are substantive, metaphysically necessary, and brute. Among such facts are the following: That the Good exists..."
Wielenberg states, "in my sense—ethical facts that are substantive, metaphysically necessary, and brute."
Wielenberg is off here from the very starting gate. Wielenberg's "ethical facts" simply don't exist. As I've pointed out, pain is not an "ethical fact."
He's making an appeal to theist morality based on false claims.
"doesn’t the theory tell us, for instance, that the fact that the Good exists is grounded in the fact that God exists? The answer is no."
Here Wielenberg has not adequately defined the context. The mere fact that God exists is not enough information. The referenced God could be a God of pure hatred and immorality (relatively speaking). God's mere existence is not enough for theist morality. It is the nature of God that is key. The fact that good exists is grounded in the fact that a specific God exists as Creator. I hope you can see this.
If God were purely evil, God would have created a purely evil world where evil is considered "good", in accordance with God's nature. The book of Isaiah points out how corrupt civilizations actually do call evil good. But I digress.
The fact is, goodness has specific qualities that are morally verifiable in our human conscience that are in contrast with what we typically consider evil. Wielenberg misses the important aspect of God as Creator and the correlation between the creation (the conscience) and the Creator.
H: As Weilenberg points out, you rely upon God as well as other substantive brute ethical facts. No single referent for you Rick.
R: No, as I pointed out, I rely on a specific God with a specific nature in the specific context of a world where God's specific kind of goodness is the moral compass.
H: And you keep completely missing his point. Weilenberg makes an ontological claim - substantive brute ethical facts exist.
R: As I've shown, Weilenberg's own proposition of objective morality fails and his critique of theist morality fails, insofar as he appeals to a false understanding of theist morality.
H: Perhaps if you could actually demonstrate this through argument and evidence, then I'd see it.
R: I believe I have. Waiting for your response.
H: Belief what you want Rick, but please try to address the arguments rather than questioning my motives or reliability - it's a red herring which seems to be an attempt at distracting us from the fact that you're simply unable to justify your claims.
R: If you can show that you, as an atheist, have an objective basis of morality, then my pointing out your flip-flopping may be considered a red herring. If, however, you cannot, then your flip-flopping remains an object lesson of atheist relativist morality and the sense of denial that often accompanies it. In the former case, I'll apologize for using a red herring if you prove me wrong. In the latter case, you should probably repent if I prove you to be wrong.
Rick: I've given you reasons why Wielenberg's system is not objective and you refuse to acknowledge them.
ReplyDeleteYour reasons fail to demonstrate this and I've pointed out why.
Rick: In a similar manner, I had pointed out how you flip-flopped on your stance regarding the existence of atheist objective morality and you refused to acknowledge you did this.
Except I didn't flip-flop. You misunderstood a statement as claiming something I had not intended it to.
Rick: If there is no objective basis of morality, as you claim now to believe, then flip-flopping is perfectly justifiable and acceptable so you probably shouldn't get your undies in a bundle
A non-objective moral system does not mean amorality. Even amorality does not mean a lack of rules for behaviour. This simply underlines the fact that you have little to no grasp regarding moral philosophy as a subject.
Rick: There is an inexplicable leap from "Intrinsic value exists" to "pain is intrinsically bad" that neither you nor Wielenberg have accounted for.
All Weilenberg needs is intrinsic values. His example is pain, and while he doesn't go into detail in the paper I linked, he does rely upon intuitionism, as I've mentioned.
Rick: Am I to consider this a leap of faith?
No, you're to assess it as an ontological claim justified by an epistomological claim.
Rick: As I've stated, it's illogical to assume there is a valid, objective moral system if there is no objective reference point for truth and virtue.
And since Weilenberg simply needs ethical brute facts to get his claims off the ground, and since you're committed to the existence of ethical brute facts yourself, it seems his claims ought to be convincing to you (in the absence of God).
Rick: The atheist moral system is logically subjective. My critique of your best example, Wielenberg, underscores this.
You're mixing terms again Rick. Subjective is not the same as objective is not the same as relative.
Since your critique of Weilenberg is unsuccessful, I think we can ignore this.
Rick: So pain is intrinsically bad but unpleasantness is not intrinsically bad?
I suspect that, since pain comes in degrees, from unpleasantness to agony, then whenever there is pain, there is the intrincsic value (assuming Weilenberg's claims of intrinsic value are accepted).
Rick: We are discussing a subjective phenomenon and it's not a valid basis for objective morality.
ReplyDeleteThe phenomena is objective, unless you wish to claim that pain does not exist. As such, and since all Weilenberg relies upon is intrinsic values of a sort, and since you accept intrinsic values, you ought to accept Weilenberg here.
Rick: If pain changes in moral value from one moral system to another, then it can't be an objective basis of morality.
God serves no role in Weilenberg's system and a limited role in Morriston's theistic moral system. According to your argument above, God cannot be an objective basis of morality either.
Rick: But you just stated that pain can be morally neutral, depending on the system. How can it then be considered any kind of "objective referent?"
Try to keep things straight Rick.
"Pain is bad" is an ontological claim on Weilenberg's morality. Pain could be (and is) morally neutral in other moral systems. If Weilenberg is correct (and you haven't demonstrated flaws as yet), then Pain is bad is true, regardless of what other moral systems may show (they would be false).
To see the problem with this claim, simply reverse it to your own position - if God can be the source of morality (your system) and merely the epitomy of what is good (Morriston), then how can God be any kind of objective referent?
Rick: I believe I've shown Wielenberg's model to be impossible as an "objective" basis of morality.
Of course you do - because your ideological committment forces you to this conclusion. William Lane Craig argues the same thing, and fails to justify his claim - he relies upon arguments from ignorance, incredulity and consequences.
Rick: I believe an objective, open-minded observer would find my critique of Wielenberg adequate.
Which simply means that you need to make your critique clearer.
Rick: You're right. I haven't even heard about it. Thank you for bringing it up.
ReplyDeleteIt's a part of the same paper I linked to - thank you for confirming my assumption that you hadn't really read the paper in full.
Rick: Wielenberg is off here from the very starting gate. Wielenberg's "ethical facts" simply don't exist. As I've pointed out, pain is not an "ethical fact."
On your view Pain does not have intrinsic value. On Weilenberg's view it does. You haven't shown that his view is logically inconsistent, nor that your view is correct, therefore there is room for this disagreement.
Rick: Here Wielenberg has not adequately defined the context. The mere fact that God exists is not enough information. The referenced God could be a God of pure hatred and immorality (relatively speaking).
Weilenberg is talking about the God of R.M. Adams. William Craig follows Adam's divine command theory for the most part. You follow William Craig's divine command theory. Therefore the God Weilenberg is discussing is the God you believe in.
If you read the paper, you'd surely have realised this.
Rick: If God were purely evil, God would have created a purely evil world where evil is considered "good", in accordance with God's nature.
Which shows how incoherent the "God is the source of morality" position you're espousing is. If God advocated torture of innocents, on your view this would be a great good.
I summarise Weilenberg's position here. The source for the argument can be read at Google Books and Amazon. I suggest you take a look.
Rick: No, as I pointed out, I rely on a specific God with a specific nature in the specific context of a world where God's specific kind of goodness is the moral compass.
Which is exactly the God Weilenberg is discussing. You need to reply to his critique and indicate why it doesn't apply to your God, not simply assert that it doesn't.
Rick: If you can show that you, as an atheist, have an objective basis of morality, then my pointing out your flip-flopping may be considered a red herring
If you can show that morality must be objective, then I might oblige. As it is I've provided a reference to 1 non-theistic moral system, which you've failed to discredit. I've sketched out at least 1 more (Morriston's system does not require theism). I've hinted that there are many, many more available.
You can do your own homework thanks.
Rick: In the latter case, you should probably repent if I prove you to be wrong.
I have very good reasons as to why the non-existence of your God is likely, therefore even if morality were to prove to be objective, and even if all of the current non-theistic moral systems were shown to be false, I'd feel comfortable taking a wait and see approach.
So, the current state appears to be:
ReplyDelete- You have been presented with a non-theistic moral system which you've failed to show false.
- You've been informed of some details of at least 1 other moral system, and have had nothing to say of it.
- To justify your own claims you evangelised rather than making a philosophical argument.
- You've been shown to rely upon brute ethical facts independant of God and are yet to respond to this.
I probably missed something, but that seems to be the rough state of play :-)
Oh, nearly forgot:
ReplyDelete- You're yet to show that morality is/must be objective in nature.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: Your reasons fail to demonstrate this and I've pointed out why.
R: I’ve shown some reasons why subjective feelings can’t be considered a basis of objective morality. You’ve not addressed the underlying problems which I’ve pointed out.
H: A non-objective moral system does not mean amorality.
R: No, but you’ve been attempting to propose a moral system based on feelings is objective. It’s not. You’ve correctly pointed out a system based on subjective feelings is not “a-moral” but is simply relativistic.
H: This simply underlines the fact that you have little to no grasp regarding moral philosophy as a subject.
R: As I pointed out, I’m not interested in reading books you propose based on a concept that subjective feelings and intuition are a basis of objective morality because this is a fundamentally illogical proposition.
H: All Weilenberg needs is intrinsic values. His example is pain, and while he doesn't go into detail in the paper I linked, he does rely upon intuitionism, as I've mentioned.
R: Yes, I’ve quoted Weilenberg’s work, but “pain is intrinsically bad” doesn’t work in and of itself or in intuitionism packaging either.
H: And since Weilenberg simply needs ethical brute facts to get his claims off the ground, and since you're committed to the existence of ethical brute facts yourself, it seems his claims ought to be convincing to you (in the absence of God).
R: I’ve explained why it is that theist morality is not based on “ethical brute facts” but is based on the character of the specific theist God, Jehovah. You haven’t countered with logical objections to my points but are simply repeating your previous words.
H: Since your critique of Weilenberg is unsuccessful, I think we can ignore this.
R: Again, you are simply repeating your words without logical responses to specific points. This isn’t very productive on your part.
H: I suspect that, since pain comes in degrees, from unpleasantness to agony, then whenever there is pain, there is the intrincsic value (assuming Weilenberg's claims of intrinsic value are accepted).
R: I’ve made it quite clear I don’t accept Weilenberg's claims of intrinsic moral value of pain. These claims require justification. Havok, you haven’t addressed the underlying problem of the subjective nature of personal pain. And you’ve ignored a question I asked in my previous reply. Let me rephrase it:
For a sensitive person with a low tolerance for pain, a particular experience may be extremely painful. The same exact experience may only be slightly annoying to a person who is extremely callous. How is pain to be considered an objective moral referent if the exact same experience is painful for one person and only slightly annoying for another? How is the same experience morally wrong for one and not for the other?
H: The phenomena is objective, unless you wish to claim that pain does not exist.
R: No, of course pain exists, Havok. But it is a subjective reality, not an objective one.
You can empathize with someone, but you cannot literally feel someone else’s pain. If you look up the definition of “subjective”, you’ll find certain requirements:
“not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.”
“intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings.”
“existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.”
H: since you accept intrinsic values, you ought to accept Weilenberg here.
ReplyDeleteR: I accept the fact that we humans have an intrinsic sensibility of values and morality in what we call the conscience. Our consciences testify that moral absolutes exist and thus testify that God exists because moral absolutes can only be possible with the referent of the just God and His character.
H: To see the problem with this claim, simply reverse it to your own position - if God can be the source of morality (your system) and merely the epitomy of what is good (Morriston), then how can God be any kind of objective referent?
R: God is not a subjective phenomenon, like pain. Theist morality is based on the nature and Character of a transcendent and unchanging God. What is transcendent, absolute and unchanging is most certainly objective.
H: your ideological committment forces you to this conclusion.
R: No, I’ve given logical explanations and arrived at logical conclusions. You, however, seem to be holding onto your beliefs despite the lack of logical support. You seem to be in a state of denial.
H: According to your argument above, God cannot be an objective basis of morality either.
R: You have to be more specific.
H: If Weilenberg is correct (and you haven't demonstrated flaws as yet), then Pain is bad is true, regardless of what other moral systems may show (they would be false).
R: Let me go back to the example you had failed to address:
For a sensitive person with a low tolerance for pain, a particular experience may be extremely painful. The same exact experience may only be slightly annoying to a person who is extremely callous. How is pain to be considered an objective moral referent if the exact same experience is painful for one person and only slightly annoying for another? How can the exact same experience be considered objectively immoral for one person and not for the other?
H: Of course you do - because your ideological committment forces you to this conclusion. (Weilenberg's model is impossible as an "objective" basis of morality.)
R: No, I’ve demonstrated an example of how personal, subjective feelings cannot be an objective referent (in the case of a sensitive versus a callous person), but you failed to address the underlying issues of the example.
H: William Lane Craig argues the same thing, and fails to justify his claim - he relies upon arguments from ignorance, incredulity and consequences.
R: Craig offers, like I do, that a truly objective basis of morality is only possible when the personal nature of the transcendent holy God is the referent. He has pointed out that any other view is “unanchored” and “Floating” and so far your primary example, Erik Weilenberg, has been an extremely poor example if that is supposed to prove otherwise.
H: Which simply means that you need to make your critique clearer. (an objective, open-minded observer would find my critique of Weilenberg adequate.)
R: If a person, such as yourself, chooses to adamantly hold onto a false notion that subjective, personal feelings of pain are an objective basis of morality, and if the same person chooses to avoid addressing valid examples why subjective feelings cannot provide such a basis, then I can only conclude such a person is in a state of denial.
H: On your view Pain does not have intrinsic value.
ReplyDeleteR: You should probably clarify what I wrote. Pain does not have ethical intrinsic value.
H: On Weilenberg's view it does. You haven't shown that his view is logically inconsistent, nor that your view is correct, therefore there is room for this disagreement.
R: I’ve shown examples of why Weilenberg’s “objective morality” is illogical and non-objective. If you continue to just write that I “haven’t shown you” over and over again, when I obviously have, perhaps I should just repeat over and over that you are in a state of denial. According to your theory of morality, you might want to reconsider your approach. If you continue to simply repeat indefinitely I “haven’t shown you” even though I have, it will become quite painful and therefore immoral according to Weilenberg’s claims.
H: Weilenberg is talking about the God of R.M. Adams. William Craig follows Adam's divine command theory for the most part. You follow William Craig's divine command theory. Therefore the God Weilenberg is discussing is the God you believe in.
If you read the paper, you'd surely have realised this.
R: Your answer was in reference to my comment: “Weilenberg has not adequately defined the context. The mere fact that God exists is not enough information. The referenced God could be a God of pure hatred and immorality (relatively speaking).”
I don’t need to read R.M. Adams to understand that the theist God Jehovah has a specific nature with specific logical implications. It’s fairly elementary. Weilenberg’s example of pre-existing theist ethical brute facts (with primacy over God Himself) cannot simply be claimed as true because some theist writer made some comments any more than I can say the teachings of Richard Dawkins represent all atheists. It’s a weak argument. The points need to stand on their own without some appeal to other tertiary writers.
The main authority of theism rests in the original text of scripture, especially with regard to the most basic and foundational concepts. God is eternal and the creator of every aspect of our environment. If ethical brute facts are a not an intrinsic aspect of God Himself (as a good and just God), then they were created by God (as a good and just God). In this context, ethical brute facts cannot just exist arbitrarily ad-hoc in the universe in theism because they are directly related to the good nature of God. As mentioned, the ethics of a world with an “evil God” would be quite different wherein evil would be called “good” or, rather “desirable” in such a case.
H: Which shows how incoherent the "God is the source of morality" position you're espousing is. If God advocated torture of innocents, on your view this would be a great good.
R: On the contrary, theism shows total consistency and coherence, not incoherency. This is because God’s goodness is shown to be the reality we see in Christ. Christ demonstrated the goodness of God and the perfect moral standard of God in living color, 3D life. The good God is highly specific to the good meaning and the good life found among those who are open to receiving the specific good truth. The good God is the ultimate good referent.
Atheists, however, have no ultimate philosophical referent for truth or morality. Thus, if atheists want to, they can justify sado-masochism, the pleasure of torturing people, as your example showed, simply because personal intuition and/or feelings may guide them in this direction.
H: You need to reply to his critique and indicate why it doesn't apply to your God, not simply assert that it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteR: I did. But you seem to be so closed-minded that you don’t perceive what I write. I had pointed out that God’s good nature is highly specific and this is in harmony with the specific nature of the human conscience as a creation of God. I pointed out that there is a very real alternative, an “evil is good” kind of morality, that is found in corrupt societies, as described by the prophet Isaiah.
For these reasons the floating, unanchored morality that Weilenberg proposes does not apply to theism. Furthermore, I showed in these posts that the foundational scriptural truths about God show that God is eternal, absolute and unchanging, and if God is Creator of all then the ethical milieu of such a God cannot logically be merely unanchored and floating. Whatever examples you may want to show, the body of theist commentators proposes that theist ethics are based on the very nature of God Himself as a just God.
Just today I was reading a book by Francis Schaeffer, The Finished Work of Christ, in which he states “The moral absolute is the perfect “just” nature of God Himself.” (Pg. 80) Schaffer is one of the most widely acclaimed Christian philosophical writers in recent history and this particular viewpoint is the most widely accepted one today among theists.
H: As it is I've provided a reference to 1 non-theistic moral system, which you've failed to discredit.
R: No. I’ve pointed out many reasons why Weilenberg’s moral system does not have a solid foundation on objective reality. And hopefully this time you won’t dodge the following underlying isuues:
For a sensitive person with a low tolerance for pain, a particular experience may be extremely painful. The same exact experience may only be slightly annoying to a person who is extremely callous. How is pain to be considered an objective moral referent if the exact same experience is painful for one person and only slightly annoying for another? How can the exact same experience be considered objectively immoral for one person and not for the other?
H: I've sketched out at least 1 more (Morriston's system does not require theism).
R: You’ve summarized Morriston's system of “objective atheist morality” as a coherent free-standing proposition? I must have missed that. On what date did you post that?
H: I've hinted that there are many, many more available. You can do your own homework thanks.
R: So far, the main example you’ve presented, Erik Weilenberg’s “objective morality” based on feelings, has an illogical foundation. Feelings are subjective, not objective. Acknowledging the fact that feelings are not objective does not necessitate that feelings do not exist, as you offered, but, rather, simply underscores the obvious reason why feelings can’t be considered a basis of consistent, objective morality.
H: even if all of the current non-theistic moral systems were shown to be false, I'd feel comfortable taking a wait and see approach.
ReplyDeleteR: That’s your choice. But by not seeking to know more about the truth of God, even after your own examples of atheist morality have been shown to be weak, you seem to be highlighting your own personal rebellion against God.
H: So, the current state appears to be:
- You have been presented with a non-theistic moral system which you've failed to show false. You've been informed of some details of at least 1 other moral system, and have had nothing to say of it. To justify your own claims you evangelised rather than making a philosophical argument. You've been shown to rely upon brute ethical facts independant of God and are yet to respond to this.
I probably missed something, but that seems to be the rough state of play :-)
R: Yes, I believe you’ve missed quite a bit. And according to your own words, a person in denial probably doesn’t really care too much about what is missed and what is not:
“even if all of the current non-theistic moral systems were shown to be false, I'd feel comfortable taking a wait and see approach.”
You’ve basically just confessed that you could care less about the truth of God’s existence; no matter how obvious it is, because you have already made your own ideological commitment. If any atheist reads these comments with an open mind, your indifference to understanding the truth speaks volumes. I pray that you and anyone who reads this will have a desire to know and receive the truth.
Rick, this is getting repetative.
ReplyDeletePain is a feeling - we agree on that.
Pain is an objective feature of reality, even though it is a subjective feeling.
On Weilenberg's account, Pain has intrinsic negative value. This is not undercut by saying pain is just a feeling, or that people feel different levels of pain, therefore it cannot be objective - Pain exists independantly of our desires, and is intrinsically bad according to Weilenberg.
I understand that you don't agree with Weilenberg's claim that Pain is intrinsically bad - I don't agree either. But disagreement doesn't mean he's wrong - it simply means we're not convinced.
On Weilenberg's view, the pain is bad, full stop. Whether a person has a low or high tolerance to pain is beside the point. Whether some morally praiseworthy acts involve suffering pain only bolsters rather than undermines his point.
Now, since as Weilenberg points out (and you completely failed to rebut) that you are committed to the same sorts of brute ethical facts as he is, then you're not really in a position to critique his overall thesis. From the paper:
"It might be thought that Adam's theory does provide a foundation for such ethical facts; doesn't the theory tell us, for instance, that the fact that the Good exists is grounded in the fact that God exists? The answer is no; since the Good just is Good, the existence of God can hardly explain or ground the existence of the Good. In the context of Adam's view, the claim that God serves as the foundation of the Good is no more sensible than the claim that H2O serves as the foundation of water. Indeed, once we see that, on Adam's view the Good = God, we see that Adam's theory entail that the Good has no external foundation, since God has no external foundation. It is not merely that Adam's view fails to specify where the Good came from; the theory implies that the Good did not come from anywhere."
Since Adam's view is the basis of William Craigs view, and since you seem to be a follower of Wiliam Craig, Weilenberg is here specifically talking about your God, about your view of morality. You need to demonstrate why this is not the case, instead of asserting it is not, or offering ridiculous possibilities (maybe he's talking about an all evil God?). Until you do, you're in the same boat Weilenberg is in.
So Rick - go back. Reread Weilenberg's paper. Understand that you not agreeing with him is not an argument. Understand that when he talks about Adam's view of morality, he is talking about your view of morality, when he is talking about God he is talking about your God. And understand that simply asserting that without God morality is "floating" is not an argument (though WLC uses this assertion effectively, he never bothers to actually justify the claim).
Do that. Come back and offer a reasoned, logical critique of Weilenberg's claims. Offer a reasonable and logical argument as to why his argument concerning your moral system also relying upon brute ethical facts which cannot be grounded in God, doesn't work.
Have fun!
Rick: I had pointed out that God’s good nature is highly specific and this is in harmony with the specific nature of the human conscience as a creation of God. I pointed out that there is a very real alternative, an “evil is good” kind of morality, that is found in corrupt societies, as described by the prophet Isaiah.
ReplyDeleteAn "evil" God is not a real alternative. In Adam's view (and your own), God = Good. Regardless of God's nature, it would be good. Weilenberg shows this view to be ridiculous in the second chapter of his book "Value and Virtue in a Godless universe", which I believe I've referenced before.
Rick: For these reasons the floating, unanchored morality that Weilenberg proposes does not apply to theism.
Except of course you've failed to show why morality requires anchors above those which Weilenberg supplies - his ethical brute facts.
Rick: Whatever examples you may want to show, the body of theist commentators proposes that theist ethics are based on the very nature of God Himself as a just God.
Which as Weilenberg shows, entails some ethical claims which cannot be grounded in God. I quoted an example above, though you're bound to misunderstand and misrepresent it.
Rick: Just today I was reading a book by Francis Schaeffer, The Finished Work of Christ, in which he states “The moral absolute is the perfect “just” nature of God Himself.” (Pg. 80) Schaffer is one of the most widely acclaimed Christian philosophical writers in recent history and this particular viewpoint is the most widely accepted one today among theists.
And without justification is mere assertion, and can be discounted.
Rick: You’ve summarized Morriston's system of “objective atheist morality” as a coherent free-standing proposition? I must have missed that. On what date did you post that?
It was a while ago, likely on another thread.
Here we go:
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: You’ve basically just confessed that you could care less about the truth of God’s existence; no matter how obvious it is, because you have already made your own ideological commitment.
You obviously has trouble with reading comprehension Rick. I said I have very good reasons as to why your God very probably doesn't exist independant of morality. I've assessed all of the evidence I can find (and continue searching for more), and all of it leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false. All of it leads to the conclusion that belief in any God or Gods is unjustified.
Rick: If any atheist reads these comments with an open mind, your indifference to understanding the truth speaks volumes.
This from the person who has little to no understanding of moral philosophy (except for that which he simply "knows" to be true, and even there, the understanding is superficial), and yet then feels like he can make authoritative pronouncements on the subject.
Your own inability to change your views when given contrary data, as well as your inability to respond to evidence which challenges your viewpoint speaks volumes Rick - on this and basically every other thread I've read on your blog :-)
The invisible man shall speak and intrude once again into the debate, since he is bored )
ReplyDeleteR: I’ve explained why it is that theist morality is not based on “ethical brute facts” but is based on the character of the specific theist God, Jehovah.
The funny part of your argument is that you limit your morality to Jesus, ignoring for the most part the OT with its relativistic immorality. At least genocide, rape and murder do seem like immoral deeds to me, but, since they were commited by an all-merciful, just and so on entity, they must be "good".
Furthemore, as it was mentioned before, the teachings of Jesus is prone to different interpretantions. How come your interpretention is the right one? Did God somehow told you so?
R: How is the same experience morally wrong for one and not for the other?
I wiil give my best shot at explaining that point. Same thing as with conscience in your case, some people have a damaged intuition or you may call it conscience. Hitler had no qualms about sending millions of innocents to their death. Or if you prefer the sadomasochistic analogy, because of some sort of trauma in the past or in the present, a person s intuition derails and considers pain as something positive (though, it does not change the fact the pain is intristicly bad).
Again you have failed to understand Weillenberg s theory.
R: No, I’ve given logical explanations and arrived at logical conclusions. You, however, seem to be holding onto your beliefs despite the lack of logical support.
Rick, try to be more attentive. Havok does not support Wielenberg. He only provided you with an example of an atheistec objective morality.
R: If ethical brute facts are a not an intrinsic aspect of God Himself (as a good and just God), then they were created by God (as a good and just God). In this context, ethical brute facts cannot just exist arbitrarily ad-hoc in the universe in theism because they are directly related to the good nature of God
ReplyDeleteWhy is it impossible for ethical brute facts to exist as an eternal transcended concept along side with God? Or maybe why God cannot be part of those eternal ethical brute facts? Can you show some proof independent from scripture?
R: You’ve basically just confessed that you could care less about the truth of God’s existence; no matter how obvious it is, because you have already made your own ideological commitment.
Rick, even if non-theistic morality is incorrect, you do forget that there is no consensus among theists about morality. You consider Catholics and Musulmans as heretic and vice versa. In these circumstances, the best choice might be to avoid making a definitive choice a try to listen to one s heart.
Though, since you did managed to prove the existance of God, I am sure you will be able to prove that you morality is the only right one. The only problem would be that so far no one does consider your article convincing and you reject all criticism as groundless.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: Rick, this is getting repetative.
R: Agreed. I would ask that you seriously consider why it is getting repetative. I'll show cases where you are sidestepping my main points or simply not acknowledging them. Instead of addressing my arguments head on, you seem to have an automatic response which is either “Go read this and go read that.” or “You completely failed to rebut…”
I would ask that you try and focus on the points at hand and try to address them in your own words based on logic and reason.
H: Pain is a feeling - we agree on that.
R: Yes we do.
H: On Wielenberg's account, Pain has intrinsic negative value.
R: Yes, and in response to Wielenberg's claim, in my article I showed how the weightlifter’s maxim “no pain, no gain” refutes this premise. As far as I know, you have never addressed this point from my article.
At the very moment the weightlifter feels the sharp pain of stretched tendons, the person can also feel good about his or her progress. This sting of pain is not “intrinsically bad” or immoral, it is good, a barometer showing that muscles are tearing and will become larger in accordance with the desire of the athlete. The pain is directly connected with, and inseparable from, the muscle tearing process. If no pain is felt, the workout will be considered a failure. Not feeling pain is bad in this case.
Two more examples:
A man has a sharp throbbing pain in his head. He goes to the doctor and has a test. The doctor says “I’m glad you felt that pain, we were able to detect you have a tumor but it is small enough to remove.” Is this pain intrinsically bad? It is intrinsically good because the body is hardwired with an alarm system that alerts us to health problems. A biological alarm system is intrinsically good, not bad.
The same patient opens a letter with the doctor’s bill. He accidentally gives himself a paper cut that starts to bleed. There’s an old bottle of medicinal alcohol in the cabinet he dabs onto the cut. He feels a sharp painful sting the exact moment he treats his wound. Is the pain intrinsically bad? No, it is intrinsically good because the exact moment the alcohol is applied; the sharp intrinsic pain shows him the old alcohol is still effective in killing germs and bacteria. Had there been no pain, the patient would not have known of its effectiveness.
Havok, please back up your example: “On Wielenberg's account, Pain has intrinsic negative value.” and summarize how, according to you and Wielenberg, pain is to be considered “intrinsically bad” in these examples.
Please address these 3 points in your own words without telling me to go and read someone elses article or book. Thank you.
Cont.
H: I understand that you don't agree with Wielenberg's claim that Pain is intrinsically bad - I don't agree either. But disagreement doesn't mean he's wrong - it simply means we're not convinced.
ReplyDeleteR: Firstly, if you say you don’t agree with Wielenberg. Under the circumstances, it’s odd you chose him as your first example of “objective atheist morality.”
Secondly, I’ve shown a number of examples, Havok, of why Wielenberg’s main argument and specific points are based on untruths. But here’s the problem. When I offer concrete examples you don’t address the foundational issues but simply try to divert attention away from the main points.
H: On Wielenberg's view, the pain is bad, full stop. Whether a person has a low or high tolerance to pain is beside the point.
R: I disagree. The relative and subjective nature of pain is one of the many reasons why pain alone cannot be considered a consistent and rational basis for “an objective atheist moral system.”
H: Whether some morally praiseworthy acts involve suffering pain only bolsters rather than undermines his point.
R: You need to further support that claim because, at face value, it appears to be a logical contradiction.
H: Now, since as Wielenberg points out (and you completely failed to rebut) that you are committed to the same sorts of brute ethical facts as he is, then you're not really in a position to critique his overall thesis. From the paper:
"It might be thought that Adam's theory does provide a foundation for such ethical facts; doesn't the theory tell us, for instance, that the fact that the Good exists is grounded in the fact that God exists? The answer is no; since the Good just is Good, the existence of God can hardly explain or ground the existence of the Good.
R: Havok, Wielenberg wrote “since the Good just is Good” but Wielenberg needs to justify this claim because it has no solid bearing in either a theist or atheist perspective. The statement is unsupported for reasons I’ve shown. When society is corrupt, as Isaiah described, a majority of the people say “immorality” is “good” and desirable. A relativist atheist is self-justified in his or her immoral philosophy by saying there is no objective absolute point of reference for atheist morality. Neither you nor Wielenberg have a basis for saying “good” is just “good” in this sense because historically this idea has been shown to be false for a majority of the population and for atheists a consensus is all you really have to go by. From a scriptural perspective “Good just is Good” is also false outside of the existence of God, as I'll show.
H: It is not merely that Adam's view fails to specify where the Good came from; the theory implies that the Good did not come from anywhere."
R: I’ve written about this already. I’m not sure why you are bringing it up again. I’m not Adams and don’t hold Adam’s views.
According to scripture, all things are either from God, who is eternal, or are inherent in God’s nature. This means that goodness is from God or inherent in God’s nature, according to theism. Romans 11:36 states “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
If Adams has a scripture that supports his view, you as a representative fan of Adams need to present it, if you want me or any Christian to assume to his views hold any weight.
H: You need to demonstrate why this is not the case, instead of asserting it is not, or offering ridiculous possibilities (maybe he's talking about an all evil God?). Until you do, you're in the same boat Wielenberg is in
ReplyDeleteR: I have clearly demonstrated my points and you have not refuted them. To say an immoral god is a “ridiculous” idea philosophically is a bit short-sighted. The Greeks had many examples of immoral gods. And many Neo-pagans today are seriously following Greek mythology. People who support Greek mythology try and defend the immorality of their gods, as referenced:
“Sometimes the Greek gods are ridiculed for their immorality, but I think this betrays a misunderstanding of divinity…The gods have Their own morality, and it makes no more sense to apply their moral norms to us, than it would to apply our moral norms to wolves. Gods, people and beasts are three different classes of beings, each with their appropriate morality (though there may be some overlap).”
http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/HNP.html
As I’ve explained, the specific morality of theism is tied intrinsically to the specific nature of the God of theism as revealed in the specific life of Christ on Earth and this is related to the specific conscience each person is created with. As an alternative I showed that some believe evil is a “good thing” and there is theoretically a possibility of a different kind of God with a different nature and a different morality. Calling this possibility “ridiculous” does not change this fact.
H: So Rick - go back. Reread Wielenberg's paper. Understand that you not agreeing with him is not an argument.
R: I don’t need to re-read what is fundamentally flawed. I’ve shown why his basic argument is illogical and specific points are based on untruths.
H: Understand that when he talks about Adam's view of morality, he is talking about your view of morality, when he is talking about God he is talking about your God.
R: You are becoming immorally painful in your repetition. I don’t defend Adam’s views. My points are quite simple. Please address my points and stop trying to divert the issues away from the foundational problems you and Wielenberg have with your propositions.
H: Do that. Come back and offer a reasoned, logical critique of Wielenberg's claims.
ReplyDeleteR: Instead offering another diversion, let’s summarize and see how you are doing on some of the basic issues.
I had pointed out that God’s good nature is highly specific and this is in harmony with the specific nature of the human conscience as a creation of God. I pointed out that there is an alternative, an “evil is good” kind of morality, that is found in corrupt societies, as described by the prophet Isaiah. I’ve also just pointed out the Greek gods behave in an immoral manner.
But, based on a pattern so far, it seems useless to offer you real examples, because you continue to repeat a similar mantra anyway:
“An "evil" God is not a real alternative. In Adam's view (and your own), God = Good. Regardless of God's nature, it would be good..."
Yada, yada, yada.
I quoted Francis Schaeffer as a more widely accepted understanding of theist morality: “The moral absolute is the perfect “just” nature of God Himself.” And your response was “And without justification is mere assertion, and can be discounted.”
No Havok, Schaeffer's quote and the scriptural basis behind it is a refutation of Wielenberg’s claim about theism that you bring up: “you are committed to the same sorts of brute ethical facts as he is.”
How many times to I have to write that theism is based on the nature and character of the person of God which is not an “ethical brute fact.” How many times will you repeat your silly mantra “you completely failed to rebut that you are committed to the same sorts of brute ethical facts as he is.”
You are correct in writing “this is getting repetitive” and I’m afraid you are the one who is to blame for this problem.
Please show me specifically how the person of God and His nature as expressed in the life of Christ (my argument for theist morality) is a mere ethical brute fact, instead of just repeating some mantra.
Simply repeating over and over “you are committed to the same sorts of brute ethical facts as he is” seems a bit disingenuous.
H: Except of course you've failed to show why morality requires anchors above those which Wielenberg supplies - his ethical brute facts.
R: I’ve shown a number of examples of why a consistent and objective basis of morality requires an absolute reference point, such as the God of theism.
Havok, your second example of "objective atheist morality" is based on the writings of someone you say is a Christian. But, as I already pointed out platonic, floating "goodness" without God is a non-biblical premise. But lets look at your points anyway:
ReplyDeleteMy initial comment: "You’ve summarized Morriston's system of “objective atheist morality” as a coherent free-standing proposition? I must have missed that. On what date did you post that?"
H: It was a while ago, likely on another thread. Here we go:
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."
R: As I've pointed out, Romans 11:36 states “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
As I mentioned, scripture trumps any so-called Christian philosophical claims. If you want to bring a so-called Christian claim to the table, you need to back it up with scripture.
“Morriston claims there to be a standard external to God.”
Show the scriptural basis for it and then there is a chance it may be acceptable from a theist perspective.
H: Your own inability to change your views when given contrary data, as well as your inability to respond to evidence which challenges your viewpoint speaks volumes Rick
R: “Contrary data” not based on truth and logic (or scripture, from a theological basis) is pretty much worthless, as is Morriston’s claim as a Christian thinker that morality is external to the existence of God, at least with respect to the manner in which you’ve presented it. Maybe you are misrepresenting Morriston.
Rick: Yes, and in response to Wielenberg's claim, in my article I showed how the weightlifter’s maxim “no pain, no gain” refutes this premise. As far as I know, you have never addressed this point from my article.
ReplyDeleteI addressed it a couple of times now Rick. "No pain no gain" would be a morally praisworthy thing because it involves enduring pain to achieve an end. This does nothing to undermine Weilenberg's claim, and would seem to actually reinfornce his point.
Rick: At the very moment the weightlifter feels the sharp pain of stretched tendons, the person can also feel good about his or her progress.
They're enduring a negative to achieve a positive - no problem here.
Rick: This sting of pain is not “intrinsically bad” or immoral, it is good, a barometer showing that muscles are tearing and will become larger in accordance with the desire of the athlete
On Weilenberg's account, the pain would still be intrinsically bad - your example does nothing to undermine this point.
Rick: It is intrinsically good because the body is hardwired with an alarm system that alerts us to health problems. A biological alarm system is intrinsically good, not bad.
That the pain alerted the patient to the problem is good. The pain itself would still be a negative. Surely it would be better to be alerted to the problem without the pain?
Also, even if your argument above successfully undermined Weilenberg's claims about "pain", you've still supported his main contention, which is simply the existence of ethical brute facts - you just disagree on what those facts are (and epistemological disagreement).
Rick: No, it is intrinsically good because the exact moment the alcohol is applied; the sharp intrinsic pain shows him the old alcohol is still effective in killing germs and bacteria.
Again, this does not undermine Weilenberg's point. If the patient could have been assured of the effectiveness of the alcohol without it causing him pain, that would surely be better (and I doubt that "stinging" is a reliable measure of a disinfectant).
Rick: Under the circumstances, it’s odd you chose him as your first example of “objective atheist morality.”
ReplyDeleteI don't think morality is objective in the sense you do, therefore I can't give something approaching my own moral system as an example of objective morality. Weilenberg's system is reasonable, I'd recently reread the paper, and it pointed out holes in your own moral claims. Therefore it seemed a perfect example to present. What else would you have had me do?
Rick: I disagree. The relative and subjective nature of pain is one of the many reasons why pain alone cannot be considered a consistent and rational basis for “an objective atheist moral system.”
Of course you disagree, but that doesn't mean you're right and Weilenberg is wrong. You're points thus far, as I think I've shown, do not undermine Weilenberg's claims.
Rick: You need to further support that claim because, at face value, it appears to be a logical contradiction.
If I risk something to help you, is that not more praisworthy than if I risk nothing?
Rick: Wielenberg wrote “since the Good just is Good” but Wielenberg needs to justify this claim because it has no solid bearing in either a theist or atheist perspective.
Rick, it looks like you need to think about your own system of morality, since the claim "The Good just is God" is a claim Adams makes, and therefore is something you appear to be committed to (it's the claim that tries to get your moral system "off the ground" so to speak).
Rick: A relativist atheist is self-justified in his or her immoral philosophy by saying there is no objective absolute point of reference for atheist morality.
Only for a very naive moral relatavism Rick, which you seem to be ideologically committed to asserting.
Rick: Neither you nor Wielenberg have a basis for saying “good” is just “good” in this sense
Weilenberg certainly has a claimed basis - his substantive brute ethical facts.
On my system I doubt I could justify something as being simply "good", since I don't think that morality exists in that fashion. Nevertheless I could still claim that something was good (just not intrinsically so).
Rick: because historically this idea has been shown to be false for a majority of the population and for atheists a consensus is all you really have to go by.
Do try to limit your caricatures of positions you don't hold Rick. You obviously have little knowledge of moral systems outside your own, so to lump them all into a naive relatavism and pretend to make authoritative pronouncements from this position of ignorance is arrogant in the extreme.
Rick: From a scriptural perspective “Good just is Good” is also false outside of the existence of God, as I'll show.
Please to try. While you're doing so, keep in mind the problems Weilenberg points out for your position, which you're still refusing to look at rationally.
Rick: I’ve written about this already. I’m not sure why you are bringing it up again. I’m not Adams and don’t hold Adam’s views.
ReplyDeleteYou were defending WLC's moral argument. WLC follows Adam's views. Therefore is seems likely that you also follow Adam's views.
If you don't then you'll have to be explicit concerning your own moral views instead of simply making things up as you go along.
Rick: According to scripture, all things are either from God, who is eternal, or are inherent in God’s nature. This means that goodness is from God or inherent in God’s nature, according to theism. Romans 11:36 states “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
So which is it?
How is good grounded in the nature of God Rick?
And how is this good therefore objective, and not simply the subjective desires of God?
I don't want references to scripture, I'd like a solid, logical, philosophical argument Rick.
Rick: If Adams has a scripture that supports his view, you as a representative fan of Adams need to present it, if you want me or any Christian to assume to his views hold any weight.
Adam's seems to be one of the foremost expositors of Divine Command theory. As such, I suspect your position is far closer to his than you suspect (or else your position is logically flawed and/or irrational).
Rick: To say an immoral god is a “ridiculous” idea philosophically is a bit short-sighted.
If we're talking about a being whose nature is, by definition, moral, then regardless of what that nature consists of (valuing love or hate for instance) such things would then become "moral" - this is the "arbitrary nature" of morality objection to claims like your own.
Have a read of the blog post I sent you to link here in case you missed it), which discusses Weilenberg's arguments against certain views of divine command theory (and to which you're likely falls).
Rick: As I’ve explained, the specific morality of theism is tied intrinsically to the specific nature of the God of theism as revealed in the specific life of Christ on Earth and this is related to the specific conscience each person is created with.
Asserted more like.
And I guess this means we ignore or "reinterpret" all of the immoral behaviour and commands in both the OT & NT.
Rick: I don’t need to re-read what is fundamentally flawed. I’ve shown why his basic argument is illogical and specific points are based on untruths.
You do when the understanding supporting your conclusion is incomplete and/or inaccurate, which in this case it appears to be.
Rick: I don’t defend Adam’s views. My points are quite simple. Please address my points and stop trying to divert the issues away from the foundational problems you and Wielenberg have with your propositions.
So you ignored all my previous comments where I equated your morality with that of WLC (since you were defending his moral argument) and therefore with that of Adams (since WLC follows Adam), and are only now making the claim that your view of morality is your own?
Funny Rick.
Rick: I had pointed out that God’s good nature is highly specific and this is in harmony with the specific nature of the human conscience as a creation of God
You asserted this Rick. We can look to the writings which underly these claims and see that the nature of this "God" you claims exist do not match the nature of the "God" described within. This means that you're without any sort of justification for your claims - how do you know any of this?
Rick: I’ve also just pointed out the Greek gods behave in an immoral manner.
ReplyDeleteOnly according to your moral system Rick. This is something you don't seem to get. If the Greek pantheon of God's existed, they would not be immoral. Their behaviour, while capricious and sometimes cruel, would also likely be morally praiseworthy.
Rick: I quoted Francis Schaeffer as a more widely accepted understanding of theist morality: “The moral absolute is the perfect “just” nature of God Himself.”
Which sounds VERY like Adam's equating "the Good" with "God", just in less philosophical language.
Rick: No Havok, Schaeffer's quote and the scriptural basis behind it is a refutation of Wielenberg’s claim about theism that you bring up:
Not yet it isn't Rick. You need to show how it is that God's nature grounds morality in a non-arbitrary, objective manner. Adam's view does this by equating "the Good" with "God" (and which has the problems Weilenberg points out). You seem to disagree with this, so you'll need to actually produce your argument to justify your claims.
Rick: How many times to I have to write that theism is based on the nature and character of the person of God which is not an “ethical brute fact.
You need to argue that claim, not simply assert it.
Rick: Please show me specifically how the person of God and His nature as expressed in the life of Christ (my argument for theist morality) is a mere ethical brute fact, instead of just repeating some mantra.
Please show me specifically how the person of God and His nature as expressed in the life of Jesus grounds morality in an objective, non-arbitrary manner.
Rick: I’ve shown a number of examples of why a consistent and objective basis of morality requires an absolute reference point, such as the God of theism.
It's all argument by assertion with you Rick.
Rick: But, as I already pointed out platonic, floating "goodness" without God is a non-biblical premise.
You didn't demonstrate that Rick.
Rick: As I've pointed out, Romans 11:36 states “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
Which could very easily simply be hyperbolic language being used by the author of that passage of Romans, and given the context this seems a reasonable choice.
It also doesn't seem to undermine Weilenberg's point, as God is, in his view, the epitomy of "Good". God exemplifies what it means to be good, God instantiates the Good making properties maximally, which doesn't seem to run afoul of your "scriptural proof".
Rick: “Contrary data” not based on truth and logic (or scripture, from a theological basis) is pretty much worthless,
Which sums up most of your blog posts Rick - and it is these that you're unable to support, nor to backpedal from. You simply "know" you're right, with what appears to be 100% certainty.
Rick: as is Morriston’s claim as a Christian thinker that morality is external to the existence of God, at least with respect to the manner in which you’ve presented it. Maybe you are misrepresenting Morriston.
Perhaps I am. Here's a link to his paper on "God and the ontological foundation of morality".
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you can misunderstand and misrepresent this paper as well :-)
Havok,
ReplyDeleteH: I addressed it a couple of times now Rick. "No pain no gain" would be a morally praisworthy thing because it involves enduring pain to achieve an end.
R: I’m afraid you haven’t addressed the deeper issues that you need to address. You wrote “They're enduring a negative to achieve a positive - no problem here.” There is a problem. You need a philosophical justification as to why pain must be “a negative” why “pain is intrinsically bad” and you still haven’t provided that (and neither has Wielenberg).
You and Wielenberg use the word “bad” or “negative” for pain but you need to qualify and back up your assertions. According to Webster’s Dictionary, negative means “lacking positive qualities”
Is pain completely lacking in positive qualities? No. because pain does not just happen arbitrarily, pain is always connected to a cause in a meaningful universe. It is neither reasonable nor logical to consider pain an abstract, isolated feeling that occurs in a vacuum. Pain doesn’t just happen, there is always a cause. And one of the positive connective qualities of pain is that alerts us to health problems.
To propose that pain in an “ethical brute fact” divorced from the cause/effect relationship as a basis of morality is disingenuous, simply grasping at straws. As soon as you acknowledge the cause/effect relationship that is intrinsic to the phenomenon of pain, then pain cannot be labeled as “intrinsically bad” because it is inexorably bound to positive conditions as I’ve shown. You’ve failed to offer tangible negative qualities within my examples, as I requested,
H: On Weilenberg's account, the pain would still be intrinsically bad - your example does nothing to undermine this point.
ReplyDeleteR: I believe you fail to see that pain without a cause and a context cannot exist. And once the causes and contexts of pain are acknowledged, pain is shown to have numerous positive qualities. To say pain is “an ethical brute fact” that is “intrinsically bad” is disingenuous for these reasons.
Neither you nor Wielenberg have answered these questions: 1) How can a “brute fact” negative feeling, in and of itself, in a cause/effect vacuum, have moral and ethical connotations? and 2) How can pain be considered a “brute fact” divorced from its context when pain itself cannot exist without a cause?
H: Also, even if your argument above successfully undermined Weilenberg's claims about "pain", you've still supported his main contention, which is simply the existence of ethical brute facts - you just disagree on what those facts are (and epistemological disagreement).
No, Havok, “ethical brute facts” do not exist, as pain does not exist without a cause and a context, and as pain itself does not have moral connotations without a context. The phrase “ethical-brute facts” is a philosophical oxymoron.
Wielenberg uses the example of torture to support his claims. But torture is not a case where pain is simply a brute fact, as he describes it in a specific context. And his example is extremely myopic. He didn’t address the many situations where pain is quite positive in the cause / effect relationship.
I offered the example of the human body that is hard-wired with an alarm system that alerts us to health problems. You wrote in response:
“Surely it would be better to be alerted to the problem without the pain?”
If we felt pleasure when our bodies were being cut or burned we would not react quickly. Pain in this case is only positive and only pain will suffice. Pleasure would not suffice.
Suppose someone was sleeping by a campfire and slowly the fire burned his legs, would a feeling of pleasure cause the person to wake up and move his legs? I don’t think so.
You can continue to repeat your mantras, “Pain is intrinsically bad” “Pain is an ethical brute fact” but at this point you are just banging your stubborn head on a philosophical wall and it seems you may begin to suffer serious mental health problems if you try to keep up the charade.
The only ethical brute fact here, Havok, may possibly be your underlying rebellion against God as understood by your desperation to logically justify your atheism. That is the only ethical brute fact you (and Wielenberg) may have actually demonstrated.
H: If I risk something to help you (making a logical contradiction), is that not more praisworthy than if I risk nothing?
ReplyDeleteR: Havok, please don’t continue making logical contradictions on my account. I don’t want to be held responsible if and when you may be committed to a mental institution. I would much prefer that you acknowledge the simple truth of God’s existence and the logic and reason that follows this understanding.
H: Rick, it looks like you need to think about your own system of morality, since the claim "The Good just is God" is a claim Adams makes, and therefore is something you appear to be committed to (it's the claim that tries to get your moral system "off the ground" so to speak).
R: I’ve already explained in my previous post why I’m not committed to brute ethical facts in theism, You may continue to write that I’m committed to something I have no belief in whatsoever, without even showing why, but that seems a bit disingenuous.
H: Only for a very naive moral relatavism Rick, which you seem to be ideologically committed to asserting. (I had written: “A relativist atheist is self-justified in his or her immoral philosophy by saying there is no objective absolute point of reference for atheist morality.”)
R: This is not naïve, Havok, it’s a simple fact.
But let’s compare a naïve understanding of atheist morality with a more sophisticated one and see which is healthier.
The average atheist may live day to day with notions about being a good person when, in fact, there is no anchored and objective frame of reference from which to actually decide what is morally good and what is not for an atheist.
For the more clever and sophisticated atheist, there is no need to make pretensions. A clever atheist interested in physical gratification who believes there is no God, no ultimate accountability and no absolute basis for right and wrong will live accordingly.
For example, Marquis de Sade was a French aristocrat, philosopher and writer among other things. He was a relativist to the extreme and hardly naïve. In 1785 he wrote The 120 Days of Sodom, “a tale of four libertines who kidnap victims for a nonstop orgy of perversion. In his most famous novel, Justine (1791), the heroine suffers because she fails to perceive that there is no moral God and that desire is the only reality.”
Though he lived for pleasure, was de Sade’s immoral pursuit of pleasure a healthy? Hardly. “He was twice sent to the insane asylum at Charenton (1789 – 90, 1801 – 14), where he would eventually die.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/marquis-de-sade#ixzz1ZLeUiY00
However, those who practice a naïve atheist morality live healthier lives because they conform closer to the actual true state of affairs wherein an absolute standard of goodness does exist, as reflected in the human conscience and the life of Jesus Christ.
Call me naïve, call me whatever you want, but my statement still stands and you haven’t refuted it:
Neither you, Havok, nor Wielenberg have a basis for saying “good” is just “good” as a moral brute fact just hanging out unanchored in the atheist universe. And, for reasons I’ve shown, the twisted hedonism of someone such as de Sad is justifiable according to atheist morality.
H: Weilenberg certainly has a claimed basis - his substantive brute ethical facts.
ReplyDeleteR: Weilenberg’s brute ethical fact is nothing but a false claim, as I’ve shown.
H: On my system I doubt I could justify something as being simply "good", since I don't think that morality exists in that fashion.
R: Lest we forget, it is you who offered Wielenberg as an example of objective atheist morality.
H: You obviously have little knowledge of moral systems outside your own, so to lump them all into a naive relatavism and pretend to make authoritative pronouncements from this position of ignorance is arrogant in the extreme.
I had stated that there were times in history when society was corrupt and morality was upside down, so to speak. Instead of refuting my claim you imply it is arrogant to make such a claim. Ad homonym comments are a weak rebut, but I’ll develop the point anyway.
This is a quote from the prophet Isaiah: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5.20
Isaiah was referring to the historical people of Israel:
“Ah a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto danger, they are gone away backward.” (Isaiah 1.4)
If you disagree with my point, show some evidence. Or, you can call me arrogant and naïve. Your choice.
H: You were defending WLC's moral argument. WLC follows Adam's views. Therefore is seems likely that you also follow Adam's views.
ReplyDeleteR: I stated I agreed with Craig’s syllogism for proof of God through the moral argument and that I agree with Craig’s claim that atheist morality is floating and unanchored. That’s it. Please don’t make any other assumptions about my opinion of Craig and third party philosophers.
Rick: According to scripture, all things are either from God, who is eternal, or are inherent in God’s nature. This means that goodness is from God or inherent in God’s nature, according to theism. Romans 11:36 states “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
H: So which is it? How is good grounded in the nature of God Rick?
R: Goodness is a quality of God’s nature, one of many.
H: And how is this good therefore objective, and not simply the subjective desires of God?
R: The characteristics of God are not merely wished in and out of existence but are aspects of God’s eternal nature.
H: I don't want references to scripture, I'd like a solid, logical, philosophical argument Rick.
R: If you’d like a solid, philosophical, argument, it would help to address
my points head on and not to divert away from them. As far as scripture is concerned,
Wielenberg in his article made false claims about the theist God that are opposed to scripture in order to try and justify his points. I simply used scripture to point out his misunderstandings of God. I hardly rely on scripture to show why his “moral realism” is illogical and based on untruths. I simply need to analyze his own statements for that.
H: Adam's seems to be one of the foremost expositors of Divine Command theory. As such, I suspect your position is far closer to his than you suspect (or else your position is logically flawed and/or irrational).
R: So you haven’t addressed my point, but simply brought up a different one. Here’s the point you did not address:
“If Adams has a scripture that supports his view, you as a representative fan of Adams need to present it, if you want me or any Christian to assume to his views hold any weight.”
H: Have a read of the blog post I sent you to link here in case you missed it), which discusses Weilenberg's arguments against certain views of divine command theory (and to which you're likely falls).
R: Again, you have not addressed my example but are attempting to divert away from the point at hand. You had stated the possibility of an immoral, evil God was ridiculous and I offered examples of Greek god’s and I showed the Neo Pagans take them quite seriously. Instead of addressing my point you try and send me out to do your homework.
Why don’t you try and defend your own statements, Havok? Summarize for me how all the pagans who believe in real and immoral gods and goddesses and “ridiculous” in your own words. According to your premise, these faithful pagans should not exist because the idea is so preposterous. But, unfortunately for you, they do exist and support my point.
H: And I guess this means we ignore or "reinterpret" all of the immoral behaviour and commands in both the OT & NT.
ReplyDeleteR: I suppose the term “interpret” would be appropriate in the context of understanding the Old Testament in light of the New Testament and visa versa. It also has to do with acknowledging the fact that God is holy, just and eternal. All scripture should be interpreted in the light of these facts.
H: So you ignored all my previous comments where I equated your morality with that of WLC (since you were defending his moral argument) and therefore with that of Adams (since WLC follows Adam), and are only now making the claim that your view of morality is your own? Funny Rick.
R: No I didn’t ignore them. I patiently explained each time why God’s nature is the basis of morality, not a false view of “ethical brute facts.”
Rick: I had pointed out that God’s good nature is highly specific and this is in harmony with the specific nature of the human conscience as a creation of God
H: You asserted this Rick.
R: The human conscience is an objective reality. The moral teachings of the life of Christ are documented. The harmony of the conscience with the principles of theism is a fact, not a mere assertion. I've shown historical examples of alternative to this morality.
These are concrete facts you apparently cannot address. Calling them mere assertions seems disingenuous.
H: We can look to the writings which underly these claims and see that the nature of this "God" you claims exist do not match the nature of the "God" described within. This means that you're without any sort of justification for your claims - how do you know any of this?
ReplyDeleteR: The nature of God must be interpreted form the body of the scriptures, not from verses taken out of context. The New Testament reveals the life of the historical person, Jesus Christ.
H: If the Greek pantheon of God's existed, they would not be immoral.
R: I gave a link showing the Greek gods are in fact considered immoral and how many pagans today defend the strange behavior of these supposed immortal gods. Simply saying “they would not be immoral” does not make it so.
H: Their behaviour, while capricious and sometimes cruel, would also likely be morally praiseworthy.
R: As a relativist, I have no doubt you would be able to justify and support all of their actions if you wanted to.
Rick: I quoted Francis Schaeffer as a more widely accepted understanding of theist morality: “The moral absolute is the perfect “just” nature of God Himself.”
H: Which sounds VERY like Adam's equating "the Good" with "God", just in less philosophical language.
R: If so, Wielenberg doesn’t seem to draw a very adequate example in his premise:
“In the context of Adams’s view, the claim that God serves as the foundation of the Good is no more sensible than the claim that H2O serves as the foundation of water.”
Wielenberg’s example is fraught with problems. While goodness is one of many characteristics of the nature of God, Wielenberg’s “water” is not one of many characteristics of H20. It is simply the substance of water by another name. H20 is to water as God is to Jehovah is a bit closer as a match. A more rational example would have been “H20 is to wetness as God is to goodness.
H: Adam's view does this by equating "the Good" with "God" (and which has the problems Weilenberg points out). You seem to disagree with this, so you'll need to actually produce your argument to justify your claims.
R: I’ve argued that theist morality is based on the specific nature of the theist God, which is in harmony with the human conscience and was demonstrated in the life of Christ. Your attempts to rebut this have fallen flat. Wielenberg’s “H20 is to water as God is to good” does not work as a valid metaphor as I’ve shown. It’s so weak and inappropriate as a metaphor that it’s difficult to believe it was presented in a serious philosophical article. A more rational correlation would have been “H20 is to wetness as God is to goodness.
H: Please show me specifically how the person of God and His nature as expressed in the life of Jesus grounds morality in an objective, non-arbitrary manner.
R: OK, here we go again. I asked you to make a point, a serious rebuttal, and you ignore it and ask me a question. Let me first repost the point you did not address:
“Please show me specifically how the person of God and His nature as expressed in the life of Christ (my argument for theist morality) is a mere ethical brute fact, instead of just repeating some mantra.”
You didn’t address my point head on but it seems, the best you can do is to offer an oblique example, “H20 is to water as God is to good” which doesn’t work as a metaphor.
As to your point “Please show me specifically how the person of God and His nature as expressed in the life of Jesus grounds morality in an objective, non-arbitrary manner.”
The person of God is eternal and unchanging with a good and just nature. God is the ultimate moral reference point. The moral reference point of God’s existence is exemplified in the life and specific teachings of Christ on Earth.
H: It's all argument by assertion with you Rick.
ReplyDeleteR: No, I’ve shown a number of examples of why a consistent and objective basis of morality requires an absolute reference point, such as the God of theism. And I’ve shown how the nature of God was demonstrated in the living, breathing, life of Christ. I have a concrete, logical and cohesive argument … not an argument by mere assertion.
But go ahead and continue repeating your mantras and avoiding my points so any atheist who observes this exchange can continue to see the utter weakness of atheism, philosophically.
H: It also doesn't seem to undermine Weilenberg's point, as God is, in his view, the epitomy of "Good". God exemplifies what it means to be good, God instantiates the Good making properties maximally, which doesn't seem to run afoul of your "scriptural proof".
R: No, Havok, the Romans quote implies the opposite of wielenberg’s position. God does not “exemplify” what is good (moral brute facts) but, rather, moral goodness exists because God’s nature is good and just and holy, and so on. You remind me of Jesus’ words "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.” Matthew 13.13
Reread the verse again and it may click: Romans 11:36 states “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
H: You simply "know" you're right, with what appears to be 100% certainty…and it is these that you're unable to support, nor to backpedal from.
R: If there is a logical contradiction with the truth of God’s existence, as I’ve presented, please point it out specifically. What date did I write it and what was the context? To say that I am the one backpeddling is quite comical, considering the specific instances I’ve pointed out when you’ve backpeddled and flip-flopped.
I’ve made valid points refuting Wielenberg’s argument. But no matter how true and valid they are, it seems you will never actually acknowledge them as such.
H: Here's a link to his paper on "God and the ontological foundation of morality". I’m
sure if you put your mind to it you can misunderstand and misrepresent this paper as well :-)
R: As I’ve explained, I have no interest in studying someone in depth who has a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality. In my opinion, any Christian who believes “morality is external to the existence of God” has no business calling himself a Christian or a philosopher because it seems to be an obvious contradiction of scripture and is an unnecessary and sad mistake. But the truth and good nature of God are quite real by contrast and offer the kind of cohesive logic and happiness you seem you could use, Havok. Instead of wasting time with philosophical treatises built on illogical foundations, it would do you well to read the scriptures. In the very least you would be more aware of when your philosopher’s theist propositions are out of touch with scripture.
Rick: I believe you fail to see that pain without a cause and a context cannot exist. And once the causes and contexts of pain are acknowledged, pain is shown to have numerous positive qualities. To say pain is “an ethical brute fact” that is “intrinsically bad” is disingenuous for these reasons.
ReplyDeletewhich would be merely arguing the instrumental moral properties of specific cases or events which involve the phenomena of pain, and not arguing pain as an ethical brute fact.
Rick: Neither you nor Wielenberg have answered these questions: 1) How can a “brute fact” negative feeling, in and of itself, in a cause/effect vacuum, have moral and ethical connotations?
This is the part you don't seem to get. Pain just would be morally "bad" - there would be no further reduction to be made. The moral or ethical value supervenes upon the phenomena of pain.
Rick: 2) How can pain be considered a “brute fact” divorced from its context when pain itself cannot exist without a cause?
As Weilenberg states in that paper (which you'd know about if you had read it), Weilenberg's ontology includes "states-of-affairs". It is upon these states of affairs that moral value supervenes (if I'm reading Weilenberg right).
Rick: No, Havok, “ethical brute facts” do not exist, as pain does not exist without a cause and a context, and as pain itself does not have moral connotations without a context. Rick: He didn’t address the many situations where pain is quite positive in the cause / effect relationship.
And in those cases, the positive value is divorced from the pain. It seems likely t-hat such cases are rather more cases of instrumental and not intrinsic value.
Rick: I offered the example of the human body that is hard-wired with an alarm system that alerts us to health problems.
Which I suspect is part of the underlying claim Weilenberg accepts regarding intuitionism. The pain we feel is always pretty much always a negative, even if a positive outcome results from it. This would be why we take notice of it - it t]ells us something is "wrong".
Rick: Pain in this case is only positive and only pain will suffice. Pleasure would not suffice.
You're making Weilenberg's case for him Rick. Pain lets us know of "bad" things. In some circumstances the small amount of bad alerts us in time to avert a larger amount of bad.
Rick: Havok, please don’t continue making logical contradictions on my account.
it's good to know that when firemen rush into burning building to help people trapped inside, that they cannot logically be risking their own lives.
Actual logic and rational thinking isn't your strong suit, is it? :-)
Rick: I would much prefer that you acknowledge the simple truth of God’s existence and the logic and reason that follows this understanding.
ReplyDeleteWhy acknowledge and accept the existence of something which is so vastly improbable as to be laughable?
Rick: I’ve already explained in my previous post why I’m not committed to brute ethical facts in theism, You may continue to write that I’m committed to something I have no belief in whatsoever, without even showing why, but that seems a bit disingenuous.
Sure thing Rick. You keep believing that a hand waving "that doesn't apply to me" excuse, and ignoring problems with your position is the rationa high ground.
This sort of delusional belief seems to be your forte.
Rick: This is not naïve, Havok, it’s a simple fact.
As they say, and claim which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Argument by assertion all the way :-)
Rick: Call me naïve, call me whatever you want, but my statement still stands and you haven’t refuted it:
Rick, you do seem to be naive, but I was talking about the caricature of moral relatavism you present as the "only option".
You really should do further reading before making ignorant pronouncements.
Rick: Neither you, Havok, nor Wielenberg have a basis for saying “good” is just “good” as a moral brute fact just hanging out unanchored in the atheist universe.
Well, here you're simply mistaken.
Weilenberg has his moral brute facts, which you're still struggling to actually understand, let alone refute.
I'd agree with, with numerous caveats and reservations, that people cannot say "good" is "good" in the simplistic fashion you require. I doubt that there are such categorical imperatives. There are however reasons for behaviour which we can appeal to. For example, if you value individual freedom and your own life, it is entirely consistent to say that murder is "bad". Since most humans do share thwese values, this would be a universal moral dictate amongst humans (almost universal).
I'm sure you'll manage to misundertand me though :-)
Rick: And, for reasons I’ve shown, the twisted hedonism of someone such as de Sad is justifiable according to atheist morality.
If De Sade was a hedonist, then he was not a moral relatavist, since hedonism is utilitatrian in nature, if I recall correctly, and is therefore objective - there is a definite fact of the matter regarding which acts produce greater or lesser pleasure.
Rick: Weilenberg’s brute ethical fact is nothing but a false claim, as I’ve shown.
Asserted. Claimed. Boasted.
Not shown.
Rick: Lest we forget, it is you who offered Wielenberg as an example of objective atheist morality.
lest we forget, you asked for a non-theistic objective system of morality. I didn't say I was convinced by it.
Rick: I had stated that there were times in history when society was corrupt and morality was upside down, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteWere those the times when adultery and talking back to your parents was punished by death, and slavery was accepted?
That right there is a simple indication that your biblical morality is bankrupt.
Rick: Instead of refuting my claim you imply it is arrogant to make such a claim. Ad homonym comments are a weak rebut, but I’ll develop the point anyway.
What would I refute regarding your true claim that different societies have different moral values? It's a rather good argument against the objective position you claim to hold.
What we can see however, is that as society becomes more educated, we see equal morals being promoted. Slavery, sexism, homophobia have or are falling to this. And during this time our societies have become less violent, more prosperous and better.
Rick: If you disagree with my point, show some evidence. Or, you can call me arrogant and naïve. Your choice.
Can I call you misguided and ignorant?
Rick:I stated I agreed with Craig’s syllogism for proof of God through the moral argument
Which fails miserable, since both of it's premises are not demonstrated to be true...
Rick: and that I agree with Craig’s claim that atheist morality is floating and unanchored.
Which is something Craig simply asserts must be the case, not something he bothers to actually demonstrate. In fact, in his debate with Sam Harris, he admitted that this was simply an argument from personal incredulity.
So we're nought for 2 with this.
Rick: That’s it. Please don’t make any other assumptions about my opinion of Craig and third party philosophers.
Since Adam's Divine Command theory seems to be admitted as one of the strongest formulations of such a moral system, and since you're philosophically ignorant, I'll assume your own moral system, which you've not bothered to lay on the table, is full of holes.
Also, since you continually ascribe positions and motivations to me and other commenters, it seems apt that I continue ascribing a position to you that you don't hold :-)
Rick: Goodness is a quality of God’s nature, one of many.
ReplyDeleteBut what is "goodness" Rick?
Lets go for a concrete example.
"Love" is good, correct?
Now, love therefore must be a part of God's nature (if god existed)?
So, is love good because it is in God's nature, or is it in God's nature because it's good?
The former opens you up to charges of good being arbitrary (it is whatever God's nature is), while the latter indicates a standard external to God in contradition to your stated position (but in accordance with Morriston's).
Rick: The characteristics of God are not merely wished in and out of existence but are aspects of God’s eternal nature.
This ties in with my questions above Rick.
Is God's nature necessarily as it is, ie. is "love" a necessary part of God's nature?
If so it seems that in your system "love" is necessarily good, and would have intrinsic value. If not, then "love" is only arbitrarily good, since God's nature isn't necessarily "loving".
Rick: As far as scripture is concerned, Wielenberg in his article made false claims about the theist God that are opposed to scripture in order to try and justify his points.
No, he addressed a philosphical argument which is accepted by many Christians.
Rick: I simply used scripture to point out his misunderstandings of God. I hardly rely on scripture to show why his “moral realism” is illogical and based on untruths. I simply need to analyze his own statements for that.
Perhaps you should tell Adams and WLC that their understanding of scripture and moral claims are mistaken and unbiblical.
I suspect you wouldn't like the response :-)
Rick: So you haven’t addressed my point, but simply brought up a different one. Here’s the point you did not address:
ReplyDeleteYou haven't bothered to point out why Adam's is wrong Rick. You tried to point out why Morriston is mistaken, but if you said something about Adam's view, other than you don't hold it, then I must have missed.
Rick: You had stated the possibility of an immoral, evil God was ridiculous
In the context it is. God is generally defined as "omnibenevolent" meaning that whatever that God's nature is, it is good.
Rick: Summarize for me how all the pagans who believe in real and immoral gods and goddesses and “ridiculous” in your own words.
Are the gods of neopagans (at least, the ones who are taken to be moral) immoral in their view, or just in yours Rick?
I suspect the answer is the latter Rick.
Rick: . It also has to do with acknowledging the fact that God is holy, just and eternal. All scripture should be interpreted in the light of these facts.
So:
- Genocide is morally good
- Slavery is morally good
- Killing women and children in battle is morally good
This is the problem, Rick. You define "good" as whatever God does, and then you're forced to try to rationalise away all of the immoral things in your holy book.
Rick: No I didn’t ignore them.
Yeah, you did. But we'll let it slide for now :-)
Rick: I patiently explained each time why God’s nature is the basis of morality, not a false view of “ethical brute facts.”
But claiming God's nature as the basis leads you to either an arbitrary morality or to there being some external standard other than God. The movie which Adam's takes to avoid this appears to be claiming that God is the Good, which may be the only means to avoid the previous charges. And it is this move which leads to Adam's view falling prey to Weilenberg's claims.
You'll need to show how and why your own claims don't fall into this pattern.
Rick: The moral teachings of the life of Christ are documented.
The documents which puport to document Jesus' life are of terribly poor historic value, being anonymous, lacking methodology, interdependant, of unknown providence, etc.
Many of the teachings of Jesus, and other moral pronouncements in the bible (both OT and NT) are immoral :-)
Rick: The harmony of the conscience with the principles of theism is a fact, not a mere assertion.
Yeah, it is Rick. The human conscience is in harmony with a naturalistic, evolutionary explanation. it doesn't seem to fit well with theism without some serious shoehorning.
Rick: I've shown historical examples of alternative to this morality
ReplyDeleteand there are numerous historic examples of theistic morality being terrible.
Rick: The nature of God must be interpreted form the body of the scriptures, not from verses taken out of context.
Rick, the books of the bible should be also be treated individually, as well as as an edited "whole", since they were written and rewrtiten, redacted and interpolated over a long period of time. taking these into consideration, the horrible character of God within the books of the bible ought to be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology.
Rick: The New Testament reveals the life of the historical person, Jesus Christ.
The early NT epistles reveal little to no information concerning Jesus' actual life.
The Gospels are of unknown providence, anonymous, interdependant, and have show little regard for recording history. Almost all of GMark can be seen as lifting parts of the OT rather than recording history (and no, it isn't prophecy fulfilled Rick)
Sorry, this do claim simply doesn't work.
Rick: many pagans today defend the strange behavior of these supposed immortal gods.
So they rationalise supposed behaviour in exactly the same fashion Christians like yourself do. Big surprise there.
Rick: I’ve argued that theist morality is based on the specific nature of the theist God,
So which is it - is good arbitrary or external to God? :-)
Rick: which is in harmony with the human conscience
Slavery, genocide and human sacrifice are in harmony with human conscience?
Rick: and was demonstrated in the life of Christ.
Of which we have records of little historical value - not a great thing to base your beliefs on Rick.
Rick: Your attempts to rebut this have fallen flat.
Well, now that we're actually arguing your position, I suspect you'll find things a little less comfortable.
Rick: Wielenberg’s “H20 is to water as God is to good” does not work as a valid metaphor as I’ve shown.
But your more simplistic view of morality (compared to Adam's) fails in different ways, as I've pointed out above.
Rick: The person of God is eternal and unchanging with a good and just nature.
This is the same God who once commanded immoral behaviour like genocide?
The same omnipotent being whose only solution to men behaving badly was to murder them all in a flood?
Neither of those acts are moral Rick, and yet this being has not changed?
Rick: God is the ultimate moral reference point.
And you know this how?
Rick: The moral reference point of God’s existence is exemplified in the life and specific teachings of Christ on Earth.
This was the same Jesus whose life could not serve as an example because he could not be tempted (as I pointed out on another thread)?
This is the same jesus who taught that thoughts are a sin, and who introduced the notion of eternal suffering for finite transgressions?
Doesn't really seem like he's much of an example to follow Rick.
Rick: No, I’ve shown a number of examples of why a consistent and objective basis of morality requires an absolute reference point, such as the God of theism.
ReplyDeleteAn objective morality merely requires some referent outside of desires, will and nature (which does seem to cause some trouble for your position).
Rick: moral goodness exists because God’s nature is good and just and holy, and so on.
That seems to be either viciously circular or a tautology Rick.
Rick: If there is a logical contradiction with the truth of God’s existence, as I’ve presented, please point it out specifically.
I very much doubt your concept of God is logically coherent, and suspect it is self contradictory. Though since you're yet to produce a rigorous definition of what God is like, I can't say for sure :-)
Rick: the specific instances I’ve pointed out when you’ve backpeddled and flip-flopped.
which seem to be instances of misunderstanding on your part Rick.
Rick: Instead of wasting time with philosophical treatises built on illogical foundations, it would do you well to read the scriptures.
Read them - they're part of the reason I'm not a Christian. The bible is really one of the best arguments against Christianity when actually read rather than proof texted.
Rick: In the very least you would be more aware of when your philosopher’s theist propositions are out of touch with scripture.
It seems your position is that if logic, reason or reality do not line up with (your intepretation of) scripture, then it is logic, reason or reality which must bend or break. you're a priori commitment to Christianity is unjustified and as far as I can tell, unjustifiable.
R:You need a philosophical justification as to why pain must be “a negative” why “pain is intrinsically bad” and you still haven’t provided that (and neither has Wielenberg).
ReplyDeleteI am afraid we will not see an end to this without a proper analogy with God. Rick, do the 10 coomandments from the bible need justification? Same thing here.
You might claim that the comandments are right since they are given by an all-benevolent being, but in Wielenberg s case, pain is bad because it is reflected in eternal ethical brute facts which have a monopoly on truth.
The fact that pain canbe a warning does not change anything, since the phenomena that is causing pain is negative itself. No further clarification is possible.
R: No, Havok, “ethical brute facts” do not exist, as pain does not exist without a cause and a context, and as pain itself does not have moral connotations without a context.
ReplyDeleteRick, don t you think that the same thing could be said about God? What is the cause of God? Where did it come from? It does seem to me like special pleading: ethical brute facts need justification, but God does not. You need to make a clear difference between ethical brute facts and God to make your point.
R:ither you, Havok, nor Wielenberg have a basis for saying “good” is just “good” as a moral brute fact just hanging out unanchored in the atheist universe.
By the way, you still have to prove that morality needs an anchore, though in my case reason might be called the anchore. However, the fact you cannot accept ethical brute facts as the anchore of Wieleberg s system of morality does not change the fact that it has an anchore.
And again your example with de Sad is a poor one. It is the same as comparing you to some crazy christian standing on the road and shouting profanities.
R: you disagree with my point, show some evidence. Or, you can call me arrogant and naïve. Your choice
Quoting scripture is not a very convincing way to convert atheists.
R: I simply used scripture to point out his misunderstandings of God.
Correction: your INTERPRETENTION of scripture
R:Why don’t you try and defend your own statements, Havok? Summarize for me how all the pagans who believe in real and immoral gods and goddesses and “ridiculous” in your own words.
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous from the point of view of christianity since there is only one God, others are false ones )
R: I suppose the term “interpret” would be appropriate in the context of understanding the Old Testament in light of the New Testament and visa versa. It also has to do with acknowledging the fact that God is holy, just and eternal. All scripture should be interpreted in the light of these facts.
That is only your own point of view. Have you got any proof that it is the correct one?
R: The human conscience is an objective reality. The moral teachings of the life of Christ are documented. The harmony of the conscience with the principles of theism is a fact, not a mere assertion. I've shown historical examples of alternative to this morality.
Since when is human conscience an objective reality? You have ti prove that assertion
The moral teaching of the life of Christ are documented, but are prone to different interpretention, are flawed from a historical point of view and so on. That makes him no better than an ethical brute fact.
The harmony of the conscience can be achieved through other moral systems and even through drugs.
Your historical examples are empty. Any historical example, compared to a utopia will lose.
As far as history is concerned, religion is usually a hindrance to progress
R: The nature of God must be interpreted form the body of the scriptures, not from verses taken out of context. The New Testament reveals the life of the historical person, Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you own interpretention without concret proof.
R: I gave a link showing the Greek gods are in fact considered immoral and how many pagans today defend the strange behavior of these supposed immortal gods.
Again, immoral from our own moral system. Modern pagans are usually part of the cristian moral system in one way or another. No suprise that they rationalize their religion in the same way as christians do.
R: No, Havok, the Romans quote implies the opposite of wielenberg’s position. God does not “exemplify” what is good (moral brute facts) but, rather, moral goodness exists because God’s nature is good and just and holy, and so on.
Again, a question of interpretention. You have to prove your interpretention is the right one.
R: If there is a logical contradiction with the truth of God’s existence, as I’ve presented, please point it out specifically. What date did I write it and what was the context?
I believe almost all of your posts are contradictory, but if you address the contradictions I presented in this post, I will be happy.
R: As I’ve explained, I have no interest in studying someone in depth who has a fundamentally flawed understanding of reality. In my opinion, any Christian who believes “morality is external to the existence of God” has no business calling himself a Christian or a philosopher because it seems to be an obvious contradiction of scripture and is an unnecessary and sad mistake.
The key word is "opinion". You are unable to accept a different point of view from your own. At least if that point of view endangers your foundamentals in religion.
Anonymous, I'm afraid that Rick is immune to logic and reason. A view which is bolstered by his elevation of special pleading to nearly an artform.
ReplyDeleteOf course he can't actually demonstrate that his system is correct, because he relies upon premises which are, at best, contested ("flat out false" would be a better description).
Nor can he show that another system of morality is false by simply claiming that his premises, if granted, would show it to be so.
Alas, none of this is likely to penetrate the fog, since Rick seems to follow William Lane Craig's "ministerial use of reason", refusing to subject his beliefs to rtional scrutiny.
I know all that, Havok. I realized it quite a while ago, but I just find it amusing to poke holes in Rick s logic and look how hard he tries to ignore it. I might be a little sadistic in nature )
ReplyDeleteEven if he does not respond to me, I still find it satisfacting that he obviously reads my posts.
On the other hand, I do understand that is hard to renounce an idea that one has been faithul to through a life time. In the unlikely possibility that Rick does lose his faith, he might really try to commit suicide or at least he will spend a lot of time depressed. Life without God to him is without meaning and an incredibly terrifying thing. However, the human mind is capable of rationalizing any paradox and I find the spectacle of the process extremly entertaining
Anonymous: I know all that, Havok. I realized it quite a while ago, but I just find it amusing to poke holes in Rick s logic and look how hard he tries to ignore it. I might be a little sadistic in nature )
ReplyDeleteIt can be fun - I don't think it's too sadistic :-)
I keep hoping that one day a theist will propose a decent argument or present reasonable evidence in support of their grandiose claims. The more I interact with them however, the more I doubt this will occur :-)
Anonymous: In the unlikely possibility that Rick does lose his faith, he might really try to commit suicide or at least he will spend a lot of time depressed.
That would be unfortunate. If it were to happen I would hope it were like a weight off of his shoulders rather than some depressing realisation.
Anonymous: However, the human mind is capable of rationalizing any paradox and I find the spectacle of the process extremly entertaining
Like watching a train wreck in progress - horrifying but you can't look away ;-)
Havok and Anonymous,
ReplyDelete"the human mind is capable of rationalizing any paradox and I find the spectacle of the process extremly entertaining."
Yes, it's especially entertaining when people try to deny obvious flip-flopping and logical contradictions. :-)
I've addressed the recent issues you've raised in a new article:
A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/moral-argument-as-proof-of-gods.html
Please try to keep the flip-flopping, logical contradictions and monotonous mantras down to a minimum on this one. Coming from your perspective, I know that must not be easy.
:-)
In a vague effort to clear up any loose ends, Rick, I'd like you to actually address Weilenberg's "ethical brute facts".
ReplyDeleteYou'll notice above (starting around this comment) I point out that your claims regarding "pain" fail on Weilenberg's account. The following comments also address the flaws in your own ethical system.
None of those critiques have been addressed by you, to my knowledge (not here, and not in your "next" blog entry) :-)