A commenter at my blog has requested that I respond to what he considers his most important point in a series of coments. His contention is as follows: Because the Bible was written over thousands of years and is open to different interpretations, therefore, it is not a reliable source of objective truth and "arguing that a secular humanist morality is not "objective" does not make it less suitable to follow than a Bible-based one."[1]Firstly, my definition of the theistic God in terms of the Christian worldlview is quite simple with respect to the subject of objective morality and it does not depend on any particular denominational interpretation. Secondly, the manner in which the Bible was written and has been interpreted does not impinge upon the idea of God as a philosophical concept. Logical arguments for God's existence have been presented in other articles, and that is not the underlying issue at hand. I choose to specifically defend the Christian understanding of God because I believe it is the correct one. It is also the view of God that seems to best coincide with what may be considered "The Maximally Great Being" - the logical necessity of who God must be if God exists.
Logical points to consider
1. If God does not exist, then there is no objective basis for human morality.
2. If God does exist, then there is an objective basis for morality in God's unchanging perfect nature.
Back in 2006, Daniel Dennet wrote, "Thanks to technology, what almost anybody can do has been multiplied a thousandfold, and our moral understanding about what we ought to do hasn't kept pace."[2]
Dennet's comment seems a bit too gratuitous. Secular humanists have not only failed to keep "pace" with today's moral questions, they haven't even been able to take the first baby step. Take Sam Harris' book, for example, The Moral Landscape. The criticisms from the atheist camp alone have underscored that there is no foundation whatsoever to his proposal that science alone can produce an objective moral foundation.[3]
If we were to take the biblical example of the God and ask, "If the God of the Bible exists, does objective morality exist?" a number of questions would arise. This article will address the main points of consideration and will suggest that atheists consider possible challenges to the main thesis.
First, let us consider the Oxford Dictionary definition of objective - adjective: 1(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial.[4]
1. If God exists, then God's eternal nature is an objective fact
The "if... then..." logical precept is known as modus ponens and, though not a logical law, it is a commonly used mechanism helpful in logical deduction. The God of the Bible is defined as being perfectly true and unable to lie.[5] This would imply that truth is a part of the very nature of God, not just an ancillary characteristic. Not only that, the Bible defines God as a perfectly just being as well. Again, if God's justice is unwavering, then it is not an ancillary characteristic, it is a part of God's very nature. The same could be said of God's love. If these three points are a part of God's nature, and God's nature is unchanging and eternal, then we may surmise that these points are objective facts.
2. If God exists, then human morality is based upon God's nature
If God created humans, then God has the right to set the ground rules. God is the lawgiver and the one who determines the basis of human morally. Because God is God, His moral foundation is not subservient to human approval or human understanding. In order to better understand the ultimate foundation of morality, we have only to look at God's unchanging nature. Atheists frequently offer the Euthyphro Dilemma as a critique of this moral foundation. However, it has been demonstrated by William Lane Craig and his blog commenters that God's nature remains a logical foundation for morality.[6] Premises outline why God’s nature is good neither because of the way He
happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external
standard of goodness.
(1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being.
(2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect.
(3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds.
(4) Primary moral values are not contingent, but hold in every possible world.
(5) So, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral
character in every possible world.
(6) Therefore God’s nature is good neither because of the way He
happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external
standard of goodness.[7]
Do God's standards change?
A common criticism of God relates to the differences in the Old and New Testaments. For example, in the Old Testament the death penalty was considered valid for homosexuals. But in the New Testament grace is supposedly emphasized over the law. Does this mean that God is changing his mind with regard to ethical standards? No, God himself is still the ultimate basis and standard of ethics. There are three points to consider; first, supercessionism, second, the main purpose of the law and, third, eternal justice.
When critics make the claim that Christians should follow all of the Old Testament law to the letter, begin by pointing out basic differences between the Old Testament and New Testament as described in scripture. This subject is referred to as supersessionism, which has been acknowledged since the inception of all three main historical traditions within Christianity — Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.
Outline of basic Christian supersessionism
1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions embrace the doctrine of basic supersessionism.
2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.
3. The new covenant is supersedes the old covenant.
4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.
5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.
6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.
The main purpose of the law
Secondly, it's important to understand the main purpose of the law. All through the Old Testament, there are references to a future Messiah who would bring salvation to all people. In order to prepare the way for Christ, God the Father demonstrated how the law is inadequate to bring spiritual salvation. The law actually gives us a desire to sin more. The Apostle Paul wrote, "I would not have known sin except through the law." (Romans 7:7b NIV) But he goes even further when he states, "the strength of sin is in the law" (I Corinthians 15.56b NIV) This principle is more easily seen with young children. Tell them they cannot do something, and they will often want to do it all the more. These types of verses lead us to the main purpose of the law, which is to demonstrate our sinful nature and to humbly cry out to Christ for redemptive forgiveness: "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." (Galatians 3.24, NASB) In this way, Christ came to fulfill all of the law. In Matthew 5.17-18, Jesus states, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Even though God has chosen to 'teach' humanity using different covenants and different laws in history, this does not mean that the objective basis has changed, as noted in the following outline:
Eternal divine judgements supersede earthly human judgements.
1. God has chosen to 'teach' humanity emphasizing different legal requirements in different periods.
2. Eternal divine judgements do not depend on temporal earthly judgements.
3. Eternal divine judgements supersede temporal earthly judgements.
3. God knows the hearts, thoughts and actions of all people.
3. Therefore, God's eternal judgements may be perfectly consistent and righteous irrespective of temporal changes in legal requirements.
Do God's standards change?
A common criticism of God relates to the differences in the Old and New Testaments. For example, in the Old Testament the death penalty was considered valid for homosexuals. But in the New Testament grace is supposedly emphasized over the law. Does this mean that God is changing his mind with regard to ethical standards? No, God himself is still the ultimate basis and standard of ethics. There are three points to consider; first, supercessionism, second, the main purpose of the law and, third, eternal justice.
When critics make the claim that Christians should follow all of the Old Testament law to the letter, begin by pointing out basic differences between the Old Testament and New Testament as described in scripture. This subject is referred to as supersessionism, which has been acknowledged since the inception of all three main historical traditions within Christianity — Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.
Outline of basic Christian supersessionism
1. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions embrace the doctrine of basic supersessionism.
2. The New Testament is based on a new covenant.
3. The new covenant is supersedes the old covenant.
4. The new covenant emphasizes grace over the law.
5. The new covenant emphasizes changed relationships and attitudes with God and among fellow citizens.
6. These changed attitudes reflect proactive love-based ethics over vindictive law-based ethics, as outlined by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, the introduction of the New Testament.
The main purpose of the law
Secondly, it's important to understand the main purpose of the law. All through the Old Testament, there are references to a future Messiah who would bring salvation to all people. In order to prepare the way for Christ, God the Father demonstrated how the law is inadequate to bring spiritual salvation. The law actually gives us a desire to sin more. The Apostle Paul wrote, "I would not have known sin except through the law." (Romans 7:7b NIV) But he goes even further when he states, "the strength of sin is in the law" (I Corinthians 15.56b NIV) This principle is more easily seen with young children. Tell them they cannot do something, and they will often want to do it all the more. These types of verses lead us to the main purpose of the law, which is to demonstrate our sinful nature and to humbly cry out to Christ for redemptive forgiveness: "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." (Galatians 3.24, NASB) In this way, Christ came to fulfill all of the law. In Matthew 5.17-18, Jesus states, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Even though God has chosen to 'teach' humanity using different covenants and different laws in history, this does not mean that the objective basis has changed, as noted in the following outline:
Eternal divine judgements supersede earthly human judgements.
1. God has chosen to 'teach' humanity emphasizing different legal requirements in different periods.
2. Eternal divine judgements do not depend on temporal earthly judgements.
3. Eternal divine judgements supersede temporal earthly judgements.
3. God knows the hearts, thoughts and actions of all people.
3. Therefore, God's eternal judgements may be perfectly consistent and righteous irrespective of temporal changes in legal requirements.
Atheists have had a difficult time attempting to come up with an objective basis for morality outside of God's existence. Sam Harris' scientific basis of morality in his book, The Moral Landscape, does not cut muster. Massimo Pigliucci remarked, "He is, however, no more successful in deriving 'ought' from 'is' than anyone else has ever been."[8] Our moral duties as humans are essentially bound up in the question of personhood. Atheists, as much as they may try, will never be able to base human morality and the question of "ought" on science alone. Atheists, such as Harris, have been attempting to impose scientific answers upon moral philosophical and religious questions and it just doesn't work.
4. If God exists, God must be the maximally great being.
4. If God exists, God must be the maximally great being.
God is a transcendent being who exists eternally. If God exists, then God must be perfectly true, perfectly correct, perfectly moral and perfectly capable. Paraphrasing a quote by Jesus, a house divided against itself cannot stand.[9] If God were to be a liar, then God would contradict himself and, thus, God would be unstable and incapable of being the "maximally great" being that God is logically required to be. It may seem like a paradox that objective morality is based on what seems to be subjective, something called personhood. However, God's personhood and nature are indeed eternal and thus must be considered an objective fact within this paradigm.
A summary
1. If God exists, then God's nature is an objective fact
2. Human morality is based upon God's nature.
3. Our moral foundation is both personal and objective.
4. Therefore, if God exists, objective morality exists.
The typical atheist criticism: The God of the Old Testament seems cruel, arbitrary and unjust, therefore, it seems God's character and nature changes from chapter to chapter.
Secular society demands that God's laws and actions should conform to their understanding of what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust. It was supposedly not fair for God to have the Hebrews attack the land of Canaan and kill seemingly innocent people. However, there are a number of points to consider. Firstly, God has the right to treat nations as nations.
1. God is sovereign and has the right to bless a nation or to judge with righteous judgement.
2. A nation that chooses to practice egregious and prolonged sin would not be exempt.
3. Canaan practiced egregious and prolonged sinful behavior.[10]
4. God, being omniscient, is able to judge each individual justly in the afterlife.
5. Therefore, God would be justified in the destruction of a wicked nation.
The fact is, God is more loving than judgmental. God afforded more than 400 years for the land of Canaan to repent, but they chose not to. God has the right to judge individuals and nations not simply because God is the omnipotent Creator, but also because His standards of holiness as Creator are high, perfect actually. It is only by God's grace and mercy that we subsist as sinners. As Jeremiah wrote, "Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail."[11] We as humans tend to see God's righteous judgment as extreme because we tend to underestimate and under-appreciate His holiness. God knows our hearts and what kinds of sins we've committed. Our sins may seem petty in our eyes, but in God's eyes all sin is grievous. God provided salvation through Jesus Christ. And Christ's perfect life is the objective standard we can look to as an example to follow.
[1]Templestream Blog, comment by imnotandreAugust 24, 2012 5:44 AM, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345812251237#c3932232069938471679
[2] Breaking the Spell (2006), Full title: Breaking the Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon, http://www.iwise.com/ckx1Z
[3] Templestream, Why Sam Harris' Human Flourishing is not a Valid Basis of Human Morality, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html
[4] Oxford dictionary definition of objective, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/objective
[5] Numbers 23.19, http://bible.cc/numbers/23-19.htm
[6] Reasonable Faith, Euthyphro Dilemma,
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/euthyphro-dilemma#ixzz251Vsp740
[7] Ibid. Slightly modified per William Lane Craig's comments.
[8] Rationally Speaking, Genuinely puzzled: what exactly is Blackford saying about Harris?,
Quote by Pigliucci, http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/02/genuinely-puzzled-what-exactly-is.html
[9] Matthew 12.25 paraphrase, http://bible.cc/matthew/12-25.htm
[10] Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
[11] Lamentations 3.22, http://bible.cc/lamentations/3-22.htm
(revised 05/19/13)
(revised 05/19/13)
Tags: ought from is, is morality objective, does morality have an objective basis? What is the basis of morality? Is morality subjective or objective? William Lane Craig on Euthyphro Dilemma, Sam Harris' science of morality, science as a basis of morality, Daniel Dennet morality quotes, Christian view of God as maximally great being, objective morality is based on God's perfect unchanging nature, example of modus ponens,
I have seen the light... It all makes sense now... I am God, you may worship me miserable mortals
ReplyDeleteNot this stuff again....it's the actions of biblegod in the OT that show that xians actually embrace subjective morality, not "objective morality".
ReplyDeleteAs I keep saying and Warden keeps disregarding: If for example, killing babies is objectively wrong, then it'd be wrong regardless of who does it.
So that shoots down the old:
2. Human morality is based upon God's nature. premise right there.
After all: how can we say that it's wrong to kill babies while saying that it's OK for god to do so, yet it's his nature that our morality is supposedly based on?
Yet xians will rail against "abortionists" while praising the baby-killing god of the OT as the perfect morally "good" being.
Sorry, wrong.
And yes, I've read all the gobbledygook reasons that apologists give as to why they "had" to be killed. That just leads to: Situational Ethics. Which is also not "objective morality".
If God exists, then God's nature is an objective fact
You have to show that, and this syllogism of yours falls apart right on the second line.
By the way, where do you get the asinine idea human morality is based on your god's nature? You do know that there were many other religions around before judaism and xianity, right?
Humans of all cultures have had to devise rules of morality and codes of conduct. One of the most notable examples is that Hammurabi guy. A pre-judaic ruler of Sumeria.
Part 1
Delete>If for example, killing babies is objectively wrong, then... I've read all the gobbledygook reasons that apologists give as to why they "had" to be killed. That just leads to: Situational Ethics.
- I addressed Canaan extensively many articles back and I noticed you did not offer one comment there at that article:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
Reynold, it seems you need to separate situational ethics from moral absolutism in context. Situational Ethics, according to Joseph Fletcher's model, states that decision-making should be based upon the circumstances of a particular situation, and not upon fixed Law.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/situational-ethics.htm
Situational ethics is apparently based upon a false dichotomy. Scripture offers that morality is neither ultimately based upon a "fixed law" nor "a particular situation" but is ultimately based on God's nature.
God's nature is holy, just and loving. Because God is holy and just, sin ultimately must be addressed and judged. Because God is loving, He is patient to allow a lot of time for repentance.
1. God has a right to judge individuals, cities and nations as He sees fit. God knows the hearts of the individuals in all these situations.
2. Because God knows the hearts of every individual, if a person dies in youth, God knows the heart of that individual and whether or not the individual deserves heaven or hell.
3. Atheists will simply assume that many people in Canaan were "good" people. But there is no reason we should necessarily believe this. Canaan fully embraced wickedness, including regular child sacrifice to idols, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. And, according to scripture, God will not judge a nation as such if righteous people inhabit it, as noted at Sodom:
"When God was about to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would destroy the cities if there were 50 righteous people in them.6 God said no. Then Abraham asked the same question if there were 45 righteous people. Every time he dropped the number and got the same answer. The fact is that God would not have destroyed those cities if there were any righteous people in them. The few righteous who were in those cities He warned ahead of time to get out.7 So, God does not destroy the righteous along with the evil."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/killergod.html#.UEFNzY6SLw5
3. Atheists will assume that the death of a baby in a wicked society is necessarily a bad thing. According to the most common biblical understanding, babies are innocent until they reach an age of reason and accountability. If babies die in such a naive state, then God would not judge them eternally for rejecting the truth.
Part 2
Delete>Yet xians will rail against "abortionists" while praising the baby-killing god of the OT as the perfect morally "good" being.
- The killing of unborn and newly born humans for the purpose of adult lifestyle convenvience is widely practiced today. In accordance with a biblical understanding of life as something sacred, this is an immoral act.
As noted in a previous article, secular humanists such as Peter Singer are not in conflict with their secular humanism when they promote infanticide for purposes of convenience or for supposedly pragmatic reasons.
>You have to show that, (If God exists, then God's nature is an objective fact)
- It's really a simple deduction as outlined in the article. God is eternal, and, as a maximally great being, his nature must be good eternally, otherwise God would not be maximally great. If God's nature is good and unchanging eternally, then his nature is an objective fact. It's a simple deduction.
>where do you get the asinine idea human morality is based on your god's nature?
- That is simply a part of the logically cohesive understanding of God. It is one of the points that follow from the "If" and "Then" deduction. If God exists, then…
Reply to part One:
DeleteSituational ethics is apparently based upon a false dichotomy.
Explain please.
Scripture offers that morality is neither ultimately based upon a "fixed law" nor "a particular situation" but is ultimately based on God's nature.
Explain please. After all your gods nature seems to change over time. Slavery was once allowed...he once killed babies but baby-killing is no longer allowed.
So, morality is not based on either "situations" or any "fixed law". Uh huh. Think about that for a minute...Are you saying that god's nature is changeable then, given what I noted in the previous paragraph?
Think: Why did god order those OT babies killed? Why does he NOT want such things now? What is this if not situational ethics?
Would you care to show just what your god's nature is then, with examples?
Remember, your god's actions do not follow what we consider to be moral. Such would not be the case if his morality was the basis for our own. A point that you can't seem to get.
God's nature is holy, just and loving.
More mere assumptions.
Because God is holy and just, sin ultimately must be addressed and judged. Because God is loving, He is patient to allow a lot of time for repentance.
Remember: I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the adults did have it coming. I'm talking about the kids who could have been taken in by the Isralites. Given those factors, the time "given" them to "repent" becomes irrelevant to the topic at hand.
3. Atheists will simply assume that many people in Canaan were "good" people. But there is no reason we should necessarily believe this. Canaan fully embraced wickedness, including regular child sacrifice to idols, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. And, according to scripture, God will not judge a nation as such if righteous people inhabit it, as noted at Sodom:
Where did I say that they were "good people" Warden?
By the way, what is your evidence that they were as bad as the bible says? In actuality, we don't really know for sure one way or the other.
And no, Warden: Atheists will not just "assume" that the Canaanites were good people. Some of us have given thought to this topic.
I'm talking about the KIDS, not the adults. Could not they have been taken in and raised as Isrealites? And don't give the excuse about lack or resources or they'd get revenge later. In other cases, virgin Midianite women were kept alive for the Isrealite soldiers.
>Scripture offers that morality is neither ultimately based upon a "fixed law" nor "a particular situation" but is ultimately based on God's nature.
DeleteExplain please.
- You'd like me to repeat the answer I just posted? It's right there. Well. Here goes, "Joseph Fletcher's model, states that decision-making should be based upon the circumstances of a particular situation, and not upon fixed Law." As I already noted, the scriptures do not propose that morality is ultimately based on circumstances or on laws, but on who God is.
>Are you saying that god's nature is changeable then, given what I noted
- Not sure what you are specifically referring to here.
> Why did god order those OT babies killed? Why does he NOT want such things now? What is this if not situational ethics?
- Again, your comment here shows you are not reading the replies I'm posting. I've already addressed your point with many of my own points. Why don't you at least challenge the points I offered instead of pretending I did not address your initial question?
I already offered 4 points here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html?showComment=1346461419560#c2021528934486426124
>Would you care to show just what your god's nature is then, with examples?
Again. I've already done that. God is merciful and patient. That is a part of God's nature. God warned Canaan and allowed over 400 years for the wicked nation of Sodom to repent. However, they chose not to as a nation and as individuals.
I gave the example of Sodom. God spared Sodom until a few righteous people were taken out.
>God's nature is holy, just and loving. More mere assumptions.
- No this is an aspect of a maximally great God, the only kind of true God that may logically exist.
>I'm talking about the KIDS, not the adults. Could not they have been taken in and raised as Isrealites?
- This simply underscores your personal opinion that God does not have a right to judge a nation as a nation. On what basis do you make this assumption?
Rick, you claim that God's nature is loving and just.
DeleteIs God's nature good because it is loving and just, or are love and justive good because they're God's nature?
If the former, then you've just accepted that your what is good is arbitrary. If the latter, then you've just accepted that God's nature is measured against an external standard (and we could do without God and simply appeal to that standard :-)
The claims by WLC (following R.M. Adams) that God just is the good, in an attempt to avoid the above problems, runs into problems of it's own. For instance, we cannot ground the moral claim "The Good Exists" in the nature of God, because God just is the Good on this conception. Therefore it seems that there are some ethical claims that cannot be grounded in the nature of your God, and you're therefore committed to the existence of ethical facts external to your God. Once you've admitted that you must then admit that a non-theist can also appeal to such non-theistic "brute ethical facts" in order to ground a non-theistic objective morality.
But since all of this has been explained to you before, you know that this is the case, right? :-)
The killing of unborn and newly born humans for the purpose of adult lifestyle convenvience is widely practiced today. In accordance with a biblical understanding of life as something sacred, this is an immoral act
ReplyDeleteBesides ignoring the fact that not all abortions are done for "convenience", how can one say that the bible places life "sacred value" when biblegod has kids killed just because he's mad at the parents?
As noted in a previous article, secular humanists such as Peter Singer are not in conflict with their secular humanism when they promote infanticide for purposes of convenience or for supposedly pragmatic reasons.
Some like me and various secular pro-life groups would disagree. You see "secular humanism" has no codified set of rules as the various religions do. So, you can bring up Peter Singer as an example of secular humanist morality, I can bring up those guys.
- It's really a simple deduction as outlined in the article. God is eternal, and, as a maximally great being, his nature must be good eternally, otherwise God would not be maximally great. If God's nature is good and unchanging eternally, then his nature is an objective fact. It's a simple deduction.
Uh, no. What that all is, is a bunch of baseless assumptions that you're assuming to be true right off the bat which you then use as premises.
Here. Look at what you say here:
...his nature must be good eternally, otherwise God would not be maximally great...
How do you know that god is "maximally great" in the first place? You just assume he is.
You also just assume that it's a "he" instead of a "she" or a "they" also. There's a lot of unproven assumptions in your premises.
Warden, quoting me:
where do you get the asinine idea human morality is based on your god's nature?
That is simply a part of the logically cohesive understanding of God. It is one of the points that follow from the "If" and "Then" deduction. If God exists, then…
No, it's a part of the logically contradictory way that your god acts by breaking his own standards.
Maybe if I repeat the problem it'll sink in:
If human like is "sacred" and baby-killing is "objectively" evil, then how is it that your god can kill babies and yet you still claim that HIS nature is what informs OUR morality?
when biblegod has kids killed just because he's mad at the parents?
DeleteOr because they teased one of his chosen's bald head? (2 kings 23-24)
>Besides ignoring the fact that not all abortions are done for "convenience",
Delete- I did not say it was.
>Some like me and various secular pro-life groups would disagree.
- But so far as a secular humanist you have not offered any logical and valid philosophical reasons to deny that Singer's personal beliefs are valid. Secular humanist morality has no objective basis, only what be considered a pragmatic situational approach.
>Uh, no. What that all is, is a bunch of baseless assumptions
No, again, I will repeat, a maximally great God is the only kind of God that is logically permissible and these are qualities of a maximally great God.
>How do you know that god is "maximally great" in the first place?
- The maximally great God is the only logical possibility for the true, living, all-wise, eternal, omniscient and omnipotent God. How could it be otherwise? Offer some possible examples.
>No, it's a part of the logically contradictory way that your god acts
- You have not demonstrated that God is contradictory in accordance with his just and loving nature. I have explained how a just and loving God must allow for the judgement of sin.
>If human life is "sacred" and baby-killing is "objectively" evil,
- You seem to be confusing humans with God. Humans do not have the moral right to give or take the life of other innocent human beings based on our own wishes or pragmatic aims.
This is because we are not God. God, however, has created all life and has the right to give or take life based on His sovereignty and omniscience. Again, these are points I've already covered at this link:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html?showComment=1346461419560#c2021528934486426124
Rick, it sounds like you are arguing that God has no moral obligations. Such a position seems to entail that God is amoral, which is not something I think you would accept.
Delete- I addressed Canaan extensively many articles back and I noticed you did not offer one comment there at that article:
ReplyDeletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
I can't be expected to read all of your stuff now can I? Anyway, I've given a link where that is discussed in my reply to part one of your comment.
Just as well, since having read through it, it's just the usual apologetic stuff I've read before. Plus of course the usual hypocrisy of saying that it's Dawkins who's the moral relativist when it's the theists who say that they're pro-life while saying that there's nothing wrong with biblegod killing babies...uh huh.
What I've already said and what is said here should suffice.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/genocide.cfm#arch
>I can't be expected to read all of your stuff now can I?
DeleteIf you wish to post comments in a particular thread that only has a few comments in it, it would seem logical to read the previous comments.
>Just as well, since having read through it, it's just the usual apologetic stuff I've read before.
- Based on your comments, it seems the main problem is that your animosity towards "biblegod" does not permit you to think clearly, objectively and logically.
>What I've already said and what is said here should suffice.
- When I asked Imnotandrei to post a lin to back up his point, I was referring to any comment at this blog that supposedly discredited my article. Posting links to other sources and pretending "This disproves you" will not suffice.
Warden quoting me:
DeleteI can't be expected to read all of your stuff now can I?
If you wish to post comments in a particular thread that only has a few comments in it, it would seem logical to read the previous comments.
I had no intention of posting in that thead...nor of hunting and searching for a reference to what I was talking about. I was giving you an example of the moral hypocrisy of you theists when it comes to being pro-life as an example that you people do NOT have this so-called Objective Morality that you people pretend to have.
I notice that you have said nothing about the link I gave you to read about the Caananites which disputes your blind assumption (both in this thread and i the one that you linked to) that the biblical claims about them were true.
Warden:
- Based on your comments, it seems the main problem is that your animosity towards "biblegod" does not permit you to think clearly, objectively and logically.
Based on what you say, it seems that you are the one who doesn't know how to think logically.
Let's see: You said to Anonymous:
1. We assume that god is good.
Wrong. It is not an assumption, it a logical requirement for the maximally great being that God must be if He exists.
Ok, Why do you logically assume that god "must" be a "maximally great being"? Why do you assume that his or her being "good" is a requirement of that? How do you even define "good" anyway without going into a theistic circle involving your god in the first place?
Anonymous is right...you are just loading your premises up with unjustified assumptions in order to lead to the conclusions you want to reach.
And I'm the one who can't think logically?
I forgot to note: You do not say why assume that this god of yours is a He as opposed to a she or anything else as I had previously asked. I am wondering what so-called logical means you will use to justify your certainty of that pronoun.
DeleteReynold,
DeleteOf what consequence is that questions with regard to establishing an objective basis of morality?
I am traveling, so this is a few quick notes; more detail to follow (probably)
ReplyDelete1) Secondly, the manner in which the Bible was written and has been interpreted does not impinge upon the idea of God as a philosophical concept.
You go on later to define God in terms of Biblical usage; I believe this most definitely counts as an "impingement". ;)
I choose to specifically defend the Christian understanding of God because I believe it is the correct one.
And why should your subjective belief be granted anything like "objective" status?
1. If God does not exist, then there is no objective basis for human morality.
2. If God does exist, then there is an objective basis for morality in God's nature.
You then proceed to ignore argument #1 -- not merely asserting that a particular objective morality doesn't work, but that no such is possible -- and attempt to focus on #2.
You immediately fall back on Biblical definitions, which, as I have pointed out, lack the factual and objective nature required to support a later claim of objectivity. Indeed, to dismiss #2 all that is required is an absent watchmaker-God, who started things and then left the universe to run as it wishes; there is a God-concept that does not provide an objective morality from its nature.
So, since your argument is either a) unargued or b) easily refuted by counterexample, the rest of your article is rather a waste -- but we'll look at some of it anyway.
The God of the Bible is defined as being perfectly true and unable to lie
Again, you are taking the Bible as an objective fact -- which you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate.
If these three points are a part of God's nature, and God's nature is unchanging and eternal, then we may surmise that these points are objective facts.
No -- we may surmise that there is some definition of these terms that supposedly, God fits; remember, you're trying to be "objective" here -- and so far you're setting a very low bar.
If God created humans, then God has the right to set the ground rules.
You assert this as a fact -- why is this true?
(1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being.
And here we go again -- your "objective" morality is being based on human definitions.
(6) Therefore God’s nature is good neither because of the way He
happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external
standard of goodness.
You smuggled in "goodness" in your premises -- to be specific, in the definition of "maximally great" and in your assertion #4, which is simply an unsupported statement.
>You go on later to define God in terms of Biblical usage; I believe this most definitely counts as an "impingement". ;)
Delete- You seem to be having the same kinds of problems you've had in the past regarding the question of unstable homosexual families.
The God proposed in the philosophical argument of the above article is the maximally great God, the only kind of God that can logically exist. Because the God of the Bible shares characteristics of what would logically be described as the maximally great God, this does not mean that my example is impinged upon by these correlating aspects in the Bible.
>And why should your subjective belief be granted anything like "objective" status?
- Again, you are assuming that the biblical understanding of the Christian God is not likened to the maximally great God, but it is. This is not subjective, it is perfectly logical and objective.
>You immediately fall back on Biblical definitions,
- Again. the characteristics of a loving and just God are necessary requirements for the maximally great God. These are exemplified by the God described in Christianity. It does not nullify the fact that this is a logically cohesive explanation of God. You will need to point out why you believe this is so.
>So, since your argument is either a) unargued or b) easily refuted by counterexample,
- You have offered no examples whatsoever to validate your claims that the Christian understanding of God is incompatible with the maximally great God, you simply make a bald assertion, a logical fallacy.
>The God of the Bible is defined as being perfectly true and unable to lie - Again, you are taking the Bible as an objective fact
- You know, this is becoming quite tiresome. The maximally great God would be perfectly good, righteous and just - thus unable to lie. It seems you are in a mental rut. Perhaps you can take a break during your travels and contemplate why your mind is in such a state. I don't have time to repeat answer after answer along the same faulty line of reasoning, sorry.
- You seem to be having the same kinds of problems you've had in the past regarding the question of unstable homosexual families.
DeleteAnd what were those, since I only recall you having problems understanding basic social science concepts?
The God proposed in the philosophical argument of the above article is the maximally great God, the only kind of God that can logically exist.
And, as I said before, this is purely an assertion -- you provide no evidence, no rationale. I gave you *examples* of creation god-concepts that do not require being "maximally great", and you blithely ignored them. (More on this to follow.)
- Again, you are assuming that the biblical understanding of the Christian God is not likened to the maximally great God, but it is.
And my point remains -- why should it be? We have no reason to believe, other than biblical citation, that the two are identical -- even if either of them exists.
To further follow: In order to assert that the God of the Bible is maximally great, you must assume that things that are not in line with regular views of morality -- slaying people for making fun of a man's bald head, for example -- are good, because God is good. In other words, to get to your conclusion, you have to assume your conclusion. This is, to put it mildly, circular reasoning, and not "perfectly objective" -- except insofar as tautologies are true by definition.
- You have offered no examples whatsoever to validate your claims that the Christian understanding of God is incompatible with the maximally great God, you simply make a bald assertion, a logical fallacy.
I don't have to -- I have to offer claims that not all god-concepts require maximal greatness, at which point your argument falls apart. And I did so.
I don't have time to repeat answer after answer along the same faulty line of reasoning, sorry.
That's because you didn't address the original point -- you deleted it and pretended it didn't exist.
You are arguing, in effect, that if the Christian God exists, it must be maximally great. But this in no way implies that a maximally great god exists -- or, indeed, that the concept of "maximal greatness" is even philosophically valid. It might be in the same category as "Complete and non-contradictory formal explication of mathematics", which has been proven not to exist.
>You are arguing, in effect, that if the Christian God exists, it must be maximally great. But this in no way implies that a maximally great god exists.
Delete-Thank you for repeating a point from my article. One day you may realize the above article is not being offered as an argument for God's exists. And until you address your baseless accusations and slander, I do not see any reason to waste any more time with you.
Imnotandrei recently claimed my article, 'Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" was discredited.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/harvest-anaheim-success-as-largest.html?showComment=1346212644349#c2270537992909400837
When asked to provide at least one actual cogent comment to support his claim, he stated,
"Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick."
In complying with his request, I've addressed Imnotandrei's points here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1346470048371#c4890618662130078586
However, Imnotandrei still has not complied with my request to provide cogent evidence for his claim.
The main point of the article Imnotandrie states has been "discredited" is that top atheist apologists basically do not use logic. Until Imnotandrei can answer the following questions, his deceit is most apparent:
1. Provide one example of a top atheist apologist today who demonstrates the use of logical laws and principles in his arguments.
Offering vague and miscellaneous criticisms of ancillary points in the article does not cut it, that does not discredit an article. I'm not going to address any more of Imnotandrei's points until he either offers evidence that top atheist apologists do in fact use logic or he admits his unjust slander and apologizes.
(part 2)
ReplyDeleteGod were to be a liar, then would contradict himself and, thus, God would be unstable and incapable of being the "maximally great" being that God is required to be.
Of course, this asserts that a "maximally great" being is a) something we know exists and b) the only valid concept of a Godhead; something the ancient Greeks and Norse (and modern Hindus) would dispute, at the very least.
However, God's personhood and nature are indeed eternal and thus an objective fact.
And my own personhood and nature are an objective fact -- I do exist, I am a person, and I possess a nature. This does not mean my opinions are not subjective.
And Christ's perfect life is the objective standard we can look to as an example to follow.
Which one? We have four different documents (canonically, let alone the gospels that did not make it into the canon) which describe that life differently.
And, indeed, you've not solved or even addressed one of the main points that I was driving at -- that there is no way for humans to determine, even if your point is true, what that "objective morality" is supposed to be; and an "objective morality" against which people are to be judged without the ability to be certain what it is is worse than useless -- it is, indeed, cruel and unjust, and no amount of 'defining' God to be just will get around that.
Indeed -- all you do in your example around Canaan and later is to assert that, since God is perfect, any apparent moral failure is due to something we cannot understand, or cannot appreciate. This is a murky and useless "justice" at best.
>Of course, this asserts that a "maximally great" being is a) something we know exists
Delete- Sigh.
I've already repeated several times that this example is simply based on an "if-then" logical deduction. Its truth or lack thereof does not necessitate any personal level of belief.
>And my own personhood and nature are an objective fact -- I do exist, I am a person, and I possess a nature. This does not mean my opinions are not subjective.
- Your arguments are beginning to become a bit ridiculous. Are you an eternal being who is perfectly good and eternal, one who never changes? I didn't thing so.
>Which one? We have four different documents (canonically, let alone the gospels that did not make it into the canon) which describe that life differently.
- My argument is not dependent on specific interpretations of scripture. The summary of my argument is in the article:
1. If God does not exist, then there is no objective basis for human morality.
2. If God does exist, then there is an objective basis for morality in God's nature.
As described in the article, the "If-then" proposal is based simply on the maximally great God, who also happens to most closely exhibit characteristics of the God described in the New Testament and the described life of Christ. As a philosophical cohesive argument, however, it is not dependent upon the described life of Jesus Christ.
Before attempting to refute the argument, it seems you and Reynold really need to take some time to contemplate what the actual argument is. So far, neither of you seem to understand this very simple proposition. It may be a condiiton reflective of spiritual blinds. If you would both repent of your sins and receive Christ as your personal savior, I'm quite certain this would help to logically comprehend the nature of God and why God's existence is the only basis of objective morality.
>all you do in your example around Canaan and later is to assert that, since God is perfect, any apparent moral failure is due to something we cannot understand
- No, I've actually offered four points on this issue, which neither of you have adequately addressed.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html?showComment=1346461419560#c2021528934486426124
I've already repeated several times that this example is simply based on an "if-then" logical deduction. Its truth or lack thereof does not necessitate any personal level of belief.
DeleteSo, in other words, if we don't accept your premise, we don't need to accept your conclusion. Fine. Your premises are at best unproven, at worst flawed, rendering your conclusion invalid.
Are you an eternal being who is perfectly good and eternal, one who never changes
Nompe. But the existence of the chair I am sitting on, at this point in time, is an objective fact. "objective" does not mean "eternal and unchanging", except, perhaps, in your own head.
1. If God does not exist, then there is no objective basis for human morality.
2. If God does exist, then there is an objective basis for morality in God's nature.
And as I said before, and I quote, since you've ignored it now twice:
Indeed, to dismiss #2 all that is required is an absent watchmaker-God, who started things and then left the universe to run as it wishes; there is a God-concept that does not provide an objective morality from its nature.
There. #2 is gone. #1 is bald assertion.
Essentially, what you're trying to argue, as far as I can tell, is this:
"Objective morality" requires an eternal, unchanging, conscious base with the desire and capability to establish moral laws.
*That* is an arguable point. Of course, it does not protect you from the retort that the laws are *subjective* to the desire and will of the law-giver, making them non-"objective".
As a philosophical cohesive argument, however, it is not dependent upon the described life of Jesus Christ.
You missed my point here, Rick -- let's try it one last time.
You claim there are objective moral laws.
I ask you how we can determine, objectively, what those laws are.
You cite the Bible. Or the life of Jesus.
I point out there are multiple conflicting accounts, and no objective basis for deciding between them, to construct an objective morality.
You go back to claiming "there are objective moral laws".
And the circle begins again.
If there are objective moral laws, and we can't tell what they are, then there's no point in talking about them -- they're useless to us. We can't know if we're following them, or not; and any punishments doled out on the basis of laws that are not only unknown but unknowable are unjust punishments.
You can give your God-concept all the free passes you like; but if it fails to live up to human morality, let alone something higher, it seems to fail as a cohesive concept.
It may be a condiiton reflective of spiritual blinds. If you would both repent of your sins and receive Christ as your personal savior, I'm quite certain this would help to logically comprehend the nature of God and why God's existence is the only basis of objective morality.
If your argument requires faith to be believed, then it is a subjective truth, not an objective truth.
As to your Canaan example, it is sufficiently larded with assumptions as to not be worth dealing with further -- unless you come up with a better support for the rest of your arguments, your discussion of Canaan amounts to reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Circular reasoning...
ReplyDelete1. We assume that god is good.
2. Hence, every action of god is good, including the slaughter of the Canaanites.
3. Therefore, god is good
P.S. And you still left my posts about the morality of Sam Harris unanswered
>1. We assume that god is good.
Delete- Wrong. It is not an assumption, it a logical requirement for the maximally great being that God must be if He exists.
>2. Hence, every action of god is good,
- Wrong because it is based on false assumption 1.
>3. Therefore, god is good
- Wrong. God is good, true and righteous according to the logical requirements of the maximally great being.
>P.S. And you still left my posts about the morality of Sam Harris unanswered
- As noted in these few comments, you tend to post comments related to concerns that have already been addressed. If you have a cogent point from my Sam Harris argument that you believe I have not addressed, please post a link to it and I will look at it. Thank you.
R:Wrong. It is not an assumption, it a logical requirement for the maximally great being that God must be if He exists.
DeleteDefine maximally great being. If you include "goodness" in that definition to prove that god is good - that is circular reasoning.
R:If you have a cogent point from my Sam Harris argument that you believe I have not addressed, please post a link to it and I will look at it.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345732172030#c6886768752987017549
P.S. And also do point out what extra instruments does philosophy possess that science does not to address morality
DeleteAnonyRus,
DeleteThis is the type of comment you believe is valid and important as a critique of the Sam Harris article?:
>Science is based mainly on observations and experiments. And the scientific methode is the best one that can explain our universe so far.
I addressed this and your other points there
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1346527380184#c8489089792396623486
...however,, I have to say, your points have already been addressed. You just don't seem to get it and maybe never will. Maslow's theory of needs, and other scientific theories, do not provide an objective basis for determining ought from is. They have not because they cannot. Philosophy, not science, is the realm in which human meaning and values are explored.
I've already been through this with Imnotandrei and he has finally been backed into a corner unable to challenge the fact that this idea is nothing more than wishful thinking. Imnotandrei has confessed that science has not come up with an objective basis of morality *yet* and this is where his hope apparently lies, in wishful thinking.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345980618606#c7919299482676231852
I find it amusing you claim I've been "backed into a corner" when, if you look at the comment below, you're the one leaving a rebuttal unanswered, in order to go chasing off after other points.
DeleteLook at the comment below, Rick (posted before this post, so it's not as if you couldn't have read it before you made this claim) and we'll go from there.
Otherwise, stop lying about what I can and cannot do.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345985165434#c3596534764134591402
R:I've already been through this with Imnotandrei and he has finally been backed into a corner unable to challenge the fact that this idea is nothing more than wishful thinking. Imnotandrei has confessed that science has not come up with an objective basis of morality *yet* and this is where his hope apparently lies, in wishful thinking.
DeleteNot to speak for imnotandrei, but again we do not agree on every issue with him. He is not even an atheist in the first place.
And imnotandrei may correct me if I am wrong, but his objections to scientific reasons for objective morality lie mainly in fears for possible misusage of the concept to pass harmful laws. The same way as with smoking. Smoking does harm the well-being of people, but a ban of smoking would be even more harmful. That does not change the fact that smoking is wrong if one measures the total amount of happiness lost and acuired because of it. And the same thing could be said about illegal drugs or prostitution.
And imnotandrei may correct me if I am wrong, but his objections to scientific reasons for objective morality lie mainly in fears for possible misusage of the concept to pass harmful laws.
DeleteThis is one of them, yes. In *theory*, it is possible that Harris' brain-state mapping project could result in a situation that weighs "freedom" against "health" and produces a useful result. We don't know yet, the work hasn't been (and probably never will be fully) done.
And the same thing could be said about illegal drugs or prostitution.
To chip in, and to make a point besides the "Yes, we don't agree" -- where is the objective proof that prostitution per se, as opposed to the deeply-flawed way it's constructed now, is harmful to human happiness?
(Ironically, prostitution per se is also not prohibited by Biblical law -- it can be interpreted as "adultery", but does not have to be, depending on your interpretation of the text.)
R:To chip in, and to make a point besides the "Yes, we don't agree" -- where is the objective proof that prostitution per se, as opposed to the deeply-flawed way it's constructed now, is harmful to human happiness?
DeleteIt would be in the same category as smoking for me. The main problem would be venerical diseases and we do know that a condomn is not a 100% guarantee against such hazards. The secondary problem would be that some studies do show that multiple sex partners is usually bad for the pshycological developement of a person (though, it still needs to be investigated).
Imnotandrei, You state that you are traveling, yet you still have time to post comments on new articles. You might want to take some time to try and back up your previous false claim, or apologize for it.
ReplyDeleteI have addressed all your points and questions at the noted previous article,
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1346470048371#c4890618662130078586
...now please offer an example of why the main thesis of my article, Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague, has supposedly been "discredited" and post some comments and links to back up your claim, or please apologize for your false statement, as noted at the following link:
"I notice you take the opportunity once again to flag discredited articles. Surprise, surprise."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/harvest-anaheim-success-as-largest.html?showComment=1346212644349#c2270537992909400837
You state that you are traveling, yet you still have time to post comments on new articles. You might want to take some time to try and back up your previous false claim, or apologize for it.
DeleteI have backed it up -- that you are unable to go back and read does not make my evidence invalid.
I'm going to go look at your responses to my other 5 questions, since you finally got around to answering them, after I asked you repeatedly.
Are you going to respond to the issues here, or are you using this "Go look elsewhere" as your dodge this time?
Oh, and I'm no longer traveling. ;)
DeleteImnotandrei recently claimed my article, 'Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" was discredited.
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/harvest-anaheim-success-as-largest.html?showComment=1346212644349#c2270537992909400837
When asked to provide at least one actual cogent comment to support his claim, he stated,
"Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick."
In complying with his request, I've addressed Imnotandrei's points here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1346470048371#c4890618662130078586
However, Imnotandrei still has not complied with my request to provide cogent evidence for his claim.
The main point of the article Imnotandrie states has been "discredited" is that top atheist apologists basically do not use logic. Until Imnotandrei can answer the following question, his deceit is most apparent:
1. Provide one example of a top atheist apologist today who demonstrates the use of logical laws and principles in his arguments.
Offering vague and miscellaneous criticisms of ancillary points in the article does not cut it, that does not discredit an article. I'm not going to address any more of Imnotandrei's points until he either offers evidence that top atheist apologists do in fact use logic or he admits his comment is not supported and he apologizes for his slander.
As expected, instead of really addressing the points, Rick just gave an empty answer and went on ignoring his opponents )
DeleteAnonyRus, I've spent quite a bit of time attempting to show you that "happiness" and things such as Maslows needs do not provide an objective basis for determining right and wrong behavior, but you continue to claim otherwise. Your approach to morality is basically pragmatic and utilitarian, as noted here,
Delete"The basis for morality, according to Utility, is the greatest happiness of the greatest number..."
As noted in the same secular article, this view has failed to provide a foundational basis for objective morality:
"This general maxim being laid down, it remains for the student to study history, to analyse experience, and by a close and careful investigation into human nature and human relations to elaborate a moral code which would bring about general happiness and well-being. This, so far, has not been done. Utility has been a "hand-to-mouth" moral basis, and certain rough rules of conduct have grown up by experience and the necessities of life, without any definite investigation into, or codifying of, experience."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Basis_of_Morality/Chapter_III
- You may continue to claim that I have not addressed your points, no matter how many refutations I offer, but, similar to Imnotandrei's accusations, your claims are false and there is plenty of evidence for this available to anyone who reads these comments and checks their accuracy.
However, Imnotandrei still has not complied with my request to provide cogent evidence for his claim.
DeleteWell, this is the first time you've asked since you provided your answer. ;)
1. Provide one example of a top atheist apologist today who demonstrates the use of logical laws and principles in his arguments.
Actually, what you insist on is the use of *syllogisms* and formal structures, which is not the same thing.
For example:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-resurrection-argument.html
is a logical argument, using examples, but it is not structured in your simple "P1 P2 C" structure.
So, there you go. Demonstrate that "logic" is not involved in that post, and you'll have defended your case. Otherwise, all you're doing is saying that "Atheists don't use my preferred logical structure" -- which isn't the same as "not using logic".
So- there's your example, of a noted atheist using logic. ;)
Now, going to get back to the points that I've made, or are you going to continue nursing your wounded ego?
Offering vague and miscellaneous criticisms of ancillary points in the article does not cut it, that does not discredit an article
I notice that what is an "ancillary" point depends on whether or not you think you can defend it -- and my criticisms thereof were anything but vague. You made a specific assertion -- that no systems of a certain type ever existed except by design -- and I pointed out a specific circumstance -- the Miller-Urey experiments -- that made your assertion untenable. That is not "vague".
So, you have your evidence, and you're not getting an apology.
A commenter at my blog, Imnotandrei, recently claimed my article, 'Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" was discredited. When asked to provide at least one actual cogent comment to support his claim, he stated,
Delete"Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick."
In complying with his request, I addressed all of Imnotandrei's points and informed him of this on 09/01/12. Imnotandrei again refused to offer any quotes or links to back up his claim, but stated,
"I have backed it up (his supposed refutation) -- that you are unable to go back and read does not make my evidence invalid."
And, to top it off, as a supposed example of atheist logic, Imnotandrei has posted a link to an article where Stephen Law discusses the logic of a Christian argument by William Lane Craig. This is what Imnotandrei considers to be an example of a top atheist apologist "using" logic.
When asked to present one of his arguments in a simple logical syntax, Stephen Law refused. Simply discussing another person's logical arguments and avoiding the presentation of your own arguments in an organized logical syntax reveals a lack of desire to incorporate logical laws and principles. Imnotandrei has failed to demonstrate that atheist apologists avoid the use of logic, he has only helped to underscore this point.
The owner of this blog, Rick Warden, has decided that being accused of being discredited is such a heinous offense that further discussion is impossible without an apology.
DeleteHe repeatedly insists I have not provided "evidence" because he does not like the evidence I have provided -- such as links to posts that he relied on that had massive unanswered questions hanging.
It's Rick's strategy to leave unanswered questions in his comments, and then refer to his posts later as if they had not been challenged or undercut; this is what I called him on.
When asked to present one of his arguments in a simple logical syntax, Stephen Law refused.
When asked to acknowledge demonstrable errors, Rick Warden has repeatedly refused; clearly, by Rick's own reasoning, this demonstrates that Christian apologists avoid the use of facts and consistency.
Simply discussing another person's logical arguments and avoiding the presentation of your own arguments in an organized logical syntax reveals a lack of desire to incorporate logical laws and principles.
Rick believes "using logic" involves stating things in a premise-premise-conclusion form, and nothing else qualifies. Considering that
Imnotandrei has failed to demonstrate that atheist apologists avoid the use of logic, he has only helped to underscore this point.
Indeed -- I can only fail to demonstrate that atheist apologists avoid the use of logic, because they *do* use logic. ;) They just don't use the precise form that Rick wants. However, since I would rather discuss his points than stand on the high ground of my position...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/logic.html
And here's an agnostic:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/justified.html
I'll note that both of them are using considerably more rigorous logic than Rick traditionally does, as he frequently includes phrases like "probably" or "seems".
Indeed -- I can only fail to demonstrate that atheist apologists avoid the use of logic, because they *do* use logic. ;)
DeleteHah, yeah, I saw that.
I also note that Rick has failed to deal with the points I brought up here
(http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html?showComment=1346556468468#c4132137818465742797)
Odd, since that's what he keeps accusing imnotandrei of doing with his points.
>I can only fail to demonstrate that atheist apologists avoid the use of logic, because they *do* use logic.
Delete- More confusion from the atheist camp. This is not surprising coming from Reynold. He chooses some interesting examples when it comes to offering top atheist apologists who demonstrate the use of logical principles: "Oh? Atheists "avoid logic like the plague"? Wrong, wrong. In regards to your point #4, you should read athiest philosopher Stephen Law's blog sometime." When asked to present his own favorite argument in a simple logical syntax, Stephen Law repeatedly refused. Stephen Law seems to be most skillful in the art of obfuscation. Whether this is a conscious choice or not is not for me to judge.
Warden: I note that you have taken this opportunity to once again avoid what I was talking about (see the link in my last reply) in favor of taking a pretty much irrelevant shot at me...no matter that I was quoting someone else at the time.
DeleteYet you are accusing Stephen Law of obfuscation. Maybe you had better stop doing that yourself first.
1) Whether this is a conscious choice or not is not for me to judge.
DeleteYet that's precisely what you do here:
Simply discussing another person's logical arguments and avoiding the presentation of your own arguments in an organized logical syntax reveals a lack of desire to incorporate logical laws and principles.
I notice you also didn't respond to me at all, even though I *gave* you two links like you asked -- but instead followed me to another thread, and repeated the same basic boilerplate. It seems that apologies are more important than truth to you, Rick.
R:AnonyRus, I've spent quite a bit of time attempting to show you that "happiness" and things such as Maslows needs do not provide an objective basis for determining right and wrong behavior, but you continue to claim otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYou are only asserting that. All your arguments against my position have been shot down. Let us recap:
1) You claimed that a destructive lifestyle might be preferable to an individual and you presented weak anecdotal evidence for this. However, that position is easily refuted by the fact that people do make mistakes in their judgement and things that they want are not always the best things for them. The same way as drugs will not lead a drug addict to happiness, no matter what the person claims themselve.
2) You also claimed that the population should be decreased by any means neccessary, distorting the point of view of humanism. It was explained to you that the problem lies not in the number of people, but in their lifestyle. You also made a false claim that the lifestyle of people can never be changed and it was reminded to you that it has in history (the abolishement of slavery)
3) You also made an extremely weak argument that evil society can flourish as well. However, that is a straw man. An evil society cannot flourish in the sense humanism understands the term.
4) And in the long list of comments you finally just made an empty assertion that science cannot address the question of morality and only philosophy can do so. It was shown to you that science has more instruments to investigate the truth, compared to philosophy and that science is rightfully more trusted when it comes to judgeing reality.
R:Utility has been a "hand-to-mouth" moral basis, and certain rough rules of conduct have grown up by experience and the necessities of life, without any definite investigation into, or codifying of, experience.
The fact that for now it is an incomplete code does not change the fact that utilitarism is a working and effective objective moral system. We have an objective basis in the form of happiness (even if for months you denied it was objective) and we just need to investigate the matter further to clear up minor details. You have asked for a working objective moral system, not for a complete moral code (and it is dishonest for you to ask for one, since your bible does not offer a complete moral code for every single possible situation in life).
R:You may continue to claim that I have not addressed your points, no matter how many refutations I offer
And that is your problem. You just wright off an weak answer and consider your opponent refuted. You just do not bother to read the reply and points about how useless and weak your refutation is.
Rick, any chance you could actually demonstrate that morality is objective, and that no non-theistic objective morality is possible?
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem toever actually have backed up these assertions of yours, even though I had asked you too repeatedly over a year ago.
The best I got was you trying to shift the burden of proof on to me.
This paper:
ReplyDeletehttp://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/koonsj/papers/Euthyphro.pdf
"Can God's goodness save divine command theory" offers a refutation of the sort of morality Rick argues for.
Also, this paper:
http://philpapers.org/rec/MILETG
"Euthyphro, the Good, and the Right" defends DCT, but in the process seems to make some fairly major concessions.
Rick, perhaps you'd care to red them, expand your knowledge, and weigh in on how/why your moral claims don't fall to the argument of the first paper, and whether you're also willing to conceede what the second paper does :-)
I think the admin of this website is truly working hard in favor of his web
ReplyDeletepage, because here every stuff is quality based information.
my weblog :: espresso coffee makers