Sam Harris is widely regarded as one of the foremost apologists for atheism and secular humanism today. He is a popular author, with the New York Times best selling book, The End of Faith. While another book of his, The Moral Landscape, is also highly appraised by atheists. However, the main premise of his book on morality is found to be open to multiple problems, including, but not limited to, the smoking habit of his late atheist apologist peer, Christopher Hitchens.At Sam Harris' website, a few gratuitous accolades are offered for his book on morality:
"Sam Harris breathes intellectual fire into an ancient debate. Reading this thrilling, audacious book, you feel the ground shifting beneath your feet. Reason has never had a more passionate advocate."
— Ian McEwan, author of Atonement, winner of the Man Booker Prize forAmsterdam.
"Harris makes a powerful case for a morality that is based on human flourishing and thoroughly enmeshed with science and rationality."
— Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, author of How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate.
"As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris."
— Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, andThe Greatest Show On Earth[1]
Though highly appraised by some atheists as "intellectual fire," a "thrilling" and "passionate" book, the main premise, that human flourishing is a valid objective basis of human morally, is unsupportable and is quite a blunt and ineffective "bayonet." PZ Myers has offered that "Harris is smuggling in an unscientific prior" in his theory. In other words, Harris is making an unjustified presupposition. And atheist Luke Muehlhauser elaborates on this fault. Muehlhauser outlines, "How has science shown that morality must be defined in terms of “the well-being of conscious creatures”? Harris does not say. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t even say how philosophy has “shown” any such thing."[2] In referring to Harris' book on morality, atheist philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci has stated, "He is, however, no more successful in deriving 'ought' from 'is' than anyone else has ever been."[3] Before I outline a few reasons why Harris' proposal is flawed, I'd like to briefly describe what morality is as a starting point.
Oxford Dictionary definition of morality:
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior: the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed"[4]
Normative vs universal definitions of morality.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it's important to differentiate between normative and universal morality. Normative morality refers to the changing norms of society, irrespective of any objective or universal basis of morality. Normative morality is problematic because there is no agreement on what the norms should be:
"Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform. Because accepting a normative definition of “morality” involves this commitment it is not surprising that philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept."[5]
If I believe that universal moral principles exist based on God's existence, I am likely to question the validity of normative and descriptive examples of morality that are ever-changing in society. Sam Harris, and a few other secular humanists, have proposed that there is an objective basis for morality outside of God's existence. Harris proposes that "human flourishing" is an object basis for universal human morality offering that, whatever tends towards human flourishing is moral and whatever mitigates against human flourishing is immoral. However, this begs the question for secular humanists, "Who is to say that we have a moral duty, a moral obligation, to be healthy, to propagate, to flourish and to seek the kind of specific quality of life and society outlined by such a proposal?" It boils down to a question of purpose and meaning. An obvious conflict with Harris arises with regard to hedonism and the somewhat stereotypical artistic, bohemian lifestyle. But that's just the first step in the moral quicksand we meet with in Harris' moral landscape.
Quicksand in Harris' moral landscape
I. Artistic inspiration and hedonism
II. Deep ecology versus human flourishing
III. Evil societies flourish as well
Quicksand in Harris' moral landscape
I. Artistic inspiration and hedonism
II. Deep ecology versus human flourishing
III. Evil societies flourish as well
I. Artistic inspiration and hedonism
There are obvious problems with atheists claiming that human flourishing should be considered an objective and universal basis for morality for all humans. One of the most obvious is the trade-off between living for pleasure and creativity versus living for health. For example, many secular artists (among others) could not imagine quitting smoking. Having one or two cigarettes (or a couple of packs) a day helps to make their lives manageable and inspires creativity, according to their perceptions. For them, it does not matter if their lives are a few days or even a few decades shorter because of the habits that give them pleasure and a sense of inspiration. Furthermore, these may be considered intellectually-fulfilled secular humanists, because there is no philosophical conflict implied with respect to the basic tenets of secular humanism. Secular humanist morality is based on one's perceived meaning of life. This is a wide-open question for secular humanists. There is no "right" answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" in accordance with secular humanism. For some it may be pleasure, for others the meaning of life is to be creative, cool and hip. People smoke for all these reasons. The adage "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" is a life verse for many secular humanist hedonists, and it certainly does not imply that our highest duty is towards human health and human flourishing. It implies quite the opposite. However, Harris' moral approach to "objective" morality presupposes that human well-being is a moral obligation and a moral starting point:
"…questions about values – about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose – are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood: regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc."[6]
“If there are objective truths to be known about human well-being—if kindness, for instance, is generally more conducive to happiness than cruelty is—then science should one day be able to make very precise claims about which of our behaviors and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are worth abandoning,”[7]
Sam Harris is suggesting that his theory of objective morality is based on a connection between "human well-being" and what is "morally good." If his objective morality is based on the aim of human well-being, then those who practice anything opposed to human well-being would be considered immoral according to his perceptions. Harris is essentially claiming that the behavior of many secular humanist artists and hedonists should be considered immoral because, for example, many like to smoke cigarettes, which is considered unhealthy and does not promote human flourishing. Harris, however, is not a secular humanist god to make such an arbitrary distinction between the risks of pleasure and his perceived objective values. Christopher Hitchens, a highly intelligent atheist apologist, was an avid smoker who ended up dying of cancer. When diagnosed with esophageal cancer, Hitchens explained in an interview with Charlie Rose why he was adamant in not choosing to live a healthier life:
"All the time, I've felt that life is a wager and that I probably was getting more out of leading a bohemian existence as a writer than I would have if I didn't," he said in the video interview. "Writing is what's important to me, and anything that helps me do that -- or enhances and prolongs and deepens and sometimes intensifies argument and conversation -- is worth it to me. So I was knowingly taking a risk. I wouldn't recommend it to others." - "But you would do it again?" Rose asked. "Yes, I think I would," Hitchens responded.[8]
By stating that he would do it all over again, Hitchen's was implying that it was not his addiction that made him smoke. But, rather, it was a decision based on his evaluation of the priorities of his life. For him personally, if cigarettes had seemed to make him more creative prolific, it was all worth it.
Questions of personal values and the weighing of risks and rewards may apply to any risky source of pleasure or sense of satisfaction for secular humanists, from drinking apple schnapps to engaging in zoophilia. There is no no logical reason whatsoever to impose Sam Harris' view on all other secular humanists because Harris has not demonstrated why wellness and human flourishing should be considered the highest end of life, he simply assumes this. Contrary to his assumption, there is a growing consensus that luxurious human flourishing and propagation is immoral with regard to the big picture of surviving as a planet.
"…questions about values – about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose – are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood: regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc."[6]
“If there are objective truths to be known about human well-being—if kindness, for instance, is generally more conducive to happiness than cruelty is—then science should one day be able to make very precise claims about which of our behaviors and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are worth abandoning,”[7]
Sam Harris is suggesting that his theory of objective morality is based on a connection between "human well-being" and what is "morally good." If his objective morality is based on the aim of human well-being, then those who practice anything opposed to human well-being would be considered immoral according to his perceptions. Harris is essentially claiming that the behavior of many secular humanist artists and hedonists should be considered immoral because, for example, many like to smoke cigarettes, which is considered unhealthy and does not promote human flourishing. Harris, however, is not a secular humanist god to make such an arbitrary distinction between the risks of pleasure and his perceived objective values. Christopher Hitchens, a highly intelligent atheist apologist, was an avid smoker who ended up dying of cancer. When diagnosed with esophageal cancer, Hitchens explained in an interview with Charlie Rose why he was adamant in not choosing to live a healthier life:
"All the time, I've felt that life is a wager and that I probably was getting more out of leading a bohemian existence as a writer than I would have if I didn't," he said in the video interview. "Writing is what's important to me, and anything that helps me do that -- or enhances and prolongs and deepens and sometimes intensifies argument and conversation -- is worth it to me. So I was knowingly taking a risk. I wouldn't recommend it to others." - "But you would do it again?" Rose asked. "Yes, I think I would," Hitchens responded.[8]
By stating that he would do it all over again, Hitchen's was implying that it was not his addiction that made him smoke. But, rather, it was a decision based on his evaluation of the priorities of his life. For him personally, if cigarettes had seemed to make him more creative prolific, it was all worth it.
Questions of personal values and the weighing of risks and rewards may apply to any risky source of pleasure or sense of satisfaction for secular humanists, from drinking apple schnapps to engaging in zoophilia. There is no no logical reason whatsoever to impose Sam Harris' view on all other secular humanists because Harris has not demonstrated why wellness and human flourishing should be considered the highest end of life, he simply assumes this. Contrary to his assumption, there is a growing consensus that luxurious human flourishing and propagation is immoral with regard to the big picture of surviving as a planet.
II. Deep ecology versus human flourishing
For many secular humanists, human flourishing is the antithesis of moral behavior. Why? Because many secular humanists hold that the highest aim is the protection of the earth, the biosphere and animal species, and that human flourishing is the greatest threat to these entities. According to Webster's dictionary, the primary meaning of the verb, "to flourish" is "to grow luxuriantly : thrive"[9], but, as James Lovelock has offered, human thriving has been considered a "malady" by many secular humanists, not a benefit: "We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone, and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia."[10]
Lovelock's "Gaia" means different things to different people. Before his theories were more widely accepted by the scientific community, Lovelock was criticized by scientists because his views were perceived as teleological, implying existence has a predetermined purpose somehow tied in with paganism. However, responding to this criticism in 1990, Lovelock emphasized his views are scientific and, therefore, in keeping with secular humanism: "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota."[11] In one of his quotes, Lovelock implies that human genocide is not necessarily "bad" but is simply an historical aspect of human evolution" "There aren't just bad people that commit genocide; we are all capable of it. It's our evolutionary history."
Lovelock initially rejected the humans-as-cancer analogy. In 1988 he stated, "People are not in any way like a tumor."[12] But he later modified his view and in 1991 declared: ""Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm."[13] These types of claims by popular atheists are not exactly in keeping with Sam Harris' claim that human flourishing is the objective basis of morality. He is not the only one warning of overpopulation. The Guardian noted earlier this year, "Celebrated scientists and development thinkers today warn that civilisation is faced with a perfect storm of ecological and social problems driven by overpopulation..."[14]
If it is truly a top priority to keep the human population low, then, in accordance with secular humanistic logic, eugenics , infanticide, euthanasia and even genocide are not only morally permissible, they are morally desirable. With regard to the planet, why should humans have priority over other species? Animal species are often "culled" in order to reduce populations. So why should secular humanists commit "speciesism," as Peter Singer calls it, and treat humans differently than other animals?[15] Some may claim that humans have more potential than other animals, but we have used that greater potential to cause a greater harm to the planet than other species. Furthermore, if any kind of behavior is regarded as unsafe for humans, who cares? It would help to reduce the population. In accordance with secular humanist reasoning, Peter Singer is therefore justified in advocating zoophilia whether or not there are associated risks of STDs.
III. Evil societies flourish as well
In a live debate, William Lane Craig offered another valid criticism that questions Sam Harris' "objective" morality. In short, "How can human flourishing be considered an objective basis for morality when it is possible for evil societies to flourish for quite some time in comparison to other societies?"[16] Some popular atheist apologists, such as John Loftus, have admitted that WL Craig won the debate.[17]
The Land of Canaan is an example of an historical society that flourished for 400 years. It was noted for its callous wickedness, including the sacrifice of babies in an extremely painful process and the practice of all kinds of sexual perversions, including bestiality. King David noted how wicked men seem to flourish like a bay tree spreading out with healthy limbs, even though the proverbial tree has no valid moral philosophical grounding. "I have seen wicked and ruthless people flourishing like a tree in its native soil."(NIV)[18] Though a society or person may be wicked there may be prosperity as well for a long uninterrupted period. Therefore, human flourishing alone cannot be considered an objective basis of morality.
Summary
People intuitively sense that there is an objective basis for morality. People recognize that some things "are just plain wrong." However, for the secular humanist, it is quite frustrating to realize that no secular humanist has yet come up with a single example of a valid objective and universal basis for morality. Outside of acknowledging the existence of a transcendent God, there has been no logically cohesive philosophical explanation. For Sam Harris, smoking cigarettes, deep ecology and the flourishing of evil are all problematic with regard to his moral claims. The so-called "intellectual fire" of Sam Harris' book on morality is nothing more than a flittering flame. Christopher Hitchens, Harris' intellectual peer, is problematic for Harris' theory. According to Harris' main thesis, Hitchen's behavior was immoral because his smoking did not promote human wellness. But Hitchens claimed in an interview that he felt justified in putting his writing and his art before his own health. Why should any secular humanist regard Harris' view of life as a higher one? Hitchens' life and testimony are smoke in the face of Harris' theory. The famous song, Smoke Get's In Your Eyes, offers a sense of the futility of certain situations. Proposing objective secular humanist morality would seem to be one of these futile situations:
Now laughing friends deride
Tears I can not hide
Oh, so I smile and say
When a lovely flame dies
Smoke gets in your eyes
Smoke gets in your eyes
What many atheists refuse to acknowledge is that moral questions are not scientific and utilitarian in nature, but are philosophical and metaphysical questions. Science depends on logic but logic does not depend on science for making objective determinations regarding the nature of truth and existence. Therefore, philosophy holds metaphysical primacy over science with regard to the deeper questions of life. This is why Harris' main premise, that science can determine human values, is a fallacy. The proposal that "science has all the answers" is basically the philosophy known as positivism. It is considered philosophically invalid today among most secular humanist philosophers. The New World Encyclopedia states, “Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead, or at least as dead as a philosophical stance or movement ever becomes…”[19]. All things considered, Harris' book is nothing more than a tragic waste of some perfectly good trees.After a person is willing to admit that science is not equipped to answer the deeper questions of life, then the next question is, "Which philosophical or religious perspective is correct?" Multiple logical proofs of God's existence have been outlined by William Lane Craig. And, ironically, top atheist apologists refuse to debate him based on "moral" grounds. This is ironic because they have so far demonstrated nothing but confusion in attempting to justify their moral positions logically.[20]
The Christian explanation of morality is based on a logically cohesive argument, that a good and just God that has created the universe with an underlying wisdom and logic, but mankind utilizing free will chose to reject the wisdom of the Creator and selfishness caused the fall. Though the world is a fallen place, the eternal flame of God's love, justice and wisdom burns, despite the mockery of atheist critics. In attempting to eliminate God from the equation as the central truth, atheists eschew logic on all fronts[21] and popular atheists openly admit that it does not matter to them if their views are illogical. Austin Cline has stated, "Atheism doesn't need to be illogical and, if it is, that doesn't matter."[22]
Though God has revealed Himself during different epochs using different means, the nature of God and the basis of objective morality has not changed. And the natural human conscience is still an accurate barometer of moral values until it becomes seared away by persistent sin or it becomes mitigated through secular humanistic educational agendas.
References
[1] Sam Harris website, rave reviews of Harris' book, The Moral Landscape, http://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape
[2] Common Sense Atheism, Sam Harris – The Moral Landscape (review), http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12020
[3] Rationally Speaking, Massimo Pigliucci's blog, http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/02/genuinely-puzzled-what-exactly-is.html
[2] Common Sense Atheism, Sam Harris – The Moral Landscape (review), http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12020
[3] Rationally Speaking, Massimo Pigliucci's blog, http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/02/genuinely-puzzled-what-exactly-is.html
[4] Oxford Dictionary, definition of morality, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/morality
[5] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The definition of morality, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
[6] Harris, Sam, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values, Introduction, P1.
[7] Harris, Sam, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values, Introduction, P8.
[8] Huffington Post, Christopher Hitchens: Despite Cancer, I'd Drink & Smoke Again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/christopher-hitchens-desp_n_685021.html
[9] Webster's Dictionary, definition of flourish, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flourish
[6] Harris, Sam, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values, Introduction, P1.
[7] Harris, Sam, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values, Introduction, P8.
[8] Huffington Post, Christopher Hitchens: Despite Cancer, I'd Drink & Smoke Again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/christopher-hitchens-desp_n_685021.html
[9] Webster's Dictionary, definition of flourish, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flourish
[10] Independent, James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
[11] New World Encyclopedia, Gaia Hypothesis, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gaia_hypothesis
[12] Lovelock, James. 1988. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. W. W. Norton, New York. Sourced from Church of Euthanasia, Humans as Cancer, by A. Kent MacDougall, http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/humcan.html
[13] Lovelock, James. 1991. Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet. Harmony Books, New York., Sourced from Church of Euthanasia, Humans as Cancer, by A. Kent MacDougall, http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/humcan.html
[14] The Guardian, Civilisation faces 'perfect storm of ecological and social problems'
Abuse of the environment has created an 'absolutely unprecedented' emergency, say Blue Planet prizewinners, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/20/climate-change-overconsumption
[15] Utilitarian, Animals, In Ted Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford, 1995, pp. 35-36, http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----04.htm
[14] The Guardian, Civilisation faces 'perfect storm of ecological and social problems'
Abuse of the environment has created an 'absolutely unprecedented' emergency, say Blue Planet prizewinners, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/20/climate-change-overconsumption
[15] Utilitarian, Animals, In Ted Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford, 1995, pp. 35-36, http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----04.htm
[16] YouTube, Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig - Debate_ Does Good Come From God - 7 April 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8wUOUmM1OA
[17] Debunking Christianity, If You Were Scoring Points Craig Won, But Harris Clearly Had the Better Arguments, John W. Loftus, 4/08/2011, http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/04/craigharris-debate-if-you-were-scoring.html
[18] Psalm 37.35, http://bible.cc/psalms/37-35.htm
[19] New World Encyclopedia, Positivism, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism
[20] Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine - http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
[21] Templestream, Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html
[22] Templestream, Stephen Law: EGC Illusionist Debunked, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/stephen-law-austin-cline-and-ukrainian.html
(Revised August 25, 2012)
Tags: Why Sam Harris' human flourishing fails, scientists warn of overpopulation, quotes by James Lovelock on overpopulation, humans as a cancer on earth, basis of atheist morality, deep ecology and population reduction, confusion of atheist moral systems, can atheist morality have an objective basis? Is hedonism valid for atheists? Critique of Sam Harris' Moral Landscape, How did Christopher Hitchens die? Sam Harris quotes on objective morality, Christopher Hitchens quotes on smoking, what is the basis or morality? Can science determine morality? Philosophy holds metaphysical primacy over science.
Related:
Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life
A Reply to PZ Myers’ ‘Objective’ Moral Tools
A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
[19] New World Encyclopedia, Positivism, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism
[20] Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine - http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/dawkins-craig-debate-genocide-israels.html
[21] Templestream, Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html
[22] Templestream, Stephen Law: EGC Illusionist Debunked, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/04/stephen-law-austin-cline-and-ukrainian.html
(Revised August 25, 2012)
Tags: Why Sam Harris' human flourishing fails, scientists warn of overpopulation, quotes by James Lovelock on overpopulation, humans as a cancer on earth, basis of atheist morality, deep ecology and population reduction, confusion of atheist moral systems, can atheist morality have an objective basis? Is hedonism valid for atheists? Critique of Sam Harris' Moral Landscape, How did Christopher Hitchens die? Sam Harris quotes on objective morality, Christopher Hitchens quotes on smoking, what is the basis or morality? Can science determine morality? Philosophy holds metaphysical primacy over science.
Related:
Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life
A Reply to PZ Myers’ ‘Objective’ Moral Tools
A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
R:Who is to say that we have a moral duty, a moral obligation, to be healthy, to propagate and to flourish?
ReplyDeleteSo you would rather be unhealthy, miserable and lonely? That is just part of human nature to wish for those things 8)
R:One of the most obvious is the trade-off between living for pleasure and living for health.
Newsflash. Pleasure is not a synonym of happiness.
R:For them, it does not matter if their lives are a few days or even a few decades shorter because of the habits that give them pleasure and a sense of inspiration.
And they can perfectlly find inspiration, relief and pleasure without tobacco. If a drug addict cannot imagine his life without cocaine, it does not mean that he is better off staying a drug addict. Is it better to be smoking or not smoking, Rick?
R:There is no no logical reason whatsoever to impose Sam Harris' view on all other secular humanists...
The reason - it will make you happy. For most people that is enough.
R:On the contrary, there is an increasing consensus that human flourishing and propagation is immoral with regard to the big picture.
Ehhh...what big picture? Also define "human flourishing". I consider fullfilling Maslow s theory of human needs as flourishing and that would be impossible for an "evil society".
R:If it is truly a top priority to keep the human population low, then, in accordance with secular humanistic logic, eugenics , infanticide, euthanasia and even genocide are not only morally permissible, they are morally desirable.
An example of your reasoning and if you fail to see the problem, there is no more hope for you...
1. Person A hates flies and believes they should be killed at first sight
2. Hence, Person A thinks it would be perfectly moral to detonate nuclear bombs across the planet since such actions would get rid of the flies.
R:With regard to the planet, why should humans have priority over other species?
Sigh...so you still have no idea why a human being is more valuable than an insect. Answer - different potential.
R:The Land of Canaan is an example of an historical society that flourished for 400 years.
Funny how you base your view entirely from sources of their enemies. You might be suprised how propaganda can distort the image of a nation. 8)
R:People intuitively sense that there is an objective basis for morality.
Do tell why the head hunter tribes never thought it was wrong to kill people outside their tribe. There is plenty of other examples, where people disagree on morality from past to modern days.
R:As opposed to human flourishing, the Christian explanation of morality is based on a logically cohesive entity, a good and just God...
The only problem would be that no one can tell for sure what these teachings are. The "True Christian" Luther advocated the genocide of jews for example.
>So you would rather be unhealthy, miserable and lonely?
ReplyDelete- Personally, I would not. But many secular humanists prefer to live for unhealthy pleasures, and Harris has not offered one convincing reason why this should be considered immoral according to basic secular humanism.
If, as Richard Dawkins claims, "nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris." then I guess secular humanists are in trouble morally, eh?
>Newsflash. Pleasure is not a synonym of happiness.
- I never claimed it was. Nevertheless, pleasure is considered the highest aim in life for many secular humanists and Harris has not challenged hedonism as a valid atheistic worldview.
>And they can perfectlly find inspiration, relief and pleasure without tobacco.
- Who are you and Harris to say it is their moral duty to do so? Who gave your personal opinions such authority?
>The reason - it will make you happy. For most people that is enough.
- Happiness is subjective. Harris claims he has found an objective basis for morality. Seeking subjective happiness could never be an objective basis of moral rights and wrongs.
>Ehhh...what big picture?
- As noted in the article, try to consider life on the planet and all ecosystems, as opposed to just human life and human flourishing.
>if you fail to see the problem, there is no more hope for you...
Your reply is a non sequitur. I had stated, "R:If it is truly a top priority to keep the human population low, then, in accordance with secular humanistic logic, eugenics , infanticide, euthanasia and even genocide are not only morally permissible, they are morally desirable."
>Sigh...so you still have no idea why a human being is more valuable than an insect. Answer - different potential.
- Different potentials and different functions do not necessarily equate with different values. In an interdependent system, all elements are equally valuable from a pragmatic viewpoint. And, as noted, humans are considered the MOST dangerous element by many.
>Funny how you base your view entirely from sources of their enemies.
- The people of Canaan are not my personal enemies. To me they offer an object lesson from history.
>Do tell why the head hunter tribes never thought it was wrong to kill people outside their tribe.
- Do tell why secular humanist professors today train students at Princeton that infanticide and zoophilia are morally acceptable.
It is not a question of "advanced-or-primitive" - it is a question of whether or not people and cultures are in tune with timeless principles of morality or not.
>The "True Christian" Luther advocated the genocide of jews for example.
- Firstly, where is a quote stating he advocated genocide. Secondly, I've already pointed out numerous biblical verses that contradict this opinion. The scriptures, not people's personal opinions, outline tenets of Christian morality.
Nevertheless, pleasure is considered the highest aim in life for many secular humanists and Harris has not challenged hedonism as a valid atheistic worldview.
DeleteCitation for the former, please.
- As noted in the article, try to consider life on the planet and all ecosystems, as opposed to just human life and human flourishing.
Well, considering that a) human flourishing rather depends on having a valid ecosystem around it, and b) what's that Biblical citation? "Have dominion over the earth..."? *Which* system makes a special value of humans.
In an interdependent system, all elements are equally valuable from a pragmatic viewpoint.
Nonsense; for a very simple example, a single apex predator is not of the same value to an ecosystem as a single plant.
Firstly, where is a quote stating he advocated genocide.
"We are at fault in not slaying them. " -- from "On the Jews and their Lies". Unless you need it in the original language?
The scriptures, not people's personal opinions, outline tenets of Christian morality.
As we've been through *many* times before, Rick, people's opinions of scripture are all we have to go on -- there isn't even a single objective *text* of "Scripture" to rely on, Rick.
There is no objective single interpretation of Scripture, Rick, and therefore all your claims to "objective" morality based on it are nonsensical.
>Citation for the former, please... "pleasure is considered the highest aim in life for many secular humanists"
Delete- Are you serious? You live in the US and have never heard of the sexual revolution or the mantra "sex and drugs and rock and roll." But this attitude of hedonism is really nothing new, as Wikipedia outlines,
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1]
Things haven't changed much since antiquity:
Democritus seems to be the earliest philosopher on record to have categorically embraced a hedonistic philosophy; he called the supreme goal of life "contentment" or "cheerfulness", claiming that "joy and sorrow are the distinguishing mark of things beneficial and harmful" (DK 68 B 188).[3]
And today,
A dedicated contemporary hedonist philosopher and on the history of hedonistic thought is the French Michel Onfray. He defines hedonism "as an introspective attitude to life based on taking pleasure yourself and pleasuring others, without harming yourself or anyone else."[7] "
Sounds pretty much like what most kids are taught about morality in secular humanist public schools every day of every year in our generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
>Well, considering that a) human flourishing rather depends on having a valid ecosystem around it,
- Harris is not proposing "planet flourishing" is a higher end, but specifically human flourishing as a basis of morality. Planet flourishing would necessitate being a good steward of the earth.
Scripture outlines how man was given dominion as a good steward over the earth. But man was not alone. Man had communion with God and God's wisdom helped to guide in wise decision making before the fall. http://www.ldolphin.org/lostdominion.html
>a single apex predator is not of the same value to an ecosystem as a single plant. (versus: In an interdependent system, all elements are equally valuable from a pragmatic viewpoint.)
- In a truly interdependent system, if any necessary parts are taken away from the whole then wouldn't the system fail? An apex predator may not be considered a necessary part of the interdependent system, according to your comment.
>As we've been through *many* times before, Rick, people's opinions of scripture are all we have to go on.
Yes, as I've noted many times before, the entire body of scripture must be weighed against one person's opinion of that scripture in a logical manner. Repeating the same faulty atheistic criticisms won't change the fact that a logical exegetical process exists.
>There is no objective single interpretation of Scripture, Rick, and therefore all your claims to "objective" morality based on it are nonsensical.
- The basis of objective morality is not dependent on the finer points scriptural interpretation, but it is based simply on the fact that a good, wise, just and loving God exists. That's it. Because there is a transcendent reference point of truth and morality, God's existence, then there is an objective basis for morality.
This article is not really a discourse on true morality, but a critique of Sam Harris' faulty logic and faulty conclusions. If you want me to write an article specifically on morality from a Christian perspective, I can do that.
ou live in the US and have never heard of the sexual revolution or the mantra "sex and drugs and rock and roll."
DeleteI've heard it. You made the following claim: "pleasure is considered the highest aim in life for many secular humanists"
A single quote is hardly useful evidence for the entire claim. I could quote-mine Christian statements and argue "many Christians consider X true..." and we'd be back where we've been before.
Your standards of evidence for claims about "secular humanists" are ludicrously low.
Sounds pretty much like what most kids are taught about morality in secular humanist public schools every day of every year in our generation.
Citation again, since we've seen that you consider a slogan, quote, or one example evidence enough to support "most" or "many" statements.
- In a truly interdependent system, if any necessary parts are taken away from the whole then wouldn't the system fail?
Let's make this simpler, since you seem incapable of understanding things not spelled out in simple SVO sentences some days:
Given an entire ecosystem, a *single* apex predator has more importance than a *single* plant. Any given system will have, for example, dozens of apex predators and millions of plants. Get the picture, Rick?
Repeating the same faulty atheistic criticisms won't change the fact that a logical exegetical process exists.
Demonstrating it would be useful, Rick, since you've had repeated requests to do so, and all you've responded with is vagueness. In order to prove this claim of yours, you'll need to explain why *your* system is logical, and the other systems that produce different results are not.
- The basis of objective morality is not dependent on the finer points scriptural interpretation, but it is based simply on the fact that a good, wise, just and loving God exists.
Truth by assertion, as we've been through many times before. Indeed, remember that cartoon you posted? This is you engaging in that reasoning, since you've tried, repeatedly, to argue from "objective morality" to "God", and from "God" to "objective morality", and which one needs to be proven depends on which one is rhetorically useful to you at the time.
This article is not really a discourse on true morality, but a critique of Sam Harris' faulty logic and faulty conclusions
Since you've failed to show any faults, it's not a particularly *good* article; instead, you've constructed your usual array of strawmen, based on your claims about what people believe based on your usual minimal evidence.
>A single quote is hardly useful evidence for the entire claim....Your standards of evidence for claims about "secular humanists" are ludicrously low....Citation again, since we've seen that you consider a slogan, quote, or one example evidence enough to support "most" or "many" statements.
Delete- Maybe an example will help you. There is a popular group named Sloan. Here are some of there awards:
Juno Awards
1994: Nominated – Best New Group
1995: Nominated – Best Alternative Album (Twice Removed)
1997: Won – Best Alternative Album (One Chord to Another)
1999: Nominated – Best Rock Album (Navy Blues)
2000: Nominated – Best Album Design (Catherine Stockhausen and Lee Towndrow, Between the Bridges)
2002: Nominated – Best Rock Album (Pretty Together)
2002: Nominated – Best Single ("If It Feels Good Do It")
2007: Nominated – Best Rock Album (Never Hear the End of It)
2009: Nominated - Best Rock Album (Parallel Play)
2012: Nominated - Best Rock Album (The Double Cross)
[edit]East Coast Music Awards
1993: Nominated – Album of the Year (Smeared), Entertainer of the Year, Pop Rock Recording of the Year, Song of the Year ("Underwhelmed"), Video of the Year ("Underwhelmed")
1996: Won – Alternative Recording of the Year
Nominated – Pop Rock Recording of the Year, Video of the Year ("People of the Sky")
1997: Won – Alternative Recording of the Year, Group of the Year
Nominated – Pop Rock Recording of the Year
1998: Nominated – Single of the Year ("Everything You've Done Wrong"), Video of the Year ("Everything You've Done Wrong")
1999: Nominated – Group of the Year, Video of the Year ("Money City Maniacs")
2001: Nominated – Group of the Year
2002: Won – Video of the Year ("If It Feels Good Do It")
Nominated – Album of the Year (Pretty Together), Entertainer of the Year, Group of the Year, Rock Recording of the Year, Songwriter of the Year ("If It Feels Good Do It")
2003: Nominated – Entertainer of the Year, Single of the Year ("The Other Man"), Video of the Year ("The Other Man")
2004: Won – Video of the Year ("The Rest of My Life")
Nominated – Album of the Year (Action Pact), Group of the Year, Rock Recording of the Year (Action Pact), Single of the Year ("The Rest of My Life"), Songwriter of the Year ("The Rest of My Life")
2006 Nominated – Single of the Year ("All Used Up")
2007 Won – Rock Recording of the Year (Never Hear the End of It)
Nominated: Album of the Year (Never Hear the End of It), Group of the Year
One of there popular songs is called, If it feels good do ti.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/if-it-feels-good-do-it-lyrics-sloan.html
1. A popular international band exists.
2. One of the popular songs of the band suggests hedonism is OK.
3. Therefore, hedonism is celebrated a lot of people
I did not write that all secular humanists live for pleasure, but many do. Do you seriously deny that "sex, drugs and roc and roll" is a life theme of many young people who are atheists and secular humanists?
I won't waste may time with the rest of the comments in that post. Your final comment is a complete joke:
Delete"Since you've failed to show any faults, it's not a particularly *good* article"
Yesterday I added comments about Sam Harris' article by two fairly prominent atheists. Guess what. They happen to share the main opinion I have about Harris' theory. It has no foundation whatsoever:
"PZ Myers has offered that "Harris is smuggling in an unscientific prior" in his theory. In other words, Harris is making a presupposition and atheist Luke Muehlhauser elaborates on this fault. Muehlhauser outlines, "How has science shown that morality must be defined in terms of “the well-being of conscious creatures”? Harris does not say. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t even say how philosophy has “shown” any such thing."[2]
And there is a little note on the bottom you can read as well.
(Revised August 19, 2012)
There is a popular group named Sloan. Here are some of there awards:
DeleteAnd you proceed to list a whole bunch of awards, and then mention that one song has lyrics that support your thesis.
We're back here, aren't we:
1. A major, influential Christian thinker exists.
2. One of his major books suggests that homosexuals should be put to death.
3. Therefore, a lot of Christians believe that homosexuals should be put to death.
See the flaw in your argument structure, Rick?
I won't waste may time with the rest of the comments in that post.
Well, perhaps if you didn't waste your time on lousy arguments like your previous one, with its obsessive-compulsive listing of "awards a band won", you'd have time to address arguments that cause you problems. Let's see: arguments and cogent points you're dropping here:
1) Asking for a citation for your unsupported claim that hedonism is taught as morals in the public schools.
2) A request that you demonstrate your long-claimed "logical exegetical process" that provides objective answers to moral questions
3) The claim that you are arguing from an unproven requirement -- the need for objective morality -- to an unproven result -- the existence of God.
I'll just add these to the list of "cogent and relevant points Rick Warden's ignored", shall I?
Guess what. They happen to share the main opinion I have about Harris' theory. It has no foundation whatsoever:
I find it amusing that you're eminently willing to cite PZ Myers when he agrees with you, and try to dismiss and deny him when he doesn't.
Guess what, Rick, people disagree. And I will further point out that there is a vast difference between "This is an objective basis" and "Science has shown that this must be so."
I saw that note at the bottom about revision -- shouldn't that now read "Revised August 18 & 19, 2012" -- and perhaps even mention what you've added? Or should we grab screenshots of your posts so we can figure out what you've changed in order to try and make yourself look better.
(I'm still waiting, BTW, on a pointer to your Philippian athletes. :))
>See the flaw in your argument structure, Rick?
Delete- Sigh. In circles yet again with you.
Again, apples and oranges. Again, can you show me a defining text for secular humanists which prohibits hedonism?
>Well, perhaps if you didn't waste your time on lousy arguments like your previous one,
- I made a perfectly valid point. If you want to deny that Christians have an agreed upon text to go by, you are in denial. Secular humanists do not have such a text.
1) Asking for a citation for your unsupported claim that hedonism is taught as morals in the public schools.
- No citation is necessary, just common logic with regard to public schools.
1) Schools often distribute condoms freely to children.
2) Schools often teach children how to have "safe" sex in a variety of ways, irrespective of wider moral questions.
3) Schools never teach a class on ethics, religion or moral boundaries.
1) The overall message that children receive is that sex between peers is "safe" and therefore permissible if "protection" is used and moral questions are irrelevant.
2) This message promotes promiscuity and sex outside of children.
3) Promiscuous sex outside of marriage is viewed as a hedonistic lifestyle by most cultures.
4) Therefore public schools often promote hedonism.
Which premise(s) do you disagree with?
2) Having your long-claimed "logical exegetical process" that provides objective answers to moral questions.
- Easy. Would you consider exegetical evaluation of a scent textbook to be logical if the main premises and points of the book were ignored or contradicted in a student term paper?
For the same reason, any person who claims that hatred and violence against gays are valid with regard to the New Testament has not made a logical exegetical deduction.
3) The claim that you are arguing from an unproven requirement -- the need for objective morality
> You are off on a number of points. The above article is not a proof of biblical morally. It is a critique of what is widely considered the best answer atheists have in terms of "objective" secular humanist morality. I had asked if you would like me to write a new article outlining why God's existence would necessitate that an objective moral foundation exists and, as far as I know, you did not offer a direct answer.
>I'll just add these to the list of "cogent and relevant points Rick
- As noted, these points are all covered, as are the others.
>I find it amusing that you're eminently willing to cite PZ Myers when he agrees with you, and try to dismiss and deny him when he doesn't.
- It must be difficult for people who don't seem to have a handle on truth to accept the fact that statements either are or are not based on objective truth, no matter who is making the statements. BTW, it must be a bit frustrating to have the best of the best atheists (nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris) dismantled by their own peers.
>Guess what, Rick, people disagree.
- Yes, but hopefully you will one day understand what makes for a valid argument.
>"This is an objective basis" and "Science has shown that this must be so."
- Yes, science is quite shallow, it cannot address deeper philosophical questions. Science is dependent upon objective logical deductions. Objective logical deductions are not dependent upon science. Get it?
>I saw that note at the bottom about revision -- shouldn't that now read "Revised August 18 & 19, 2012" - Or should we grab screenshots of your posts so we can figure out what you've changed
- I would suggest using logic and sincerely seeking truth as a basis for understating philosophical questions. The details of Christopher Hitchens' testimony and PZ Myers' testimony are not your greatest concerns, though they did help to underscore the main point of the above article when they were added.
- Sigh. In circles yet again with you. Again, apples and oranges. Again, can you show me a defining text for secular humanists which prohibits hedonism?
DeleteCan you show me a defining text for Christians that prohibits putting people to death?
(I presume, BTW, that if you can, you are anti-death penalty, under all circumstances?)
My main point, as with the last time, is that your lines of argumentation aren't valid; you object when other people make exact parallels.
If you want to deny that Christians have an agreed upon text to go by
So, Rick, which is *the* Bible. Edition and publisher, preferably. Because otherwise, this statement is objectively false, unless you are prepared to define as "not Christian" two out of the following three groups: Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Protestants.
1) Schools often distribute condoms freely to children.
2) Schools often teach children how to have "safe" sex in a variety of ways, irrespective of wider moral questions.
3) Schools never teach a class on ethics, religion or moral boundaries.
You know, I've never seen (and I know plenty of sex educators) a sex-ed curriculum that doesn't address #2 -- though usually it's ethical and practical concerns, rather than "Thou Shalt Nots" from a specific religion.
Similarly, ethics is often taught in schools; and I took comparative religion in the public schools.
So, we don't even need to proceed to your second set of "premises" in order to debunk this one. It falls at the second hurdle.
(Which reminds me -- schools also often provide crossing guards; does this mean schools endorse crossing the street unsafely? Or that they recognize that street-crossing isn't always safe, and is going to happen, and they want to make it as safe as possible?)
- Easy. Would you consider exegetical evaluation of a scent textbook to be logical if the main premises and points of the book were ignored or contradicted in a student term paper? For the same reason, any person who claims that hatred and violence against gays are valid with regard to the New Testament has not made a logical exegetical deduction.
Yet, they feel they have -- and someone *outside* the process has no "logical exegetical process" to determine which one of the two of you is correct.
A bare-faced reading of the Bible would suggest that being rich is a bad thing, and that a communal existence is by far and away the best. Yet this is not what most Christians practice. I doubt you do, Rick.
A bare-faced reading of the Bible would suggest that Christians should not have an army -- they should turn the other cheek. This would be news to many people throughout time.
And if you start saying "But those parts are metaphor", then you've lost your "logical exegetical process" and are picking and choosing what you want to accept as literal and what you want to accept as "metaphor."
So, no, you need a *lot* more to claim a "logical exegetical process" than "There are main premises, and anything that contradicts them is wrong." -- you have to *establish* those premises, for example, and demonstrate why those premises are correct.
(part 2)
Delete- It must be difficult for people who don't seem to have a handle on truth to accept the fact that statements either are or are not based on objective truth, no matter who is making the statements. BTW, it must be a bit frustrating to have the best of the best atheists (nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris) dismantled by their own peers.
I find it interesting that you are quite willing to bestow the description of "objective truth" on, in effect, anyone who agrees with you.
And no, it's not frustrating at all, since this is how argument and progress work -- someone comes up with an idea, someone finds a problem, you look for a better idea.
It's far more productive than arguing over how to interpret a specific old book to get the results you want.
- Yes, but hopefully you will one day understand what makes for a valid argument.
Indeed -- and someday you will as well.
- Yes, science is quite shallow, it cannot address deeper philosophical questions. Science is dependent upon objective logical deductions. Objective logical deductions are not dependent upon science. Get it?
Indeed; mathematics has them as well. You've demonstrated no reason to believe that *your* deductions are logical, or objective. Indeed, Sam Harris has provided a much better basis for an "objective" claim, as his proposed morality could apply under a wide range of circumstances, and does not depend on an outside force's existence in order to be supported.
- I would suggest using logic and sincerely seeking truth as a basis for understating philosophical questions.
And I would suggest the same to you -- you aren't sincerely seeking truth, you're sincerely seeking support for the things you already believe to be true.
Part 1
Delete>Can you show me a defining text for Christians that prohibits putting people to death?
- Sigh. The NT does not explicitly forbid going to war and the legalized death penalty. However, nowhere is the hatred of other humans justified, as you had claimed. The emphasis of the NT is loving sinners and loving enemies. Just war policy is based on a non-agressive, defensive approach. Unfortunately the neocons have deceived the Christian public into accepting a first-strike war policy.
>So, Rick, which is *the* Bible. Edition and publisher, preferably.
- Choose any version you wish and show me where hatred and the murder of Jews and homosexuals are validated in the NT, as compared with verses regarding loving enemies and the plethora of other verses I offered. :-)
>You know, I've never seen (and I know plenty of sex educators) a sex-ed curriculum that doesn't address #2
1) You have seen many sex ed curriculums?
2) Show me a sample of a popular sex ed curriculum that offers an outline of traditional moral values related to sex that is actually offered in public schools.
>Similarly, ethics is often taught in schools; and I took comparative religion in the public schools.
- My high school had sex ed but nothing whatsoever on ethics or morals. Prove that ethics courses are taught widely in public schools.
>So, we don't even need to proceed to your second set of "premises" in order to debunk this one.
- All you've offered is your unsubstantiated opinion. My experience in public school is enough to contradict you.
>Yet, they feel they have -- and someone *outside* the process has no "logical exegetical process" to determine which one of the two of you is correct.
- Incorrect. As much as relativists would love to believe otherwise, words have agreed upon meanings. Love is not hate.
>A bare-faced reading of the Bible would suggest that being rich is a bad thing
- The scripture you are perhaps referring to regards the "love" of money. When money become an idol, it is truly the root of all evil in society. Just look at the monstrosity Monsanto. Remember that GMO labeling petition you signed? The root cause of the corruption between the FDA and Monsanto is greed and this is causing extreme harm to the environment and to humans around the planet.
>A bare-faced reading of the Bible would suggest that Christians should not have an army -- they should turn the other cheek.
- You are mixing apples and oranges, personal relationships and governmental conditions. Look into just war policy in order to understand the traditional biblical view on war.
>you have to *establish* those premises, for example, and demonstrate why those premises are correct.
- No, you have to establish your case as the critic. You have so far only shown an intent to twist the meaning of Biblical ideas in order to try and justify your personal opinions about God and the Bible.
Part 2
Delete>I find it interesting that you are quite willing to bestow the description of "objective truth" on, in effect, anyone who agrees with you.
- No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote the following:
"It must be difficult for people who don't seem to have a handle on truth to accept the fact that statements either are or are not based on objective truth, no matter who is making the statements."
I was making a statement about the objective nature of truth. Nowhere did I imply that truth is objective only if it is in agreement with my personal beliefs. Do you see the phrase "no matter who is making the statements"? Objective truth does not depend on my personal beliefs, yours, or anyone else's, objective truth simply exists as facts we deal with in our daily lives and also it exists in the person of Jesus Christ who is the reference point of ultimate truth.
>Sam Harris has provided a much better basis for an "objective" claim
- No his reasoning is patently fallacious. What many atheists refuse to acknowledge is that moral questions are not scientific and utilitarian in nature, but are philosophical and teleological questions. This is perhaps the most difficult admission many atheists could possibly make, but it's a starting point.
>you aren't sincerely seeking truth, you're sincerely seeking support for the things you already believe to be true.
- On the contrary, my opinions are supported by logic and are logically cohesive because they are true. You, on the other hand, are defending numerous false premises that have been laid out for all to see.
R:Choose any version you wish and show me where hatred and the murder of Jews and homosexuals are validated in the NT, as compared with verses regarding loving enemies and the plethora of other verses I offered. :-)
DeleteDon t you think it would make it a useless competition on who can gather the most bible verses to back up their position and an even more useless debate on who s interpretention is right?
Luther based his hatred of the Jews on bible verses. You said that he was a "true christian", but was mistaken in that certain passages of the holy book. However, what makes your interpretention of the bible the correct one? How come you are so sure that you are not a "true christian" that made a mistake and jews ought to be slaughtered by god s command? How come you refuse to even suppose that you made a mistake in the understanding of god s nature in your book even if you are an imperfect human being just like Luther?
P.S. And why are we limited to the NT? Jesus said himself that he did not cancel any laws from the OT
Delete>Can you show me a defining text for Christians that prohibits putting people to death?
Delete- Sigh. The NT does not explicitly forbid going to war and the legalized death penalty. However, nowhere is the hatred of other humans justified, as you had claimed.
Look back: This is what I wrote:
1. A major, influential Christian thinker exists.
2. One of his major books suggests that homosexuals should be put to death.
3. Therefore, a lot of Christians believe that homosexuals should be put to death.
"Put to death". You should read what's actually *written*, instead of what you want to argue against. Indeed, it might help your Biblical exegesis as well.
- Choose any version you wish and show me where hatred and the murder of Jews and homosexuals are validated in the NT, as compared with verses regarding loving enemies and the plethora of other verses I offered. :-)
As raised below, why are we restricted to the NT? (Oh, and matthew 10:34, Luke 22:36 -- which are not precisely on point, but you'll note at the bottom of this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword) a link to two radically different interpretations -- once again bringing the whole "objective truth" argument into disrepute.
But this is a red herring -- if it's "objective" truth, then there needs to be a lack of contradiction -- a single source, as it were. And you've yet to indicate which Bible contains this authoritative source.
1) You have seen many sex ed curriculums?
Yes.
2) Show me a sample of a popular sex ed curriculum that offers an outline of traditional moral values related to sex that is actually offered in public schools.
Define "an outline of traditional moral values" -- I don't think it's the school's job to go "And according to this religion, you shouldn't do X, while in this one, you shouldn't do Y."
However, 5 minutes of Googling brought me this: http://www.avert.org/ready-sex.htm
Which includes a section on "What are your personal beliefs, and your family's, and do you feel comfortable going against them?" It explicitly argues against sex as rebellion, for example.
- All you've offered is your unsubstantiated opinion. My experience in public school is enough to contradict you.
Actually, your experience is *1* experience, and I did not make any "All" statements; indeed, the only statement like that is your:
3) Schools never teach a class on ethics, religion or moral boundaries.
And, since I took such a class, we know this to be false.
You really should look at the words you're writing, Rick, to make sure they mean what you think. You've gone from "It never happens" to "prove it's popular." in the course of one post.
>Yet, they feel they have -- and someone *outside* the process has no "logical exegetical process" to determine which one of the two of you is correct. - Incorrect. As much as relativists would love to believe otherwise, words have agreed upon meanings. Love is not hate.
And yet we have "It is more compassionate to execute homosexuals than it is to let them live." -- someone acting in a hateful manner allegedly out of love. Your "love/hate" distinction is overly simplistic. If there were a simple exegetical technique, as you describe, we wouldn't have so many deep schisms in the Christian faith.
(Part 2 of response to part 1 ;))
Delete- The scripture you are perhaps referring to regards the "love" of money.
Actually, I was thinking of the ones about taking all you have and giving it to the poor, metaphors involving camels and needles, and the like. It's all over the text.
You are mixing apples and oranges, personal relationships and governmental conditions.
And yet the Quakers believe as I suggested. Their interpretation is different.
- No, you have to establish your case as the critic. You have so far only shown an intent to twist the meaning of Biblical ideas in order to try and justify your personal opinions about God and the Bible.
My case is simple, and has been established: This non-unique text (many different versions, remember) produces many very different interpretations, across thousands of years, with no method for objective verification as to which one is true. Therefore, claims of "objectivity" in Biblically-derived morality are unsupportable. Therefore, arguing that a secular humanist morality is not "objective" does not make it less suitable to follow than a Bible-based one.
You refer repeatedly to objectivity outside of the sciences; well, in mathematics, to be "objectively" true requires both a set of known axioms and a set of valid principles of derivation from those axioms. Biblically-based morality has neither one.
Sam Harris has provided a much better basis for an "objective" claim
Delete- No his reasoning is patently fallacious. What many atheists refuse to acknowledge is that moral questions are not scientific and utilitarian in nature, but are philosophical and teleological questions. This is perhaps the most difficult admission many atheists could possibly make, but it's a starting point.
And this is nothing but a bald assertion. Indeed, "teleological" questions may not exist, because they *presume* a final purpose, unless you are using the broader definition of "goal-seeking", in which case a question can be both utilitarian and teleological. ;)
So, no, his reasoning is not "patently fallacious" -- it's based on different assumptions than yours. You've tried repeatedly to poke holes in it, but all you have left is "It's not in the right category" -- which is your opinion, not a fact.
- On the contrary, my opinions are supported by logic and are logically cohesive because they are true.
I know it's probably a minor linguistic slip, but it's a telling one: if your opinions are true, it's because they are logically cohesive and supportable; not the reverse. It's that way of phrasing it, in fact, that makes me believe you are using logic to try and justify what you feel to be true, rather than following it to its conclusions and seeing what those are.
You, on the other hand, are defending numerous false premises that have been laid out for all to see.
Considering that I'm not the one having to backtrack and narrow my claims with each post, I am quite content as to my premises.
>You've tried repeatedly to poke holes in it, but all you have left is "It's not in the right category" -- which is your opinion, not a fact.
Delete1. I have shown clearly that Hitchens is morally justified in smoking cigarettes (against his human well-ness) according to his secular humanist views because he chose 'to live to create' and he believed cigarettes helped him to be more creative. Not one person has offered a valid objection to my point. If so, show where that valid objection is.
2. The reason he is justified in his opinion, as I pointed out, is because science is not suited to address deeper questions, such as the meaning of life and moral questions are based on such fundamental questions. Do you personally believe that science is adequate for addressing the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
3. As noted, science depends on logic, while logic does not depend on science for making objective determinations about the nature of truth. Do you deny this? This is why philosophy holds primacy over science as a means for determining questions of meaning and existence.
>I am quite content as to my premises.
- You are content within the context of multiple erroneous opinions. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. :-)
1. I have shown clearly that Hitchens is morally justified in smoking cigarettes (against his human well-ness) according to his secular humanist views because he chose 'to live to create' and he believed cigarettes helped him to be more creative. Not one person has offered a valid objection to my point. If so, show where that valid objection is.
DeleteHuman flourishing is not measured along the single scalar of health; other people have tried to tell you this before, and you haven't listened.
Indeed, you even admit this, in a sideways fashion, by asking about Canaananite "flourishing" -- which had nothing to do with the health of the individuals in the society, but rather its success on a national-domination scale.
I didn't object to your point because I considered it irrelevant to the point.
2. The reason he is justified in his opinion, as I pointed out, is because science is not suited to address deeper questions, such as the meaning of life and moral questions are based on such fundamental questions.
That's not the "reason" he is justified in his opinion, Rick; it's your justification.
Do you personally believe that science is adequate for addressing the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
No; but presuming that there even *is* an answer to that question beyond what we choose to make it is not one that is "objectively" supported -- it is a matter of opinion.
logic does not depend on science for making objective determinations about the nature of truth.
To quote Rene Descartes: "Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." Logic is in the same boat -- it cannot make objective determinations about the nature of truth, because it relies upon axioms; and those axioms have to have their own truth-value.
This is why philosophy holds primacy over science as a means for determining questions of meaning and existence.
This is why philosophy claims primacy. Philosophy also cannot legitimately claim "objectivity" for much of what it does -- where it does, it comes perilously close to overlapping with science, because it is at that point drawing logical conclusions from objectively determined facts, a.k.a. the grounds of science.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say. :-)
Then you are truly a happy man.
I intend to refer back to my previous comment, by the way, the next time you claim that you didn't leave "cogent and relevant" points unanswered; you took two long comments, and in your reply
1) replied to a single sentence with an example that demonstrated that you hadn't followed other people's points,
2) made an additional claim,
3) made a fallacious claim about philosophy, and
4) tossed in a snarky remark.
You left out no fewer than 6 specific points I raised in response to you, leaving them unresponded to. In one set of comments.
*This* is why I refer to the Warden Gallop, and your attempts to declare victory and get out.
>Human flourishing is not measured along the single scalar of health; other people have tried to tell you this before, and you haven't listened.
Delete- No, you are wrong. others posting here have repeatedly claimed that smoking is unhealthy and therefore it is immoral.
To even suggest that these comments have not been made repeatedly here in this thread suggests that your comment is disingenuous.
>Do you personally believe that science is adequate for addressing the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
No...
Oh, so basically in your opinion it is an unimportant question because you presume it does not have an answer.
>This is why philosophy "claims" primacy.
- Sigh.
1. It's not a "claim" that logic is a branch of philosophy and not science.
2. It's not a "claim" that philosophy, not science, investigates the nature of truth.
These would be considered accepted facts, not speculative "claims," by most academics.
3. Do you deny the fact that science depends on concepts of truth and logic but does not investigate the nature of truth and logic?
>You left out no fewer than 6 specific points...
Oh, I'm sorry. Which important points were you referring to specifically? Can you put them in the order of the most important comment first, please? Thanks.
Massimo Pigliucci has outlined foundational problems with Harris' proposal in The Moral Landscape,
Delete"He is, however, no more successful in deriving 'ought' from 'is' than anyone else has ever been."
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/02/genuinely-puzzled-what-exactly-is.html
Which premise do you disagree with?
Science cannot adequately address morality.
1. Objective morality is based on universal principles of right and wrong.
2. Questions of right and wrong are ultimately dependent upon the true meaning of life.
3. Science does not address the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
4. Philosophy does address this question and it is considered a valid one.
4. Therefore, science is not equipped to address questions of morality while philosophy is.
Secular academia validates philosophy
1. Secular humanists consider academia as a basis for validating knowledge.
2. Secular academia issues valid accredited degrees in the fields of science and philosophy.
3. According to a majority of secular humanist philosophers, positivism is untenable.
4. Positivism basically holds that "science can provide answers to the most important questions," including ones on morality.
5. Therefore, secular academia contradicts the notion that "science has all the answers."
R:No, you are wrong. others posting here have repeatedly claimed that smoking is unhealthy and therefore it is immoral.
DeleteRemind me again, Rick. Why me and imnotandrei have to agree on everything again?
R:It's not a "claim" that logic is a branch of philosophy and not science.
Please, do prove that logic is a branch of philosophy and not a tool used in both philosophy and science. Besides, many define logic as the science of reasoning by itself.
R:It's not a "claim" that philosophy, not science, investigates the nature of truth.
Please, do elaborate what you mean by the nature of truth.
R:Questions of right and wrong are ultimately dependent upon the true meaning of life.
DeleteWhat do you mean by true meaning of life, Rick?
R:Science does not address the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
Science is about observations and verifications. Hence, it addresses every possible question that exists in reality.
R:Therefore, science is not equipped to address questions of morality while philosophy is.
So what instruments does philosophy possess that science does not? If those are the same instruments, why philosophy is still better equipped?
R:Secular humanists consider academia as a basis for validating knowledge.
False. Humanism consider reason as the basis for validating knowledge and the best way to reason is through the scientific methode.
R:According to a majority of secular humanist philosophers, positivism is untenable.
Fallacy detected...fallacy ad populum
R:Therefore, secular academia contradicts the notion that "science has all the answers."
Secular academia is not some kind of united organ that issues directories that everybody must follow. And it is not like the majority of scientists cannot make mistakes. The difference - those mistakes are corrected in due time 8)
others posting here have repeatedly claimed that smoking is unhealthy and therefore it is immoral.
DeleteAnd I do not agree with such an absolutist position -- however, you're right; I have not seen anyone else take that position *here*. Elsewhere, frequently. My apologies for the incorrectness. If you'd like, we can have that argument as well; I was leaving it to other people, because human flourishing is not predicated on a single scalar of health.
(Indeed, the article on the Huffington Post linked below included a pretty clear idea of what Harris means by "flourishing", and it includes a function of both time, happiness, and concern for maximizing other's well-being. A far more complicated prospect.)
Oh, so basically in your opinion it is an unimportant question because you presume it does not have an answer.
I love the way you omit most of my answer. I don't think that science is the correct tool for answering that question. I don't think that there's a guarantee there *is* a single answer, and given that "meaning" is a nebulous concept, I am almost certain there is no *objective* answer -- and objectivity seems to be your holy grail in this discussion.
1. It's not a "claim" that logic is a branch of philosophy and not science.
Actually, many people would put logic as a branch of mathematics, rather than philosophy. ;) Or as a thing at the same level as philosophy or mathematics or science; the world does not have to be neatly divided into "science" and "philosophy".
2. It's not a "claim" that philosophy, not science, investigates the nature of truth.
You originally stated that philosophy holds primacy over science in certain areas; this is simply not the case. If philosophical considerations violate scientific fact, the philosophical notions get thrown out. This is not a "primacy" relation.
Oh, I'm sorry.
DeleteEither you're a completely incompetent reader, or you're lying; I cannot believe that you cut out large swaths of my reply, and now are claiming that it was, I suppose, an error. So either your apology is false, or you are incapable of following an argument.
Can you put them in the order of the most important comment first, please? Thanks.
In other words, "can you do my work for me, since I can't figure out how to read a comment four comments ago?"
Let me ask, Rick -- are you actually just a giant troll, out to have fun with people? Because that's the impression I'm starting to get -- that your so-called faith is just because of who you choose to bait to get your kicks with your rhetorical nonsense.
But since you asked, here's *your* homework, Rick, as you're so fond of handing out homework assignments:
1) "My case is simple, and has been established: This non-unique text (many different versions, remember) produces many very different interpretations, across thousands of years, with no method for objective verification as to which one is true. Therefore, claims of "objectivity" in Biblically-derived morality are unsupportable. Therefore, arguing that a secular humanist morality is not "objective" does not make it less suitable to follow than a Bible-based one."
2) ">Yet, they feel they have -- and someone *outside* the process has no "logical exegetical process" to determine which one of the two of you is correct. -
Incorrect. As much as relativists would love to believe otherwise, words have agreed upon meanings. Love is not hate.
And yet we have "It is more compassionate to execute homosexuals than it is to let them live." -- someone acting in a hateful manner allegedly out of love. Your "love/hate" distinction is overly simplistic. If there were a simple exegetical technique, as you describe, we wouldn't have so many deep schisms in the Christian faith."
3) "- The scripture you are perhaps referring to regards the "love" of money. Actually, I was thinking of the ones about taking all you have and giving it to the poor, metaphors involving camels and needles, and the like. It's all over the text. "
(Those three refer to greater issues; the ones below refer to issues touching on your honesty and lack thereof)
4) "3) Schools never teach a class on ethics, religion or moral boundaries .
And, since I took such a class, we know this to be false."
5) - Sigh. The NT does not explicitly forbid going to war and the legalized death penalty. However, nowhere is the hatred of other humans justified, as you had claimed.
Look back: This is what I wrote: 1. A major, influential Christian thinker exists. 2. One of his major books suggests that homosexuals should be put to death. 3. Therefore, a lot of Christians believe that homosexuals should be put to death. "Put to death". You should read what's actually *written*, instead of what you want to argue against. Indeed, it might help your Biblical exegesis as well.
6) As raised below, why are we restricted to the NT? (Oh, and matthew 10:34, Luke 22:36 -- which are not precisely on point, but you'll note at the bottom of this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword) a link to two radically different interpretations -- once again bringing the whole "objective truth" argument into disrepute.
Note I'm not even bothering with the stuff from a couple posts ago you've left unanswered, though it's still there, and still accumulating.
(Oh, and finally -- Rick, notice the apology in my first post here? That's the gracious way to deal with making a mistake; acknowledging it and moving on, instead of either digging in or pretending you never made it, as appear to be your two favorite approaches.)
>You originally stated that philosophy holds primacy over science in certain areas; this is simply not the case.
DeleteHere is my actual quote:
"This is why philosophy holds primacy over science as a means for determining questions of meaning and existence."
True or false.
1. A house depends upon a foundation in order to stand. A foundation does not depend upon a house in order to stand.
2. A house built upon a weak foundation will not long stand.
3. Primacy is defined as, "the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank)"
4. When considering a building, no matter how elaborate, it is generally acknowledged that the foundation holds primacy.
5. When considering various fields of scientific knowledge, it is generally acknowledged that sound logic is required in order to ascertain accurate scientific deductions.
6. Though there is some overlap, and though logic has a lot in common with mathematics, logic is commonly taught by university philosophy departments and is considered a branch of philosophical knowledge.
7. Because sound logic is a foundational necessity for other branches of knowledge, and logic is formally considered a brach of philosophy, it may be concluded that philosophy holds primacy over science when it comes to defining and evaluating foundational questions of meaning, value, truth and existence.
>the world does not have to be neatly divided into "science" and "philosophy".
- Actually, in order for people to do research and categorize knowledge, these types of divisions are quite necessary.
Thus, academia, the body of academic authority that secular humanists generally rely on, is in fact divided as such, irrespective of your personal opinion. One branch deals with more foundational questions. This is a fact, not mere speculation.
Thus, to claim that science is authoritative on issues not considered a part of that branch of knowledge is a fallacy. It is not authoritative as a brach of knowledge when dealing with certain types of subjects. Most every secular humanist academician would acknowledge this. However, adamant atheist apologist authority figures will contradict this reality encouraging their own disdain.
>Note I'm not even bothering with the stuff from a couple posts ago you've left unanswered, though it's still there, and still accumulating.
- Many of your ideas seem to be based upon false foundational presuppositions, as your above noted comments demonstrate. If you still consider any of your previous points both valid and cogent, by all means post a link.
R:Many of your ideas seem to be based upon false foundational presuppositions, as your above noted comments demonstrate. If you still consider any of your previous points both valid and cogent, by all means post a link.
DeleteYou know, Rick...Imnotandrei has just posted a list of points that you failed to address. Instead of addressing them, you just feign they do not exist. Not to mention you completely ignore me as always 8)
P.S. And since logic was discovered through scientific observations, by your reasoning, scientific observation holds primacy over philosophy
Delete3. Primacy is defined as, "the state of being first (as in importance, order, or rank)"
Delete4. When considering a building, no matter how elaborate, it is generally acknowledged that the foundation holds primacy.
Nompe. You're confusing "primacy" and "priority" -- to build a house without building the foundation would be foolish, but what makes a house a house isn't its foundation.
5. When considering various fields of scientific knowledge, it is generally acknowledged that sound logic is required in order to ascertain accurate scientific deductions.
Agreed.
6. Though there is some overlap, and though logic has a lot in common with mathematics, logic is commonly taught by university philosophy departments and is considered a branch of philosophical knowledge.
Where logic rests in college departments is not controlling on what part of knowledge it is. Philosophy and science both rely upon logic; in that regard, they would both be derived from Logic, rather than the reverse.
7. Because sound logic is a foundational necessity for other branches of knowledge, and logic is formally considered a brach of philosophy, it may be concluded that philosophy holds primacy over science when it comes to defining and evaluating foundational questions of meaning, value, truth and existence.
You can consider it all you want; it is not a relevant one for the purposes of this discussion.
And I will argue most specificaly that when you talk about "existence", and any principles relying on that, arguing whether or not something exists in the material universe is very much the purview of science, not philosophy. And, as I said before, if philosophical deduction contradicts scientific knowledge, because of the grounding in the material that science provides, the philosophical deduction is invalid.
Thus, to claim that science is authoritative on issues not considered a part of that branch of knowledge is a fallacy.
If a material basis for an objective morality could be determined, then , as above, philosophical speculation would have run aground on scientific fact, and would have no "primacy" to maintain. Philosophical speculation about phlogiston or the luminiferous aether is nonsense, for example.
If you still consider any of your previous points both valid and cogent, by all means post a link.
You asked me to list the points I felt you hadn't answered before, in order. I did so, despite the fact that anyone with a scintilla of honesty and reading comprehension could have seen them in the quote before -- indeed, you had to explicitly cut them *out* of your reply.
Now you have cut them out again, and asked for a link to other points I specifically said I was dropping, because you repeatedly refused to answer (or outright ignored) them.
I'm not going to link to them, because it's not worth my time to give you another link that you will then ignore, or dismiss with some vague claim about my presuppositions. Indeed, Rick, I see no reason why anyone should ever answer your questions, given how little respect you show to anyone who answers, or who asks you any questions in return.
You asked for my points, in order, and I gave them to you. Then you cut them out of your reply for a *second* time. This tells me all I need to know about your willingness to engage in honest or meaningful debate.
I will say this now, and I mean it; you are setting a *terrible* example of what it means to be a Christian; if being a Christian meant being as intellectually dishonest as you've displayed, I would consider that sufficient reason not to convert, and to fight against any Christian influence upon society. As it happens, I know some intellectually honest Christians, so I do not consider Christianity to be an intellectual plague, despite your best efforts.
Part 1
Delete>Where logic rests in college departments is not controlling on what part of knowledge it is.
- I did not state organized knowledge was a "controlling part" of what knowledge is. You seem to have placed the cart before the horse. Fields of knowledge are characterized by identifying characteristics. Logic has been identified and classified as being more philosophical in nature than scientific or mathematical knowledge. Do you disagree with this?
>if philosophical deduction contradicts scientific knowledge, because of the grounding in the material that science provides, the philosophical deduction is invalid.
- In this case, philosophical deductions do not contradict science, they simply reveal it has no say on the subject of human values and morality. As atheist philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci has stated, "He [Sam Harris] is, however, no more successful in deriving 'ought' from 'is' than anyone else has ever been."
If science has yet to offer a single valid example of objective morality, then it is nothing more than a vain aspiration to claim science "could possibly someday" offer such an example. Vain aspirations are not science.
If a "scientific theory" is not based on any agreed-upon and demonstrable evidence whatsoever, it may not be considered a valid theory. If a majority of scientists reject the notion that human values may be derived scientifically, then the idea may not be considered a valid scientific theory.
Therefore, once again, we are back to the same conclusion.
To claim that science is authoritative on issues not considered a part of that branch of knowledge is a fallacy.
When will you admit that there is not enough evidence (or any evidence for that matter) which justifies the claim that human values and morality may be based on objective, scientifically observed phenomena?
If you disagree, outline some quotes from Sam Harris' work that supposedly supports this connection between "is" and "ought."
>You asked for my points, in order, and I gave them to you. Then you cut them out of your reply for a *second* time.
Actually, this is what I wrote:
- I did not state organized knowledge was a "controlling part" of what knowledge is.
DeleteNo -- you did not use those exact words. You did assert, and have been asserting, that what academic department something falls under is an authoritative source to questions regarding the organtization of knowledge.
- In this case, philosophical deductions do not contradict science, they simply reveal it has no say on the subject of human values and morality.
They do not contradict science *yet*.
If science has yet to offer a single valid example of objective morality, then it is nothing more than a vain aspiration to claim science "could possibly someday" offer such an example. Vain aspirations are not science.
And here's where you're wrong. It *may* be a vain aspiration, like a perpetual motion machine. Or it may be that we haven't found it -- such was true, until recently, of the Higgs Boson. Looking for things that haven't yet been found is part of the scientific endeavour.
If a majority of scientists reject the notion that human values may be derived scientifically, then the idea may not be considered a valid scientific theory.
Actually, the main problem with it is a lack of verifiability; but you'll note that Harris provides means towards that end. If you accept his premise, he provides a means to work out his conclusion, a scientific means. This makes it a far more objective approach to morality than, for example, one based on a nebulous text of dubious validity. People seeking "objective" morality are far better off following Harris than any philosopher, since at least Harris' approach offers a nod towards the objective and material.
To claim that science is authoritative on issues not considered a part of that branch of knowledge is a fallacy.
Actually, it would be an "error" -- since it would involve the details of the classification of what issues science can contain under its purview. A fallacy involves incorrect reasoning, not differences (or errors) of definition.
When will you admit that there is not enough evidence (or any evidence for that matter) which justifies the claim that human values and morality may be based on objective, scientifically observed phenomena?
When you admit there is not enough evidence (or any evidence, for that matter) which justifies the claim that human values and morality should be based on allgedly-objective unverifiable, textually dubious, and non-material entities.
When you acknowledge that, if Harris' morality cannot be considered "objective", then seeking after an "objective" morality is a useless quest.
That's when, Rick.
outline some quotes from Sam Harris' work that supposedly supports this connection between "is" and "ought."
Nompe. No more homework assignments from you, Rick, for reasons outlined in my previous post.
Part 2
DeleteImnotandrei has been complaining that I do not respond to or address his points.
>You left out no fewer than 6 specific points...
My response:
- Oh, I'm sorry. Which important points were you referring to specifically? Can you put them in the order of the most important comment first, please? Thanks.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345807588451#c2573791065325657351
Lets see, the very first and apparently most important point Imnotandrei has in mind is a point I've offered to address several times already in the last few days.
Here is a summary of Imnotandrei's main point of critique with regard to my article on Sam Harris:
"Therefore, claims of "objectivity" in Biblically-derived morality are unsupportable." (August 24, 2012 5:44 AM)
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345812251237#c3932232069938471679
Now, notice that several of the comments I had made to both Imnotanrei and others in the comment thread of this article include offers to address that "most important question" with a completely new article:
-This article is not really a discourse on true morality, but a critique of Sam Harris' faulty logic and faulty conclusions. If you want me to write an article specifically on morality from a Christian perspective, I can do that. (August 19, 2012 3:22 AM)
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345371752215#c266322476574910834
In his reply, Imnotanrei offered no kind of response whatsoever to my offer.
AnonyRus, however, wrote,
>And you have no objective criteria to establish what those timeless principles are.
And I wrote in return to him:
- As I mentioned to Imnotandrei, I can write an article on this subject if you like.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345373313216#c5338127577573635480
(August 19, 2012 3:48 AM)
AnonyRus replied:
I know your stance on that problem and you have no need to publish a second article.
A second time I had offered to elaborate on this "most important" subject for Imnotandrei:
- I had asked if you would like me to write a new article outlining why God's existence would necessitate that an objective moral foundation exists and, as far as I know, you did not offer a direct answer.
(August 21, 2012 4:51 AM)
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345549867372#c2890261126282051826
Again, there is no response to my offer.
Then, out of the blue, the number one point on the list of important points I supposedly have not addressed is the very point I had offered several times to elaborate on with a new article.
AnonyRus then chimes in again,
You know, Rick...Imnotandrei has just posted a list of points that you failed to address. Instead of addressing them, you just feign they do not exist. Not to mention you completely ignore me as always 8) (August 25, 2012 10:31 AM)
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345915899541#c3245242839913396332
As documented, I do attempt to engage in rational debates. But, for some reason, atheists are quite fond of making unjustified accusations.
>They do not contradict science *yet* ...And here's where you're wrong. It *may* be a vain aspiration, like a perpetual motion machine. Or it may be that we haven't found it -
Delete- Valid scientific theories aren't based on pure speculation. Because science 'might possibly' 'one day' provide an objective basis for morality does not mean it has or it even can. This is merely wishful thinking, not true science.
>If a majority of scientists reject the notion that human values may be derived scientifically...
- In your reply, you have not disputed my claim. While Wikipedia supports my view that scientists generally do not support a "science of morality" as valid science:
These ideas have not seen widespread acceptance by the scientific community, have been disputed by philosophers, and continues to generate public controversy – although they have also gained some support (e.g. Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and other proponents).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
I would certainly not want to have Richard Dawkins in my corner as a "scientific" authority figure.
Richard Dawkins' CV lists an article on animal mind reading, "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation", while his book The Selfish Gene proposes Memetics. Both subjects are widely considered pseudo science. James W. Polichak's Memes as Pseudoscience and The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience both outline why Memetics is considered pseudoscience. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins#Academic_papers) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience)
In answer to my question:
When will you admit that there is not enough evidence (or any evidence for that matter) which justifies the claim that human values and morality may be based on objective, scientifically observed phenomena?
You offered simple avoidance.
I have offered several times to write an article on the subject of objective morality from a Christian perspective. Not once have you suggested that would be helpful or desirable for you. Instead, you offer false claims that I do not offer to address your points.
Are you completely disingenous or is it just a mental block?
Shorter Rick:
Delete"Out of 6 objections, there's one I've offered to post about."
Go ahead. Post. I don't consider it my job to direct a blogger on what to post; if you felt like answering the objection, you could have written the post already, Rick. Asking if people want you to is a way of trying to shift responsibility.
Of course, that now leaves 2-6 unanswered.
As documented, I do attempt to engage in rational debates. But, for some reason, atheists are quite fond of making unjustified accusations.
At worst, this means they're at your level, Rick; since you are prone to tossing out assertions with no backing, and then support them (when called upon them) with narrow reeds or weasel-words, or simply redefining your claims and not acknowledging your error.
>They do not contradict science *yet* ...And here's where you're wrong. It *may* be a vain aspiration, like a perpetual motion machine. Or it may be that we haven't found it -
Delete- Valid scientific theories aren't based on pure speculation.
No; but *hypotheses* are. Which is what Sam Harris is offering -- a possibility for future research, and a way to think about the problem.
No one here is treating Sam Harris' hypotheses of morality the way, say, the theory of evolution is treated -- scientific fact.
Because science 'might possibly' 'one day' provide an objective basis for morality does not mean it has or it even can. This is merely wishful thinking, not true science.
And you display further your ignorance. Of *course* that does not mean it has. Indeed, it might not be able to -- but until the research is done, we don't know. Scientists, unlike, apparently, Christian apologists, are comfortable with the idea that we don't know things -- or don't know them yet.
>If a majority of scientists reject the notion that human values may be derived scientifically...
- In your reply, you have not disputed my claim.
That's because, as far as I know, that part is true. Where you go wrong is asserting that "A majority of scientists reject the notion that this can be done" means "It can't be done."
Indeed, your Wikipedia quote mentions it's a source of controversy -- and part of the whole *point* of the scientific approach is that controversy is not a problem, but something to be explored and resolved.
I would certainly not want to have Richard Dawkins in my corner as a "scientific" authority figure.
Considering that the man has done excellent work in popular science, as well as his own scientific work, this says much more about you than about him.
Richard Dawkins' CV lists an article on animal mind reading, "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation"
Have you read the article? Do you know what it says?
while his book The Selfish Gene proposes Memetics. Both subjects are widely considered pseudo science. James W. Polichak's Memes as Pseudoscience and The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience both outline why Memetics is considered pseudoscience. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins#Academic_papers) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience)
Indeed; as it stands now, memetics isn't a science. It's not on firm enough grounding to claim it. On the other hand, that merely puts it at the same level, scientifically speaking, as theology -- a subject that may exist without an object. ;)
In answer to my question:
When will you admit that there is not enough evidence (or any evidence for that matter) which justifies the claim that human values and morality may be based on objective, scientifically observed phenomena?
You offered simple avoidance.
No; I offered a simple answer; I will acknowledge it when you acknowledge the parallel claim I made is also true -- since that will make clear that we mean at least similar things by terms like "objective" and "evidence". I don't see any reason to trust you on this point, and so I will not accept your position.
I have offered several times to write an article on the subject of objective morality from a Christian perspective. Not once have you suggested that would be helpful or desirable for you. Instead, you offer false claims that I do not offer to address your points.
That woud be a point, singular -- and, of course, unless you're also going to argue an objective exegetical theory, it's going to be a useless post.
Are you completely disingenous or is it just a mental block?
I've tried to deal with you in complete honesty. Your failure to stick to anything approaching coherent rules of engagement is not due to anything in my head.
>Go ahead. Post.
Delete- OK, now that you have finally expressed an interest in knowing my opinion on the subject in a brief article, I will put together an article on this subject, the one considered your "most important" point. I cannot promise when it will be finished, as there has been some good news to publish recently, which is quite rare these days all things considered.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/harvest-anaheim-success-as-largest.html
I cannot promise when it will be finished, as there has been some good news to publish recently, which is quite rare these days all things considered.
DeleteWe'll see if it addresses any of the *other* points I raised, which you still haven't addressed. Picking one point out of 6 is a valid attack when you're talking about a derivation -- when it's a response to a critique, it's not.
Imnotandrei, you have claimed that I have not addressed your 6 points noted here:
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html?showComment=1345812251237#c3932232069938471679
The first point was addressed in a new article, posted here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html
2) ">Yet, they feel they have -- and someone *outside* the process has no "logical exegetical process" to determine which one of the two of you is correct. - As I noted in my recent article, Imnotandrei, the basic definition of God required for presenting a logical cohesive understanding of objective morality does not depend any minor denominational questions or differences. And the predominant theme of the above article regarding objective morality does not hung upon any specific denominational framework. I've outlined why in my recent article:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html
3) >Actually, I was thinking of the ones about taking all you have and giving it to the poor… - You are welcome to think about whatever you want to. I don't find this to be a challenge to my points. Your personal thoughts about metaphors are not a critical issue here and your point is not a critical or cogent one.
4) "3) Schools never teach a class on ethics, religion or moral boundaries . - And, since I took such a class, we know this to be false." - OK, well, I don't know how old you are and you have not provided any link to show that public schools today teach such classes. I cannot prove to you that no classes on morality are taught in public schools because you cannot prove a negative. If you have any proof whatsoever that classes on ethics, morality and/or religion are taught in public schools today, why don't you offer some evidence? "Liberal educators insist that morality must not be taught in the school system."
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2113
Even if you cannot find or offer an example, I can clarify the point: "If any public schools today teach classes on ethics, morality and religion, they are extremely rare and in the minority. Sex ed- however, is taught in a majority of public schools."
5) Look back: This is what I wrote: 1. A major, influential Christian thinker exists. - As I've already noted, your example of a"major, influential Christian thinker" is neither considered major nor highly influential. I had never even heard of him before. His academic involvement did not include any influential universities. Peter Singer, on the other hand, is considered a "distinguished professor" at Princeton, one of the top universities in the US. He would be considered both famous and influential by academicians.
6) As raised below, why are we restricted to the NT? - We are not necessarily restricted to the NT, however, the NT represents the fullness of the understanding of the Bible and it helps to inform the meaning of the Old Testament.
Now that I have addressed your points and questions, 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 links, or please apologize for your false statement, as noted at the following link:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/harvest-anaheim-success-as-largest.html?showComment=1346212644349#c2270537992909400837
Imnotandrei, you have claimed that I have not addressed your 6 points noted here:
DeleteIndeed, I did so, at 6:44 A.M. on August 30th. Which was true, at the time; your addressing them on August 31st does not invalidate my claim of the time. I'm glad you got around to it.
2) ">Yet, they feel they have -- and someone *outside* the process has no "logical exegetical process" to determine which one of the two of you is correct. - As I noted in my recent article, Imnotandrei, the basic definition of God required for presenting a logical cohesive understanding of objective morality does not depend any minor denominational questions or differences. And the predominant theme of the above article regarding objective morality does not hung upon any specific denominational framework. I've outlined why in my recent article:
You're not addressing my point -- and I notice that we're back to "minor" denominational differences, like the difference between a Greek Orthodox Christian, a Catholic, and a born-again Christian.
My point is that you have presented no single, accurate logical exegetical process to determine what the Bible says -- and therefore no way to determine the morality contained within, except in the vaguest of terms. After all, "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean "Thou shalt not kill".
You are welcome to think about whatever you want to. I don't find this to be a challenge to my points. Your personal thoughts about metaphors are not a critical issue here and your point is not a critical or cogent one.
You know what -- this isn't worth arguing about. I could restate it more clearly for you, so that you might get the point, but I don't really care enough about your answer to do so.
4) "3) Schools never teach a class on ethics, religion or moral boundaries . - And, since I took such a class, we know this to be false." - OK, well, I don't know how old you are and you have not provided any link to show that public schools today teach such classes.
As usual, Rick, you're redefining your statement to try and be wrong. "Never" is different than "Right now". But even with that:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0602783.htm
3 minutes of Google searching. Or are you going to complain that this was 6 whole years ago?
Or are you going to admit that your statement above was, simply, false. If not, then I admit I begin to wonder whether there's any point in talking to you at all, as even when you are directly contradicted by reality, you refuse to acknowledge error.
Even if you cannot find or offer an example, I can clarify the point: "If any public schools today teach classes on ethics, morality and religion, they are extremely rare and in the minority. Sex ed- however, is taught in a majority of public schools."
This is a new point, not a clarification, Rick. Admit that your first point was *incorrect*, and then we can discuss your new point.
As I've already noted, your example of a"major, influential Christian thinker" is neither considered major nor highly influential. I had never even heard of him before.
DeleteYour ignorance is not a refutation of someone's importance, Rick. And I'd say his influence is far larger than one philosophy professor, though I am pleased to see you hold academe in such high regard that only being important there matters.
Go read the wikipedia page, Rick, and try and come back and tell me with a straight face that he wasn't influential.
You may not *like* him, but that doesn't mean he wasn't influential. he may not have influenced *you*, (though I wonder -- do you support homeschooling? He was very influential in that movement), but that doesn't mean he wasn't influential.
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 links, or please apologize for your false statement, as noted at the following link:
I addressed that at the link in question.
Are you going to admit error in your statements about what public school teaches, or are you going to wiggle and rely on "clarification"?
R:Personally, I would not. But many secular humanists prefer to live for unhealthy pleasures
ReplyDeleteAgain, you have no data to make such claim.
R:Nevertheless, pleasure is considered the highest aim in life for many secular humanists and Harris has not challenged hedonism as a valid atheistic worldview.
Straw man. That is not what humanism is about. Happiness is considered the highest aim in life, not pleasure.
R:Who are you and Harris to say it is their moral duty to do so? Who gave your personal opinions such authority?
Congratulation! Your straw factory has just produced its 100th straw man! Let us try again in capital letters...
HUMANISM IS ABOUT REASON, NOT AUTHORITY! PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER NOT SMOKING.
If morality is about happiness, then it is our moral duty not to smoke.
R:Happiness is subjective.
Sigh... Read about Maslow s theory of needs, which is completely objective. Do you need the link for the 100th time?
R:As noted in the article, try to consider life on the planet and all ecosystems, as opposed to just human life and human flourishing.
Yes, and living in harmony with all the ecosystems will make humanity flourish. One is impossible without the other. Therefore, you have just made a false dychotomy.
R:Your reply is a non sequitur.
Great, maybe there is hope for you. You claim is a non-sequitur as well. If it is trully a top priority to get rid of flies, then starting a nuclear winter is not only morally permissable, it is morally desirable.
R:Different potentials and different functions do not necessarily equate with different values. In an interdependent system, all elements are equally valuable from a pragmatic viewpoint. And, as noted, humans are considered the MOST dangerous element by many.
However, unlike an animal, a human being can fixe the problem by changing his lifestyle. It is not the humans that are the most dangerous element, but their lifestyle.
R:The people of Canaan are not my personal enemies. To me they offer an object lesson from history
Your reading disability is showing again. I said that you base your data on sources from their enemies, not that they are your enemies 8)
R:Do tell why secular humanist professors today train students at Princeton that infanticide and zoophilia are morally acceptable.
Red herring. You claimed that everyone senses that there is an objective basis for morality. However, no one was able to ever agree on those principles, morality differs from one society to another. Therefore, it is logical to make the conclusion that objective morality does not exist.
R:It is not a question of "advanced-or-primitive" - it is a question of whether or not people and cultures are in tune with timeless principles of morality or not.
And you have no objective criteria to establish what those timeless principles are.
R:Firstly, where is a quote stating he advocated genocide. Secondly, I've already pointed out numerous biblical verses that contradict this opinion.
Reading disability showing again... Luther based his principles on the Bible, the same way you do, and he did came to the conclusion that jews are better of dead.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/true-christians-true-scotsmen-and-venn.html?showComment=1344352602988#c2262772314818249697
>Again, you have no data to make such claim. [that] "...many secular humanists prefer to live for unhealthy pleasures"
DeleteSigh
Why are you people in such denial?
You live in Russia, so it's understandable that you missed the sexual revolution. You may have never heard the mantra "sex and drugs and rock and roll." But this attitude of hedonism is really nothing new, as Wikipedia outlines,
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1]
Things haven't changed much since antiquity:
Democritus seems to be the earliest philosopher on record to have categorically embraced a hedonistic philosophy; he called the supreme goal of life "contentment" or "cheerfulness", claiming that "joy and sorrow are the distinguishing mark of things beneficial and harmful" (DK 68 B 188).[3]
And today,
A dedicated contemporary hedonist philosopher and on the history of hedonistic thought is the French Michel Onfray. He defines hedonism "as an introspective attitude to life based on taking pleasure yourself and pleasuring others, without harming yourself or anyone else."[7] "
Sounds pretty much like what most kids are taught about morality in secular humanist public schools every day of every year in our generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
>Straw man. That is not what humanism is about. Happiness is considered the highest aim in life, not pleasure.
- Who are you to claim what the meaning of life is for other secular humanists? One thing is certain, the main purpose of life is not physical wellness for many secular humanists, and philosophically it does not have to be.
>HUMANISM IS ABOUT REASON, NOT AUTHORITY! PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER NOT SMOKING.
- Capital letters do not increase reason or logic. If people are happier not smoking, then why is it a multi-billion dollar industry? Why are people willing to suffer painful cancer and untimely deaths if they do not find any pleasure or sense of satisfaction in smoking?
BTW - Christopher Hitchens, an avid smoker and an atheist apologist, died of esophageal cancer, which is often linked with cigarette smoking. Would you say he was stupid or unable to reason?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/esophageal-cancer-christopher-hitchens-pneumonia_n_1154221.html
>Read about Maslow s theory of needs,
- We are discussing a supposed objective basis of right and wrong. A theory of needs has the same underlying philosophical problem for humans, i.e. what are the qualifications for deciding what humans need the most. Is the need of humanity more a moral question or a physical one? Christians believe it is the former. Who is Maslow to make that decision for all of humanity?
>Yes, and living in harmony with all the ecosystems will make humanity flourish.
- Can you show where Harris has outlined that distinction?
>However, unlike an animal, a human being can fixe the problem by changing his lifestyle.
- There is no reason to believe that corrupt, selfish humanity will change for the better.
>I said that you base your data on sources from their enemies, not that they are your enemies.
- Not sure what you mean here and who specificially you are referring to.
>Therefore, it is logical to make the conclusion that objective morality does not exist.
- So, you disagree with Harris?
>And you have no objective criteria to establish what those timeless principles are.
- As I mentioned to Imnotandrei, I can write an article on this subject if you like.
>Luther based his principles on the Bible
- I've already shown numerous verses that outline why his attitude towards the Jews was not in keeping with the body of scripture and cannot be justified by scripture. Becoming a Christian does not automatically make one perfect, just forgiven. :-)
R:But this attitude of hedonism is really nothing new, as Wikipedia outlines...
DeleteSince when hedonism and secular humanism (two distinct phylosophical stances) have become the same thing?
R:One thing is certain, the main purpose of life is not physical wellness for many secular humanists, and philosophically it does not have to be.
You are distorting my words. I said - happiness, not physical wellness. So the question boils down to: Is a person happier not smoking rather than smoking?
R:Capital letters do not increase reason or logic
At least it is easier for you to notice capital letters and that is a great help against your reading disability.
R:If people are happier not smoking, then why is it a multi-billion dollar industry? Why are people willing to suffer painful cancer and untimely deaths if they do not find any pleasure or sense of satisfaction in smoking?
For the same reason why the illegal drug sales are a multi-billion industry. And people are willing to suffer painful cancer and untimely death because they often do not understand the consequences of their actions or they are already addicted to tobacco.
R:Would you say he was stupid or unable to reason?
I have told you before. An intelligent person is not immune to stupid actions.
R:We are discussing a supposed objective basis of right and wrong
Yes, and from my version of morality (which seems similar to Sam Harris s one), happiness is the foundation of morality. Therfore, what brings happiness is right and what decreases happiness is wrong.
R:Christians believe it is the former. Who is Maslow to make that decision for all of humanity?
Read about Maslow to know who he is. He was a talented psychologist who studied healthy human beings. His conclusions, made mainly 60 years ago, remain mostly unchalenged. He did prove that fullfiling certain objective requiremants will make a person happy.
R:Can you show where Harris has outlined that distinction?
I have not read his book, hence I am unable to. However, your point of view that corruption can never disapear is the same view from the past that slavery can never disapear.
R:Not sure what you mean here and who specificially you are referring to.
I am refering to the people who wrote the Bible. They were almost certainly Jews who considered the Cannan their enemies. It would be like considering Jews despicable based on Nazi propaganda.
R:So, you disagree with Harris?
No, I disagree with you who consider morality to be independant of human nature. My human morality is based on objective human needs.
R:I've already shown numerous verses that outline why his attitude towards the Jews was not in keeping with the body of scripture and cannot be justified by scripture.
I know your stance on that problem and you have no need to publish a second article. The problem would be that Luther and many others based their principles on the same bible you do, hence bible verses cannot be an objective criteria to establish what is right or wrong.
Do we need to start a useless competition on who can gather most bible verses to support their position and lunch a useless debate on who s interpretention of them is right? I think not.
>people are willing to suffer painful cancer and untimely death because they often do not understand the consequences of their actions or they are already addicted to tobacco.
Delete- Actually, Christopher Hitchens clearly understood the consequences of his smoking habit. HE made an intellectual decision to continue smoking. I added a little to the article yesterday, just for you, and with a special note, (Revised August 19, 2012):
"Christopher Hitchens, a highly intelligent atheist apologist, was an avid smoker who ended up dying of cancer. When diagnosed with esophageal cancer, Hitchens explained in an interview why he was adamant in not choosing to live a healthier life:
"All the time, I've felt that life is a wager and that I probably was getting more out of leading a bohemian existence as a writer than I would have if I didn't," he said in the video interview. "Writing is what's important to me, and anything that helps me do that -- or enhances and prolongs and deepens and sometimes intensifies argument and conversation -- is worth it to me. So I was knowingly taking a risk. I wouldn't recommend it to others."[7]"
So, will you admit that you were wrong? Will you admit that it is philosophically valid for a secular humanist to choose to smoke in order to be inspired to create what he or she considers to be highly valuable art and works of writing?
R:Actually, Christopher Hitchens clearly understood the consequences of his smoking habit. HE made an intellectual decision to continue smoking.
DeleteReading diasability detected... Let us repeat my quote with capital letters at the part you failed to register...
"people are willing to suffer painful cancer and untimely death because they often do not understand the consequences of their actions OR THEY ARE ALREADY ADDICTED TO TOBACCO".
I doubt Hitchens started smoking when he was in his 30s and that sounds just like lazy excuse to keep smoking in my opinion.
R:So, will you admit that you were wrong? Will you admit that it is philosophically valid for a secular humanist to choose to smoke in order to be inspired to create what he or she considers to be highly valuable art and works of writing?
Hitchen s case is mainly a red herring. Again, inspiration can be acquired without drugs or tobacco. There is no need to harm yourself for such a purpose. Hence, smoking would still be immoral.
You ignored most of my post and focused on a minor detail (you still mix up hedonism and secular humanism, you still do not bother to read Maslow s paper, you still claim that corruption cannot be eradicated, you still are unable to refute the problem of different interpretentions of the bible and so on).
But to close off the discussion about Hitchens and his bad habit, I will repeat my question from before: Is a person happier smoking or not smoking? Or would Hitchens and society have been happier him not smoking rather than smoking? Would he had been any less of a writer if he did not smoke?
I believe the answer to those questions is evident enough.
>Reading diasability detected...OR THEY ARE ALREADY ADDICTED TO TOBACCO".
Delete- Reading disability detected, Christopher Hitchens clearly understood the consequences of his smoking habit. He did not smoke because he was addicted, he stated, "I was knowingly taking a risk." Not only that, in the linked interview he claimed he would have started smoking all over again if he had the chance. In other words, he had a pre-addiction commitment to an end-justifies-the-means rationale of using cigarettes to help maximize his creativity and production.
So, NOW will you admit that you were wrong? Will you admit that it is philosophically valid for a secular humanist to choose to smoke in order to be inspired to create what he or she considers to be highly valuable art and works of writing?
R:Christopher Hitchens clearly understood the consequences of his smoking habit.
DeleteWhen did he start smoking? Most people start smoking in their late teen years. That is not an age when a person fully understand the consequences of such actions. And it doe not matter what Hitchens said 40 years later.
R:Not only that, in the linked interview he claimed he would have started smoking all over again if he had the chance.
And that sounds to me like a pathetic excuse to keep smoking.
R:Will you admit that it is philosophically valid for a secular humanist to choose to smoke in order to be inspired to create what he or she considers to be highly valuable art and works of writing?
You ignored my questions from the post above...Let us try again:
"But to close off the discussion about Hitchens and his bad habit, I will repeat my question from before: Is a person happier smoking or not smoking? Or would Hitchens and society have been happier him not smoking rather than smoking? Would he had been any less of a writer if he did not smoke?"
Only if you prove that Hitchens was happier smoking and was a better writer because of it, will I admit I am wrong.
P.S. And to answer to your question for who-knows-which-time... There is no need to smoke to be inspired and create highly valuable art and works of writing, there are plenty of healthy alternatives to smoking. Hence, harming yourself for such goal would be stupid and immoral.
DeleteI also could not resist posting a quote from Harris. In my opinion, the principles of a psychopath and a smoker are similar in this case:
Delete"On a related point, the philosopher Russell Blackford wrote, “I’ve never yet seen an argument that shows that psychopaths are necessarily mistaken about some fact about the world. Moreover, I don’t see how the argument could run…” Well, here it is in brief: We already know that psychopaths have brain damage that prevents them from having certain deeply satisfying experiences (like empathy) which seem good for people both personally and collectively (in that they tend to increase wellbeing on both counts). Psychopaths, therefore, don’t know what they are missing (but we do). The position of a psychopath also cannot be generalized; it is not, therefore, an alternative view of how human beings should live (this is one point Kant got right: even a psychopath couldn’t want to live in a world filled with psychopaths). We should also realize that the psychopath we are envisioning is a straw man: Watch interviews with real psychopaths, and you will find that they do not tend to claim to be in possession of an alternative morality or to be living deeply fulfilling lives. These people are generally ruled by compulsions that they don’t understand and cannot resist. It is absolutely clear that, whatever they might believe about what they are doing, psychopaths are seeking some form of wellbeing (excitement, ecstasy, feelings of power, etc.), but because of their neurological deficits, they are doing a very bad job of it. We can say that a psychopath like Ted Bundy takes satisfaction in the wrong things, because living a life purposed toward raping and killing women does not allow for deeper and more generalizable forms of human flourishing. Compare Bundy’s deficits to those of a delusional physicist who finds meaningful patterns and mathematical significance in the wrong places (John Nash might have been a good example, while suffering the positive symptoms of his schizophrenia). His “Eureka!” detectors are poorly coupled to reality; he sees meaningful patterns where most people would not—and these patterns will be a very poor guide to the proper goals of physics (i.e. understanding the physical world). Is there any doubt that Ted Bundy’s “Yes! I love this!” detectors were poorly coupled to the possibilities of finding deep fulfillment in this life, or that his overriding obsession with raping and killing young women was a poor guide to the proper goals of morality (i.e. living a fulfilling life with others)?"
http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/
>Ted Bundy takes satisfaction in the wrong things,
Delete- I was hoping that the smoking question would help you, but you still don't get it. Science and secular humanists do not have a valid basis for claiming what is objectively and universally right and wrong. This question of objective moral values is ultimately a teleological question that they cannot answer. The sooner you and others here can admit this, the better.
R:I was hoping that the smoking question would help you, but you still don't get it. Science and secular humanists do not have a valid basis for claiming what is objectively and universally right and wrong.
DeleteChanging the topic completely...well, nothing new...But you are right, I do not get why you deny happiness as the basis of objective morality. I doubt that I will get an answer, nut I will still post my questions. 8)
First, let us get a definition of morality:
"Morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/morality
So why science is unable to answer the question what is good for you or what is bad for you even if there is objective criteria involved? We know about the consequences of specific actions. We know what consequences are preferable to the individuals and society. So what is the problem?
R:This question of objective moral values is ultimately a teleological question that they cannot answer.
An objective basis for morality was just given to you in the form of happiness (and yes, it is OBJECTIVE, check Maslow s paper). You can deny that all you want, but that does not change the fact.
>First, let us get a definition of morality:
Delete"Morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad"
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/morality
So why science is unable to answer the question what is good for you or what is bad for you
>You, Sam Harris, Dawkins and the atheist commenters at this blog all seem to have a serious problem understudying the nature of morality. The definition you just gave outlined questions of "right" and "wrong." Science, pragmatism, utilitarianism, all these things do not provide a platform for discerning what may be considered objectively right and wrong.
What many atheists refuse to acknowledge is that moral questions are not scientific and utilitarian in nature, but are philosophical and teleological questions. This is perhaps the most difficult admission many atheists could possibly make, but it's a starting point.
Maslow's "needs" do not provide a basis of determining objective right and wrong.
R:The definition you just gave outlined questions of "right" and "wrong." Science, pragmatism, utilitarianism, all these things do not provide a platform for discerning what may be considered objectively right and wrong.
DeleteOk, I seriously do not understand you, Rick. Though, I am trying hard. 8)
Again let us start with the definition of "right" and "wrong" in a moral framework:
1) Right - the most desirable action
2) Wrong - the most undesirable action
So why happiness cannot provide a platform about what is objectively right and wrong? We know enough about human nature to understand at least in principle what is the most desirable course of action and what is the most undesirable course of action for humanity and an individual human being.
What are you looking for, Rick? An objective morality that is completely divorced from reality? So far you have dismissed happiness as the foundation of an objective (i.e. independant from individuals and society) morality, but you never explained why.
>Ok, I seriously do not understand you, Rick. Though, I am trying hard. 8) ... (Science, pragmatism, utilitarianism, all these things do not provide a platform for discerning what may be considered objectively right and wrong.)
Delete- It's really quite simple.
Science does not purport to address the deeper "why questions" - For example, "Why does the universe exist?" and "What is the ultimate meaning and purpose of life?"
The questions of morality are ultimately dependent on the deeper "why questions" - teleological issues.
Therefore, science is ultimately not qualified to answer questions on morality.
Get it?
R:Science does not purport to address the deeper "why questions" - For example, "Why does the universe exist?" and "What is the ultimate meaning and purpose of life?"
DeleteYou are wrong about the fact that science does not address the deeper "why questions". It lacks an answer for now because of insuficient data, but that does not mean that there will never be a scientific answer. In the future it is still possible that science will answer the question why the Universe exists and we have good evidence for that (we managed to learn about the big bang after all).
And why do you classify morality in the range of those "deeper why questions"? To quote myself from the previous post: "We know enough about human nature to understand at least in principle what is the most desirable course of action (i.e. right) and what is the most undesirable course of action (i.e. wrong) for humanity and an individual human being."
Again, why is happiness not enough of a basis for objecyive morality to you?
>There is no need to smoke to be inspired and create highly valuable art and works of writing, there are plenty of healthy alternatives to smoking.
Delete- Hitchens felt that smoking in the context of "living a bohemian life" i.e. drinking and smoking together, among other things, was what helped his creativity, as many other writers, philosophers and artists have felt through the ages:
"All the time, I've felt that life is a wager and that I probably was getting more out of leading a bohemian existence as a writer than I would have if I didn't," he said in the video interview.
He felt he was "getting more" as a creative writer with this specific unhealthy lifestyle. Living a healthy lifestyle would have diluted his creativity. Who are you to judge he is wrong in his opinion that his particular creativity was based on his lifestyle? How do you know what maximizes a person's creativity?
>Again, why is happiness not enough of a basis for objecyive morality to you?
Hitchen's claims he was happier as a bohemian smoker, but you cannot accept the possibly that self-destructive actions can give a secular humanist a sense of satisfaction in life. Why?
R:He felt he was "getting more" as a creative writer with this specific unhealthy lifestyle. Living a healthy lifestyle would have diluted his creativity.
DeleteYes, and many athletes think that lucky underwere will help them win a desicive match. Do lucky underwere really help people by improving their abilities or their "luck"? That is the same nonsense as with tobacco and I can provide plenty of stupid superstitions that people believe in.
How would living a healthy lifestyle dilute his creativity?
R:Who are you to judge he is wrong in his opinion that his particular creativity was based on his lifestyle? How do you know what maximizes a person's creativity?
Sigh... I know that you are unable to think wothout an outside authority, but people usually use their brians to answer questions like that. Read about the subject of creativity in psychology and cognitive science. A destructive lifestyle does not increase creativity. That is the answer of science.
R:Hitchen's claims he was happier as a bohemian smoker, but you cannot accept the possibly that self-destructive actions can give a secular humanist a sense of satisfaction in life. Why?
For the same reason I do not trust the claim of a drug addict that he is happier being drugged. As with Ted Byundy those people take pleasure in the wrong things.
>I can provide plenty of stupid superstitions
Delete- This is not a superstition. This is a life choice based upon human free will. You are attempting to project your values onto another secular humanist and you have no valid justification for doing so based on your "science of health" approach.
1. Hitchens is morally justified in smoking cigarettes (against his human well-ness) according to his secular humanist views because he chose 'to live to create' and he believed cigarettes helped him to motivate and inspire him to be more creative.
How would living a healthy lifestyle dilute his creativity?
Read about the lives of many "great" atheist artists and find out the answer to this question.
>people usually use their brians to answer questions like that.
- The questions of morality and values are not questions about intelligence. I will keep repeating my points until they sink in or until there is a valid objection:
The reason Hitchens is justified in his opinion, as I pointed out, is because science is not suited to address deeper questions, such as the meaning of life and moral questions are based on such fundamental questions. Do you personally believe that science is adequate for addressing the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
As noted, science depends on logic, while logic does not depend on science for making objective determinations about the nature of truth and meaning. Do you deny this?
This is why philosophy holds primacy over science as a means for determining questions of meaning and existence.
Do you deny that these statements are true? On what basis?
R:This is not a superstition.
DeleteIs there any study whatsoever that found positive correlation between smoking and creativity? If not, what differs it from superstitions?
However, we have enough information about the harm from smoking. So why harm yourself for something that has healthy alternatives and is likely not even working?
R:Hitchens is morally justified in smoking cigarettes (against his human well-ness) according to his secular humanist views because he chose 'to live to create' and he believed cigarettes helped him to motivate and inspire him to be more creative.
Again, you base that on a single opinion that has no more merit than the opinion of Ted Bundy on rape or the opinion of a crack addict on the legalization of drugs.
R:Read about the lives of many "great" atheist artists and find out the answer to this question.
Let us repeat your favorite mantra...
Correlation does not equal causation, correlation does not equal causation, correlation does not equal causation....
Did it sunk in? An unhealthy lifestyle DOES NOT make a person creative. We have plenty evidence for that among people who lead unhealthy lifestyles, but are not creative.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that a healthy lifestyle make a person uncreative. Can you name a single artist whose abilities has dropped after starting a turn from a unhealthy lifestyle to a healthy lifestyle? Do you want me to name a dozen of artists whose creativity has decreased because of drugs?
I also notice that for some reason you exclude theist artists (which is the majority), even if the same rules apply to them.
R:The questions of morality and values are not questions about intelligence.
How many times are you going to repeat the same bold assertion? Prove it be so, do not just assert this. Why do you think that Psychology and cognitive science cannot in any way address the issue of creativity even if articles are published on the matter?
R:The reason Hitchens is justified in his opinion, as I pointed out, is because science is not suited to address deeper questions, such as the meaning of life and moral questions are based on such fundamental questions
Bold assertion. Prove it is not suited, do not just assert it.
R:Do you personally believe that science is adequate for addressing the question, "What is the meaning of life?"
Yes it is. And so far there is no evidence for higher meaning in life outside of humanity self-determined meaning.
R:As noted, science depends on logic, while logic does not depend on science for making objective determinations about the nature of truth and meaning. Do you deny this?
False dychotomy. Science uses logic as a tool and is unable to function without it. Logic is empty without science to check its premises.
R:This is why philosophy holds primacy over science as a means for determining questions of meaning and existence.
And without the involvment of science that is just armchair philosophy that has little to do with reality.
>False dychotomy. Science uses logic as a tool and is unable to function without it. Logic is empty without science to check its premises.
DeleteNo, it's not a false dichotomy at all. Science simply does not address the nature of truth, the nature of logic, the nature of reason. It simply presupposes these exist and are valid tools.
Demonstrate this and show some links to back up your point:
"Logic is empty without science to check its premises."
You are putting the cart before the horse. :-)
R:Science simply does not address the nature of truth, the nature of logic, the nature of reason. It simply presupposes these exist and are valid tools.
DeleteScience is based mainly on observations and experiments. And the scientific methode is the best one that can explain our universe so far. It is true that science has some neccessary axioms at its core, which have been proven sound through different experiments like the laws of logic. But that does not mean that the nature of logic will never be understood by science. For now we just lack the neccessary data for such thing.
And we have plenty of data on the nature of reason, i.e. the mind, thanks to neuroscience. We also have made enough observations on human nature to conclude what is right and what is wrong dor an individual and society. So why do you insist on grouping morality in the cathegory of things we lack data about?
R:Demonstrate this and show some links to back up your point:
Which point? I have already provided you links to Maslow s theory of needs, the fullfilment of which will objectively make a person happy. Happiness is the basis of my conclusions on what is wrong and what is right. What more do you need from me?
R:You are putting the cart before the horse. :-)
Logic is part of science. It is useless to try to separate them.
It would be nice if you did respond to this post. I am very curious about hearing your reasons this time. Though, you ignoring your opponent is nothing new 8)
DeleteBTW, imnotandrei, if you do not mind, could you also explain to me the reason why you do not consider smoking as immoral?
DeleteI agree with your interpretention of human flourishing, but I think that the amount of satisfaction or other possible benefits from smoking does not justify the risks for health. Of course, the gravity of the act is not as big as murder or some other crime, but it is still wrong in my opinion. To me it always did boil down to - is a person happier smoking than not smoking? Taking into account the potential happiness lost because of smoking, the answer seemed obvious to me.
P.S. And yes, I occasionnaly do smoke cigars. I know that it is wrong, but I still do it 8)
could you also explain to me the reason why you do not consider smoking as immoral?
DeleteHow shall we put this -- because smoking is like hiking in the wilderness. ;)
Because both of them are activities that heighten the enjoyment of life by the people who do them, while still placing a social cost on the rest of society (medical treatments and second-hand smoke on the one hand, the costs of search-and-rescue missions, on the other), and it is not easy to draw a line and say "This one is moral" and "this one is not".
I think that Sam Harris believes that one could, given *enough* data, find a line between "This is improving the general well-being and flourishing of humanity" and "This is decreasing it" -- but I am not even sure that that specific line is the appropriate one to draw, unless values like freedom have already been included in it.
I am, politically, an anarcho-socialist; but the notion of freedom embodied in the first half of that is of primary importance to me.
but I think that the amount of satisfaction or other possible benefits from smoking does not justify the risks for health.
While I admit I am here at the "insufficient data" line; I consider smoking to be inadvisable, but I am not prepared to make the statement that it is "morally wrong" -- at least not unless I'm prepared to give up some of my own pleasures that are arguable in that category, even if *I* find them acceptable risks.
Taking into account the potential happiness lost because of smoking, the answer seemed obvious to me.
While it's not, to me. It's too big an equation with too many unknowns. You may well be right -- indeed, the decrease in smoking suggests you very well may be -- but I can't be sure, and I'm certainly not going to establish a single moral scalar basted on health, as Rick is trying to generate as his straw-man; I refer you to John Sladek's "The Happy Breed" from Dangerous Visions for why. (Well, and because it's a good story.)
Damn... Not much to argue about and here I was hoping to draw some blood 8)
DeleteI do think that freedom is included in the system proposed by Harris. After all, an unfree society cannot really be considered as thriving in the full sense. As always, one s freedom should only be limited by the freedom of others. I think that a rational person, conscious of the risks involved would not wish to start smoking in the first place. But a perfect rational person is almost impossible. Hence, one should have the right to lead a destructive lifestyle (be it tobacco, drugs or suicide) if it does not directly affect others and they understand the consequences of their action. But it would also be the duty of society to strongly discourage such behavior.
After all, morality is not an enforced law, but a principle.
I think that a rational person, conscious of the risks involved would not wish to start smoking in the first place.
DeleteProbably not; but I don't think that irrational = immoral. ;) (I know -- you probably don't , iether.)
After all, morality is not an enforced law, but a principle.
Indeed, but moral reasons are often used as the reason to pass a law, and any "objective" morals would, I fear, be even more often so treated.
>Science is based mainly on observations and experiments. And the scientific methode is the best one that can explain our universe so far.
Delete- You still have not shown how science informs "ought" from "is" which is a condition of "objective" secular humanist morality.
>And we have plenty of data on the nature of reason, i.e. the mind, thanks to neuroscience.
- Morality is not based on mere reason or the mind. Objective secular humanist morality must demonstrate "how ought is derived from is"
>Which point? I have already provided you links to Maslow s theory of needs,
- You just don't seem to get it and maybe never will. Maslow's theory of needs does not provide an objective basis for determining ought from is. If you believe it does, explain how.
R:You still have not shown how science informs "ought" from "is" which is a condition of "objective" secular humanist morality.
DeleteI did.
1. Happiness is the basis of my morality.
2. To achieve happiness some objective steps need to be taken as Maslow and other psychologists have proven.
3. There is also a consensus that every person wishes to be happy (in the sense of virtue ethics from Aristothel). There is no need to make a differance between "ought" and "is" in this case.
R:Objective secular humanist morality must demonstrate "how ought is derived from is"
"Ought" is derived from our human nature, from our evolution both biological and cultural. We "ought" to act that way because that will bring the most happiness to us.
Better example:
Delete1) I AM overweight.
2) Overweight IS correlated with health problems
3) Health Problems causes unnecessary suffering for me and my family
4) Therefore, I OUGHT to control my diet and exercise to prevent suffering for my family and me.
Thank you, Kevin,
DeleteYour comment refers back to the same issue of Hitchens choosing to smoke and Marlon Brando gorging on ice cream. If these two prefer to enjoy things that make them unhealthy, as a value greater than long-term health, then explain why this should be considered immoral. According to what law or standard is log-term health better than short-term pleasure for humanists? I'm not suggesting that I agree with either standard of morality. I believe that the basis of morality is God's goodness. But you haven't offered valid evidence for a basis or secular morality. Thanks again for your comment, though.
R:If these two prefer to enjoy things that make them unhealthy, as a value greater than long-term health, then explain why this should be considered immoral.
DeleteAs always, Rick, you fail to understand what morality is. Personal preferences are irrelevant in morality. In the moral system I presented to you, long-term health leads to greater happiness for yourself and those around you than short-term individual pleasure from smoking or overeating.
R:According to what law or standard is log-term health better than short-term pleasure for humanists?
First of all, there are several moral systems that do not rely on an sky daddy, telling you what is right and what is wrong. Go educate yourself a little. Secondly, you are still a moral failure for not understanding how one could have a moral standard without god. Thirdly, I did show you several times my standard of morality to you. The fact that you choose to dismiss happiness as a standard is not my problem, but yours.
>R:If these two prefer to enjoy things that make them unhealthy, as a value greater than long-term health, then explain why this should be considered immoral.
Delete- Anonymous, whoever you are, you seem to be completely missing the point. It was the previous poster, Kevin, who was claiming that we OUGHT to be healthy (i.e., it is a moral code we are supposed to live by)., as noted:
4) Therefore, I OUGHT to control my diet and exercise to prevent suffering for my family and me.
I asked for some objective philosophical basis for his opinion.... Please try to at least read the previous comments and context before you jump in with your opinion.
R:Anonymous, whoever you are, you seem to be completely missing the point.
DeleteRick, I am the same rusanon from before. Since right now I have some time to waste I decided to humor you.
R:I asked for some objective philosophical basis for his opinion....
And an objective basis grounded in science and psychology in the form of happiness was given to you.
If you do not understand the difference between raping a poor sheep and a fulfilled romantic relationship between two human beings, you are a sociopath. A normal human being does not need a god concept to understand which action objectively is wrong and which is right, as well as which objectively brings happiness.
If we go by your concept of happiness, any action leads to happiness as long as it brings pleasure to the individual. Be it smoking, overeating or drug abuse... You make it sound like it is just a matter of personal preference. A person claiming that he is more happy as an alcoholic than as a sober person is just delusional. Tha is why your examples of Hitchens or Brando are irrelevant as personel delusions.
If we go back to Kevin s example, being overweight OBJECTIVELY causes unnecessary suffering to yourself and the people around you. Tha harm and suffering in this case by far outweighs personel pleasure from overeating.
>If you do not understand the difference between raping a poor sheep and a fulfilled romantic relationship between two human beings, you are a sociopath.
Delete- Whoa there cowboy. It seems like you are making a vague reference to the "distinguished" Princeton professor Peter Singer and perhaps PZ Meyers as well.
Just for context, Peter Singer is highly respected among secular humanist academicians, though he supports bestiality. He was a speaker at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention. I guess they allow "sociopaths" to speak there, in your opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
And you still don't seem to have support for your view here:
"If we go back to Kevin s example, being overweight OBJECTIVELY causes unnecessary suffering to yourself and the people around you."
If a person prefers to eat a lot and be overweight, according to what standard is that person's long term health morally better than his short-term pleasure of enjoying food? If you are a utilitarian, that is fine. But why should Hitchens, Brando or anyone else choose this?
BTW utilitarianism is the basis of Peter Singer's bestiality support as well. You are both utilitarians:
"Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights."
Your moral position is a consequence of adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to eating food.
So on what basis do you judge Peter Singer as an atheist secular humanist and a fellow utilitarian as you are?
Do explain.
Warden
ReplyDeleteWho are you and Harris to say it is their moral duty to do so? Who gave your personal opinions such authority?
And just who the hell are you Rick, to pretend to make all sorts of assumptions about what secular humanists want and value? Especially as is being continually shown, your views are nothing but strawmen?
>And just who the hell are you Rick, to pretend to make all sorts of assumptions about what secular humanists want and value?
Delete- I'm not making any assumptions at all. It's a documented fact that Christopher Hitchens, for example, was an avid smoker who was highly intelligent realizing that his brief pleasures would mitigate his human wellness.
Hitchens chose pleasure over wellness. Who is Sam Harris to claim that Christopher Hitchen's life was immoral according to the basic tenets of secular humanism which offers no platform for determining the value of life lived for pleasure versus the value of life lived for wellness?
Answer: Harris has no valid philosophical right to make such a claim.
Harris has no valid philosophical right to make such a claim.
DeleteYou have failed to demonstrate that he *does* make the claim you say he makes, Rick.
Don't take my word for it, take an atheist's, Luke Muehlhauser's:
DeleteSo again we ask: Why “must” we define moral goodness in terms of the well-being of conscious creatures? What is the positive argument for this?
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12020
That quote, and that article, don't support this statement:
DeleteWho is Sam Harris to claim that Christopher Hitchen's life was immoral according to the basic tenets of secular humanism which offers no platform for determining the value of life lived for pleasure versus the value of life lived for wellness?
What your quote challenges is "Why is *this* a basis for morality", not that he claimed Hitchens' life was immoral.
Try reading what you cite, Rick -- this is the third or fourth time I've noticed you citing things that don't really support what you say, perhaps in the hopes no one will check your links.
Ah, the Warden Gallop (by analogy with the Gish Gallop) continues; when you're boxed into a corner in other threads, as always, you start a new one and pretend the others didn't exist. Charming.
ReplyDeletemultiple gratuitous accolades
What makes them "gratuitous", Rick?
But this begs the question for secular humanists, "Who is to say that we have a moral duty, a moral obligation, to be healthy, to propagate and to flourish?"
As usual, you're asking for an authority answer. I refer you to Kant; "act in such a way as if your laws can be treated as universal law." If people act that way, you have a useful moral law.
As for the rest of your discussion, you manage to draw a false divide between "healthy" and "pleasurable", trying to draw only one of them as moral.
This is your usual approach -- defining only "moral" and "immoral" rather than allowing for a variety of moral approaches. Is mountain biking moral, even though it carries a risk of injury? Is gymnastics moral, even though many of the participants suffer injuries that impair them for the parts of the rest of their life? Is football "moral"?
You hit the key here: "There is no "right" answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" in accordance with secular humanism."
There are multiple answers. People are different. So why do you insist on a single meaning -- a single answer? Why does there have to be one?
Who is Sam Harris to claim that the behavior of secular humanist artists and hedonists should be considered immoral because they like to smoke cigarettes, which is considered unhealthy and does not promote human flourishing?
Citation, please?
"How can human flourishing be considered an objective basis for morality when it is possible for evil societies to flourish for quite some time in comparison to other societies?"
You're drawing another false distinction; many of the humans in that society didn't flourish.
And, if you don't need to justify the supposed goodness of a divine entity, you don't need to explain away why a bad society can flourish for a while, at the expense of others. Morality is only something that needs to be directly reflected in the way the world actually works when you presume there is some all-benevolent God behind things.
For someone who doesn't accept that, morality is something to be aimed for, not something to be expected and dismissed if not found.
In attempting to eliminate God from the equation s the central truth, atheists eschew logic on all fronts[14]
And the gallop continues -- your article has been deconstructed, and yet you still cite it as if it had value.
You may win, soon, Rick, though -- I am getting tired of arguing with someone who argues in bad faith, and I don't think enough other people read this to make dismantling your fallacies and lies worthwhile.
Ah, the Warden Gallop (by analogy with the Gish Gallop) continues..
Delete- If you remember, making generalizations about *Christian* counties does not address the need to qualify whether or not specific Olympic athletes are genuine Christians or simply nominal representatives of a country.
If you don't ant to deal in specifics, you don't have to. But don't pretend you are addressing issues by simply making generalized statements.
>What makes them "gratuitous", Rick?
- Because they are just for show, to try and make Harris look good, and are not based on reality, that's what.
>"act in such a way as if your laws can be treated as universal law." If people act that way, you have a useful moral law.
- To use a maxim, a turn of phrase to show that our acts may be used as examples to follow is not the same as claiming that our acts are in fact valid universal laws which others are obligated to follow. I hope you can tell the difference.
>As for the rest of your discussion, you manage to draw a false divide between "healthy" and "pleasurable", trying to draw only one of them as moral.
- No, I don't consider either of them as any kind of moral ends in themselves.
>This is your usual approach -- defining only "moral" and "immoral" rather than allowing for a variety of moral approaches.
- I am not the one erroneously attempting to claim that these subjective ideas may in fact be objective moral foundations.
>There are multiple answers. People are different. So why do you insist on a single meaning -- a single answer? Why does there have to be one?
- With regard to secular humanism, that is a good question to ask Sam Harris, not me.
>Citation, please?
- Harris' objective moral foundation is based on his preconceived view of the primacy of human wellness. I included a quote today under the section about hedonism if you want to read it.
>You're drawing another false distinction; many of the humans in that society didn't flourish.
- Are moral codes based on viewing the individual irrespective of society altogether or are they viewed together?
>And the gallop continues -- your article has been deconstructed, and yet you still cite it as if it had value.
- I'm not sure what comment you may be referring to here. Can you post a link?
- If you remember, making generalizations about *Christian* counties does not address the need to qualify whether or not specific Olympic athletes are genuine Christians or simply nominal representatives of a country.
DeleteAnd if you go back and look, since you want to keep things in the appropriate thread, I've responded to your claims, including the fact that you claimed to have "rebutted" them with an example you never posted before that post.
- Because they are just for show, to try and make Harris look good, and are not based on reality, that's what.
By that standard, Rick, I could assert that your entire written output is "gratuitous" -- it's jsut for show, to try and make your particular notion of a deity look good, and it's not based on reality.
The people who wrote them presumably felt they were based on reality, and they're book-back quotes; they're designed to make people interested in the book.
a turn of phrase to show that our acts may be used as examples to follow is not the same as claiming that our acts are in fact valid universal laws which others are obligated to follow.
And Kant wasn't claiming they were. Indeed, most secular humanists would not claim their actions were moral strictures on others; it's a matter of ensuring one's acts are moral, not that other people's are.
- No, I don't consider either of them as any kind of moral ends in themselves.
Sorry -- I made a little mistake in clarity -- you were trying to argue that Harris was calling "healthy" moral, and "pleasurable" not.
So why do you insist on a single meaning -- a single answer? Why does there have to be one?
- With regard to secular humanism, that is a good question to ask Sam Harris, not me.
You're the one demanding secular humanism give a single answer, not Sam Harris, so I'm asking *you*.
I asked for a citation supporting the assertion you made that Sam Harris would consider smoking immoral, and you said you'd added a citation, which appears to be this:
“If there are objective truths to be known about human well-being—if kindness, for instance, is generally more conducive to happiness than cruelty is—then science should one day be able to make very precise claims about which of our behaviors and uses of attention are morally good, which are neutral, and which are worth abandoning,”
1) I fail to see how this addresses your claim, and
2) He refers to "well-being" and "happiness", not "health". Harris appears to have a much more nuanced understanding of "flourishing" than you are willing to give him credit for; your straw-Harris is far more simplistic than the real thing.
- Are moral codes based on viewing the individual irrespective of society altogether or are they viewed together?
Remember how you were complaining about judging entire countries, rather than individuals in the countries, when looking at the effect of Christianity on Olympic medals?
Yet here you are judging entire countries and expecting country-wide results on the basis of morals.
So which one is it, Rick? Is your judgment about the flourishing Canaanites invalid, or your judgment about the successful atheist countries at the Olympics invalid? They can't both be.
- I'm not sure what comment you may be referring to here. Can you post a link?
I notice you deleted the bit of your post that I *cited* with the link in it -- footnote 14 of this post. Try and learn to read more than one sentence back.
>I've responded to your claims,
Delete- No, you haven't. At least as far as I am aware.
If you have, you've posted testimonies of *Christian* athletes from the Philippines as I requested? Please show the link to your comment so we can all see these valid examples of the *Christian* athletes from the Philippines who did not win any medals.
As noted, my articles examples include testimonies and personal quotes outlining a vital, living faith in Christ.
So you are not a true christian unless you shout about it left and right? Interesting...
DeleteI cannot stop wondering, though... Why is Bush Junior not a true christian even if he did shout about that left and right? Ah yes... I forgot that W does not live up to your interpretention of the bible, that only the holy spirit can point out which is true. Of course, Rick has the holy spirit within himself even if he has no evidence of it being so. Hence, Rick must be right. 8)
>So you are not a true christian unless you shout about it left and right?
Delete- No, shouting does not prove anything.
True Christians, True Scotsmen and Venn Diagrams
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/true-christians-true-scotsmen-and-venn.html
Sometimes it takes a few readings before content sinks in.
Yes, and my post remains ignored in that thread
DeleteR:No, shouting does not prove anything.
DeleteSo why would you need testimonies from Christian athlete from the Phillipines? Or do you doubt that the majority of athletes from that country are Christians?
R:True Christians, True Scotsmen and Venn Diagrams
Yes, and I have pointed out to you in that thread that your definition of a true christian remains vague and incomplete. Do address the criticism in the specific thread before feigning victory.
If you have, you've posted testimonies of *Christian* athletes from the Philippines as I requested?
DeleteI responded by pointing out why your request was irrelevant and useless, Rick*. And that, despite your claims to the contrary, you were once again setting yourself up as a judge of who was Christian and who wasn't.
You can ask me for red herrings -- that doesn't mean I'm going to serve them to you. You made a claim, and the burden of proof is on you to defend it.
I notice you declined again to address a significant point in *this* thread, so I'll repeat:
Remember how you were complaining about judging entire countries, rather than individuals in the countries, when looking at the effect of Christianity on Olympic medals?
Yet here you are judging entire countries and expecting country-wide results on the basis of morals.
So which one is it, Rick? Is your judgment about the flourishing Canaanites invalid, or your judgment about the successful atheist countries at the Olympics invalid? They can't both be.
It seems that, as usual, you want to judge by whatever standard at the moment gives you the advantage -- a rhetorical, not a logical, approach.
*And, as a side note -- you still haven't addressed where you'd asked about Filipino athletes before that post, as you claim to have done.
As noted, my articles examples include testimonies and personal quotes outlining a vital, living faith in Christ.
DeleteExcept, of course, in the case of Kerri Walsh-Jennings, where having attended a Christian school is enough, or trying to claim that we "don't know" how many Chinese athletes *might* be Christian, in an effort to pump up your evidence.
I know from personal experience that attending a Christian school is not enough to give one faith in Christ.
>Except, of course, in the case of Kerri Walsh-Jennings
Delete- As I noted in that article, her present status as a Christian is basically unknown, even though it is a good sign that she went to a Christian school that promoted a close relationship with Christ.
"a good sign"....So why mention it at all, when you're trying to make a point, if not to claim her by implication.
DeleteI notice you also left my previous post, the one right above the one you did respond to, unanswered. So I assume you've got no answer to it, including the part where you claimed to have refuted me before by something you never posted?
This does not speak well of your reading comprehension, or your integrity.
Enjoy !
ReplyDeletehttp://rt.com/news/femen-cross-pussy-riot-930/
I found an interesting article from Sam Harris himself, adressing the criticism:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html
Oh! And just to enlighten Rick about the several moral systems of atheists, here is a useful link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html
>Oh! And just to enlighten Rick about the several moral systems of atheists,
Delete- The question is not,
"Do atheists have moral systems?" but,
"Can atheist secular humanists provide an objective basis for a moral code?"
So far, it's a big fat "No."
The question is, when will you critics here be humble enough to admit it?
That's the million-dollar question. :-)
R:"Can atheist secular humanists provide an objective basis for a moral code?"
DeleteSo far, it's a big fat "No."
Well-being and happiness was suggested as the basis of objective morality to you. If you meant an objective morality independant from humanity, I do not believe it exists.
And who cares? I do not care if idiots think I am immoral if I am living happily with others.
Warden:
Delete"Can atheist secular humanists provide an objective basis for a moral code?"
So far, it's a big fat "No."
Neither can xians*. Only difference is this: We don't go running around self-righteously pretending to have some "objective basis" for a moral code while also pretending that such a thing is somehow evidence that the other side's worldview is wrong.
That's a fallacy. The "consequences of belief".
* The reason being of course is that for instance, they call themselves "pro-life" while worshiping and taking as a moral example a being who has babies and pregnant women killed in the OT, yet you pretend to get mad when a human doctor does an abortion.
As I keep saying: If things like baby-killing were truly "objectively morally wrong" it'd be wrong no matter who does it.
What theists truly have is Subjective morality: If biblegod does it or commands it, it's "good" by definition, even if humans do the exact same thing without god's approval, that same action is considered "evil".
In light of what I just said above, what Warden said here is truly laughable:
DeleteAs opposed to human flourishing, the Christian explanation of morality is based on a logically cohesive argument, that a good and just God that has created the universe with an underlying wisdom and logic, but mankind utilizing free will chose to reject the wisdom of the Creator and selfishness caused the fall.
Define "good". Define "just" Warden in light of the moral inconsistency I just pointed out above in the actions of biblegod.
>We don't go running around self-righteously pretending to have some "objective basis" for a moral code while also pretending that such a thing is somehow evidence that the other side's worldview is wrong.... That's a fallacy. The "consequences of belief".
Delete- I did not offer any philosophical proofs in the above article. It's difficult to know what you are specifically referring to. It seems you may be referring to WL Craig's logical argument.
A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/moral-argument-as-proof-of-gods.html
Is that what you are referring to?
>What theists truly have is Subjective morality: If biblegod does it or commands it, it's "good" by definition
- I believe you should look into Craig's answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/euthyphro-dilemma
>Define "good". Define "just" Warden in light of the moral inconsistency I just pointed out above in the actions of biblegod.
- What you assume is moral inconsistency I believe relates to a shallow understanding of justice. In the big picture, God is the creator of man and God is sovereign. God has given human life and God has the right to take it away. Many atheists cannot accept this principle as a valid conceptual starting point for theistic ethics. Forget about Canaan for a minute and let's ask a couple of hypothetical questions to see where the supposed fault lies:
1) Does the fact that a supremely powerful God gives life and takes life in accordance with his will automatically make the same God unjust and unloving?
2) Reynold, if a supremely good and just God exists as Creator, could he still be considered a good and just God in your opinion even though he gives life and takes life in accordance with his sovereign good and just will?
Can help but butt in 8)
DeleteR:In the big picture, God is the creator of man and God is sovereign. God has given human life and God has the right to take it away.
So why would it be wrong for parents to kill their children by that kind of reasoning? They gave them life and they have a superior position to them in the familly.
R:Does the fact that a supremely powerful God gives life and takes life in accordance with his will automatically make the same God unjust and unloving?
Isn t that the classic definition of a bully, a person who uses strength or influence to harm (taking one s life is certainly harmful) or intimidate (threat of hell) those who are weaker? Would bulling someone make the person automatically unjust and unloving?
Of course, that does not make him automatically unloving and unjust. We know that parents can kill their children out of love, hoping their actions would guarantee a ticket to paradise for their children and that they would be saved from hell. But that would automatically make them psychotic and delusional.
R:Reynold, if a supremely good and just God exists as Creator, could he still be considered a good and just God in your opinion even though he gives life and takes life in accordance with his sovereign good and just will?
The evidence for his goodness and justice is somehow lacking from my perspective. His "mysterious" ways kinda look immoral and just taking away a life, without explaning anything does not add any credibility to his character 8)
Would allowing someone to suffer for eternity, even if one could save them, make the person unloving?
Would giving the same punishemant for an atheist, who lead a pious life, and forgiving a mass murderer, who repented at the last minute, make the person unjust?
If anyone, but god commits those actions - they are immoral. If god does it - it is part of his plan for the greater good. Special pleading fallacy detected.
>Isn't that the classic definition of a bully?
Delete- No, a "bully" would be someone who uses strength to intentionally abuse others. Having the power to give and take life does not mean that life is given and taken arbitrarily, does it?
Again, go back to the hypothetical example:
1) Does the fact that a supremely powerful God gives life and takes life in accordance with his will automatically make the same God unjust and unloving?
irrespective of your feelings about the biblical God, answer some simple questions:
Does the fact that God is omnipotent (including the power to give and take life) automatically make God abusive?
Does the fact that God knows more than we know automatically mean that God cannot be trusted?
I had asked a question as a hypothetical one, but you refused to answer it as a hypothetical question:
If a supremely good and just God exists as Creator, could he still be considered a good and just God in your opinion even though he gives life and takes life in accordance with his sovereign good and just will?
Your answer is invalid because I am not referring to the God of scripture, it's a hypothetical question:
"The evidence for his goodness and justice is somehow lacking from my perspective."
If you would simply answer my hypothetical questions it might help to discern between you personal prejudices and objective answers regarding the nature of God and morality.
>Anonymous has pretty much dealt with this (Reynold)
- Reynold,, anonymous has pretty much refused to answer my simple hypothetical questions. And you have avoided them as well.
Reynold, if you don't want to have your comments deleted, I'd appreciate it if you could keep from swearing, as requested in the commenting notes.
R:No, a "bully" would be someone who uses strength to intentionally abuse others.
DeleteThe Oxford dictionnary gave that definition.
"Bully - a person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are weaker"
Funny how a person so hang up on dictionnary proof does not accept a definition like that. And I do wonder why you disagree, is the difference between harming and abusing so wide? 8)
R:Having the power to give and take life does not mean that life is given and taken arbitrarily, does it?
No it does not. That hypothetical god could just not care enough to use their power. But if he did use its power to take away life without any explanation - that would still make him a bully.
R:Does the fact that God is omnipotent (including the power to give and take life) automatically make God abusive?
If he can stop suffering (which he created with everything), but choses not to... Yes, that makes him abusive or at least a jerk.
R:Does the fact that God knows more than we know automatically mean that God cannot be trusted?
No, but that hypothectical god with vague properties gave no reason to trust him
R:Your answer is invalid because I am not referring to the God of scripture, it's a hypothetical question
If you are not refering to the god of the scripture then to what hypothetical god are you refering to? What properties does he have?
R:If a supremely good and just God exists as Creator, could he still be considered a good and just God in your opinion even though he gives life and takes life in accordance with his sovereign good and just will?
Ok, then that would not a be a good and just god if he takes away life without any explanation and choose not to eliminate suffering which he created. Not much has changed even if it is not the god of the bible. Calling his will "good and just" does not help it 8)
P.S.
DeleteR:Having the power to give and take life does not mean that life is given and taken arbitrarily, does it?
And you have just changed the initial premises. Originally you asked:
"Does the fact that a supremely powerful God gives life and takes life in accordance with his will automatically make the same God unjust and unloving?"
That god uses his power to get what he wants, without much concern for the opinion of the victim. He intentionnaly takes away life, which definitely falls into the category of harm or abuse. You may call his will "good and just", but that does not make it so. So we have a bully, whose will is "good and just", who intentionnaly harms and abuse others by taking away their life. 8)
- I have no conflict with the dictionary definition of bully, nor does it contradict my definition.
ReplyDelete>If he can stop suffering...
My hypothetical question requires a simple yes or no answer. You still have not answered it.
>If you are not refering to the god of the scripture then to what hypothetical god are you refering to? What properties does he have?
- God as omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly wise, just and good.
R:I have no conflict with the dictionary definition of bully, nor does it contradict my definition.
DeleteSo why did you initially object to the Oxford definition of bully?
R:My hypothetical question requires a simple yes or no answer. You still have not answered it.
Which specific question are you talking about? I told you that such god could not be considered good and just. I gave you my answers to your questions and I explained why I gave such an answer.
R:God as omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly wise, just and good.
Then you are defining a round scare. The classic problem of evil plays here.
Warden: on his dodging:
ReplyDelete- Reynold,, anonymous has pretty much refused to answer my simple hypothetical questions. And you have avoided them as well.
Bull.
Why don't you try answering my question? How can you call your god "good" and "just" if he doesn't have to obey any rules? What standards are there that his "goodness" and "justness" are measured by?
Your blathering about:
If a supremely good and just God exists as Creator,....
How can you tell that he's "supremely good and just" please?
...could he still be considered a good and just God in your opinion even though he gives life and takes life in accordance with his sovereign good and just will?
And again...how do you know that he's "good" and "just"?
You never define just what "good" and "just" is! You just automatically assume that this baby killing god of your is "good" and "just".
All you've done (again) is show that xians have subjective morality, not objective morality.