No, we’ve come nowhere near consensus on this point, but I’m willing to stipulate that you’re correct, just so we can move onto an area that might explain what you’re talking about. I reserve the right, once I see what you consider to be a valid morality, to explain how mine is valid in lights of your definition.
For some reason, I feel like I’m repeating myself…
Daniel
We’ve been agreeing to that for quite some time now.
Diogenes seems to disagree. Personally I don’t care as I find the question utterly devoid of interest.
I didn’t notice this being up for discussion, but anything based on a feeling is no more or less valid than anything else based on a feeling, so sure.
Yes. This is what we have been trying to get you to do for what feels like ages. Do go on to that, and answer these two questions:
Agreed. NOBODY IS DOING THIS, not even Diogenes. The problem of evil is a logical inconsistency inherent in the proposition that God is both (omnipresent or omnipotent) and omnibenevolent.
This criticism has nothing to do with atheism whatsoever. Understood? Agreed?
Please point out the logical inconsistency in atheistic morality given its similarly arbitrary nature to theistic morality.
Do you consider yourself corrected?
Shodan, I still don’t think you’re getting it. I’m not using the existence of “evil” as an argument for anybody but myself. I’m only saying why I don’t believe in God, I’m not trying to convince anyone else. To put it in non-moralistic terms, it’s like I’m saying I don’t believe God would allow bad music to exist. I define “bad music” as music which I don’t like. IOW, I don’t believe that God would allow the existence of music which I don’t like. There is plenty of music which I don’t like, therefore I don’t believe in God. I don’t have to prove that the music is bad, I just have to know that I don’t like it.
Actually, if I wanted to use theodicy as a persuasive argument against theism, I would use theistic morality, not my own, to show the contradiction. The existence of God logically contradicts theistic morality. My own sense of morality need never enter into it. If I can show that God violates his own ostensible morality, then mission accomplished. If God" says X is evil, and God does X, then God is not omnibenevolent, by his own definition. Since omnibenevolence is a necessary property of God, then a God who is not omnibenevolent is not God and therefore God does not exist.
I would also like to know why you keep disparaging “non-theistic morality” specifically as though it were different than theistic morality.
In point of fact, Shodan, *ALL morality is really non-theistic, since- so far at least- not a single moral precept can be proven to have originated with a deity.
I would also reiterate (as others have done) that even a morality which originates with God is still arbitrary, “whimsical” and impossible to “validate.” An appeal to authority is still a logical fallacy even if the authority is God.
Ooh. I want to play!
PoE:
If God, ~Evil.
Evil.
Therefore, ~God.
Shodan’s rebuttal:
If ~God, ~Good /\ ~Evil.
~God (from above).
Therefore, ~Good /\ ~Evil.
~Evil /\ Evil.
Contradiction.
My rebuttal to Shodan’s rebuttal:
God is good.
Good isn’t.
Therefore, God isn’t.
I have been using “the Golden Rule” as a shorthand way to describe morality, but what I’m really talking about is empathy. If you can come up with hypotheticals in which it is moral to kill or moral to steal, I am willing to bet that what you’ve really found is a situation where your empathy for one human being (or perhaps a set of human beings) has overridden your empathy for another. Give it a shot and see if I’m not right.
You’re missing the point, spoke-. You’re basing your morality on empathy. Fine. Good for you. I’m sure that works for you and those close to you. But what we’re discussing here is whether that makes your morality objectively valid, and it doesn’t, since morality is opinion.
I’m not missing your point, Priceguy, I’m disagreeing with your premise. I do not agree that morality is opinion. I believe morality is instict. We all have it, and it is based upon the empathy we evolved to help us navigate through our lives as social animals.
(Instinct, that is.)
If morality is instinct, why doesn’t everyone have the same morality? And even if we did, how would that validate morality? The point isn’t why most people find killing (for example) immoral, it’s whether killing can be universally considered immoral; whether there is some form of standard to adhere to in this regard. There isn’t.
Don’t we? As I pointed out earlier, the Golden Rule appears in every major religion. This suggests that we all have an instinctive empathy. If not, how do you explain this odd coincidence?
So most religions share some common rules. So what? You’re not seriously saying that every person on Earth shares the same morality? You, me, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Gandhi, Karl Marx… we’re all exactly the same, morally?
But skip that part. Let’s say everyone shares a morality. How does that make the morality objectively valid, which is what we’re discussing here?
I still have no idea what “objectively valid” means in this context, especially since Shodan seems to think it has some meaning. The best I can figure, it’s like asking whether a moral system is chocolatey delicious: it just doesn’t make any sense.
I wanna see an example of a moral system that Shodan DOES find objectively valid, and then I can continue the conversation from there. (Alternatively, a moral system that’s chocolatey delicious would satisfy me).
Daniel
So would we all, but it seems to be a vain hope.
…which is why I suggest we all stipulate that he’s right on the atheist ethics point (whatever it may be), and urge him to move onto what’s apparently the second part of his point. I’ve been urging that for what, three days now? Let’s stipulate, so that he’s got no reason not to move onto phase II.
Daniel
What you propose to be a fact (“there has never been one whit of objective evidence for the existence of god, while it would be expected that evidence would be literally everywhere”) is actually an opinion. Deists do objectively observe (meaning we all agree our senses are really taking in the sights and sounds and smells around us, not subjectively hallucinting them) the evidence of the existence of God literally everywhere. Someone must have created all this stuff, since nothing creates itself. This will be immediately dismissed as “The Argument From Design”, but there it is: You observe the intricate movements of the comsmos and subatomic particles and man and beast and consciousness, and either perceive immediately that there is no way it could NOT have been intelligently designed, or no way that it could. Analysis apparently is futile.
Consciousness is a thorny issue indeed, for both sides. One of the only redeeming features of CS Lewis IMO is his observation about consciousness. Suppose nobody desgned your brain for the purpose of thinking. No reliable, deliberate thinking or reasoning can therefore occur. It is merely the case that when certain molecules inside your head happen to arrange themselves in a particular way, you get the sensation you call thought. In that event, how can you REALLY trust the validity of your own thoughts? They’re just random chemical events. It’s like spilling milk and assuming the result is a reliable map of London. Since you can’t trust the factuallity of your thoughts, you can’t rely on your brain’s reasons for atheism–or anything else, for that matter. It’s not an airtight argument for an intelligent Creator (none has been yet shown to exist for or agianst, after all), but clever and thought (!) -provoking all the same.
The proposal that all morality is purely arbitrary is also troublesome, in that no culture in history views stealing from other members of the immediate tribe or community, for example, as acceptable behavior. Every culture punishes it, every person hates being stolen from and senses the inherent injustice or wrongness of it, and just about everyone has stolen something and knew it was “wrong” to do it at the time but rationalized their conscience out of the picture using one device or another. If the taboo on stealing were merely arbitrary, we might expect to find at least some cultures on earth that do not find anything morally wrong with it. Stealing is just one example, of course. Random killing of human beings would be another, and going around chopping children’s arms off, etc. These things aren’t wrong because we arbitrarily say they are and make laws against them, but rather the reverse is true. We make laws against them because they’re wrong. We can agree this does not constitute mathematical “proof” of objective morality, but rather an observation of its operation in daily life.
Unless I’m wrong.
No, actually, it’s a fact. Sorry.
Evidence such as…?
No, this is dismissed as the cosmological argument (also known as first cause). It’s subtly different than the teleological argument (“design”) but they are both easily rebutted arguments and neither is supportable from objective evidence. They are simply assertions.
Which would be a completely fallacious.
Still fallacious if stated absolutely. The correct position is while no “designer” is physically required, it isn’t necessarily precluded either. You have presented a false choice. Ockham requires that we default to a presumption of no designer until it is proven necessary, but the designer is not categorically ruled out as impossible either.
Why not? There’s an excluded middle there. Why can’t thinking be a natural result of evolution?
Epistemological pleading. The last refuge of the desperate theist.
False. It’s not random. The physiology of the brain is adapted to maximize survival of the species. Evolutionary pressures work to ensure that brain chemistry responds to stimuli in a predictable way. It’s not like “spilled milk.”
Epistemological attacks really have no value. Questioning the reliability of perception and consciousness is not helpful in any way. If you’re going to do that then no philosophical converstaion is possible at all. Furthermore, it applies to theism just as much as atheism. How would an experience of God be any more objectively reliable than any other experience? Epistemological objections don’t move the argument in any direction. It’s pointless to bring them up.
You’re wrong. Certain kinds of “morality” are universal (or near universal) in human cultures because humans are all the same animal. Ceratain cultural standards can be relied upon to preserve order and social health in human communities. We make laws and decide what’s “right” or “wrong” based on how it fosters the health of the community. Unfettered murder is always “wrong” because it always undermines the integrity and the order order of human communities.
Furthermore, there are biological factors such as empathy which are simply evolved characteristics in the human brain. There is nothing remarkable about any of this. Animals have instinctive behaviors too which could be described as “moral” in some circumstances but really, it’s just about enhancing the chances for survival and reproduction.
No Shodan. I wonder why.
Fair enough. Perhaps you will forgive me if I point out one more time that this is exactly equivalent to a fundamentalist basing his morality on the Old Testament because he feels it to be right.
Actually, he is, if you read his posts. Other atheists do as well, which is why it was relevant to refute the argument in a thread about theism vs. atheism.
No, you are incorrect. Diogenes and other atheists do, in fact, use the problem of evil to argue against theism. So it certainly has something to do with atheism.
The “logical inconsistency” in atheist morality is the arbitrary nature of the premises on which it is founded, and for which no inherently justifiable rationale can be offered.
You keep trying to argue that I think there is some flaw in the reasoning that gets atheists from A to B in moral arguments. There is no flaw in the reasoning. There is a flaw in the premise A. It cannot be justified beyond simply stating that is is a preference.
But whether or not theistic morality is arbitrary or not does not establish anything about atheist morality, other than that it is arbitrary. Arbitrarily based morality cannot be used to make valid arguments either for or against the existence of God.
As I said before, atheists cannot look down their noses at those who take the existence of God as a given, with no evidence to justify the belief, and simultaneously get huffy when it is pointed out that they are doing exactly the same thing when it comes to morality.
A couple of questions -
[ul][li]Is there any way to determine whether one internally consistent morality is “better” than any other? [/li][li]Can any morality be used to argue either for or against the existence of God?[/ul]If you are willing to answer “No” to both questions, then we have established what I have been arguing all along. If either is answered “Yes”, I will have to ask for your reasoning, and we can examine it for consistency.[/li]
On re-reading the thread, I get the feeling that what seemed to me to be an attempt to change the subject away from a topic on which the atheists weren’t having a lot of success was actually a response to something I have not said. If y’all are hoping to get me to produce some system of morality, and then base a claim as to the existence of God on that, get used to disappointment. I am not making such an assertion.
Suppose for the purposes of the discussion, I stipulate that all systems of morality are entirely arbitrary. Are you claiming that this proves that God does not exist?
Or, if you don’t like where that one might be heading, suppose this. How about if you grant, for the purposes of the discussion, that God exists, and is omniscent, perfect, created the universe and all reality, is eternal, and so forth. And further suppose that He has a purpose for human life. Do you suppose that a system of morality based on what He wills (insofar as we can discover what He wills) is as “arbitrary” as a morality that relies on what humans think they want?
Keep in mind that, by definition (again, for the purposes of the discussion), whatever God wills, exists, in the same sense that logic or causality exist.
If you don’t care to stipulate that, also fine. Keep in mind then that the validity of any other non-theistic morality has not been established, and therefore no idea of good and evil can be used to say anything for or against the existence of God.
Regards,
Shodan
If you’re talking about the pure derivation of a moral system that would be true, although I don’t think it’s really possible to base a consistent moral system on the Bible.
Actually, no I don’t, although I admit that I don’t often draw a clear distinction between my personal moral system and my rhetorical use of traditional theistic morality as a device to show logical contradictions in theism. Like I said earlier, it is entirely possible to use the definitions of “good” and “evil” as presented by theists and show that God cannot be good by the theistic definition of good. When I post in this manner I usually adopt the semiotics of the theist as a matter of convenience (that is, I use “right and wrong” as they are traditionally used by theists not necessarily as how I would personally assign those values, althiugh there is quite a bit of overlap). The Theodical objection works either way. It works for my own moral system (which is significant only to me,) as well as with good old fashioned Bible right and wrong.
[Nitpick] I do not identify myself as an atheist but as an agnostic. My position is not a categorical denial of the existence of God, but simply that I have not yet been convinced that one exists. [/nitpick]
But you haven’t really refuted it for all possible moralities. You have not refuted it for theistic morality.
Once again, I’m an agnostic not a hard atheist and I reiterate that the problem of evil works perfectly well by a theistic definition of evil. The personal definitions used by individual atheists need not enter into it. It is sufficient merely to show the internal contradictions within theism itself.
Again, this is just wrong. Atheistic morality can be completely rational, consistent and justifiable.
A preference is the only justification required.
Thesitic morality is an arbitrary system which can logically be used to argue against the existence of God.
But we aren’t doing the same thing when it comes to morality. We are constructing a means to an end. No faith in anything is required, only a desire for the goal. The desire is the justification.
[quote]
A couple of questions -
[ul][li]Is there any way to determine whether one internally consistent morality is “better” than any other?[/li][/quote]
Yes. They can be evaluated for their effectiveness in achieving their individual goals.
[quote]
[li]Can any morality be used to argue either for or against the existence of God?[/ul][/li][/quote]
Yes. Theistic morality can be used to show logical contradictions for the existence of God. We can use God’s own rules against him.
I answered yes to both questions and gave you my reasoning. Examine away.
What topic would that be. I think you presumed a case that no one was trying to make.
No, but I can point out internal contradictions in theistic morality which make it illogical for God to exist as you define him.
I’m just fine where that one’s heading. Anything which gets you to address theistic morality is ok by me.
Absolutely. No question about it. Not only that but it’s useless to humans since God has not bothered to communicate what he wants in any way which is distinguishable from what humans have invented for themselves.
So what? That doesn’t make it any less arbitrary.
You still haven’t explained what you mean by “validity.” If a moral system is effective in achieving it’s goals then it’s valid. What’s so hard to understand about that? Are you asking for some “validation” of the goal itself? The goal is validated simply by the desire for the goal. This holds true even for God.
And I will say one more time. I can test the consistency of any moral system by it’s own internal standards. This means that if I can show that theistic belief is in contradiction to theistic morality- that is, if I can show that God does anything “immoral” by his own presumptive standards, then I have argued against the existence of God. My own standards don’t even matter.