Comments on: Countering the atheist who believes that human free will and a divine being cannot exist in the same intellectual universe

By: gkong3

gkong3 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 06:26:26 +0000

Something many anti-theists (as rightly pointed out, the term ‘atheist’ has varying definitions depending on who uses it; some Buddhists are theists in that they deify Buddha, others are atheist in that they maintain the original form of Buddhism) might need to bear in mind:
The argument is NOT that without God, atheists cannot be moral. The argument is that unless you have a transcendent, external SOURCE/REFERENCE of morality (i.e. God), the very term ‘morality’ has no real basis and no real meaning. Which, if logically held in consistency with all other viewpoints, is perfectly alright – but most of the time, it isn’t held logically.
How does that actually work? Simple. Judaeo-Christian morality is God-centric; God is the source of morality, as His very nature is moral and He demands it from His creation (namely, us). Islamic morality is similar: Allah dictates it, and you submit. Dualists (such as Zoroastrians) believe that both good and evil stem from external sources (rather than evil as the mere absence/negation of good).
The problem is, if there is no reference for morality other than the universe/nature/mankind, then morality is NOT absolute, only relative. And if you want to claim that, then you have to be consistent. If morality is relative (i.e. dependent on an evolutionary parameter, or a cultural parameter, or a majority parameter rather than being good or evil throughout space/time), then you have no basis for saying that anything is evil. Including paedophilia, murder, genocide, lassiez-faire capitalism, gender role inequality, racial slavery, child pornography, bestiality, I could go on and on and on. At most, you can say it’s culturally backward, evolutionarily inefficient, not-so-popular, maybe even stupid. But evil? Nope, can’t use that word.
But very few anti-theists will claim that. Religion is evil, claims Hitchens. Sez who? Is sex with children bad? Sez who? People who bomb abortion clinics are wrong. Sez who? The Holocaust was an evil act (and Adolf Hitler an evil man). Sez who?
To put in perspective. The Roman Empire had a good innings of well over a thousand years, and it was a society based on patriarchal principles and slavery, not to mention the death penalty. The Chinese civilisation had an even better innings of over 2,000 years, and it was based on the above, as well as polygamy, feudal warlords, imperialism and a non-scientific approach to education. The USA and all other Western empires of the Modern Era, in contrast, can point to less than 300 years (in most cases, less than 200 years) of existence. One might argue that Chinese and Roman values are ‘better’ when measured against all the parameters most atheists want to use to measure morality.

tl;dr: You cannot say something is absolutely good or evil without an absolute yardstick. Certainly, you cannot say we’re wrong in believing in a religion. Or that religion is evil. Or that forcing people to believe in a particular religion is evil. Or that we were created with inalienable rights, and depriving us of our rights without due process is evil. Sez who?

By: jhstuart

jhstuart — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:32:23 +0000

These are difficult topics that are easily dismissed by the intellectually lazy or worse, in the case of origin of life, ascribed to forces that Darwin described as an “undirected process”.
Until recently, my interests (and knowledge) were directed elsewhere until my son-in-law wanted to have a discussion about Darwin. I was not comfortable with my limited data base.
Thus began some carefully selected research which led me to resources that went far beyond my religious doctrine. Two of the most notable references were Signature In The Cell (DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design) by Stephen Meyer and the Science of God (The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom) by Gerald Schroeder.
As someone with a technical background the scientific evidence is compelling that our existence is not accidental.

By: jj

jj — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:27:37 +0000

Not quite, Wolf, but if that’s what you got out of it, fine.

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 03:28:03 +0000

“In this universe, there is right and wrong, good and evil, Minneapolis and St. Paul, bread and butter.”

Not quite sure about the logic of that statement. The two cities and the foods I can see as objective physical entities. But right and wrong and good and evil? Where are they located? What is their source? Is there some form of carpenter, or cow, or farmer specific to their creation?

By: Indigo Red

Indigo Red — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 02:59:34 +0000

Would anyone here consider the Dalai Lama as immoral, unethical, and lacking in the knowledge of right and wrong? If not him, how about any Buddhist? Buddhists have no gods; it’s a totally godless religion that teaches there is no god.

Are Taoists immoral, unethical, and lacking in the knowledge of right and wrong? Like Buddhism, there are no gods in Taoism, none, not one, gods don’t exist. Are Taoists evil and worthy of distrust and derision because they’re atheists?

How ’bout all the animists and wiccans for whom there may be many gods, no single supreme god, or just the spirit of mother earth? Are they all immoral, unethical, and lacking in the knowledge of right and wrong?

What I’m reading here about Atheist, Christian Atheists specifically, is ‘they don’t believe in MY god, so they are immoral, unethical, and lacking in the knowledge of right and wrong.’ How many of those here believe in the existence and supremacy of al’Lah – the God – of Islam? If not, doesn’t that make you an atheist of the Muslim god? If yuo don’t subscribe to the multiplicity of the gods of Hindus, doesn’t that make you atheists of the Hindu gods? Would it not be true that anyone who believes their god is the true god and not the other guys god be an atheist to the other guys religion? Would that not make everyone an atheist?

Religious leaders don’t describe any of the atheist religions I’ve referenced above as atheist. Rather, they are called Nontheist and no one condemns them for being immoral, unethical, and lacking in the knowledge of right and wrong. Why are Atheists – Christian Atheists specifically and i’ll wager singularly – called out for criticism, morally questioned, and accused of not knowing the basics of living in civilized society – the knowledge of right and wrong? That knowledge is one factor used to determine if some criminal suspects can stand trial, the determination whether the suspect knows right and wrong, thus, sanity, is a bedrock for trial or hospitalization? If Atheist are immoral, unethical, and lacking in the knowledge of right and wrong, isn’t that the same as saying Atheists are insane? If Muslims declare they do not believe in al’Lah, he is praised by Christians. Why? Is that person not an Atheist and a bad person? Or, does that only apply to Atheists who don’t submit to Yahweh or any name the Judeo-Christian god goes by.

In this universe, there is right and wrong, good and evil, Minneapolis and St. Paul, bread and butter, but none require a god to exist or for anyone to like or dislike. You want a god, fine, no skin off my nose. There is no god, that’s fine by me. Why is it anyone’s concern but mine?

By: Wolf Howling

Wolf Howling — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:26:56 +0000

JJ – Take a look at your arguments. Your initial argument was that morality is normative, irrespective of religion. Now you are arguing the opposite, that morality can be anything we want it to be, there being no norm. Moreover, you dispense out of hand with the specific historic example I cited as well as the thought experiment regarding life under a green autocracy.

As to a moral absolute – that is one where there rewards or penalties after life in respect of those absolutes. Atheists by definition can have no moral absolutes.

By: Wolf Howling

Wolf Howling — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:57:00 +0000

I take that back. Dogs may well contemplate the infinite. Do see the photo at
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2010/07/let-us-bow-our-heads-pray.html

By: jj

jj — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:29:38 +0000

Wolf – right and wrong is always whatever we define it to be. We may say it’s an absolute, but that’s because we think that way: even the absolutes have changed many times in human history. ‘Normal’ is anything 90% of the people do. Always has been.

By: jj

jj — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:24:42 +0000

Bookworm – sure: the societal norm is the norm. If it doesn’t include killing and looting as good things then killing and looting will be comparatively rare. Most people, regardless of what they do or don’t believe, will conform. If nothing else it just makes life easier. The smart ones recognize that friction is waste energy, and decide not to go there. I suppose ‘herd immunity’ is not at all a bad descriptor for that.

But it’s also a fact that there has been more than one society for whom sacrificing first-born children was not out of the norm. Were they bad guys? By our lights – which are the only lights we have – the answer is yes. By their lights, and their demonstrable success, the answer becomes trickier. They survived, and contributed to the overall survival of the human race – something not always at all certain until, in geological time, not very long ago. Plenty of pockets of humanity started up only to flicker out: Planet Earth did not care. And, as usual, no comment from the Throne, either. Eventually they quit sacrificing babies, realizing it was somewhat counter-productive to knock off the coming generation when your goal is eventual survival. It has been said, (though I forget by who), that early Man’s greatest contribution was accidental survival. They, themselves, probably wouldn’t have said it was accidental: from their perspective they worked at it all the time. Getting through the day alive was, for the first couple of million years, a full-time job. When you spend 16 hours a day trying to get something to eat, you don’t have time or energy to speculate much about the nature of the universe; God; whether you’re a liberal or conservative; or whether you like the venison medium-rare or to the well-done side of medium. When you got a deer you didn’t sweat the small stuff: you cut it up and ate it however it came.

In the three million year history of the race, the Judeo-Christian god’s been a player for about five minutes. Most of morality was set long before he arrived on the scene. Plenty of other, earlier, gods contributed to it as much or more. The ‘herd immunization’ idea was spread through a lot of different herds, most of whom never heard of him. Lots and lots of gods, demanding lots and lots of different forms of obeisance, and plenty who demanded nothing in particular. Lots of people who believed in pantheons; lots who didn’t particularly believe in much of anything. The latter were just as moral – for their times – as the former. I suspect it was generated from within, from the general disposition of the herd, if you like; but it was their disposition. It wasn’t from outside themselves.

By: Wolf Howling

Wolf Howling — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:19:56 +0000

JJ; As to my labs, I don’t doubt that they never contemplate a divine being in the heavens. For them, their owners are their immediate Gods, since we provide all of their necessities and we teach them “right and wrong.”

That said, to look at this in reverse, JJ, I find them to be a gift from God. They brighten my day – every day. While the female is an evil genuis, her brother, a giant of a lab, is the world’s biggest and most comic teddy bear. Both have much to teach about enjoying every single moment and, indeed, forgiveness, for they bear no ill for a single wrong. They are perfect examples of how, if you treat others well, then you reap even more in return.