The God Delusion

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What I meant was: Where can moral law be found (or discovered). The marauder answers this question in the next post. The natural moral law is "enshrined" in human nature. It is part of our nature. We can "discover" or "produce" or "distill" or "formulate" the natural moral law by studying human nature and using human reason.

Another and a more poetic way of describing our relationship with the natural moral law would be that we "read" the moral law which is written in our hearts.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Ever hear of deontology; contractarianism; act consequentialism or utilitarianism; virtue ethics; etc.?[/b][/b]

Uh, yes.

They all posit objective foundations for morals, even if it is the case that such objective criteria often make reference to subjective personal states.

Unless they are all variant descriptions of a singular objec , has some relevant points which I might address at a later stage if I have the time.[/b]

First, I think I was largely mis-reading your words and missing your point. 😞 Your words were:

For an atheist, I think this position cannot logically be sustained -- starting off with an amoral, non-personal first cause (big bang), then followed through by amoral natural processes causing life (abiogenesis & evolution) the atheist has no epistemological grounds given their theory of origins to assert any form of objective good and evil, right and wrong.

(...)

What I'm saying is that the formulation of an objective moral distinction cannot be sustained by the commonly held tenets of the atheistic system.


Part of my misunderstanding occurred because the word logically has no business being in there. I don't think you intend to say that the conjunction of atheism and some other descriptive theories related to origins is logically inconsistent with moral realism. Rather, your point is just that without God we have no good reasons to think that moral realism is true; without God we have no good reasons to think objective values exist and that moral claims can be true or false independent of observer attitudes.

For one, there are realist metaethical theories that are certainly compatible with atheism, and relative to them, I don't think anything you have said would amount to anything more than question begging -- e.g., ethical intuitionism, ethical naturalism. Not that I agree with them necessarily, but if one of these theories is correct, then objective moral truths exist; and we can experience either intuitive apprehension of at least some of them or even empirical knowledge of at least some of them.

For two, if you don't see any good support for moral realism in an atheistic world, then I don't see why you would see any good support for moral realism in a theistic world either. In short, I don't understand why you or anybody else thinks God has anything to do with objective morality. Your emphasis is on objectivity, but actually as a metaethical theory, divine command is not necessarily realist. If, for example, we say that what makes something right is that a particular observer, God, approves of it; and that what makes an action of ours right is that it conforms to the will of this same observer; then that is decidedly not a realist stance. That is an anti-realist, subjectivist stance (and I also happen to think that it is nothing more than an arbitrary account of morality). How exactly do you make 'divine command' a realist account without making God fundamentally irrelevant? The problem is that, definitionally, a value is objective only if constitutively it is independent of any observer attitudes -- and that includes God's attitudes.

Unless they are all variant descriptions of a singular objective moral
system, you're proving my point: morals are simply the sum total of the prevailing intellectual, aesthetic and moral climate.

No, none of those ethical theories I cited consider the "prevailing...climate" of the day to be any sort of determinant.

The fact that there are so many ethical systems clamouring for your
attention in a pluralistic moral market should be proof enough that these "secular ethical theories" are just that.

No, the number of differing theories in this area does not have implications concerning the determination of whether or not any particular theory is true. By this sort of reasoning, any particular theistic account is just a bunch of crap, too. There are a number of proposed theories out there that all view God as somehow integral to morality but differ from each other in ways that can be significant.

Let’s take a case study: the Nuremburg trials.

This is irrelevant -- in roughly the same way that case studies in descriptive ethics are often irrelevant to metaethical discussions. Despite what you may think, it is not true that any secular ethical theory just somehow degenerates into 'might makes right' or 'moral truths are determined by whatever it is that constitutes the prevailing anthropologic climate of the day' or ....

The problem LJ, is that your lovely theories are all well and good, but as atheism is inherently pluralistic, you can't choose one theory above the other without using some subjective criterion to do so.

Atheism is "inherently pluralistic"?!? If you mean 'pluralistic' in the sense of 'plural' with respect to differing ethical theories, then as I already pointed out, theism is pluralistic too. If you mean 'pluralistic' as it relates to philosophical pluralism, then, no, atheism definitely is not "inherently pluralistic". Atheism is obviously compatible with monist metaethical theories or even with the stance that no values exist. Besides, I think this is irrelevant with respect to moral realism: a pluralistic metaethical theory just endorses the existence of two or more distinct values; the theory may also say that these values are incommensurable on some level, but I don't think there is any necessary implication between pluralism and moral (anti-)realism.

If Christianity were true, the universe was created by a divine, moral
and reasoning Agent. This provides both ontological and epistemic support for humans to be morally sentient and for a universal moral law.

First, I don't think we have any good reasons to think Christianity is true in the first place. Second, that a moral God exists implies that there is such a thing as being moral, but it's not clear that it achieves anything more for you relative to your initial claims. The question I have is how it even makes sense to say that objective conditions for morality rely in any substantive way on a subject, even if it happens to be a particularly powerful subject (using 'subject' in a philosophical sense).

I guess my main point here is that I don't see how the subject of God is relevant with respect to objective foundation for morals. If, for example, you don't see any good reasons in an atheistic world to think that it is objectively wrong to drive swords through innocent babies, then I don't think you're going to find any good reasons in a theistic but otherwise ostensibly identical world either.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I am saying that Hitler may have been regarded as a good man , a bad man , or as an efficient man or charismatic man. Without an objective moral law it all depends on your opinion ultimately. Some people might have regarded him as a forward thinking supremesist who took evolutionary natural selection to it's next logical stage.?

I don't . I think h ...[text shortened]... real objective moral law that exists in the universe independent of what any men might think.

Ah, so good and bad are points of view and not actually real, definable things with properties, such as mass?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I agree that this would happen but why would it be wrong for the world/society to be in utter chaos?

I know this sounds ridiculous but you have unconsciously assumed some objective moral "fact".

All you have shown is that if we followed a certain source of action then it has certain consequences , but this is not the same as saying it is "wrong" ...[text shortened]... epts to hold up against this argument ...you certainly don't have anything "objective".

Exactly ... when looking at the Nuremburg trials that was the point the prosecuters were looking for. An "action" which is considered bad for all of humanity is a crime against humanity ... That which is bad for humanity must be morally objectively wrong as it is in our nature to get rid of that what is bad for the species.

Using "For all we know" during a discussion or debate does kill any type of prolonged discussion doesn't it? For all we know humanity is not a parasite.

By mistake you have chosen to disect "morally objective" ito "morally" and "objetive" ... the discussion is baout "morally objective" .. which is not the same as "objective" ...

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Please, allow me to change a few words in your statement:

"This has nothing to do with creating or discovering a objective moral law. You are describing something we call democracy and democracy isn't objective in any way.

It would be democratically right if a majority of people decide its okay to kill unborn babies, but morally it still isn't. Killin ...[text shortened]... God to determine that."

Do you still agree with the changed statement ? If not, why not ?

I still agree with the statement. Difficulties arrive though when you need to define what an "unborn baby" is ... is this the sperm contained in the body of the father or is it the child an hour before being born from the mother?

Originally posted by Sushill
... bad for the species.

uuuurrrggghhh, I thought all the "good of the species" crew had went the way of the dodo!

All "morality" can be explained evolutionarily, otherwise, why do species other than us show morality? And evolution works only on a "good for the individual" basis. Although, admittedly, sometimes by proxy....

Originally posted by Sushill
Exactly ... when looking at the Nuremburg trials that was the point the prosecuters were looking for. An "action" which is considered bad for all of humanity is a crime against humanity ... That which is bad for humanity must be morally objectively wrong as it is in our nature to get rid of that what is bad for the species.

Using "For all we know" during ...[text shortened]... scussion is baout "morally objective" .. which is not the same as "objective" ...

That which is bad for humanity must be morally objectively wrong as it is in our nature to get rid of that what is bad for the species.




No , what is bad for humanity is bad for humanity but the extra step you took to say that it must be objectively morally wrong is your own opinion. There is no objective morality that holds us to this (except God) It is in our nature to get rid of what is bad for humanity. However , have you not noticed the immense disagreement about what is "bad (or good) for humanity".

Most of the time I find myself rolling my eyes and sighing about what some people think is "bad for humanity"

In any case if you gave the polar bears the bomb they might choose to "get rid of" humanity since we are a threat to their species (ref global warming) if they did would that be "objectively" morally wrong? By your defintion it would be morally right! Or do objective morals only apply to humans , if so why? What objective morality says that humans are more important than polar bears? You? Nature? God?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Another and a more poetic way of describing our relationship with the natural moral law would be that we "read" the moral law which is written in our hearts.

I don't do poetry, but that's a pretty good formulation. How it got there is another question.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
uuuurrrggghhh, I thought all the "good of the species" crew had went the way of the dodo!

All "morality" can be explained evolutionarily, otherwise, why do species other than us show morality? And evolution works only on a "good for the individual" basis. Although, admittedly, sometimes by proxy....

Although I disagree with you , the point you make is consistent with Atheism (as I understand it). You sound more and more like a very consistent and genuine Atheist to me. None of this cosy stuff about "objective morality" , just good old fashioned , brutal natural selection with "morality" just a human construct of mere fantasy. Honest Atheism at it's best! If only more of you could be like scottishnnz and really think it through , and face the ultimate terrifying reality of a universe without God!!

Originally posted by knightmeister
Although I disagree with you , the point you make is consistent with Atheism (as I understand it). You sound more and more like a very consistent and genuine Atheist to me. None of this cosy stuff about "objective morality" , just good old fashioned , brutal natural selection with "morality" just a human construct of mere fantasy. Honest Atheism at it ...[text shortened]... ly think it through , and face the ultimate terrifying reality of a universe without God!!

😴😴

Originally posted by no1marauder
😴😴

Wake up marauder! You can't sleep ! You must keep up your mission of tirelssly rubbishing Theists...or has all that angry energy finally got to you??

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't do poetry, but that's a pretty good formulation. How it got there is another question.

Thanks for the compliment.

By the way, I stole the formulation ..... 😏


Marauder: "How it ( ... the natural moral law, Ivan) got there is another question."

... and indeed a very interesting one .....

Originally posted by knightmeister
Although I disagree with you , the point you make is consistent with Atheism (as I understand it). You sound more and more like a very consistent and genuine Atheist to me. None of this cosy stuff about "objective morality" , just good old fashioned , brutal natural selection with "morality" just a human construct of mere fantasy. Honest Atheism at it ly think it through , and face the ultimate terrifying reality of a universe without God!!

I agree with marauder. 😴

It doesn't surprise me that you disagree with me - you've already shown the ability to write contradictory posts back to back. I wouldn't call morality "mere fantasy", and I certainly wouldn't be so narcissistic to claim it to be a uniquely "human construct". There is most definitely "morality" within the animal world, especially in the social great apes where both negative and positive reinforcement of behaviour occur by members of the group. And, after all, isn't that all morality is? Behaving the right way, and feeling bad about behaving badly (or even just thinking about behaving badly).

On the contrary, I don't see atheism as anywhere near as terrifying as theism though. Admittedly, Christianity has lost most of its fangs, but let's not forget that it had them once upon a time, in a similar way that most symbionts started off, evolutionarily, as parasites. What you don't seem to think of though is this; "what if I'm right?" Would it change the universe? Would it alter the course of the planets, or the nuclear reactions within the sun? Of course not. The universe would by no more or no less terrifying for either one of us. The only thing that would change would be your ability to deal with it. The universe is what it is, there is no "terrifying reality".

[edit; of course, maybe your fantasy lends you comfort. Is that what it is? The concept of death is too hard for you?]

Originally posted by knightmeister
None of this cosy stuff about "objective morality"

Geez, it'd be nice if you at least understood your own position. Your notion of morality is not objective at all. Your notion is arbitrary and subjectivist, remember? You think moral truths supervene on whatever it happens to be that constitutes God's will. (...even if it somehow happens to be blancmange -- to borrow an old example of your own.)

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, so good and bad are points of view and not actually real, definable things with properties, such as mass?

If you are a Atheist then no , but to a Christian God's holiness and love are as real as granite , infact more so , because without God granite would not exist. I believe Hitler was bad just in the same way i believe he had a moustache - it's an objective fact.

I have been arguing logically based on what I perceive the Atheist's position on morals should be if you take God out of the equation. If I were an Atheist I would have no logical option but to accept that there weren't really any such things as "objective morals" and that everything ultimately came down to brutal , dispassionate nature. I would have to accept the futility of talking about "objective" morals as if they were anything but mere human fantasy and social constructs.

However , Atheists don't do this very often and when they do they seem to do it one a purely intellectual level rather than allow themselves to feel the existential crisis this might put them in.

Facing up to the ultimate conclusions that our world view leads us to is really tough.
As a Christian I have some tough consequences of what I believe to face up to , but living in a totally brutal ammoral universe is not one of them. This is an Atheist struggle entirely.