There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Author: Stuart holds a Bachelor of Design and is currently studying theology at Laidlaw College. Read more from himI’ve taken the time to write some of my thoughts on the proposed “Atheist” bus advertising initiative coming to New Zealand next year. If you haven’t heard, the campaign hopes to raise awareness about atheism through advertisements such as “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” (check out this post for all the details). Here’s my take on the campaign:
Firstly, it’s not properly an Atheistic campaign.
Traditionally and properly speaking Atheism is the theory or belief that God does not exist. As a positive claim to truth this philosophy needs justification – that is, if it is to be held as rational. On this definition Atheism turns out to be just as much a statement of faith as belief in God is often accused to be. Aware of this and lacking successful or convincing arguments to sustain their position, many have sought to redefine Atheism. This is especially true of the so called “New Atheists,” such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and many others. Because of their popular appeal, evangelistic zeal and appearance of scholarly credentials, they have succeeded in construing Atheism as the theory or belief of those who have no reason to believe that God exists.
This latter claim is very different. The first thing that should be said is that this new construal of atheism is totally consistent with God existing (of course, it is also totally consistent with God not existing). Accordingly, on this new definition, both a Christian Fideist and the most fervent anti-Christian bigot can call themselves an Atheist. Also, a person who has looked at all the evidence for God’s existence, and tried their best to understand and engage rationally with the arguments, may well conclude in the end that there is no reason to believe that God exists. He then may decide (i) to believe anyway, or (ii) he may decide to disbelieve. Alternatively, (iii) he may decide to remain undecided on the issue, declaring he doesn’t really know. This last option should rightly be called some form of agnosticism. But under the new definition, this person would be an Atheist.
That said, I’m willing to grant the new Atheist his definition. The net result is a belief which is frankly identical to the traditional Atheist – that God does not exist. Even if that were not the case, their predicament also remains the same as before – such a position is a philosophical position and therefore needs rational justification by way of reasoned argument. It is also false that in the absence of evidence for God’s existence it is more rational to presume that God does not exist. (This idea is fleshed out in my discussion of Russell’s Teapot.)
What can we say of the bus advertising slogan “There probably is no God”? Lacking certainty, this is actually soft agnosticism – the belief that does not know if there is or is not a God. Given the measures Atheists are willing to take to make their philosophy more reasonable, one might be forgiven for thinking that Atheism is a philosophy in retreat.
Secondly, if God does not exist, why should we not worry?
Here are three points where I think worrying would be good advice if it were true that God did not exist.
First, the question of God’s existence is truly the most important question there is. If God exists there are many entailments, some of which are the strong probability of an existence after the death of the physical body. Such an entailment should strongly effect how you live in this life. So this is not a trivial question at all.
To illustrate, think of yourself as a parent whose child has gone missing in the wilderness. Three days of desperate search has quickly passed by, and the leader of Search and Rescue comes to you and gently says, “Listen, we all are very tired and hungry, and we think that there is only a 5% probability that your child is still alive. We want to call off the search.” As a parent you would truly be alarmed, for as long as there are people searching there is a possibility that your child may be found, and found alive. You therefore press the Search and Rescue officer, “Please… Keep searching.” He responds kindly and continues through the night, but in the morning says, “Listen, we think that there is only a 1% possibility that your child is still alive.” Even with a 1% possibility, do you as a parent ascent to calling of the search? Of course not. In fact, the small odds would inspire the parents to reconsider how the child has avoided detection and even the assumptions that informed the initial search parameters. Even if the possibility were to be reduced even further, as long as there is the slimmest hope, the search is not abandoned. For the parents continuing the search is justified, for the reward of having their child back safely in their arms far outweighs the any effort they could expended. In the same way and for the same reason, so should our search for God be. Pascal says the wise man will search for God with all his heart.
The immortality of the soul is a matter so important to us, one which touches us so deeply, that a man must have lost all feeling to be indifferent to it . . .
One does not need to have a very highly trained mind to understand that there is here no genuine and solid satisfaction, that all our pleasures are only emptiness, that our ills are infinite, and that finally death, which threatens us every moment, must in a few years inevitably place us in the awful necessity of being eternally annihilated or miserable.
There is nothing more real than that, and nothing more terrible . . . So a man who doubts and yet does not search is at the same time utterly miserable and utterly wrong-headed. Pensees, 11
Second, if God does not exist then what restraint is there on moral behaviour? This is not to say that Atheists cannot act morally – they most often do. Similarly, I’m not suggesting that Atheists are unable to discern what is right and wrong – I think for the most part they can. Instead, the point is that by erasing God from the picture all morals become mere human conventions that are unfixed and subject to change by the latest whim. They are reduced to preferences, such as the taste of chocolate over vanilla. Without a transcendent ground for moral values and duties, justification for commonly held moral beliefs we all share is lost, and rational restraint from tyranny and oppression along with it. All are vulnerable to be victimised by another’s hedonistic ideal. Without a standard, there can be neither justice nor injustice. Without an ultimate good, there can be no evil.
God has traditionally filled the position of that transcendent ground required for the justification of morality. Immanuel Kant saw that for practical reasons (in order to make sense of morality) it was necessary to assume that God exists. Voltaire, the Eighteenth Century French Atheist said, “If God does not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” In other words, if God does not exist objective moral values and duties do not exist, and this is unacceptable. An Atheist may believe in objective moral values – if he does, he does so without rational justification. An atheist may disbelieve in object moral values but still live a life that affirms them – but to be more consistent with his philosophy he should renounce all moral values and duties, actually become a nihilist and not just believe it, and live as he pleases. After all, if God is absent there is ultimately no moral accountability and no life after death. So if there is no ultimate accounting for your actions, why not live by pure self-indulgence and gratification if you can get away with it? The consequence of a thoroughly realised atheistic view, is cause enough to worry.
Third, there is implied here in the statement “Now stop worrying” a view of God who sits in judgement of the world, condemning every trespass and hanging the threat of hell over every person, in order that they might behave. Such a view is a distortion of the Christian view and misrepresents the nature of God. Jesus said, “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17) As we approach Christmas, we are reminded about the extraordinary lengths God undertook to rescue us from the predicament we were already in, and of the God who loves, and saw fit to offer the life of his Son as a substitute for many. The Christian message is not one of sorrow where a judge finds us guilty and punishes every wrong action, but one of great joy, where a Saviour has made every effort to reach out and draw people to himself, that we might freely choose him and thus avoid the judgment we already so richly deserve.
Thirdly, thanks for the reminder to enjoy life.
Jesus said, “I come that you may have life, and life more abundantly.” This slogan reminds us of the words of Jesus, and that it should be Christians who enjoy life the most. This is the natural state of true believer who has discovered the purpose of all life. That this life is is to discover and know Christ Jesus our Lord, and this should be the greatest adventure as He is the source of fulfilled life and true happiness.
Fourthly, Atheists apparently need a thicker skin.
The stated reason for this promotion of so called Atheism is not to convince anyone that there is probably no God, but to reduce stigma attached to the label “Atheist”. At this I wonder, what stigma could he be referring to? I’ve wrestled with a number of obstinate, unreasoning, and raving-mad atheists in my time, but realise that these are not representative of the general horde (approximately 60% according to the last census) of Atheists/Agnostics in New Zealand. Have Atheist’s got it so bad that they feel stereotyped or misunderstood in some way? It strikes me as supremely odd that in western countries such as Britain and New Zealand, Atheists would start an awareness campaign for Atheism, when Christians in other countries face immanent threat of death from real persecution, and must meet in secret to avoid extermination. To add to the insult, for the most part in the twentieth century it was Atheistic regimes doing the persecuting of Christians. Atheists in Britain and New Zealand apparently need thicker skin. If they want to know what persecution is they should become Christians and experience what it is like living in North Korea, or Saudi Arabia.
Fifthly, these issues are not unprovable.
I often hear the claim that;
1) The Atheistic claim is a universal negative
2) In principle, it is impossible to prove a universal negative.
3) Therefore, Atheism is unfalsifiable.
While the logic is valid, both the premises are false. For (1), the Atheistic claim that “God does not exists,” is not a universal negative – it is a singular negative statement. For (2), both universal negatives and singular negative statement can in principle be proved. All that is required is to find an instance of whatever x is. And if x is God, then finding God disproves a negative. Christians should be aware of this, and have a ready response.
As another instance, I heard recently this argument made by a Christian
1) You cannot prove that God exists.
2) You cannot prove that God does not exist.
3) Therefore, both Atheism and Theism are equally faith commitments.
Again, the logic is valid, but the premises are false. For (1), it is certainly true that one cannot prove with logical necessity that God exists. Logical necessity would be the level of certainty attained by mathematic equations, logical syllogisms, and very few other things. However, it is possible to prove that God exists to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, which is all that is required in a courtroom. Successful arguments for God’s existence can be constructed with premises that are true or at least more plausible than their contradictories and therefore, rationally compel one to believe its conclusion. For (2), the same response for (1) applies – logical necessity is not necessary for a proof. Plus, it is untrue that Atheism does not have positive arguments. The Atheist has traditionally appealed to the Problem of Evil. Some atheists still appeal to the incoherence of the concept of God. Furthermore, what I said about universal negatives not being unfalsifiable applies – all one needs to do is demonstrate there is a God and Atheism is falsified.
Sixthly, this is an opportunity for Christians.
My last thought on this campaign is it makes for an excellent opportunity to address this important topic and to enter into discussion with those who have never thought about it before. While I won’t be donating any money to the cause, this should be seen as an open door for us to advance the gospel of truth. It is a fair warning for all Christian theists to be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have (1 Pet 3:15), and demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5). Accordingly we should be wary of people who have no good reason or sound argument to hold to Atheism, yet believe it anyway. Likewise we should call our fellow believers to become familiar with the good reasons and sound arguments for Christian theism, which implicitly will be defeaters for Atheism.
Related posts:
Only you Stuart, could write such a long post about such a short slogan.
Typo:”thinker skin” :)
Hi Andrew W,
I appreciate the comment. :-)
Thanks for the typo info. My writing is like me… a work in progress.
Hi Stuart, most of your arguments don’t really make sense, but that’s because it’s hard for you to put your case forward objectively because of your strong beliefs. But I want to pick up two of your points – one I agree with and the other I don’t.
The one that I agree with is to do with the definition of ‘an atheist’. I’ve always thought that an atheist was someone who said that God (or any gods) did not exist. I’ve always considered myself more of an agnostic because I can’t say for sure that there is no god. To say that there is no god seems to require a bit of faith, as there’s no way to prove it.
The other point I want to mention (that I disagree with) is where you say the following: “So if there is no ultimate accounting for your actions, why not live by pure self-indulgence and gratification if you can get away with it?” My leading principal in life is to treat others how you would want them to treat you, and that should apply to anyone whether they are religious or not. In other words, you shouldn’t need the fear of the wrath of God to stop you from doing bad things – just think to yourself, would you want someone else doing those bad things to you.
“if God is absent there is ultimately no moral accountability and no life after death.” – oh please – what arrogant rubbish. *rolls eyes* The accountability is to the other people we connect with during our lives and leave behind afterwards. Trying to make atheists out as sociopaths is getting very old, and smacks of desperation and ignorance of basic ‘101′ level social psychology.
How pathetic…
But why, lacking any belief that morality is anything other than personal preference, would you feel inclined to ask yourself that? After all, even as a Christian, I don’t naturally give the proverbial rat’s ass about what happens to other people (except the ones I love). I have to work at caring; at loving my neighbor. So why, if I believed that ethics were just opinions, would I be interested in asking myself if I’d want people to act towards me as I act towards them? It’s not even a relevant consideration unless I’m likely to provoke some kind of commensurate reaction by my behavior. But in that case, the question is entirely self-interested in any case. And in instances where I can get away with acting in ways I wouldn’t want others to act, what’s stopping me? Why should I care how my actions affect them? It doesn’t matter in the long run, since they’re going to eventually die and cease to exist; and it certainly makes my life better in the short run—which in atheism seems to be the only thing that really matters, in the final analysis.
The motivation behind the statement that morality is merely a “personal preference” seems to be to paint it as whimsical and without basis. Personally I am quite happy to call morality “personally preferenced”, but I don’t mean it without basis, I mean it with basis. Morality is then more like – as I have claimed before – human attraction to sweet food or a new-born’s attraction to faces; there is variation between people but en mass we mostly tend to agree. And I would claim that this is where we get our morality; from the sum-average of our opinions.
Because that would be your opinion; that if people ask themselves this the world would be a better place.
And following the instructions of a god who admonishes morality on you is not self-interested?
I didn’t say it was without basis. I said that its basis was no more than personal preference. A point you apparently concede.
So, by your own admission, the question of whether I should prefer murdering young girls to letting them live in peace is on a par with whether I should prefer chocolate or cheese. Since that is exactly what we’ve been arguing already, I take it that you concede our argument.
So what? I don’t care if the world is a better place. I just want to enjoy my life as best I can. I can do virtually nothing to make the world a better place—but I can do a great deal to improve my lot in life for as long as I live, by acting in a way which I would not want returned on me by others.
I never claimed that it wasn’t self-interested. But the reason that we should behave morally, under a Christian worldview, is that it is actually right to do so in the final analysis; because rightness is a real thing. It is genuinely normative. Under an atheistic view, the reason that we “should” behave morally is merely—ostensibly—because we want to enjoy ourselves as much as possible.
No. 99.99% of people disagree with murdering young girls. 60% of people prefer chocolate.
I sincerely hope that this is not your opinion, Bnonn. Perhaps instead you mean this to charicature an a-theist. If so, this is merely your charicature. Most a-theists do care to make the world a better place.
Unless you are claiming that god set up the world to maximise misery or something, that “right” in the final analysis is very tied up with reward (enjoyment). To claim that god set up the moral standards in a fashion unrelated to reward is just….bizarre and poinless!
Other Simon
You mistake a qualitative example for a quantitative one.
Hi stuartm, I appreciated reading your response and would love to hear more from you. (It is a pleasure reading opposing, cordial statements) I hold the same definition of atheist and agnostic as you, and need not say more on that front. There are two points from your comment that I would like to address.
The first is regarding your disagreement with Stuart’s, “So if there is no ultimate accounting for your actions, why not live by pure self-indulgence and gratification if you can get away with it?” To be entirely clear from the start, I agree with Stuart and would like you to flesh out your disagreement some more for I am more than happy to consider what you are saying. You did not actually provide any reason for someone to not live selfishly. What you did provide was a method to live in a somewhat “fair” manner, but you did not provide an actual source (or reason) which gives any requirement to live according to your stated manner (… the golden rule). This is exactly what Stuart was saying. People of any belief can live according to “the golden rule”, but why should one do so? If someone wants to take advantage of others, why is that wrong?
The second issue I have is with your first paragraph where you claimed that most of Stuart’s arguments don’t really make sense. Of course you are obliged to write what you think, but such a big claim (most? of Stuarts arguments) seems to warrant at least one example. It so easy to make unfounded sweeping statements. I would love to see the backing for your statement.
Thank you Jonathan,
I was just typing up a response to Stuartm, but I’m glad you got in before me. That is well put.
To Jamie Kahn Genet – thanks for dropping by. If you read the article carefully, you would have noticed that no one was “trying to make atheists out as sociopaths”. The closest thing to your misrepresentation is that there is no reason at all for an atheist to not be a sociopath if they happened to want to be one. Best wishes to you.
Hi there Jamie Kahn Genet
I hoped it was very clear from what I wrote above that I do not make atheists out a sociopaths, or anything less than moral people for the most part and most often model citizens. Let me respond with a clarification to these words here…
The editors of this blog are very kind to me and tidy up most of my spelling and grammar, and for the most part do an excellent job. In doing so this time their tweaking of the sentence has bought out a different emphasis than my original draft intended. The pre-revised edition read, “If God is absent there is no ultimate moral accountability and no life after death.” The point is I recognise that there is moral accountability in atheism – to yourself, to friends and family, to the community and even to the country through its laws. One could even actualise for oneself moral accountability to the human race as whole and its posterity. However, on the atheistic view, there is no ultimate moral accountability. That is – when all is said and done and the end is come, it didn’t matter who you were or how you lived. If the end for Mother Theresa is the same as Mussolini’s – extinction, then there’s no ultimate reason why one should not live according to ones own hedonistic pleasure and self-interest, instead of with sacrificial good-will to others. When the balance sheets are tallied, and all the earth is an insignificant speck of dust extinguished in the heat death of the universe and forgotten forever, so will all Princess Di’s charity work, so will all the pilfering of the petty thief, and so will the memory of Mao’s Tiananmen Square.
Hi Stuart,
Ah yeah, sorry if I have butted in. There were a couple of things that I wanted to comment on and was just getting around to it. Seems you desired to address the same things as me, and at the same time too. Eheh! At least we seem to be on the same wavelength. Though there was one thing that you wrote which I disagree with.
But first let me say that I enjoyed reading the article. Well done. Extensive, but good.
And on to my query,
You wrote that the first premise is false because the atheistic claim is not a universal negative. Maybe I read this incorrectly, but I would say that this is a fair enough premise. I take the non-existence part of atheism to be contained in the term “negative”. By this I mean that any claim of existence for anything at all is a positive claim, and a claim to non-existence would be a negative claim. The first has something, an object, to consider, while the second is somewhat hanging. The first is easily provable by demonstrating the object in question. The second is only provable by full knowledge of everything within the universe (the set, the bounds) where the non-existence is said to be. And I take it that you would need universal knowledge to prove the non-existence of God. In this understanding, I have no problem with premise 1 being true.
I also have no problem with premise 2. In relation to atheism, the bounds of the question (universe) are so large that, in principle, no one can have enough knowledge to prove the non-existence of God. This is where I agree with stuartm when he wrote, “To say that there is no god seems to require a bit of faith, as there’s no way to prove it.”
While I have no issue with the two premises, the stated conclusion seems totally askew. The two premises (as I understand them) directly lead to the logical conclusion that “Atheism is unprovable”. It is impossible to prove a universal negative, atheism claims a universal negative, therefore atheism’s claim can not be proven. Saying that “atheism is unfalisfiable” does not follow from the premises at all. The logic is not valid.
When you wrote about this you said that, “both universal negatives and singular negative statement can in principle be proved.” I would agree with this if you wrote “disproved” instead of “proved”. The sentence after says that, “All that is required is to find an instance of whatever x is. And if x is God, then finding God disproves a negative.” Agreed. And I think you should have used the “disprove” in the preceding sentence as well.
I usually find myself in unanimous agreement with you so was surprised to find this little nugget. Typing up errors? Covered the ground too quickly? I am all ears for a more detailed explanation if you want to flesh it out some more. Cheers bud. And well done, again.
Stuart,
No, no. Morality is arrived at by the sum-total of our opinions. (Sure it’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s it in a nutshell)
So you concede the argument, and just think that murder is “worse” because more people disagree with it? But how does a more universal preference suggest that we should act in accordance with it more strongly than a less universal preference?
Of course they do. But that’s inconsistent with their worldview. You’re making my case for me.
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say. Reward or punishment are consequences of doing right or wrong, because they are right and wrong. What is the argument you’re actually trying to make?
I checked back in to see if there had been any responses and found the following comments interesting. I don’t really want to get drawn into any discussions or debates about anything really – I’m sure I would lose as you all sound like you’re highly trained lawyers intent on twisting words in your favour (especially that Bnonn character – he’s a crafty one!) The point I made about the original author’s arguments not making sense, is that he’s so firmly set in his beliefs that it’s impossible for him to put forward impartial, logical arguments.
But I’m mostly concerned with Jonathon and Bnonn’s comments about being good to others. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re saying the only reason why you should be good to others is because you think you’ll go to hell if you don’t? In other words, if you don’t believe in any gods, and you don’t believe that there’s a heaven or hell, then you have no reason whatsoever to be good to other people. That leads me to believe that Christians are terribly selfish and are only being good to others because there’s something in it for them (eternal life in heaven). Perhaps you meant it another way, as I’m sure you can’t really be saying that?
Atheists can be moral, but morality is not rational for them based on what they believe.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/is-morality-rational-on-atheism/
If any atheist claims to be moral, I’d like to know for example
1. At how many weeks of pregnancy will an abortion be considered immoral and why
2. Were those high schools shooters in the US immoral and why
3. Was Hitler immoral and why
4. Is slavery immoral and why
Hi Stuart M,
Great name by the way… and thanks for your comments. Just a few points in response.
It need not be said that strong beliefs are not a hindrance to cogent arguments. Logic is a standard which is objective – that is, not subject to personal notions of reasonableness. If you have a problem with the arguments I make or thoughts I put forward, then point them out or make a counter-argument, but simply casting aspersions on the sensibility of my arguments, especially absent examples, is a poor-mans refuting tactic.
On your main concern…
Motivation to act morally is not the issue here. Atheists and Theists alike share the same motivation, and Theists believe they have extra motivation (not only motivation). The issue is whether, given the atheistic view, we can even make sense of moral accountability, for on the atheistic view all moral values and duties become are personal or cultural expressions of taste.
Okay: you’re wrong. What Christians are saying is that the reason we should be good is because it is right to do so. And because “rightness” is something genuinely normative, and because “good” is a term with a mind-independent meaning, that is all we need to say.
Atheists, on the other hand, have so far been unable to provide any convincing reasons at all for us to be good—neither normative ones, nor even pragmatically selfish ones (like the atheist equivalent of “because you’ll go to hell if you don’t”). They haven’t even been able to provide any reasons for us to think that “good” is a term with a mind-independent meaning. Indeed, one of the atheists in this thread has conceded that moral duties (“being good”) are no different in principle than personal taste preferences, except in the degree to which people believe them (and of course, that’s a highly tendentious claim in itself; take issues like abortion, or women’s rights in the third world).
So it strikes me as strange that you think you can even use the phrase “being good” as if it has some normative meaning, and as if pragmatically selfish reasons for being good are not acceptable reasons.
Hi again stuartm, glad you checked back.
For your information, I am a software engineer. I am not a highly trained lawyer and I am not even a trained theologian. The term to best describe me in the realm of theism is ‘layman’. This of course, does not preclude me from explaining myself. I am not after an argument and am not intent on forcing you to accept my position. What I am after is understanding, and I am interested in whether your position has any basis or not. Thus I ask questions. If you ask me questions I will do my best to answer using plain English and I do not twist words. I mean exactly what I write. In regard to what you wrote,
I did understand that this is what you were saying and was after justification, not a rephrasing of your belief. So, I still have a problem with your position because I think Stuart presents entirely logical arguments. Apart from the one case I highlighted earlier, I have never seen Stuart make any logical faults. It is actually one of his very strong points. Logic is impartial, so it is irrelevant what beliefs a person holds. In fact, beliefs are inadmissible when discussing under the premise of logic. It is not logical (or fair) to simply dismiss a persons arguments because of what you think they believe. Engage the argument. What are the parts of Stuart’s writing which do not make sense? I am sure he will be more than happy to explain. And in a friendly manner too.
Stuart and Bnonn have already addressed this and done so well. I will not rehash the validity of what ‘good’ is. Give some careful thought to the previous posts. I will take you just a little further.
Once you acknowledge that there is a real, independent from us, standard of ‘good’, you have just given yourself a reason to seek God. The other thing that you should have confirmed, is the reality that none are good. When we measure up against the real standard, we fail dismally. Hopefully, it is not too difficult to see that ‘being good’ can not get you out of hell and into heaven, because we are simply not good. It would be a useless action to try to be good to get into heaven. You cannot be what you are not. But you can be changed, transformed. As the good book puts it, no one is justified by works. The desire to be good is evidence (and “fruit”) of the change, it is not done to get into heaven.
We have well and truly moved on from the pertinent issue. I thought we should go there to address the incorrect idea that Christians are good in order to get to heaven. No, that is wrong. The pertinent issue that Bnonn highlighted is to address what you first hold ‘good’ to be. If it is just a personal preference, or if it is just a common social norm, then you should be aware that there is no good reason to be good in any case.
Bnonn,
Because that more universal preference is particularly strong; people are very insistent that murdering young girls is wrong. And so wherever that opinion comes from, it is very real; it is a very factual observation about us and the world around us. Our preference for chocolate also tells us something about ourselves – our makeup – and we are also less fierce in our opinions.
No it’s not./And I think your worldview is inconsistent with biblical morality!
Yeah, I’ll try that again:
You are claiming that “right”, under ‘final analysis’, is disjointed from “enjoyment”. This is absurd. God could have commanded things which are completely bizarre to us because they have nothing to do with enjoyment. Or if you claim that god’s commands are ultimately about enjoyment, but the link between them and enjoyment remains unseen to us, then your worldview is still “merely – ostensibly -” about ‘enjoyment’ too. How would we know whether some god-demanded action was ‘right’ or not without enjoyment? We might end up slaughtering neighbouring tribes!
But so what? You aren’t giving a reason why people should act in accordance with this widely-held opinion. You’re just restating that it’s widely-held.
No doubt, but if it’s basically the same as opinions of taste, why should we care about it? I don’t care if someone doesn’t like chocolate. So why should I care if someone doesn’t like letting little girls live?
Two assertions in lieu of any argument. I’ve already made my case; you can’t refute it by saying “nuh uh”.
As regards your argument about “right” and “enjoyment”, I still have no idea what you’re trying to prove. Maybe you should lay it out syllogistically so that your conclusion is clear.
I think that morality is a lot like hunger in that it’s a natural urge to do something that, ultimately, is good for you. And I think it comes with all the mis-firings of hunger too where the bodily desire to consume fat (a great strategy for our prehistoric ancestors) in a way can be equated to various religion’s desires to mutilate their children’s genitals (which, presumably, had some benefit at the time – if only as an identifier or a subjugator) or not eat pork (disease?).
We observe morality in many other closely related animals (such as chimps who will forgo food when taking said food causes others pain) which should tell us a thing or two about where what we call morality originates.
However, thinking that you have sole access to morality, in my books, makes you a less moral person (or, at least, a person who hasn’t given the topic proper consideration). In fact, the person who does a good deed without believing they’ll ever be rewarded for it surely must be more moral than one who believes they’ll earn the approval of some ultimate being. (an extension of Jesus’ parable here)
I don’t think morality equates to ‘taste’. Rather, it’s a two-fold reward system just like hunger where you not only feel great (analogous to sweetness) for having done something you and your fellow creatures perceive as ‘good’ but you will often get a longer term reward (analogous to nutrition) in that you get to live in a society where you do not have to worry so much about being hacked to bits by people with machetes.
And as with hunger there are often many ways to go about achieving the same goal but there are also some demonstrable ways that don’t. I see religions and the religious as narrow-minded in their views on morality as they often are on food issues (I refer more to Jewish and Islamic food laws here).
In my opinion, any moral precept should be able to be justified by reason. Showing how a particular action will be to the detriment or benefit of a common goal. Not accepted purely on the basis that it is written in your favourite holy book.
It’s hard to get into the evolution of human social psychology here in the comments section of a blog, but (and please forgive the oversimplifications) if you consider that acting towards the mutual benefit of fellow members of your society (from the smallest wandering group of nomads to giant megacities like Tokyo) also benefits you, and then expand that (given how thoroughly interconnected we are in the modern world) to all humankind, it gives an excellent reason to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. In that context it is both a biological imperative (arising from our evolution as a social animal) and a logical behaviour.
FYI – Atheist is far from a perfect term for myself. It’s not that I think a god is impossible, I just find it highly unlikely – even a letdown and a rather dull explanation for the wonder and awe inspiring complexity and wonder of the universe (so I won’t deny some bias there, though on evidence alone I reach the same conclusion on the existence of a god).
No offence, but IMO religion is a child’s explanation for a complex system. Arthur C. Clarke’s third ‘law’ of prediction states “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, which is what I see time and time again in my life as I deal with other people’s superstitions (even in my work as a computer tech – if I had a dollar for all the times people ascribed magical powers to their computer… *sigh*).
Part of it’s ignorance (goodness knows I see THAT often enough when dealing with science and technology as faced by the superstitious), but there also seems to be an irrational fear of the complexity and scope of the universe, and an associated need to dumb it down for easier consumption. Conversely the complexity and awesome scope of the universe is exactly what excites and inspires me, and I do _not_ enjoy being patronised.
Anyway, getting back to my point – some people seem to believe the value of acting ethically is lessoned without divine justice. In fact I would say it’s value is _enhanced_. To act ethically even without fear of repercussion IMO shows greater moral courage than those acting either partly or solely out of fear or desire (for that matter) of divine retribution/rewards (e.g. heaven and hell).
Finally – to address Stuart’s response to my earlier post:
“However, on the atheistic view, there is no ultimate moral accountability. That is – when all is said and done and the end is come, it didn’t matter who you were or how you lived.”
Again I disagree as I find greater value in the state of human civilisation than whatever some god might think. Acting to better humanity frankly seems a hell of a lot more important than pleasing some mythological divine power. As the slogan says – stop worrying and enjoy your life, and I find the concept of bettering humanity (colour me a Trekie ;-) and am idealist) and extremely fulfilling and ultimately highly enjoyable one.
These attempts to lesson and even denigrate the behaviour and accomplishments of secular humanists seems nothing more than a lame attack by those trapped by dogma, and unable to reconcile a worldview without said dogma with their own. Again with the fear of the unknown resulting in all too predictable attacks on it.
So I’m sorry – but your argument that ultimately nothing really matters without a god, just doesn’t hold water. It is a blinkered and supremely arrogant view that I tire of. Once upon a time I used to be outraged and incensed by the arrogant attitude and wilful ignorance of many religious people. Nowadays it’s just plain dull, and well past it’s sell-by-date.
Only by patently begging the question, of course.
Who has claimed to have “sole access” to morality? What does that even mean?
“Surely”? On what grounds? You speak of morality as if it’s a real, mind-independent standard even as you argue that it’s nothing but a matter of sophisticated instinct.
Well if morality is nothing but a reward system, that utterly undermines your previous statement, just quoted.
What a bizarre statement. Many of the most narrow-minded people as regards food are not religious at all.
You’re conflating morality and pragmatism as if they’re the same thing. But of course, that’s a highly tendentious (not to mention, without further qualification, patently absurd) claim.
Ha! You’re all bluster and no substance Bnonn. I’ll let my previous thoughts stand for the edification of other potential readers.
Hi Jonathan
I have to thank you very much for the comment and correction. You’ve made me have to go back to my logic text book and revise first-order predicate logic, universally quantified statements and existentially quantified statements, and to do some serious thinking. Now I have done some, I’m pretty sure I’m on top of things now, and that most of your criticism were indeed correct – though not completely.
In response…
This was my argument. I argued premise one was false because it is not a universal negative, but a singular negative. The denial of premise one is a technicality, and not essential to the refutation of the argument, as both singular and universal negatives can in principle be proved and disproved. In other words its premise two which is false.
So on this inconsequential point about Atheism not being a universal negative, but a singular negative, I’m pretty sure the difference is between “None of the chairs in the room are red,” which is singular negative, and “All the chairs in the room are not-red,” which is the universal negative. For Atheism and Theism this would be the difference between them would work out to be “There are no gods,” and “There is no God.” Though I’m not entirely sure… but then again, it doesn’t really matter.
You were right in that the positive and negative refers to the affirmation and negation of the property of existence. The universally quantified negative statement that affirms Atheism is symbolised as (x) (Gx → ¬Ex), which reads, “for any x it is true that, if x is God, then x does not exist.” This is contradictory to the statement (x) (Gx → Ex) which is the Theistic claim and reads, “for any x, if x is God, then x does exist.” So both are positive claims, in that both affirm something true (therefore both equally require justification). But Atheism is a negative statement in the sense that it denies the property of existence in the consequent (¬Ex).
As you said, it is possible to disprove a universal negative. Consider the example bellow;
This is a universal negative and is easy to disprove. All that is required is to prove the contradictory, which is the existentially quantified statement symbolised as (∃x) (Cx & Rx) which reads “there is at least one x such that x is a chair and x is red. ” So, find a red chair in the room and the universal negative is disproved. That’s partly why William Lane Craig recommends a strong positive case for theism.
Obviously, Atheism being a universal negative (or perhaps a singular negative), it is not in principle impossible to disprove. What makes it impossible is because it is a truth claim that is radically beyond the limits of human ken. (Ironically, in order to know there is no God, it would require the knowledge of an omniscient being. So if you could know atheism was true, you would know it to be false because you yourself would be God.) Anyway… its not impossible in principle to disprove a universal negative, just impossible in practice.
Yes, you are right. I should have said “disproved” given the contextualising of the succeeding sentence. But funnily enough the first sentence is not incorrect when it is by itself. Consider the next universal negative.
This is a universal negative and can be proved. What is required here is to show that concept of a married-bachelor is incoherent. To show this you would reveal the self-contradiction in the definitions. That is why atheistic proofs often take the form of showing the concept of God is incoherent. But over the centuries no one has managed to cogently show the incoherence in the concept of God – there just doesn’t seem to be a successful argument, and this inability of the Atheist is one source of confidence for the Theist. So, in principle, universal negatives can be proved, but again, in practice it is extremely difficult and actually (at least in my thinking) has never been done.
You are right again. The argument was formally invalid being a non sequitur. It’s all the double-negatives get me confused.
You might be amused to know my excuse for the grammar and spelling errors, etc. It took me two evening to write up this article after two long days, and during the course of that time I probably fell to sleep while writing about three times. So if the logic is fuzzy, that’s probably because my brain was fuzzy at the time. :-)
So your revised argument is better than mine, in that the logic is formally valid. But as premise (2) in the syllogism bellow is not true the argument is unsound and the conclusion does not obtain – that is from those premises. The conclusion is true on other grounds, as shown above. In which case, Atheists do not escape the burden of justifying their philosophical claim, but find that this burden is too heavy to bear.
The revised argument:
(1) The Atheistic claim is a universal negative, and
(2) In principle, it is impossible to prove a universal negative.
(3) Therefore Atheism’s claim cannot be proven.
Thanks again. (I hope all the above is right ;-)
Damian,
I was very disappointed with your comment. In your first sentence…
Morality is that which is good. This is, as Bnonn says, patently begging the question. And this pattern of smuggling in evaluating terms to describe what is moral is all throughout. Witness your final paragraph
Also,
But I don’t think this. And I don’t think I have ever indicated in my writing that I, or any other Christian apologist for that matter, thinks this. That same Holy Book you are so cynical about affirms all – including atheists – have access to morality, which I take to mean all can know what is moral through the witness of conscience (Rom 2:14-16).
Hello Jamie Kahn Genet,
I agree. The problem is your analysis has failed to give moral behaviour. Also the first premise is problematic, as there are a wide divergence of opinion on what exactly benefits society, and some of these opinions are morally unacceptable. Consider as one example the 9/11 terrorists, who thought flying a plane into the World Trade Centre was acting towards the mutual benefit of their society and this action would also benefit them (they would receive a heavenly reward). The system you propose works, but only until you find someone who disagrees with what you consider to be good. So you’ like Damian, have smuggled in the concept of good in describing what is good.
I’ve heard this argument and response before, and I’m not impressed. The Atheist may believe he is more honourable in his altruism that the Theist because he acts with good-will to others without the threat of judgement or expectation or rewards. Such may be true. But this does nothing to address the argument that there are no good reasons on the atheistic view to justify if moral values and duties even exist, and even if they did exist why they would be worth adhering to absent God and eternal life.
Your low opinion of God’s opinion and pleasure (and high opinion of your own) concerning the value of human society do not address how an atheist can make sense out of moral accountability, especially given the inglorious end of everyone – the good and bad – all forgotten and dissolved into cosmic dust.
I don’t attack or denigrate the moral achievements of secular-humanists or anyone else. I think you’ve bought a lot to this conversation that wasn’t there. I seems to me you’ve read things in light of some previous experience and failed to engage with what was really there. Perhaps it is you who are trapped by dogma – the dogma that all Theist’s are alike and use the same arguments.
You haven’t given a reason why something would matter given Atheism. Its doubtful if Atheism (the philosophy) is even capable. After all, it was famous British Atheist of the twentieth century Bertrand Russell himself, who said something like all is hopeless indifference, built upon the firm foundation of despair. Hence, I could justifiably echo your concluding thoughts in the last three sentences in the quotation above – substitute religious for irreligious.
Bnonn,
Well, if you are the 0.01% person who thinks killing children is okay, then that is your opinion. But with a little reflection it would not be hard to conclude that you opinion is perverse, given that you are only 0.01% and the fact that othrs are very against you.
Haha. I’m not the one that started with the assertions:
“Of course they do. But that’s inconsistent with their worldview.”
Right and enjoyment: Please explain what is “right” under ‘final analysis’.
Other Simon,
We know majorities can be wrong in many areas of knowledge (in fact the appeal to majority is an informal logical fallacy), so why on earth does majority opinion on what is right and wrong make “x is right” and “x is wrong” true.
Morality is a prescriptive norm qualitatively above personal opinion. If the only reason you have for thinking something is wrong is because you (and other people qualitatively no better than you) think it’s wrong, I think it’s time you admit that without God to ground moral values and duties in reality, they do not exist.
Thanks heaps for the detailed response Stuart. I have no idea how you can give so much time and effort. It is appreciated! In regards to the proposition,
As you know, I already agree with this new revised logical argument in terms of the conclusion being logically derived from the two premises. That looks spot-on. Yet, for this argument, I do not actually think it is false – I have a caveat. (I actually have no problem with Atheism being unprovable, but that is not the reason I accept the argument.) You have said that premise 2 (as it stands) is false and explained why. You say that it is possible to prove a universal negative and I accept this. The two reasons:
1) A universal negative that uses mutually exclusive definitions can be proven by a clear examination of the various definitions. These cases usually do turn out to be nonsensical statements like the good example you gave of “married-bachelor”.
2) A universal negative can also be proven if the scope of the universe (the set, the concept) is examinable. The “chairs in the room” is a good example as the scope (the universe) is limited to a single room. A room is well and truly within our ability to examine.
Yet, I believe that there are cases (which do not meet the above criteria) where a universal negative is impossible to prove. These cases would require (a) sensible statements with (b) the scope of the universe being beyond our reach. An example would be “Other than earth, there is no physical life anywhere in the (physical) universe.” We can not prove this without total knowledge of every corner of the physical universe. The criteria for proving a universal negative, is full knowledge of the universe under consideration.
It would seem to me that claims about God immediately invoke a universe (the boundary of the set) that is beyond our reach. For a theistic universe (scope of the question) is even held to extend beyond space and time. As such, I find the above argument sound, if it is understood that premise 2 relates to an un-examinable universe. Of course, you are being entirely reasonable to falsify premise 2 for the lack of specification.
Thanks for the revision and get some more sleep. :-)
Stuart,
You are correct. Morality does not exist as you want it to. It has only ever been the sum-average of our personal opinions.
As for your claim that without god, morality doesn’t exist, simply refer back to your ‘atheistic moral platonism’: I think beliefs such as “don’t murder” are very real. They are part of our makeup.
Other SImon,
I grow weary of contradiction.
Jonathan,
We are in agreement. Just note that premise (2) is specific; that in principle, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. That is false. However, as you correctly point out, sometimes in practice it is impossible to prove a universal negative. That is true enough given the expanse of the universe and the limits of man. :-)
I think the scandinavian countries are good examples of almost completely atheist societies which are very functional. They have high taxes and very good social services; very good morals despite being very irreligious. (Because of it? – look at the States.)
True Stuart. I do agree.
On the matter of morality: Isn’t it interesting how the actual concept of morality is not grasped and people just rehash a story of how the idea of right and wrong could have evolved. If it evolved folks, it can neither be right or wrong. It just is. There is no way that you *should* behave, there are only descriptions about the way that people do behave and the way that they think they should behave. You can describe behaviours that are beneficial to mutual survival all day, but you have not grounded any of these behaviours in the term *right*. You do not have good, you just have description of what is beneficial. Cause for pause?
And who said that the majority decides what good is? That was funny. The majority does not run evolution folks. It is the single mutant, the individual who is different, the one who breaks the mould – this is the basis of evolution. You can not get from a single cell to humans by claiming it is right to follow the majority.
Morality does not come from religious books and it does not exist in naturalism. Neither gives us a real morality. Morality can only come from a being of sufficient authority. If right and wrong are real, God is real. If right and wrong are just concepts we invent to help us meet one purpose or another, the only reason to follow “right” is to achieve that particular purpose. There is nothing wrong with desiring a different purpose in this case, and therefore nothing wrong with not being ‘right’. Get it?
(Oh yeah, it is really simple to drop the crime rate guys. Just make drugs, prostitution, abortion … and on and on … legal.)
I DO grasp what you mean by ‘morality’, Jonathan. And I think it imaginary.
We evolved a brain to model the world, but according to you it must be neither right or wrong, because it has evolved. We cannot trust our brains to help us decipher the world around us because they are evolved and untrustowrthy!
Hi Other Simon. Fantastic!!
We agree that under naturalism (which is the position you speak from), morality (by which I mean a real right and wrong) is imaginary.
Cheers buddy. Enough said.
“You haven’t given a reason why something would matter given Atheism.”
Yes I did. In fact I was I was very clear about why I feel ethical behaviour matters. It was not possible to miss. Yet you ignored it. That more than anything tells me continuing this is pointless. As so often with those trapped by dogma, I’d be reduced to beating my head against a brick wall…
Jonathan
Re comment # 20 December 2009 at 8:11 pm:
Eloquent as ever. :-)
Jamie Kahn Genet,
Feel free not to continue, it would be a pleasure. I’ve re-read your comment, and missed the reason you say you gave again. The only thing I could possibly construed as a reason why things matter given Atheism is because you think it does, and you value human civilisation. That’s pure subjectivism, which I have argued extensively elsewhere is a poor understanding of moral values and duties.
Jonathan,
Nice evasion. In my last post I’ve shown that your position is ridiculous. You can’t even trust your own brain.
Other Simon,
If your argument is so successful, what makes you think it doesn’t apply to your brain as well?
Other Simon,
My Position
You have shown that my position is ridiculous? Surely you jest. You know that my position is … God is real, life is designed, the universe has a source, morality is real, reason is justified, there is more than just matter and energy, we are dual beings, there is actual significance, meaning and purpose to life, Jesus was God incarnate, miracles have occurred and still occur, we will ultimately face justice or mercy and there is life after death. What have you shown about this position? Nothing in the designated comment…
I actually do trust my spirit, brain and reason – because they are sourced in an intelligent, rational, loving being. No, you have shown nothing mildly close to my position being ridiculous. Of course I know that you think this position of mine is ridiculous – but you have not shown it. And yes, I am able to assume you were meaning to talk about my position on naturalism. But that requires me to disregard what you actually wrote and place my own meaning in your sentences. (Too many people do this already) I do not like assuming things. Well, since this is the only interpretation that could remotely make some sort of sense, let us have a look.
On Naturalism
What you did, was first assert that “We evolved a brain to model the world.” Now this launched your two sentence, “showing of my ridiculous position”, with a rather big, unsupported statement. Let me just note that I disagree with this first premise and that we have discussed this elsewhere. And now, let us concede your premise to see where you take us. Well, you did not go very far, I think the rest of your deduction was meant to be a presentation of my position. Ok, given your first premise (which I think false), I will tell you my position, again.
In naturalism, there is no right or wrong. You got that part, about my position, right. (Let’s just ignore that blaring contradiction for now) Atoms move about according to a set of impersonal laws. Naturalism allows matter, energy and laws. There is no underlying intelligence, reason, direction or purpose. There is no known source for the matter, energy or laws. They just are. There is no right or wrong. An atom bumping into another atoms means what? Was it wrong? Was it right? Of course not! You probably already agree with this if we are talking about a lifeless planet, or dirt, or inanimate objects. Yet it seems you want to discard this reality when we talk about your particular clump of atoms.
Under naturalism, can we trust our brains? Are they untrustworthy? Well, we would have no reason to trust them. All the atoms in the brain cells are still moving according to a very specific set of chemical laws. In fact, given the knowledge of every position of every atom in the universe, and all the laws involved in the universe, your brain would just be following a fully predictable atomic path. Fully predictable from your birth right through to your death. Does naturalism give us a reason to trust our brains? Not at all! In these two paragraphs, I think I have run through your presentation of my position with slightly more depth:
Now, I was a little lost as to the source of the “Nice evasion” comment. I do appreciate any compliments you want to send my way, but what was there that I could evade? You used “evolution” in place of “naturalism” in presenting my view, or did you use “decipher the world” instead of “morality”. Either way, what you wrote was close enough to my view to just let it stand.
The comment you quoted me on was # 20 December 2009 at 8:11 pm . In this comment, it should be plainly clear that I was only talking about morality. Thus it only seemed natural that after you responded to this comment, my response to your response would be on morality. And I actually thought I was continuing the main thread of this discussion when I replied. (I hold the main discussion to be about morality, which kicked-off in the third comment) Do you see why I fail to grasp the “Nice evasion.” Comment? I was not evading anything and this should be further emphasised with my willingness to directly address your veiled meanings in this growing post.
(At this point, I have shown that each one of your three sentences is plainly false. But we should continue with your possible meanings)
Now I have had to extrapolate a little because you lacked specificity. This subsequent comment (resplendent with brevity) seems to be saying that since we do appear able to make sense of the universe, we obviously can trust our brains (or more appropriately, our “reasoning”). And as we can trust our reasoning, my position of not being able to trust our brains is ridiculous.
Yes, that is exactly true! And that is why you should toss naturalism.
If you want to use logic to decide that we can trust our brains, why not use logic to decide that naturalism is insufficient? Now I am wondering if you are going to bring out the
“I embrace contradictions” defence. I have no answer if you want to use that tack Other Simon.
As my original response highlighted, I am just glad that you acknowledged a real morality does not exist in naturalism.
Gooooooooooood Loooooooooooord.
I’m just going to respond to 20 Dec 8:11
Your concept of morality is not adhered to (it is grasped). Because of your platonically ideal (god-grounded) idea of what ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are you find it incompehensible that right and wrong could just have evolved. When you refer to “actual” morality, what you really mean is “my” morality.
Here is something that you might need to ponder for a bit. Some people are quite happy that right and wrong evolved and that it is right and wrong.
Perhaps you could outline the differences between “beneficial to mutual survival” and “right”. These terms are very conflated to me.
I would agree that ‘the majority’ does not decide in normal evolution. But when it comes to groups; to co-operative societies, abberant behaviour is often punished. Why? Because societies which don’t punish abberant behaviour decay into non-co-operation. Now, when societies become real entities, the majority really does run evolution.
I think that history has shown us that the groups with the correct “right” and “wrong” have been the ones that flourish. I guess you could just select for a particular purpose and build your right and wrong around that but I do not think that you would flourish; you would be too narrow-minded for the unseeable future.
Indeed. Now you are making sense. ;-)
No. I comprehend it. It just falls short of morality.
If that is so then I concede that I do not really have morality.
Yes. I know that. And so?
Exactly! You continue to make my points for me.
Majorities impose their beliefs. Mutations still run evolution, unless you find some intelligent beings (humans) designing biological functions – and then you would have to say that changed is pushed by intelligent design and not evolution.
Thanks for sharing Simon. I appreciate this backing of what I wrote.
Other Simon,
What is meant by “actual” morality, is the moral values and duties we, Atheists and Christians alike share, and the nature of these values and duties derived from our reflections on the moral realm, i.e. that they are objective, they are prescriptive, they all represent a qualitative norm, etc. Now when you say that all moral values and duties have developed in the course of human evolution as a result of natural processes you say something about the nature of these moral values and duties, ie. that they are subjective: that is they are person-relative or culture-relative, so they are therefore non-prescriptive, they represent a quantitative norm, etc. So this axiological argument doesn’t rely on definitions that are circular, but actually uses your own intuition on the nature of morality – shown in the way you use moral terms such as “right,” “wrong,” “should,” “shouldn’t,” “don’t,” – to refute (precisely to contradict) the implications of what morality is on naturalism.
Which makes this statement…
… the point really. The naturalist has to borrow beliefs that he cannot have, given his own understanding. When he – the naturalist – condemns behaviour he uses that which is not given him in his own worldview – a prescriptive standard of right and wrong or a qualitative norm – but that which he has stolen from the worldview he denies. He cannot live consistently with what his belief should be, and the behaviour he cannot avoid shows he is a contradiction.
But Other Simon is comfortable with contradiction. That’s his escape hatch – and he uses it liberally – not realising that he also escapes reason at the same time, nor that that which is contradictory is false necessarily. For instance, he affirms Atheistic Moral Platonism – a belief that affirms objective moral values and duties, but describes a purely subjective morality in his musings. He affirms that the universe which includes time could not have begun, but that the universe is not eternal. He affirms that Empiricism is true, a belief or theory of knowledge which is self-contradictory at its core. More examples I’m sure can be found, and when put together clearly shows intelligent discussion is near hopeless. For with beliefs like this, he could believe himself refuted yet correct at the same time – that would be consistent with his inconsistency at least.
Stuart, are you familiar with any of the research on moral decision making? The neurobiological basis of it etc.
Although the research field is young, as with all areas of brain research, we can show a clear relationship between chemical interactions and moral decision making. As a popular example, a neurotransmitter oxytocin is thought to have a primary role in regulating (along with many other systems) our interactions with other beings. In basic terms and with certain caveats, by modifying chemicals in your brain you could dramatically change your concepts of morality.
Moreover, it is possible to show an evolutionary history of oxytocin and how it is used in much the same ways in the brains of other animals – from chimps to mole rats and beyond.
The strong biological basis of morality has been presumed to exist for hundreds of years before these more recent studies, e.g. from studies of patients with brain lesions that dramatically change their personality and ‘moral-like’ decisions, or simply from observing other animals.
Can you explain how these facts fit into your view that notions of right and wrong are directly from a god?
And please avoid ideas like “that’s just the mechanism by which God regulates moral decisions!” as these types of arguments don’t add anything constructive. We don’t need the god clause here to explain the behaviour.
Other Simon,
While all the science is very interesting, it is also totally irrelevant to the above conversation as that is all an epistemological concern.
And you have also misrepresented my view, which is thoroughly dissapointing as I have stated it many, many, many, many times.
I know it doesn’t follow perfectly from the above. This is, after all, an internet forum.
And no I don’t know your view exactly, explain it in a sentence then and give your thoughts on answering the question if you want to. Or you don’t believe that morality has an objective basis that has something to do with a supernatural thing?
I’m sure we can talk about this without getting overly philosophical.
Also, I think I have enough of an idea of your views from this quote:
“if God is absent there is ultimately no moral accountability and no life after death.”
You rely on the judeo-christian god for moral accountability. Yes?
You know the funny thing. It is possible to show an “evolutionary history” of absolutely anything. In a biology class we were given a range of fasteners to put into a “evolutionary history”. You know the thing; simple nails, threaded nails, screws etc. And you can make quite a successful “evolutionary history” from these things.
Unfortunately the fact that each item did not give birth to the next one was lost on the teacher. The fact is that each item was individually and uniquely designed by an intelligent being for a specific purpose. Observed history is quite reliable.
While I appreciate that you are not talking to me Simon, you should well and truly know Stuarts view. He has written so many articles on this.
If you want to tie morality to a chemical arrangement then morality is subjective. Sure it is objective to the item with the arrangement but the “morality” is neither right nor wrong. Different arrangements, different moralities? In what they say, none are wrong .. and none are right. They are just a description of what the chemical arrangement produces.
If you want to tie morality to group consensus, it is really simple to realise that what the morality says cannot be “right”. The individual who disagrees is wrong? When slavery was the group consensus, the individual who fought it was wrong?
To quote the latest attempt by Stuart.
I like your explanation Stuart.
For a morality to be real (applicable and prescriptive), you need something with the features; unchanging, authoritative, intelligent and singular. The authoritative part also implies creator. You do not specifically need the Judeo-Christian God for such. But I (and I believe Stuart) accept this God to be real.
Jonathan,
Sorry I didn’t reply to your long post. It was just far too long and confusing.
You misunderstand, Jonathan. The aim of this discussion is not to feel better about ones self.
Right…so how about answering my central question Jonathan :)
How do you tie this chemical evidence in with your worldview?
Stuart, I just don’t see any argument against this. Just assertions about what a naturalist can’t do – ones that aren’t even backed up. And this goes back to your misunderstanding of my response to this:
Jonathan’s response here shows a misunderstanding of what someone like myself thinks of morality. Your views on ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are absolute. But who says that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are absolute?
This is exactly like the knowledge argument. You claim that empiricism is self-contradictory despite the fact that empiricism came about by empiricism! Empiricism is completely able to self-examine. In just the same way that I can see the truth in a modern, empirical, scientific model and yet at the same time be open to better empirical models, so too can I see the truth in moral codes while being open to better moral codes. You can’t do this, and so [your version of] christianity will be left behind as better truths are selected for. You must remain afraid of the future; it is a threat to you, because – sadly – you think that you already have the absolute truth. This is an obvious and recurring pitfall throughout history, visible to all except those that are doomed to repeat it.
Simon,
Apologies for thinking you were “Other Simon” in my last comment. Nevertheless, the content of my previous comment to you remains the same.
Eheh. You know what is confusing. Seeing two tags “Simon” and “Other Simon” and thinking that they are really the same person, yet wondering why they both turn up? Do you two Simon’s realise that you both use a lot of the same expression and characteristics in writing. So are you different people?
My apologies as well if you are different people. I may have neglected to include the “Other” in some posts.
——–
That you read feelings into my writing is an issue Other Simon. Things are bound to get long if one has to address personal attacks. So please try and refrain from such distractions. (I am not upset, annoyed, angry or frustrated)
Since you apparently missed the point of two simple sentences, let me use a few more words. (Troubling, isn’t it?) If I write that a naturalist does not really have morality, but instead is just providing descriptive facts about one thing or another. And then you (a naturalist) tells me that morality is tied to chemical processes or is the sum of group negotiation, do you see how you have backed up what I was saying by providing a working example? So I wrote two sentences:
“Thanks for sharing Simon” – Means what it says. I was thanking you for coming back and explaining your view. The view of a self-proclaimed naturalist.
“I appreciate this backing of what I wrote” – Means what is says as well. Your explanation of what morality is, fits into what I had been saying morality becomes in naturalism.
In short, we were agreeing that an objective morality, an applicable, prescriptive standard does not exist in naturalism. You by example, and me by description.
Sorry if this got too long. (I am not being facetious, gloating, rude, insulting or attempting to feel better) I am probably just a little troubled about how to be clear and concise while not discourteous.
Yes we’re different! He’s clearly an imposter. He saw how awesome my name was and decided to call himself Other Simon. Either that or he is actually called Simon in real life. Who knows.
Now kindly answer me J and S :)
Simon
Once again, the idea not that notions of what is right and wrong come from a god, but that right and wrong itself need grounding in an transcendent being. That is, without God right and wrong do not even exist.
Thoughts on this:
1) It is really agreeing with the first premise of the moral argument. That on a naturalistic view, this is all that morality becomes – changes in brain biochemistry (no prescription – no moral ‘oughtness’ or ’should’ – just description, a subjective standard, quantitative not qualitative, etc.)
2) It is irrelevant how one comes to know moral truths – that is moral epistemology, which I am not concerned with as it doesn’t touch the argument in the slightest. What the real issue is here is moral ontology – which is the nature, specifically existence, of moral truths.
3) You seem to be conflating what one thinks is moral with what is moral. This fits the pattern of confusion outlined in (2).
It seems to me, when you consider the end of man, collectively his ultimate destructionin the heat death of the universe, and personally his own life being extinguished – the irrelevancy and futileness of all his accomplishments – that self-interest and gratifying your indulgences will always outweigh the reasons to adopt the moral point of view. But this would not be the case on a theistic view, which understands there is an eternal life and an infinite God. The theistic view is the only things that gives moral accountability and worthwhile sense at all. In order for there to be little moral accountability, there need to be objective rights and wrongs and big moral accountability, and atheism furnish reality with neither.
I used to go by ‘Simon’ but when the other one turned up I changed to ‘Other Simon’.
Ironic hey. Well that explains why I thought the ‘Other Simon’ sounded very similar to the original Simon. It would be a handy addition if one of you got a Gravatar. ;-)
——
Regarding your question (new) Simon, my worldview is not of a distinct matter universe and a distinct spiritual universe. It is more like superimposed parallel universes. In line with your comments that chemical processes produce morality and changes in the chemicals produces changes in morality, I would suggest you think about how you have just defeated morality itself with that observation. Conversely, if morality is sourced outside of matter, then it will at times be indistinguishable from actions requested by chemicals and at times in direct opposition to actions requested by chemicals. This would look to you like rational thought overriding instinct.
I would love to continue this conversation, but unfortunately I am madly organising myself to head of into a third-world country for a few weeks of community improvement. (Building orphanages, wells, small businesses – and playing with great kids.) I shall be away from the Internet for this time and thus will not be able to reply to you. Don’t take my lack of response in any other way. In any regards, Stuart has clarity and conciseness far ahead of me.
Have a great Christmas.
Jonathan.
Oh, I don’t know about that.
Have a good one Jonathan. :-)
Recent Comments
The Thinking Matters Bloggers
Dominic Bnonn Tennant, Editor
bnonn@thinkingmatters.org.nz
Jason Kumar, Editor
jason@thinkingmatters.org.nz.
Stuart McEwing, Writer
mcewing.stuart@gmail.com
Rob Ward, Writer
rob.ward@thinkingmatters.org.nz
Questions, suggestions, and other comments are more than welcome.
NZ Apologetic Groups
NZ Christian Blogs
Apologetics
Philosophy
Creation & Evolution
Magazines and Journals
Stats
Popular Tags
Most Commented
Popular Posts