Moral Outrage (The Opprobrium)

This post is long overdue.

One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.

Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.

Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?

As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?

Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?

If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.

After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.

1,378 thoughts on “Moral Outrage (The Opprobrium)

  1. fifthmonarchyman: are you certain about that?

    LOL! Yeah. ‘Cuz. Definition! D’oh!

    OK then you believe that you could be wrong about everything you think you know,

    Not so much. I believe you could be wrong about everything you claim to know.

    How do you know you are not wrong right now about this very question?

    “I’m hungry”

  2. Robin: LOL! Yeah. ‘Cuz. Definition! D’oh!

    so if something is true “by definition” you can know it for certain/

    How do you know that?

    Robin: “I’m hungry”

    How do you know that?

    peace

  3. Allan Miller: Yes I am.

    Acting like the judge with out the authority to do so is the very definition of rebellion.

    Attempting to judge with out all the facts is the definition of foolishness

    Allan Miller: You are not the judge. Nor are you in any position to offer me assurances.

    I agree I’m not the judge

    The real judge is the one who offers the assurances and he is faithful to accomplish his purposes.

    Allan Miller: Not the point. It’s a fool’s errand (and a vanity project) to make something merely in order that the thing made will see how ‘good’ it is. Especially if they don’t.

    It’s a good thing that is not what I’m saying happened

    You are once again attacking a strawman of your own imagination.

    at some point I would think you would tire of that

    peace

  4. fifthmonarchyman: Cool thanks Alan
    that was not so bad was it.

    It was a precise answer to the question that you asked.

    there are lots of ways I can verify that something I believe is true.

    We’ll see, perhaps.

    When talking about presuppositions one of the best is to ask myself what would be necessarily implied if I am mistaken,

    But how would you know, I hear myself asking.

    For example I know I exist because if I did not exist I could know nothing at all. Therefore I know I exist.

    Yes, well, I’d suggest that is true for all conscious beings. We are party to what is going on in our own heads.

    This knowledge like all knowledge is revelation from God.

    Now I’d call that a leap of faith.

    Now that I’ve gave you a little something, let me ask you this.

    You’ve provided absolutely no information about anything in what you write above.

    Is it possible that an omnipotent God can reveal stuff to me even though I don’t understand how he does it?

    Yes.

    If you give me an answer I will describe to you another way I verify the truth of belief.

    OK

    Give and take and all that

    peace

    I’ll look forward to some!

  5. Mung: You are correct. I do not.

    I’ve never encountered anyone before who claimed they had no presuppositions yet still managed to declare that they are hungry as a response to something another person wrote on a blog.

    My apologies Mung. I intentionally threw out the phrase to see if anyone would followup on the implications without revealing the basis.

    Basically, it’s a philosophical exercise. In principle, the “I’m Hungry” exercise illustrates why any outside influence to any behavior is a non-sequitur. In short, every behavior can be traced back to the initial unknown (but later labled) state of “I’m hungry”.

    When you declare that you are hungry, you must understand that your utterance has no meaning. It’s probably a good thing that our efforts to feed the hungry aren’t based on the meaningless utterances of people who are not in fact hungry.

    Once again, you are missing the point. The phrase “I’m hungry” has no reference to a feeling of wanting to eat in this exercise. That would make the exericise moot. Rather, the “I’m hungry” designation denotes an identification of two states: one of discomfort and one of contentment. Whether that state is actually “hunger” makes no difference. The entity in the exercise need only attempt to move from discomfort to contentment. What that state is called is irrelevant.

  6. fifthmonarchyman: so if something is true “by definition” you can know it for certain/

    In this case, yes. I can compare the two definitions and notice, “hey! They’re the same!” Burn!

    Oh…yeah…and “no god required!” Double burn!

  7. keiths:

    In my hypothetical scenario, God is capable of revealing things to you, but on Christmas Day he chooses not to, and he chooses not to overcome your fallibility.

    Being fallible, you could mistakenly think that God has revealed something to you on Christmas Day when in fact he has not.

    Again: Not only could you be wrong about any particular claim of revelation that you make; you could be wrong about all of them.

    fifth:

    if my fallibility means that I could be wrong about everything and I know this it means that God has chosen to overcome my fallibility in at least one case.

    No, it just means that you’ve recognized your fallibility.

    Your argument itself is proof that the Christian God exists

    Not in the slightest. Your reasoning is atrocious.

  8. Robin: In this case, yes. I can compare the two definitions and notice, “hey! They’re the same!” Burn!

    could you be mistaken?

    peace

  9. Alan Fox: Now I’d call that a leap of faith.

    Not at all, as keiths and Patrick have so graciously demonstrated if I can know anything for certain it must be because an infallible being has overcome my fallibility.

    In other words if I know I exist then God has revealed it to me

    Alan Fox: But how would you know, I hear myself asking.

    By revelation of course

    Alan Fox: Yes, well, I’d suggest that is true for all conscious beings. We are party to what is going on in our own heads.

    Except that some conscious beings don’t think they exist.
    Given your worldview how would you convince them that they are wrong? More importantly how do you know for certain that they are not right?

    Alan Fox: Is it possible that an omnipotent God can reveal stuff to me even though I don’t understand how he does it?

    Yes.

    Ok so you agree that I would be perfectly justified in saying that I know by revelation that a particular revelation is genuine even if I don’t know the mechanism or method by which have come to that knowledge.

    cool.
    Now we have some common ground from which to work with.

    That being said
    here is another way I can verify the truth of something I believe

    quote:
    We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
    (1Jn 4:6)
    end quote:

    If you need me to I can unpack this for you. Just let me know.

    peace

  10. Alan Fox: I’ll look forward to some!

    Alan I want you to know that I appreciate your hospitality here. You should be commended for your efforts.

    I’ve told Neil and walto that I think we could have some interesting discussions over a beverage on the front porch. I definitely feel the same way about you

    peace

  11. keiths: No, it just means that you’ve recognized your fallibility.

    If I actually know that I am fallible it must be because God has overcome my fallibility in at least one case.

    Do you know you are fallible? Could you be mistaken about this?
    If not it necessarily follows that you are the recipient of revelation.

    Peace

  12. Robin: Same = same.

    Interesting WOW.

    How exactly do you know this? What criteria did you use to make the determination?

    Is it a presupposition of your part that same=same or do you have evidence for this claim?

    Are you claiming to know for certain that the law of non-contradiction is universal and unchanging?

    How could you possibly know this given your worldview?

    How would you respond to Keiths and Patrick claim that if you know anything for certain it is because an infallible being has chosen to overcome your fallibility?

    Like I said this is a very interesting development.

    thanks in advance

    peace

  13. Pedant: Dear Soul. I’m just pointing out that we don’t have to believe in Jesus to know stuff, as you have so adroitly pointed out.

    You don’t have to believe in God to know stuff but God has to exist for you to know stuff.

    Just like you don’t need to accept science to benefit from science.

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: nope.

    Knowledge is impossible with out truth.
    Christ is the truth

    If you disagree tell me how you know.

    I don’t disagree. I just haven’t seen where you support your claim that “Christ is the truth.”

    Yes, I anticipate that you will say “REVELATION.” But I don’t understand why I should accept that ambiguous word as an explanation for anything.

  15. fifthmonarchyman: You don’t have to believe in God to know stuff but God has to exist for you to know stuff.

    Just like you don’t need to accept science to benefit from science.

    The thing is, FMM, you haven’t done anything but claim that your sectarian source of everything that you call “God” is necessary for anybody to know stuff.

    You haven’t provided any warrant other than your belief in that imaginary being and the attributes you ascribe to it to support that claim.

  16. Pedant: But I don’t understand why I should accept that ambiguous word as an explanation for anything.

    I never said you should.

    If you had given me the slightest indication that you would be willing to explore the evidence with an open mind I would be happy to discuss the evidence for the deity of Christ.

    But since you have not I don’t feel any obligation to do so.

    Pedant: I just haven’t seen where you support your claim that “Christ is the truth.”

    It’s enough for me at present that you recognize that Christ is necessary for knowledge even if you choose to call him by another name.

    Pedant: You haven’t provided any warrant other than your belief in that imaginary being and the attributes you ascribe to it to support that claim.

    Are you now saying that truth is imaginary and at the same time necessary for knowledge?

    peace

  17. fifthmonarchyman: Interesting WOW.

    How exactly do you know this? What criteria did you use to make the determination?

    Comparative analysis.

    Is it a presupposition of your part that same=same or do you have evidence for this claim?

    I have evidence: “I’m hungry”.

    Are you claiming to know for certain that the law of non-contradiction is universal and unchanging?

    I did not claim anything about the law of non-contradiction.

    How could you possibly know this given your worldview?

    I don’t need to know it. “I’m hungry” suffices.

    How would you respond to Keiths and Patrick claim that if you know anything for certain it is because an infallible being has chosen to overcome your fallibility?

    That does not appear to be their argument, so I’m not sure what you are referring to.

    Like I said this is a very interesting development.

    thanks in advance

    peace

  18. fifthmonarchyman,

    Not at all, as keiths and Patrick have so graciously demonstrated if I can know anything for certain it must be because an infallible being has overcome my fallibility.

    No, what at least four people have demonstrated is that even if we accept your unevidenced claims at face value they still lead to the conclusion that you could be wrong about everything you believe.

    We’ve futher demonstrated that when this is explained to you so clearly that you can’t continue to pretend not to understand it, you dissolve into incoherence.

    Before you turn the bot on and ask my how I know these things, click on the provided links. The evidence is there.

  19. Patrick: No, what at least four people have demonstrated is that even if we accept your unevidenced claims at face value they still lead to the conclusion that you could be wrong about everything you believe.

    It appears that Alan thinks I can’t be wrong about my existence and Pedant thinks that I could not be wrong about the law of non-contradiction. Do you disagree with these folks?

    How do I decide which of you is correct?

    peace

  20. Patrick: Before you turn the bot on and ask my how I know these things, click on the provided links. The evidence is there.

    I would disagree with your argument for several reasons

    1) It assumes that the laws of logic are universal and unchanging yet you provided no evidence for this claim
    2) It assumes that an omnipotent God could not overcome my fallibility. That is itself a violation of the law of contradiction,
    3) According to your If I know anything for certain that information has to come from an inflatable source capable of overcoming my fallibility iow God. I know this for certain therefore god has to exist

    It seems to me that your argument is self refuting.

    what am I missing?

    peace

  21. fifth,

    According to your If I know anything for certain that information has to come from an inflatable source capable of overcoming my fallibility iow God.

    Your God is inflatable?

  22. fifth,

    2) It assumes that an omnipotent God could not overcome my fallibility.

    Even if that were true, it wouldn’t help you. The fact that an omnipotent God could overcome your fallibility doesn’t mean that he always would.

    Thus, not only could you be mistaken about any particular instance of purported revelation, you could in fact be mistaken about them all.

  23. keiths: Your God is inflatable?

    I needed that chuckle thanks

    keiths: Even if that were true, it wouldn’t help you. The fact that an omnipotent God could overcome your fallibility doesn’t mean that he always would.

    1) God can’t lie and since he is Good he will reveal some things to me by definition .
    2) God does not have to always overcome my fallibility for me to know something he only has to overcome it once

    keiths: not only could you be mistaken about any particular instance of purported revelation, you could in fact be mistaken about them all.

    1) You are going to have to clarify this. I see no reason why it would follow that I would need to be infallible to know stuff. I need only to have access to some one who is infallible and good .

    2) could you be wrong about what you claim?

    peace

Leave a Reply