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.
I would think that casing harm to non closely related individuals would be a good thing from a evolutionary perspective especially if your closer cohorts understood it to be in defense of their interests in some way.
Are we saying that evolutionary positive actions can be wrong? On what basis do we make that determination?
I would think expending energy and resourses to defend assertions on an anonymous and obscure forum would be a counterproductive move from a evolutionary perspective. A better approach would be to make claims that satisfy your close cohorts and then to focus on producing as many offspring as possible.
Are we saying that it’s wrong to act in a manner that increases the likelihood of evolutionary success? On what basis do we make that determination?
peace
Of course. Why couldn’t they be?
We now have self awareness.
1) Theists often worship different gods. Why would you expect Brahma to have the same morality as Allah?
2) knowing that objective morality exists is not the same thing as having instant infallible access to objective morality
3) From an evolutionary perspective claiming that your subjective opinions correspond to an objective standard makes sense. Are we saying that it’s wrong to do what is productive from a evolutionary perspective?
peace
And the capacity to recognise, and weigh up, competing claims.
If that’s what you think is happening here, you are very much mistaken. Nothing needs to be defended. It’s just some people are kind enough to give people a free education in the way things actually are.
In your particular case there’s no need for defense as you can only attack science with science and we know you can’t do that. All there is is a patient correction of your misunderstandings.
That’s a fair request. My position with respect to the obligations of participants here is based both on Lizzie’s stated goals for the site:
and on the behaviors that promote constructive, rational discourse.
There is no way to understand others’ views, clear up misunderstandings, and find out where our real differences lie if one or more of the participants refuses to answer questions about or provide support for their claims. If someone doesn’t want to meet the minimal obligations to achieve those goals, that person should have the decency to find a site that has different goals.
I don’t see the rules that support rational discussion as moral obligations, merely a means to an end. Where the moral issues arise for me is when people flout those rules and refuse, sometimes explicitly, to engage in good faith. That demonstrates, to me, character flaws including dishonesty, lack of integrity, cowardice, and disrespect toward the site owner and other participants.
These behaviors can be objectively identified. Whether or not one finds those character flaws to be immoral depends on one’s moral code.
What is a “self” except your genome expressed in a phyisical medium.
How do you know this?
peace
Kind is a moral term. How do you know what is “Kind”?
peace
What is morally wrong with flouting rules?
peace
Why should anyone think that a “self” is “your genome expressed in a physical medium”?
What a bizarre and tautological definition.
Here you admit that your source of objective morality does not need to exist. If someone who worships Brahma cannot tell that in fact there is no objective morality then neither can you.
Always an excuse. Even if imperfect access was available it would have been determined over time exactly. But you claim something exists and them make up excuses as to why it appears that thing does not actually exist. Noted.
That’s actually true of your position. You just said as much.
As evolution does not have a goal, in what sense can things be right or wrong from an evolutionary perspective?
It annoys people.
I compare the response you should get with the response you actually get. The delta is defined as “kind”.
Revelation.
Does your supposed ability create an obligation on the part of others?
I don’t think that is what theists (sane ones) are saying at all. They are saying you have an innate sense of morality, because a God created this morality.
Otherwise any sense of morality you think you have is simply an illusion. In a Godless, meaningless world, there as no such thing as right, there is only doing what you feel, but what you feel is just your preference. In a Godless world, if you enjoy killing babies, that is not immoral, because its what you feel.
But in A God centered universe, the person killing babies is wrong, because God gave us the sense to know its wrong. If the sense comes from nothing, the sense is simply wrong. It pertains to no one but you.
I can’t really see what is so hard to understand about this.
As this topic has been done to death on multiple occasions, I shall restrict myself to repeating an observation I’ve made previously:
The debate between moral realism and antirealism is a question of metaethics, about the semantics of moral vocabulary. But figuring out the second-order question about the semantics of moral terms is orthogonal from the first-order use of moral terms in making judgments. A moral realist and a moral antirealist can make the same moral judgments while disagreeing about what moral judgments mean.
The metaethical debate is also conceptually distinct from the metaphysical debate between theism and naturalism. There are naturalistic moral realists, non-naturalistic theistic moral realists, and non-naturalistic non-theistic moral realists. (I’m not sure if there are theistic moral anti-realists, but I know who to ask.)
Point is, any philosophically cogent reasons as to why moral realists must be theists, or even why moral realists cannot be naturalists, must be informed by the current state of debate between all these distinct debates. It can’t be done by merely consulting one’s intuitions, personal experience, or current events.
God must exist In order for revelation to occur.
Even in your mockery you demonstrate that you know that God exists.
peace
“should” is a moral term. How do you define “should”?
peace
Exactly, that is the point. If Lizzie thinks she has a morality, that she just got because it accidentally appeared in her, because that somehow was the right gene pool at the time, its a morality that is only useful to her, at the time she got it. Maybe its already long past its usefulness, just junk DNA.
Why is that? Are you making a moral claim?
On what basis did you make this determination? Please be spesific
peace
Even when they are both members of the same church?
What’s the use of knowing that objective morality exists, if you have no access to that objective morality?
It won’t make sense to me, until I have access to that alleged objective standard.
In my case I don’t heed to any morality because I particularly want to, I heed to it because I know I have to, I know it is my duty as a human to do so, given to me in the form of my conscious knowledge of it.
That is quite different from believing that it is just what I feel like.
I fucking don’t, alright?
How do you define “how”?
Do you push the person onto the tracks, saving 5 lives or allow the train to continue killing the 5 people who do not hear the train coming?
revelation ;-).
Words have meaning because God exists and communicates with us.
peace
That’s not true. There are lots of non-moral oughts — what is expected, what is prudent, what is normal, what conforms to societal mores, etiquette, manners, etc. “The salad fork should go to the left of the entree fork” is a non-moral should; so is “one should gently tap the brakes when one sees a traffic light turn yellow”.
It’s not a supposed ability, it’s an actual ability. Most adults have it. Don’t you?
Yes, just like Brahma. I.E. not at all.
yes
What use is there in knowing that the universe began in a big bang if we have no access to that event?
Good news
You have access God has provided it to you
quote:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
(Rom 2:14-15)
end quote:
peace
It’s not a moral claim; it’s a philosophical claim. My point is that these are logically distinct issues, based on my many years of expertise studying these issues, and hence I think that confusing them is intellectually dishonest.
Except we can observe evidence that it happened/existed, unlike your supposed morality.
Why don’t you go and preach on a street corner somewhere? I’m sure there are people in more need of your good news then the people here.
Then I’l ask you: Do you push the person onto the tracks, saving 5 lives or allow the train to continue killing the 5 people who do not hear the train coming?
That sounds like a moral claim to me. If you disagree please explain how a moral claim would differ
peace
If you only have a hammer….
When you complain about the moral actions of others you provide all the observable evidence we need
peace
Neil Rickert,
Its not a question of “what’s the use”. This is the same miguided question atheists always want to ask. You have morailty inside you. Where did you get it? Either from a God, or as an accidental combination of DNA. One is real, and one is simply practical.
Who is right? You can say it doesn’t matter, you would still act the same. But to the introspective person, he can say, Pol Pot was wrong, not because that’s a useful way for me to think. He is wrong, because that is truth.
It depends on the worthiness and desires of the one individual and what the people in question will do with the gift.
IOW omniscience is required to adequately make the judgement.
Or revelation from someone who is omniscient
peace
Afraid to answer the question are we?
Do you push the person onto the tracks, saving 5 lives or allow the train to continue killing the 5 people who do not hear the train coming?
fifthmonarchyman,
Based on the actions of several theists here, nothing.
Those of us who value honesty, integrity, respect for the time of others, courtesy, and the minimal courage required to participate in good faith on line see it differently.
And yet you cannot know any of that at the time. Nobody can. And yet such judgement calls are made anyway.
So you would let the 5 people die rather than sacrifice 1 to save 5.
Thanks. Now, presumably every single other theist will answer the same way, right? As you all share the same moral code.
I agree, but how do you know?
Why don’t you talk a little about what attributes that person would have to have for you to push them onto the tracks?
What would the people have to do with the gift of life to make them worthy of receiving it?
Patrick,
Why lists those particular traits as being any more worthwhile than any others?
They have the same ability as I do.
Let the blithering commence. Among the stupid arguments already spotted:
“If you believe that evolution caused the moral sense, ‘right’ means whatever it takes to maximise your reproductive output.”
“If you don’t believe objective morality exists, the only alternative is to do whatever you ‘feel like’ doing”.
“If you don’t believe objective morality exists, anything anyone else feels like doing must be OK with you”.
“If you don’t believe in a Higher Source for morality, you have no right to words such as ‘should’, ‘ought’, or (insert the rest of the dictionary here)”.
I paraphrase, of course.
phoodoo,
They lead to more productive, rational discussions than the alternatives.