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.
You didn’t understand what Lizzie said.
Again. What does it matter whether you believe there exists an objective morality if you cannot objectively determine what that morality is? All you have is your fallible and subjective human mind.
Rumraket said:
All we have is our fallible and subjective human mind when it comes to evaluating anything. You might as well ask what difference does it make if you believe in an objective train hurtling towards you. You cannot objectively determine anything at all because all you have to determine anything with is your own fallible and subjective mind. The apparent consensus of others is still interpreted and judged through your subjective and fallible mind. A perfect example of a self-refuting argument.
To insist on the fallibility and subjectivity of the mind as warrant against an unwelcome idea is to saw off the very branch you are sitting on because your own fallibility and subjectiveness undercuts your argument, an argument which you make as if some other fallible and subjective mind should immediately recognize and accept it as true.
As mung has pointed out, everyone here acts as if morality is an objective commodity with necessary consequences, even though they argue for the contrary. Their moral outrage, under the anti-theistic proxy of materialism/natuarlism), can be nothing more than personal dislike. So, they personally dislike some theists behavior; so what? They have no more claim for moral authority than any theist who calls homosexuality or extra-marital sex “immoral”. Under proxy atheism, it’s exactly the same thing: a string of physico-chemical accidents that ultimately produces a subjective dislike.
William J. Murray,
They hate when you say its just chemicals! They hate it even more when they have to say it themselves.
Plus there is the sieve, the sieve!
They hate it so much in fact, when you call it a physio-chemical reaction, that it almost makes them want to write what they actually think it is.
Almost.
phoodoo,
You seem curiously excitable today, phoodoo.
Under proxy-atheism, TSZ regulars find Barry Arrington’s behavior morally outrageous. This means they personally dislike it. So? Under the principle of proxy atheism, BA personally dislikes the behavior of those he bans. So? If it’s all a string of physico-chemical accidents, a haphazard chain of events determined (even if not predictable) by interactive regularities, WTF are TSZers bitching about? BA does what he does from exactly the same inescapable process of physical causes as the TSZers.
The moral outrage of TSZers, under their own proxy-atheism, is much ado about nothing, just a bunch of people venting their personal dislikes as if those personal dislikes were something more.
You see what you want to see William. You can’t understand.
Whereas you, of course, have actual free will.
Bravo! And look where that has got you, lol.
No that is not true at all,
I understand how it works, God reveals it.
You were asking how he reveals it and the answer is by revealing it.
No blind “faith” involved at all. Just trust in the one who is faithful.
I know you don’t understand this but that is simply because you reject a priori the very source of understanding.
You would need to wait for eternity before you could be confident you did not get an answer. That’s how science it works. You can not ever prove a hypothesis is true you can only falsify it.
Your hypothesis is that “the God who gives understanding does not exist.” All it takes is for you to understand one thing and your hypothesis is falsified.
Eternity is a very long time.
i don’t think so, In order to know anything you need to know everything or have revelation from one who knows everything. Seems logical sound to me.
If you disagree please present your case.
and tell me how you know it’s true
I just did
Revelation 😉
What falsehoods is the lying entity supposedly “revealing”. Please be specific.
Are you saying that the proposition that knowledge is possible is a falsehood?
how do you know this
peace
For example, your claim that species are held in a 4-D grid in the mind of god. For all you know (and can verify) that was Satan whispering in your ear telling you that.
I don’t think you understand what “prove” means. You don’t appear to be using it in a way which shows you understand it.
If proper spelling is a condition of knowledge I am undone 😉
Right different in your own subjective opinion. That is the point.
Because God’s moral opinions are objective by definition and mine are not.
He is God after all
This is not difficult.
peace
Why don’t you ask god if you should push 1 person to save 5 or what?
By definition there is only one independent observer. wait for it……… God.
Therefore only God can verify if a communication is from God ………and he does.
This is the point you need to demonstrate.
You need to show how revelation is impossible and then explain how you know this.
peace
How, specifically?
Such a bold claim requires evidence, what have you got?
Sure, that particular idea could very possibly be false that is what science is for.
On the other hand I know that Satan is not whispering in my ear telling me that knowledge is possible because God knows things.
Do you see the difference?
peace
revelation, God has revealed it.
peace
And how to do you propose science goes about falsifying that particular idea?
It’s your claim, so support it or withdraw it.
To you, perhaps, but to nobody else.
Are you saying we should take it on trust that god is revealing things to you? If so, I think we should exclude you from the normal work of society and build a golden palace that you should sit in and await more revelations from god.
Why would I possibly care about a hypothetical situation that I will almost certainly never encounter?
peace
Another dodge. Moral dilemmas are common. They are usually not so extreme as these, but nonetheless they exist.
You are terrified to answer because you know that you might get it wrong. Or that other theists you respect might answer in a different way, illustrating the lack of an objective morality.
Normal people have no problems answering. Yet you, who claims to have access to an objective morality where you’d simply “look up” the answer, you cannot answer!
no he has revealed it to you as well
Oh not at all
You should take it on trust that God can and has revealed things to you.
You should do this because you know it to be the case
peace
What? What has Barry been up to?
You haven’t given me enough relevant information to answer.
You know this how?
peace
For one thing you could come up with a solution to the species problem that does not involve my hypothesis.
peace
Translation into English (from the original religious gibberish):
“I have a purely subjective opinion, with no supporting objective evidence.”
What “species” problem? I don’t think you understand how science works!
Your idea has no use, it cannot be used, it cannot provide new information. This are all true statements. The only thing your idea has is you.
And even if I came up with a solution to the species problem that does not involve your hypothesis that does not disprove your hypothesis! It stands completely separate.
*You* have to propose something, which would demonstrate the truth of your hypothesis. It’s not other people’s job to disprove it! And say that until you do some other thing your idea is right is absurd.
How exactly do you know this? Be specific please
Or is it just your “purely subjective opinion, with no supporting objective evidence”?
peace
And I’ve also asked what further information you require to answer.
I know that normal people have no problem answering because they answer the dilemma. Ask your friends! Will they say the same as you? I doubt it.
Here is a study that compares cultural influences on the answers given: http://journal.sjdm.org/12/121101/jdm121101.html
The “trolley problem” is not new. And people manage to answer without perfect knowledge. But you can’t.
I know it because you don’t and cannot provide objective supporting evidence for your claims unless “revelation” is considered to be such by you. And it probably is.
For example, I ask you to support your claim regarding species and your response is to ask me to disprove your claim!
Absurd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
What is the “something” that demonstrates the truth of the present approach tward cladistics? please be specific?
By the same token how is solving the species problem not a demonstration of truth?
peace
History. We’ve learnt from it.
It generates useful, new information. Your scheme cannot be used in that manner.
It has solved nothing. If you think it has, get up to speed on some of the unsolved outstanding problems in classification and use your scheme to solve them. Then write all that up and get it published. If you do that, then that would be a demonstration of the truth of your claim.
You may think you’ve solved “the species problem” but it takes more than opinion to demonstrate it.
One thing noted in that link is: to understand the evolutionary processes that give rise to species.
How does your scheme help solve that problem? Please be specific, and use specific examples.
If you can’t then how is what you are proposing a solution at all?
once again as I said before
I need to know stuff like the worthiness/guilt of the individuals involved and how my actions would effect all the future state of all people in the universe.
if you answer with imperfect knowledge your answer is merely your own subjective opinion.
You can’t ever get objective morality from subjective opinion
that is the point
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
That doesn’t answer the question. Some entity out there (you reckon) knows exactly what is and isn’t moral. Why do you get outraged by acts that (you believe) go against his preferences? Suppose the Arbiter of Morals lived in a hut on Titan. Would you get outraged if you figured someone was doing something immoral by his standards? I suspect not. So what extra fuel to the fires of outrage does God bring?
geeze
My scheme helps to solve the problem by showing that our difficulties are merely an artifact of our limited knowledge and that the evolutionary process that give rise to species are indeed teleological in nature.
for example the coy wolf is a species that arose
specifically to fill a new niche that arose in the last 100 years or so.
peace
God, correct
Because he has wired me thusly and this is objectively the correct response
You want me to assume God does not exist for the sake of argument. I can’t do that
No because he is not God by and definition his moral opinions are not objective
see above
peace
That’s not a solution. That’s an opinion.
I’m sorry, what problem is that solving? Can you state the specific problem you think you are answering there?
For example, a real solution would be an actual answer to the question “What is best criteria are for identifying new species?”
Does your idea answer that question? Can we use you idea to identify when a new species has formed?
No, we can’t. Unless of course your answer is “every living thing is a species as god’s mind is infinite”.
On what basis has your scheme determine that the coy wolf is actually deserving of the label “new species”? Did you compare it to another similar entity?
Yet you make decisions daily without such knowledge that will go on to have effects on all the people in the universe. Even if it’s something as trivial as “shall I pick up that bit of litter”.
Finally!
You *can’t* give an answer because you cannot tell me what the objectively right thing to do is. Your “objective morality” is silent on this issue, hence you cannot answer.
It’s news to me that “objective morality” has to be provided with perfect knowledge about all the outcomes of any decision. Is that new then?
Then lets add some detail.
The 5 people on the tracks are abortion doctors. The person you would have to sacrifice is a good Christian who thinks abortion is immoral.
Do you push the Christian onto the tracks to save the 5 abortion doctors?
Is the Coy wolf a species?
if so when did it arise?
The problem is the current reproach has no answers to these questions it can’t by definition.
Why do I feel like I have to spoon feed you?
You would need to provide more information. Like i said before
peace
That’s your way of admitting that you have no evidence.
You did not actually answer that question however! You said it was a new species that arose to fill a niche, but failed to mention how you knew it was a new species rather then just a variant (different color for example) on an existing species.
You also did not answer that!
Well, no, that’s the point of cladistics, to answer these questions. That you don’t understand the answers does not mean they don’t exist.
When you are handing out baby-food that’s appropriate.
You need to know the entire future course of the universe and how it would unfold in each situation? That’s some cop-out.
Are you sure you are just not trying to obscure the fact that your source of objective morality has suddenly gone all quiet?
fifthmonarchyman,
Do you therefore think that everything you get morally upset by is a correct indication of God’s feelings on the matter? Could we use you as some kind of a lightning rod to find out God’s views?
Yet you can’t say if 1 should die to save 5. Is god also this indecisive and scared to make a decision?
No I am confident that I (or you) would be given enough information to make the correct decision if this indeed were an actual dilemma. That is what revelation is all about
No it’s pretty much the definition of objective morality.
peace
No God has sufficient knowledge I do not and you are unwilling to provide it for your little hypothetical
peace