Nearly ten years ago, on the 15th September, 2001, I read this piece in the Guardian, by Richard Dawkins.
I was a theist then, a catholic, in fact, by conversion, in my early twenties, having been baptized in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, sung at matins every Sunday until from age 8 to 11, sent to a Quaker boarding school, where I was devout, if rebellious, and became a Friend, later being confirmed at a High Church Anglican church in Devon, and finally, having married a catholic, feeling I had “come home” to the catholic church.
Always liberal, though – when I was being prepared for reception into the catholic church by the university chaplain, a Benedictine called Fr Fabian Cowper, he asked me if I had any concerns. I said, yes: contraception and papal infallibility. He replied: well, contraception is a good example of papal fallibility. So I thought I’d be OK. It was still not that long after Vatican II, liberation theology was in the air, and the Dominicans in Oxford were regular attenders at the Greenham Common protests, and there was a sense that the church might be a slow vast tanker but the People of God would turn it round. I hung on in there, even when my mother, who later converted herself, was temporarily excommunicated for publishing a book that argued that the church’s moral teaching on medical ethics was mostly wrong (a Jesuit professor of moral theology preached the eulogy at her requiem mass, and paid tribute to her for “having the courage to say what we dare not”, and for having had more faith in her church than her church had had in her. But looking back, that piece in the Guardian was the beginning of the end.
I remember thinking, and saying to my fairly recently bereaved father: “he makes a devasting point – it will be interesting to see how the churches rise to the challenge”.
But they didn’t. There were a couple of peeved responses, IIRC, but no-one took up the challenge. No-one had anything to say to rebut the charge that religion was not just not the defender of morality, but its actual enemy.
I think there is a rebuttal. But it’s a sad reflection on religion IMO that the response has been so pathetic.
Ideology should have died that day. I don’t think religion is the only evil ideology, and it seems to be a human tragedy that the worst deeds are done in the name of some perceived greater good rather than out of simple brutal appetite. One of the most evil things in the world seems to me to be the conviction that your own views are right. Hence the strapline to this blog.
The necessary implication of a morality with an objective good is that a god exists. However, assuming that god exists is not necessary to reach the conclusion that a rationally coherent morality (that is not, ultimately, might-makes-right) must begin with the a priori assumption that “the good” which morality describes in terms of “oughts” is objective.
I didn’t state that I had no preference; I said that either one could be true.
Any morality, no matter what it is based on, is the “code” for the interactions of individuals relative to other individuals.
What good is a moral code of any type, to the last man on Earth?
You guys really, really need to pay attention to what I actually write and assume that I am not making the same arguments you’ve been involved with over and over, and that I’m not coming from the same place or have the same motivations. It’s coloring all of your interpretations and responses.
I’m not a member of any religion, I call myself a rational theist, I don’t believe in any religion’s heaven and hell, I’ve never read the bible (or any so-called holy book) and I don’t subscribe to any relgion’s particular moral code or doctrine.
Just to clarify, do you believe that an “insane” world-view, the one without god, could be just as true as the “sane” world-view, which has a god?
Can you provide us with a link to that “system of statements”?
For myself, I don’t see any possibility that morality could be captured in a system of statements. If it were that easy, then arguments about morality would have ended long ago.
You stated what you believe to be the logical consequence. I do not recall seeing any actual logical derivation.
“The necessary implication of a morality with an objective good is that a god exists.”
The necessary implication of a morality with an objective good is that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
The necessary implication of a morality with an objective good is that I exist.
The necessary implication of a morality with an objective good is that Zeus exists.
The necessary implication of a morality with an objective good is that no god exists.
The necessary implication of a morality with an objective good is that a morality with an objective good exists.
What’s the difference between any of my statements and yours, and what evidence do you have that verifies yours is correct and any of mine are not?
I think we have all done that.
Would you like to re-write the following. It may not reflect what you are actually trying to say, and I have no problems with someone clarifying original statements.
As it stands however, I can not interpret it any other way except that you require a god and an “objective good” for a sane world-view.
Toronto,
Certainly. By “sane”, I mean one that is not solipsistic or dismisses rationality altogether.
William J Murray,
It sounds like you made up your own subjective God and religion and your own subjective set of morals that you believe are only good and sane if they’re based on belief in whatever subjective God and religious beliefs you made up and then you proceed to tell others that unless they believe in whatever God and religion you made up, they and their morals are bad and insane. Is that about right?
Which God do you believe in, what is your “moral system”, and how is it objective when it depends on your subjective belief in whatever subjective God you made up? Also, why do you need your belief in a God to have your “moral system”? Why can’t you have good morals and just leave out the God part?
I said: “….my argument is that in order to have a consistent, rational, moral, sane worldview…”
Commas indicate accumulative conditions, not seperate.
My argument is not about any specific system of statements.
I’m not responsible for reiterating what you don’t remember.
Professor Weirdo,
No, it is not “about right”.
Commas seperate items, they are not operators that accept items as parameters.
As an example: “I went to the bar and met Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice.”
Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice are not accumulative conditions.
I”m a rational theist. I don’t believe in any particular god other than that which serves as a necessary grouding for a rational & sane worldview.
My morality is that which I can derive from the practice of identifying self-evidently true moral statements, then using logic to derive necesarily true moral statements, general moral principles, and conditionally true moral statements.
They are when the are modifying the subject, as in …
“I’m talking about the green, wet, tall grass.”
Note: I’m not talking about just the “tall” grass.
What would be the minimum requirements for a god that serves as a necessary grounding for your worldview?
William
(I thought you said goodbye before but never mind) I am beginning to think the incomprehension is not just my fault. Wouldn’t it be simpler to drop the whole objective/subjective angle and just concentrate on the grea
William
(I thought you said goodbye before but never mind) I am beginning to think the incomprehension is not just my fault. Wouldn’t it be simpler to drop the whole objective/subjective angle and just concentrate on the great idea you have that you wish to articulate?
It really would help the less able of us here if you would give an example of a self-evidently true moral statement.
Or are we back to torturing babies for pleasure? Baby torturers are rather thin on the ground. Couldn’t we have a more common example?
The point is that unless there could be a specific system of statements, your ideas about a coherently rational morality are mere wishful thinking.
If you had ever given a logical derivation, you could have just provided a link. No reiteration was required. I am inclined to take your response as an evasion and as an implicit admission that you never have provided such a logical derivation.
To satisfy the infinite regress/cause & effect issue and the first/sufficient cause argument god would have to be the uncaused cause of existence; in order for us to be able to expect a morality not based on might makes right and an understandable (rational), lawful universe, god would have to be rational and good (as the innate and unchangeable source of what rational and good mean, not merely just having, commanding or creating such commodities).
To provide purpose (a good) for that which it creates, god would have to be sentient in some sense, but it could not create any purpose other than good (good being its nature); God would also be posited as being the source of libertarian free will (not creator of, but source of).
I think those are the essentials.
What “great idea” is that?
As you wish.
What difference does it make if it is “common” or not? The value of such self-evidently true moral statements is that they serve as starting points for fleshing out a broader and deeper, rationally consistent moral system based on principle and not personal whim edict from authority.
You can take a self-evidently true moral statement and deconstruct it for better understanding. Is it always wrong to torture anyone? That might be more of a conditional claim that may or may not always be true. Is deliberately causing harm always wrong? Does the purpose of the torturing matter? What it is about “infants” and “for fun” that renders such torturing absolutely wrong?
Without a rational basis for considering, categorizing and arbiting such questions, all we are left with is how any individual happens to “feel” at the time, and such a subjective view can justify any behavior.
Your good rational god, I guess, and how reasoning to this concept isn’t circular or wishful thinking.
Alan,
“Circular reasoning” would be if I tried to prove this god true by using the premises stated; I am not attempting to prove any god exists or is true, so it is not a “circular” argument.
Stating one’s premises, and the reasons for them, is not “circular” reasoning.
Also, it is no more “wishful thinking” than any a priori commitment – even materialism or solipsism – is “wishful thinking”.
You remind me of Mike Gene. I once spent quite some time on his blog (and bought his book, any offers for a slighlty used copy?) trying to find out what his “design inference” was about. To every question, there was a negative response. It is very frustrating. I’m trying to see if you have anything interesting to impart. It’s like pulling teeth. (Sorry BWE) Why so coy?
I’m only “being coy” if you assume I’m trying to prove or argue something other than what I’ve stated.
I’m not.
I’m not assuming anything other than there must be some point you wanted to make in posting here. I’ll keep reading your comments but I don’t think there is much point in my commenting further. Mrs F is back at the weekend so blogging activities will be much curtailed.
*wonders if he can hear cheering*
Here’s a problem.
If I accept that god is uncaused, then he exists without a cause, in other words, nothing caused him to come into existence.
If we accept that anything uncaused, like god, could exist, then that would be reason to believe other things could also exist without being caused.
Can god stop these other things from existing?
No, because there is no point in time when any entity like god did not exist.
How powerful could they be?
As powerful as any god you accept, like yours, that doesn’t need a cause.
How many could there be?
Trillions upon trillions since nothing is required to make them.
Since time doesn’t exist, no god could prevent another from coming into existence because all of them have always existed.
Do they need to be the same form?
No. Since no god requires anything to come into being, they could be of any form they like.
If god is the uncaused cause of existence itself, obviously nothing else can “exist” outside of what god has caused. If other things exist uncaused themslves, then “existence” is available without causation from god.
But it’s good to see you in the logical spirit of the debate. Probably a better way for me to have stated it would be God as source of existence, instead of cause, since god would necessarily have to exist and could not be caused to have come into existence.
In another forum, this philosopher’s name came up. I only vaguely remembered him as the man who rescued Naomi Campbell from the improper advances of Mike Tyson. From his Wikipedia biography, he seems quite a character. Was he influential and does his influence persist? I note positivism is sometimes linked pejoratively to “scientism”.
A. J. Ayer, Humanist Outlook
(1910 – 1989)
Anyone have any thoughts on Ayer and positivism?
Logical positivism, which later evolved to logical empiricism, was an important philosophy of science in its time (probably the first half of the 20th century). It was the philosophy favored by the Vienna Circle. By now, it is has lost most of its former support.
A.J. Ayer seems to have a pretty good reputation in philosophy. He was involved in positivism, but I think he is better known for his philosophy of language.
Looking forward to catching up with this thread over the weekend!
William J Murray,
A simpler formulation is to say god is existence and vice versa. It has the merit of being obviously vacuous, so it’s less harmful to thinking.
None of these things that are uncaused and have always been, need to necessarily be sentient.
One of these things that has always existed could have been the thing which caused the big bang.
It also renders the one true god theory invalid.
What does the possibility of multiple things that are peers to god and yet not subordinate to him, do to your world-view?
Thanks Neil
Both Carnap and Ayer seem to say that most branches of philosophy are meaningless. By extension, this would seem to apply to religious apologetics. If you don’t begin from an empirical observation, you can’t reason to anything that has meaning in any practical sense. You say positivism is no longer fashionable but, I wonder has anything replaced it. I guess I am asking, what practical use is philosophy today?
Rudolph Carnap
(This results from my wandering over to Ed Feser’s blog. I guess Lizzie would be familiar with Thomism.)
How odd that people refer to empiricism as if it was not a metaphysic. Since “empirical science” is itself an offshoot of the study of metaphysics, and the study of metaphysics and philosophy in general provides the principled grounding for empiricism, to say that metaphysics “provides no verifiable support” for its claims is self-refuting.
All philosophy – including empiricism – begins with non-verifiable a prioris.
No, the uncaused cause doesn’t necessarily need sentience to satisfy the problem of causation and existence, but there are other reasons for assigning the uncaused cause sentience.
First, there are only two commonly accepted kinds of causation; determinism, and free intention. “Chance” isn’t really a “cause”, it’s really just a statement of how unpredictable the deterministic cause is. We either hold Determinism+Chance as responsible for an effect; or we hold the intention of a sentient/sapient entity as responsible for an effect. We commonly hold intelligent intention as capable of being a sufficient cause in and of itself, as we hold people responsible for their actions.
Without intention, we consider all causes to be themselves effects from other causes. Intention is the only cause that we consider sufficient without referring to prior cause.
So, in the normal course of our lives, the only “uncaused causes” we recognize are the intentional acts of sentient/sapient entities, which gives us grounding to consider that the first cause/sufficient cause of all things was a sentient entity, being sufficient cause in and of itself to generate effects.
Other reasons to hold that the first cause was sentient can be found in the other arguments for god, such as the argument from design and the argument from morality. Altogether, they provide a sound basis for the a priori assumption that the Aristotlean “first cause” is an intentional agency.
That one can imagine billions of gods or universe caused from nothing or universes causing themselves is irrelevant to my worldview. What matters to my worldview are (1) self-evidently true statements, and (2) logic.
Sorry, one thing seems to trigger another. I haven’t paid much attention to philosophical arguments before. Empiricism, pragmatism, rationalism. It’s like when I first started to be taught science at grammar school. It was done from the historical aspect, dull as ditchwater. Philosophy seems still to be wrapped in onion layers of its history.
Anyway, I just wondered if Lizzie had a take on “the hard problem of consciousness”, is it another meaningless concept, as Daniel Dennett apparently argues? Are qualia figments of the imagination as Dennett claims? I’ll go and have a lie down in a darkened room now!
Please note that none of these gods are **caused**. That is the ID argument itself to stop infinite regression, that something can exist, without being caused.
I would say it is very relevent to the first cause argument of ID itself. That you can imagine one god but then refuse to believe that others may exist in the exact same circumstances is irrational. Your god may have worked in concert with others, some sentient, some just forces like gravity.
If something as powerful as god did not need a cause, then something less powerful can also exist, without being caused.
Uncaused entities are permissible under ID. Once you open that possibility you can’t just shut it without a good explanation.
I think the “self-evidently true statement” is the basis of almost every bad decision a person ever makes. Anything self-evidently true must be true regardless of any person’s subjective opinion, which results in the paradox of an absolute and therefore infallible truth being discovered by a subjective and therefore fallible observer.
That may very well be a characteristic of humans but we are now talking gods. There is no reason to believe life was an intention at all. If god created the universe, why would he not populate more of it?
The ID fine-tuning argument may well appear to work in exactly the place that we are and nowhere else. So ID may be right, that life only exists here, but not for the reason they believe.
If life is a side-effect of the gods real intentions, then there was no real intention to put us here at all.
That would mean that we should see that evolution, as described by evolutionary scientists, works exactly like they said it does.
Thats what multi-gods do for the ID world-view, they shatter it.
I agree with them.
I’m not convinced that it has ever had any practical use.
Thanks for that quote from Carnap, on his skepticism toward metaphysics. And, yes, I try to avoid metaphysics.
People use “empiricism” in different ways. It can refer to the broad view of basing conclusions on evidence. Or it can refer to specific philosophies. I accept the broad view, but reject the specific philosophies.
Determinism is not a cause. It is an unevidenced philosophical assumption that some people make.
Likewise, intention is not a cause in the sense in which science uses “cause”. But it is what we use for assessing responsibility.
Indeed, it is. Philosophy is a lot like religion. It is steeped in tradition, and is very weak on the use of actual evidence.
Someone passed me a link to an interview of an elderly but still very acute Ayer with Bryan Magee (a respected philosopher in his own right). I found it fascinating but it’s worth glancing at just for the waistband on Professor Ayer’s Trousers! 🙂
link
sez wjm: “What matters to my worldview are (1) self-evidently true statements, and (2) logic.”
Problem: What happens when you run into someone who doesn’t want to grant one of your “self-evidently true statements”? Your ‘case’ against subjective morality says that subjective morality is bad because when people disagree about a subjective ‘good’, there’s no rational, principled way to get past that disagreement… so what’s your rational, principled way to get past disagreements regarding putative self-evidently true statements? As best I can tell, you don’t have any such way to get past those disagreements, and if that’s true, you’re in the same boat as all those people who accept subjective morality. But you’ve been making noise about how your preferred option (that being let’s just assume that there is such a thing as an objective Good) is not subject to the no-way-to-resolve-disagreements problem you identify in subjective morality, so I’d be very interested to see how your preferred option deals with disagreements about the putative validity of putative self-evidently true statements.
William Murray said:
“I”m a rational theist.”
There’s no such thing. Theism is irrational.
“I don’t believe in any particular god other than that which serves as a necessary grouding for a rational & sane worldview.”
In other words, you use the word “god”, and whatever image you have of a god, as a placeholder for your belief system.
“My morality is that which I can derive from the practice of identifying self-evidently true moral statements, then using logic to derive necesarily true moral statements, general moral principles, and conditionally true moral statements.”
In other words, you subjectively make up your morals as you go along, depending on the circumstances.
I guess, if you call science and logic a “weak use” of evidence. I’m not sure how one can call “philosophy” a “weak use of evidence” when it is philosophy in the first place that defines what “evidence’ is, how to gather it, and how to interpret it.