Friday, September 18, 2009

Atheists wrangling about morality - it's just funny

A CFI commenter named 'theclapp' has succumbed to the temptation to debate with me about certain things related to morality and atheism. He doesn't know better yet. ;-)

Anyway, he asked me to take our discussion elsewhere, I offered my blog, here we are. The thread in question deals with whether an atheist rapper is right or wrong to make offensive statements and slurs and epithets against homosexuals in his rap lyrics. The whole thing just makes me chuckle at the large-scale display of cluelessness. They have no grounding for any moral statement they make, but that doesn't stop them! No sir. Morality of one? Why the hail not just throw out some touchy-feely subjective "I don't like this (oh, and I also don't like lobster 'cause it tastes funny)" type of statement and see if anyone will swallow it? It generally goes unchallenged b/c most US and UK atheists hold to a vaguely biblical ethic, but what possible answer would they have if they were to encounter some actual diversity of opinion?
So here is the summation of my interaction with theclapp:

Original post: Should atheists, and those involved in the "atheist movement" (which overlaps the humanist, skeptic, freethought, etc. movements), be concerned if an avowed advocate for atheism expresses such views? Should atheist organizations withhold support, and individual atheists who disagree turn their backs?

Another question: If someone does not rely on tradition or religious authority to form ethical views, are there any good reasons (besides "I find it yucky") to be so virulently homophobic?

Rhology: You act inconsistently with your atheism when you make moral judgments of any kind that you expect or imply should be or are normative for anyone else. I also chuckle when I see atheists engage in moral debate like this - it’s all “I like chocolate ice cream” vs “yeah? Well, I don’t”.

...

Rhology: Let me ask you guys a question.
How do you know when something—anything—is true?

theclapp: Like everyone, I have certain axioms that I believe to be true without proof. One of them is that I exist. One is that I can learn about reality via my senses. And one that I’m debating, but having a hard time putting into words, is that truth does not exist, only consistency. I cannot say that X is true, only that it appears consistent or inconsistent with other axioms, theorems, and hypotheses, which (hopefully) are consistent with reality.

Theists like to ask atheists “how can you talk about morality when you have no objective reference for it?” (by which they mean, a deity, usually their deity, usually the being portrayed in the Bible). “If you have nothing objective to rest your theories on, then it’s just ‘what I like’ and ‘what I don’t like’.” I object (hah) to this on a couple of points. First, I rest my theories on observed reality, which is as objective as I can get. Second, as I don’t accept the Bible as divinely inspired (much less dictated, as some have claimed), it has just as much (or as little) legitimacy as any other document created by humans.

So here’s the thing. I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other things). I have *observed* that others do too. I have *observed* that slamming an entire class of people frequently leads to a general decrease in the life, liberty, and/or happiness of said class, and occasionally in the person doing the slamming, to boot. I have *observed* that sometimes when people slam groups that don’t contain me, occasionally they get around to slamming groups that *do* contain me. So when people go around slamming homosexuals for no good reason, or for demonstrably false reasons, I object, and I question what good can come of it.

So, in a nutshell, I object to homophobia, especially loud, obnoxious, and unfounded homophobia such as Charlie’s, out of selfishness.

Rhology: It’s good of you to concede that. With some ppl, it’s like pulling teeth. Now, you do realise that most atheists deride Christianity as being “w/o proof” too. So even on your own views, your worldview is on the same level as mine, founded on no proof. (I don’t agree with that, but I’m talking about the implications of YOUR views here.)

Your 2nd paragraph commits the naturalistic fallacy. Let me suggest you look that up, and get back to me.

I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

And maybe my ethic makes depriving you of those things morally obligatory and praiseworthy. So, which of us is right, and how can we know?


So when people go around slamming homosexuals for no good reason, or for demonstrably false reasons, I object, and I question what good can come of it.

1) Maybe, to me, “atheists are &*^*^&%*%ing pieces of &^*&^&*^” is my idea of doing good to them.
2) Maybe, to me, insulting people spontaneously is a good reason precisely b/c it’s spontaneous and arbitrary.
3) Maybe, to me, ripping ppl on false charges is an expression of love
You might say “you’re messed up”, but that’s what I’m saying to you at the same time. So, who’s right and how can we know?
See, on Christianity, it’s easy to say you’re wrong and to explain how I know it, and I have an objective standard to tell me right from wrong. I want you to explain how, on atheism, that’s possible, b/c I’ve never seen how it is.

theclapp: You said “your worldview is on the same level as mine, founded on no proof”. Well, sort of. As near as I can tell, the actions and values of most atheists and humanists have a higher probability of being consistent with reality than the actions and values of some Christians. (You may or may not fall into that group.)

I skimmed the Wikipedia article on the naturalistic fallacy, and I don’t see where I committed it. I didn’t say “good => natural” and I didn’t say “natural => good” and I don’t think I tried to “draw ethical conclusions from natural facts”. I said I try to remain consistent with reality. I stated my values. I stated that Charlie’s actions conflict with my values and why, and that ergo I would not “support” him. I even stated the foundation of my values: base selfishness.

That said, and on further thought, I suppose I must grant you your initial assertion: it boils down to what you value and why, or as you put it “I like this” or “I don’t like that”. And so I guess the great question is: So?

Regarding your points 1, 2, and 3: You’re free to believe that, of course, but in my opinion such behavior is inconsistent with what I know of the core teachings of Christianity, and by observation such behavior frequently leads to other behavior and actions that go against my values (i.e., however indirectly, they threaten me and mine, including the society I live in), and ergo by both your values (or what I assume as your values) and mine, you shouldn’t do that.

As far as “right” and “wrong”, I agree that neither of us can know, but I disagree that we can’t reasonably extrapolate from observed cause to unwanted effect, and discuss why we do or don’t want such things.

As far as Christianity having an objective standard, in a way, you do: you have a book. The book says certain things. You can act in ways consistent or inconsistent to those things. You can argue and interpret your book in many ways.

But *shrug* there are lots of books. In the end, *you* decide. The Bible can guide you, but *you* make the call:

“No one’s finger is on the trigger [metaphorical or literal] but your own. All the talk-talk in your head, all the emotions in your heart, all the experiences of your past — these things may inform your choice, but they can’t move your finger. All the socialization and rationalization and justification in the world, all the approval or disapproval of your neighbors — none of these things can pull the trigger either. They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?” —Eric Raymond. I don’t agree with everything Eric says, but I think this is an excellent point.

So anyway, you say: “I have an objective standard to tell me right from wrong.” And, from my point of view, it’s as “objective” as any other book written by humans. But Christians accept, as an axiom, that the Bible came from the Christian God. This is not an axiom that I am prepared to accept.

*Since you appear to realize **all** of this*, it puzzles me that you continue to bang your head against atheists and humanists, when you already know from the very beginning that your core axioms differ significantly from ours, and that until you resolve that fundamental difficulty, you will make *exactly zero progress* in changing minds. (... on the other hand, I’m doing it too, by talking to you, like a moth to a freakin’ candle, so I suppose it shouldn’t puzzle me *too* much.


Rhology's final comment on this: I’m glad you feel that way. Moving on.
Don’t rely on wikipedia. Here’s what I mean: it is said to apply to any attempt to argue from an “is” to an “ought,” that is, to argue directly from a list of facts to a claim about what ought to be done.

I don’t think I tried to “draw ethical conclusions from natural facts”.

Of course you did.
You said this in #14 - “I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other things). I have *observed* that others do too.”


I even stated the foundation of my values: base selfishness.

Now, can you tell me whether base selfishness is right or wrong? How do you know?
If you can’t, the fact that you don’t live like you don’t know whether your basic moral presupps are right or not tells me that you don’t value atheism either. It looks like there’s no reason why one would believe atheism beyond simple personal preference.


as you put it “I like this” or “I don’t like that”. And so I guess the great question is: So?

Go back and read the original post and answer So? for me.


You’re free to believe that, of course, but in my opinion such behavior is inconsistent with what I know of the core teachings of Christianity

So? I was asking whether it was right or wrong. Apparently you can’t tell me.


such behavior frequently leads to other behavior and actions that go against my values (i.e., however indirectly, they threaten me and mine, including the society I live in), and ergo by both your values (or what I assume as your values) and mine, you shouldn’t do that.

That’s not the case if I actually blv the things I said I blvd up there. So, just pretend I blv those things. Am I wrong?
And don’t play games. Don’t say “well, it’s wrong for ME”. That is a 100% meaningless statement. Morality is not the dealings with the question “What do I do?” It’s “what SHOULD I do?”


As far as Christianity having an objective standard, in a way, you do: you have a book.

Exactly. A book that doesn’t change, written by a God Who doesn’t change. This is a way in which Christianity has a far superior metaphysics than atheism.


there are lots of books. In the end, *you* decide.

No, God’s existence and communication is my starting point.
In one sense, yeah, I *recognised* its truth, but that doesn’t seem to be what you were saying.


They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?

There’s one more question after that, and you posed it. Let’s say I fire. And the person hadn’t done anythg wrong. As you said, So?


it puzzles me that you continue to bang your head against atheists and humanists, when you already know from the very beginning that your core axioms differ significantly from ours

Yeah, that’s what alot of ‘classical’ apologists don’t seem to realise. But what I’m doing here is showing you the idiocy and poverty of the atheist axioms. If you can’t justify anything about the answers to these questions I’m asking, if you’re going to be consistent, you next have to ask yourself whether, even if atheism is true, one is obligated to believe it. And if not, what that means.
In fact, I already dealt with that very question recently. I encourage you to drop-kick atheism, b/c it’s idiotic.

So, it's up to theclapp now if he'd like to comment here.



22 comments:

Brian Westley said...

They [atheists] have no grounding for any moral statement they make, but that doesn't stop them!

You mean in contrast to theists, who can use their gods' pronouncements to say slavery is legal (or illegal), genocide is sometimes right (or always wrong), or any number of moral statements that are supposedly from gods -- but for the life of me, I only ever see human beings making these "moral statements."

Larry Clapp said...

I don’t think I tried to “draw ethical conclusions from natural facts”.

Of course you did.
You said this in #14 - “I value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (among other things). I have *observed* that others do too.”


And the ethical conclusions are? And the natural facts are?

I'm sorry, I guess my atheist brain is too dense to follow the intricacies of your advanced Christian arguments. Please connect the dots more explicitly.

I even stated the foundation of my values: base selfishness.

Now, can you tell me whether base selfishness is right or wrong? How do you know?


This was a great question and required a lot of thought. It highlighted for me, again, why I like E-prime and dislike questions of the form "is X right or wrong?" So, I would recast your question as, "which of my core values does selfishness (as I have described it) contradict?" To recap, I value life, liberty, etc. Other people value their lives, etc. I infringe theirs => they infringe mine, and vice versa. Ergo, I don't infringe theirs because I don't want them to infringe mine, and vice versa. So, no, selfishness does not conflict with my core values, as near as I can tell, and in fact seems to support them rather well.

If you can’t, the fact that you don’t live like you don’t know whether your basic moral presupps are right or not tells me that you don’t value atheism either.

I don't understand this statement. I think I understand it up to "... tells me that you don't value atheism either" and then it goes sideways. Can you elaborate or restate?

It looks like there’s no reason why one would believe atheism beyond simple personal preference.

Well, yes, obviously. I have two axioms (so far), and I'm thinking about a third, as I've said. None of them involve any god.

as you put it “I like this” or “I don’t like that”. And so I guess the great question is: So?

Go back and read the original post and answer So? for me.


I've gotten a little lost. Whose original post?

That’s not the case if I actually blv the things I said I blvd up there. So, just pretend I blv those things. Am I wrong?
And don’t play games. Don’t say “well, it’s wrong for ME”. That is a 100% meaningless statement. Morality is not the dealings with the question “What do I do?” It’s “what SHOULD I do?”


If you believe those things, and those beliefs do not contradict your core values, and you want to act consistently, then you should act in accordance with those beliefs. (If you don't care about consistency, then all bets are off, of course.) If you place value on your life, then it behooves you to consider the outcome of your actions, and whether you would desire those outcomes. (Based on Axiom I: people that don't consider the outcomes of their actions frequently have short lives.)

A book that doesn’t change, written by a God Who doesn’t change.

Well, that's an interesting axiom.

In one sense, yeah, I *recognised* its truth, but that doesn’t seem to be what you were saying.

Correct. I meant: the book can guide you, but you have free will (or so it appears; see Axiom I), and so no matter what you read in any book anywhere, in the end you yourself must make your own decisions.

There’s one more question after that, and you posed it. Let’s say I fire. And the person hadn’t done anythg wrong. As you said, So?

So, then you've wounded or killed someone that had done nothing to warrant such an outcome, and (by Axiom I) you should be prepared for other humans to be unhappy with you.
[Continued...]

Larry Clapp said...

[Continued from above]
But what I’m doing here is showing you the idiocy and poverty of the atheist axioms.

Really? So adding God and the Bible to my list of axioms suddenly makes all these questions easy to answer? Actually, I think it would make for sanity destroying cognitive dissonance, given my other axioms vs what I've read of the Bible.

Many of your questions seem to aim to get me to acknowledge that I have no objective definition for anything (usually right and wrong, two of the more abstract abstracts), with the implication that I should. I've already acknowledged that I have no objective definition for anything (thus the axiom bit), and we both seem to understand that any logical system will have axioms, and you just want me to add God to the list and imply without evidence (and against lots of other evidence) that this will make my moral path straight and smooth.

So a question for you: why do you believe that any definition of value involving the judgement or values of actual people is fundamentally flawed?

Man of the West said...

I have a post in the pipeline (scheduled for the 22nd) along these lines. I've rather enjoyed the posts you've had recently; I rather think you'll enjoy the one I've got coming up. :)

T*ny and R*se said...

Alan, are you familiar with David Robertson? (Scottish pastor, apologist, etc.) Here's his blog:
http://www.stpeters-dundee.org.uk/davidblog
I have an hour-long debate between him and a philosophy prof on this question. It's awesome, but it is a 75mb file. Maybe I can get it to you next time we're in town...

Seth said...

Athiest Larry Clapp said: "my core values"

When I hear this language, particularly from athiests, I think, "Oh, that's just Nietzche." For example the link here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/

Rhology said...

Brian Westley,

Hi! Welcome.

their gods' pronouncements to say slavery is legal (or illegal)

Do you mean "moral (or immoral)"? If so, then God's character, known thru His Word, is the very objective standard to which we compare all else to know whether it's good or bad.
If you mean legal/illegal, I don't understand the question. If I want to know whether sthg is legal, I ask the gov't that made the law.


genocide is sometimes right (or always wrong)

Murder is always wrong.
When God commands you to kill someone, though, it's 100% right. Would be wrong to disobey. Murder, just so you know, is defined as the unjustified taking of human life, but to God, taking any human life is justified at any time. It's by His mercy that we draw each breath.


I only ever see human beings making these "moral statements."

That's b/c you're arbitrarily and sinfully not looking at the Bible, where God has spoken clearly and extensively.
Besides, humans make statements all the time. So what? I want to know what's TRUE.



Larry Clapp,

Are you really denying that you meant to make a moral statement?
So...you never make moral statements that you think SHOULD apply to others? What I'm saying is that you don't have an objective moral foundation to tell you how to get from the IS to the OUGHT.
You mentioned your core values, and that's nice, but I want to know whether your core values are good or bad. I can analyse whether action X will align with my core value of killing and eating multiple human children from loving families every day, but that obviously doesn't make my core value right.


Whose original post?

The atheist homophobe rapper post. You seemed to think that Check'm Ch is immoral for being so hateful towards homosexuals. Why? B/c hate of homosexuals doesn't align with your core values? So what? Clearly they align with his. How do you know his are wrong?


So, then you've wounded or killed someone that had done nothing to warrant such an outcome,

According to my core values, just standing there and living their life, not bothering anyone, is exactly why I wanted to kill him. So my action aligned with my core values quite well. Must've been the right thing to do, right?
What I want you to do is define WHY it's wrong to do sthg unwarranted, and how you know whether sthg is warranted.



Really? So adding God and the Bible to my list of axioms suddenly makes all these questions easy to answer?


Most of the time, yes, they are very, very easy. When they're difficult and complex, there's still an objective answer out there to find. On atheism, there's not even that, and so no answer is even possible.


I think it would make for sanity destroying cognitive dissonance, given my other axioms vs what I've read of the Bible.

You're not living consistently with them anyway, b/c you're making moral judgments that you think SHOULD apply to others. So change those other axioms. They're leading you into absurdity.


why do you believe that any definition of value involving the judgement or values of actual people is fundamentally flawed?

It would be consistent with atheism if everyone made their own values and never attempted to normativise them for anyone else. But that's not morality, for one thing, it doesn't help anything, and that's not the way anyone lives. It's flawed b/c ppl are not a standard. "Aligning with my core values" tells us nothing about whether those values are good, and if you want, you can just change the values! Ppl do that all the time.
We need an objective standard, and ppl are far from objective.

Peace,
Rhology

Brian Westley said...

OK, I call poe.

Larry Clapp said...

Hi, Brian,

So far as I know, we're all serious here. I am, at least. With the disclaimer that (perhaps unlike Rhology), I do not claim that my philosophy (such as it is) is complete, or perfect, or fully worked out, or anything. It's a work in progress.

Larry Clapp said...

Rhology -- I haven't forgotten about you (in case you were afraid of that -- I've no doubt that you're just waiting with baited breath for my next nugget of ridiculousness ;) , but real life has intervened for a little while. Good thing you said "no time limits" :).

Chat at you soon ... or, at least, eventually. :)

Rhology said...

Real life?!?!? Sorry, that's just not acceptable.


Kidding, of course. I know how it is. Whenever you can get some time.

Larry Clapp said...

Are you really denying that you meant to make a moral statement?

Yes.

So...you never make moral statements that you think SHOULD apply to others?

I probably have: I am not perfect, and this line of reasoning is relatively new for me, and some habits die hard. What I'm saying now is that when I've made "should" statements, the "shouldness" of those statements conflicted with the axioms and theorems I have outlined here.

What I'm saying is that you don't have an objective moral foundation to tell you how to get from the IS to the OUGHT. 
You mentioned your core values, and that's nice, but I want to know whether your core values are good or bad. I can analyse whether action X will align with my core value of killing and eating multiple human children from loving families every day, but that obviously doesn't make my core value right.

Then we must end our discussion. You require the existence and acknowledgement of that which I deny (or at least question, and am here arguing against), to wit, an objective standard for right and wrong as independent ideas, provable and universal in their own right. I admit that reality exists (well, I assume it without proof), and that certain behaviors demonstrably result in certain outcomes with a probability approaching unity. I disagree that I (or you) have any reasonable, rational, logical basis for making a "moral" argument that some other human should act in a particular way.



Whose original post?



The atheist homophobe rapper post. You seemed to think that Check'm Ch is immoral for being so hateful towards homosexuals. Why? B/c hate of homosexuals doesn't align with your core values? So what? Clearly they align with his. How do you know his are wrong?


Well, I don't think I said he was wrong, as such, nor immoral. I said that his behavior conflicts with my values, that similar behavior frequently results in outcomes that I dislike, and that his justification of his behavior appears to conflict with reality. Later, he revealed and confirmed that it wasn't so much other people's actions but his beliefs about others' thoughts that gave him the heebie-jeebies. In the context of this discussion, I have no "moral" basis for saying he should or shouldn't do anything at all. I can only try to understand what he wants (both in particular and in general), show him why his actions will probably lead to outcomes he says he doesn't want or are based on theorems demonstrably at odds with observable reality, and failing that tell him what I will do in response to his actions (e.g. not pay for his music or attend any functions involving him, exclude him from discussions of how to treat homosexuals, etc).



So, then you've wounded or killed someone that had done nothing to warrant such an outcome,



According to my core values, just standing there and living their life, not bothering anyone, is exactly why I wanted to kill him. So my action aligned with my core values quite well. Must've been the right thing to do, right?


If it aligns with your core values and you want to act consistently with them, then yes, you "should" do that. That in no way implies that it aligns with mine, or that I cannot try to convince you to see the ultimate negative outcome (from both your point of view and mine) of your actions, or that I cannot attempt to restrain you from acting that way before or after the fact. All of these things are, so far as I can tell, demonstrably consistent with observable reality.

[Continued ... I'm a long-winded bastard, aren't I?]

Larry Clapp said...

[Continued from above]

Really? So adding God and the Bible to my list of axioms suddenly makes all these questions easy to answer?



Most of the time, yes, they are very, very easy. When they're difficult and complex, there's still an objective answer out there to find.


Hmm. And yet it is demonstrably the case that many Christians, acting in good faith and in all honesty, frequently disagree on what one would assume would be fairly fundamental topics such as the death penalty and warfare. I would argue that your assertion is inconsistent with reality.



They're leading you into absurdity.

As near as I can tell, all you've shown is that my axioms are inconsistent with yours (which we knew already).

You have not shown why they are inconsistent with themselves, or are inconsistent with observed reality. You may have shone a spotlight on why and how they conflict with observed human nature, to wit, people like to have a "should" in their lives, even if they cannot adequately demonstrate a reasonable, rational, logical basis for it.



why do you believe that any definition of value involving the judgement or values of actual people is fundamentally flawed? 



It would be consistent with atheism if everyone made their own values and never attempted to normativise them for anyone else. But that's not morality, for one thing


I agree so far …

it doesn't help anything

but not here. I would argue that if we (humans in general) can come to a rational, reasonable, logical basis for behaving in a particular way, a theory based on observed fundamentals of the human character (such as selfishness; avoidance of pain; love, family, and community, etc), and also including recognition of other fundamentals, such as irrationality, unreasonableness, and illogicality (if that's a word), then we would all be happier and more prosperous. And I argue that we should work towards being happier and more prosperous because it would make me (and those that I love) happier and more prosperous, which aligns quite nicely with my core values, thank you.

I do not argue that such a thing is easy, or that I (or anyone) have already done so, here or elsewhere. I furthermore do not argue that such a theory of human behavior would necessarily or fundamentally conflict with basic Christian principles such as "love they neighbor" and the Golden Rule.

… We need an objective standard, and ppl are far from objective.

The only "objective" standard you have is demonstrably, provably open to interpretation (to wit, different people have interpreted it differently), just like mine.

Larry Clapp said...

What's interesting in all this is that you tweak me (and, by extension, not only all atheists but everyone else that doesn't follow Biblical law) for having no moral foundation and making idiotic and absurd arguments, and then implicitly argue that God killing off almost every human being on the planet (Gen 7) is just dandy. Because if God does it, it's good by definition.

I gotta say, I've looked at some of the rest of your blog, and it seems that you take great delight in pointing at atheists and basically pointing out that they're atheists. Your line of argument (here, at least) seems to be an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, trying to show atheists (et al) how much their beliefs differ from yours, except that both of you (e.g. both of us) grant that from the start. And it keeps not working. I dunno ... . I think one or both of us is/are acting irrationally.

Rhology said...

Hi Larry,

And thank you for your patience. Lot of stuff going on for both of us, it would seem.

What I'm saying now is that when I've made "should" statements, the "shouldness" of those statements conflicted with the axioms and theorems I have outlined here.

That's very fair of you to say. Not that being fair SHOULD mean anything to anyone.
Now, do you realise the implications of this? No way to decide, other than sheer personal preference/whim, whether you should eat ice cream or broccoli or that little girl walking down the street, whether you should rape that impoverished little boy or give his mother $40K in university credit to pay for his education, vote in the election or blow up the booth.
Right?
And do your personal whims ever change? Sometimes, right? And you don't know the future, right?
How could anyone ever point to a law and say "that's a good law"?


You require the existence and acknowledgement of that which I deny (or at least question, and am here arguing against), to wit, an objective standard for right and wrong as independent ideas, provable and universal in their own right.

Not only I. You just agreed with me.


I disagree that I (or you) have any reasonable, rational, logical basis for making a "moral" argument that some other human should act in a particular way.

Just work with me, for the sake of argument and contrast.
*IF* the God of the Bible exists, wouldn't there be more than enough basis for making (ie, recognising and citing) moral judgments that are objective and normative?


Well, I don't think I said he (charlie Check'm) was wrong, as such, nor immoral.

Quite a few others sure seemed to. But you'd say they were being inconsistent, I take it.


I said that his behavior conflicts with my values, that similar behavior frequently results in outcomes that I dislike, and that his justification of his behavior appears to conflict with reality.

Saying "his justification of his behavior appears to conflict with reality" conflicts with what you said above and commits the naturalistic fallacy. Again. You just can't keep your hand out of the cookie jar.


show him why his actions will probably lead to outcomes he says he doesn't want

Why would you do that? So what?


If it aligns with your core values and you want to act consistently with them, then yes, you "should" do that.

By "'should'" I presume you mean that it would be understandable if I felt motivation to do it. But that's never been what I've been asking you about. Don't toss out red herrings.


And yet it is demonstrably the case that many Christians, acting in good faith and in all honesty, frequently disagree on what one would assume would be fairly fundamental topics such as the death penalty and warfare. I would argue that your assertion is inconsistent with reality.

1) You don't know whether they are indeed acting in good faith and in all honesty.
2) Disagreement within a camp doesn't mean THE POSITION is inconsistent. It could very well just mean that some of its stated adherents are confused or ill-informed or rebellious. What about THE POSITION is inconsistent?
3) And please stop calling moral questions "(in)consistent with reality". If there is no objective standard, this is a complete category error. There is no reality for moral questions, so there's nothing with which to be consistent.

(cont)

Rhology said...

(cont)


You have not shown why they are inconsistent with themselves

What I've been arguing so far is that you can't live within this axiom. Not in one comment yet have you acted like an atheist; instead you borrow from Christianity, in which there IS an objective normative moral basis, and then jump back into atheism when convenient. At least display a little plausible deniability!
Anyway, here's why your position is actually inconsistent within itself.


if we (humans in general) can come to a rational, reasonable, logical basis... it would make me (and those that I love) happier and more prosperous

So what?


, which aligns quite nicely with my core values, thank you.

Maybe making you and everyone else UNhappier and LESS prosperous, and that aligns quite nicely with my core values, thank you.
So which of us is right, and how do you know?


The only "objective" standard you have is demonstrably, provably open to interpretation (to wit, different people have interpreted it differently), just like mine.

Nope, there's a huge difference. Mine is objective and normative and is subject to interpretation, both proper and improper (ie, correct interp and misinterp). Yours doesn't exist, so there's nothing to interpret.


then implicitly argue that God killing off almost every human being on the planet (Gen 7) is just dandy

So what? I thought that you were saying is that when you've made "should" statements, the "shouldness" of those statements conflicted with the axioms and theorems you have outlined here.


Your line of argument (here, at least) seems to be an attempt at reductio ad absurdum,

Kudos. That is precisely what I spend most of my time doing.


And it keeps not working.

Well, what's my goal and purpose? It's to encourage believers (which it does), exalt Jesus (which it does), and to unsettle unbelievers (which I've observed quite often) and show them to hold foolish positions (which I think it does quite well, though of course that's up to the reader).


I think one or both of us is/are acting irrationally.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I am indeed acting irrationally. So what? What's wrong with that?

Larry Clapp said...

Hi, Rhology,

Just a quick note.

First, I apologize for "it keeps not working". Clearly that statement contradicted reality.

Second, as far as acting irrationally, I did not mean in general, in case that wasn't clear, I meant by continuing this discussion. If you understood that, no worries.

Third, a question that may shed some light on our discussion: From your point of view, is something good because God likes it (or commands it; use an appropriate verb :), or does God like/command something because it is good?

Last, I would be interested to see how you would rephrase your favorite questions ("Is it good? Is it right?") in the active voice. I do not mean this as a thrown gauntlet; I do not mean to assert, by the very request, that you cannot do it. I am just curious. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime) for some background on this perhaps odd-sounding request.

Thank you for your patience. :)

Larry Clapp said...

Now, do you realise the implications of this? No way to decide, other than sheer personal preference/whim, whether you should eat ice cream or broccoli or that little girl walking down the street, whether you should rape that impoverished little boy or give his mother $40K in university credit to pay for his education, vote in the election or blow up the booth.
Right?


Incorrect. (In this context I'm shy of the word "wrong". :) All the actions you mentioned have consequences, some of which I would prefer and some I would not.

And do your personal whims ever change? Sometimes, right? And you don't know the future, right?

My whims change. My desire to remain out of prison, my acknowledgement of the humanity of others, my empathy for them, and thus my disinclination to perpetrate on them that would I would not desire for myself, are unlikely to change.

Not only I. You just agreed with me.

Do you mean the part about "a rational, reasonable, logical basis for behaving in a particular way"? If so, then in a way, I suppose I did. Imagine that. The difference is that the theory I'm talking about would not pretend that it came from a god, and (this is important) could be changed if it were found to be incorrect.

I disagree that I (or you) have any reasonable, rational, logical basis for making a "moral" argument that some other human should act in a particular way.

Just work with me, for the sake of argument and contrast.
*IF* the God of the Bible exists, wouldn't there be more than enough basis for making (ie, recognising and citing) moral judgments that are objective and normative?


Good question. I'm not sure. Can you elaborate?

Well, I don't think I said he (charlie Check'm) was wrong, as such, nor immoral.

Quite a few others sure seemed to. But you'd say they were being inconsistent, I take it.


I didn't read all of that discussion. I found most of it pretty tiresome. I got the impression that most of those disagreeing with Charlie were saying he was factually incorrect.

I said that his behavior conflicts with my values, that similar behavior frequently results in outcomes that I dislike, and that his justification of his behavior appears to conflict with reality.

Saying "his justification of his behavior appears to conflict with reality" conflicts with what you said above and commits the naturalistic fallacy. Again.


Much like the first time, I don't see where I committed the naturalistic fallacy. He said "I behave this way because of X" and I and others said "but X is incorrect". I think you're saying that we're implicitly arguing that he shouldn't do that. And I suppose we are, but only on the assumption that he wants his arguments to be logical and correct. If he wanted to say "I hate faggots" (his favorite word, it seemed), well, what can you say that? But no, he wanted to say "I hate faggots for the following true and well-justified reasons", and we picked apart the truthfulness and justifiability of his reasons.

show him why his actions will probably lead to outcomes he says he doesn't want

Why would you do that? So what?


I think I've answered that question already.

If it aligns with your core values and you want to act consistently with them, then yes, you "should" do that.

By "'should'" I presume you mean that it would be understandable if I felt motivation to do it. But that's never been what I've been asking you about. Don't toss out red herrings.


But that's the only color fish I have. ;) You asked me about "should" and I've already admitted that (in the context of this discussion) I can't reasonably say "should" except by arguing that something conflicts with someone's values, and you're saying those things don't, and so I say yes, go for it. But don't expect me (et al) to agree.

Larry Clapp said...

2) Disagreement within a camp doesn't mean THE POSITION is inconsistent

Perhaps I misunderstood. You said, in essence, that the Bible makes most moral questions easy and everything else at least decidable. I said that Christians arguing in good faith easily disagree about fundamentals. To me, this calls your assertion into question.

3) And please stop calling moral questions "(in)consistent with reality".

I saw no moral moral question there. I disagreed with a factual claim you made. In general, I say things like "(in)consistent with reality" because reality is one of the things I'm willing to take on faith.

What I've been arguing so far is that you can't live within this axiom. Not in one comment yet have you acted like an atheist; instead you borrow from Christianity, in which there IS an objective normative moral basis, and then jump back into atheism when convenient. At least display a little plausible deniability!

I'm afraid I don't understand this.

Anyway, here's why your position is actually inconsistent within itself.

I disagree with much of that blog. (Surprise.)

if we (humans in general) can come to a rational, reasonable, logical basis... it would make me (and those that I love) happier and more prosperous

So what?


I was trying to show in advance why I would advocate such a position.

The only "objective" standard you have is demonstrably, provably open to interpretation (to wit, different people have interpreted it differently), just like mine.

Mine is objective and normative and is subject to interpretation, both proper and improper (ie, correct interp and misinterp). Yours doesn't exist, so there's nothing to interpret.


My point was, reality exists. Consequences exist. People have likes and dislikes. People love and hate. These are not moral judgements, but observable phenomena. You can try to show people the consequences of their actions, and you can inflict those consequences on them if you disagree. One's interpretation of reality and one's judgement of consequences is open to interpretation.

The Bible is objective and normative … if you accept the axiom that it is God's word.

then implicitly argue that God killing off almost every human being on the planet (Gen 7) is just dandy

So what?


So from my point of view that chapter and others like it make the Bible internally inconsistent. God gets a pass from most Christians for actions far worse than any earthly madman.

And it keeps not working.

Well, what's my goal and purpose? It's to encourage believers (which it does), exalt Jesus (which it does), and to unsettle unbelievers (which I've observed quite often) and show them to hold foolish positions (which I think it does quite well, though of course that's up to the reader).


Fair enough. I was wrong. My apologies.

I think one or both of us is/are acting irrationally.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I am indeed acting irrationally. So what? What's wrong with that?


I fear that I am acting irrational by continuing our discussion. We admit up front that we disagree on our logical basis, and yet we continue to converse. I dislike behaving irrationally. :)

Rhology said...

Hi Larry,


From your point of view, is something good because God likes it (or commands it; use an appropriate verb :), or does God like/command something because it is good?

For your own edification, in case you didn't know, this is the Euthyphro "dilemma", but I don't see why it would be a dilemma for the consistent Christian. I take one of the horns of the "dilemma", actually - something is good b/c it corresponds with God's character and nature, and His commands always reflect His character and nature.


rephrase your favorite questions

Hmmm, well, my questions are designed to take the atheist deeper into the logical implications and conclusions of his own view. Sorry I can't be of more help here, but I'm mostly just asking questions here, of your position.
If it were MY view you were asking about, I'd say that "it is good" is directly synonymous with "God commands it".


All the actions you mentioned have consequences, some of which I would prefer and some I would not.

Fine, but maybe I prefer the exact opposite. Is it possible to say that either of us is right over and against the other? If so, on what basis? If not, doesn't that have some very serious implications for making ANY judgments on ANYthing? Like what we normally consider heinous, like pædophilia?


*IF* the God of the Bible exists, wouldn't there be more than enough basis for making (ie, recognising and citing) moral judgments that are objective and normative?

I elaborate here.
Also, you got it right when you said later "The Bible is objective and normative … if you accept the axiom that it is God's word."


I got the impression that most of those disagreeing with Charlie were saying he was factually incorrect.

Well, but even if he were factually incorrect about homosexuals having messed-up brains or whatever he was saying, that doesn't explain the emotional reaction or the cries of "you're evil" and various related expressions of morality. Nor does it explain why anyone cares.

I think you're saying that we're implicitly arguing that he shouldn't do that.

Yes, precisely.


If he wanted to say "I hate faggots" (his favorite word, it seemed), well, what can you say (to) that?

YOU can't say anything, if you want to be consistent. That is indeed my whole point.
*I* can say quite a lot b/c I can parrot the God of the Bible.
1) Charlie, God commands you to repent of your hatred.
2) And of your atheism.
3) And of all your sin.
4) Homosexuals are your neighbor and you are commanded to love your neighbor as yourself, for many reasons. This is an objective, normative law for all ppl at all times and in all places and circumstances.
5) Put your faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sin and you will be given the gift of eternal life and receive the benefit of Christ's righteousness.
Incidentally, these commands apply to you no less than he, Larry. (And to me, but I got them covered except for #4, b/c I am a sinful man and don't love like I should.)


I can't reasonably say "should" except by arguing that something conflicts with someone's values, and you're saying those things don't, and so I say yes, go for it.

I give you tons of credit for being more consistent than most, but what I'm getting at is when most anyone says "should", they don't mean "whoa, man, you're in danger of living out of alignment with your stated values. Just a heads-up, good buddy", especially when it comes to crime, endangerment of people, and things that disgust most "normal" ppl, like murder, rape, extorted sex, blackmail, etc.
Plus I'm hoping you'll see how utterly unlivable this philosophy of yours is and give it up, and I give extreme examples to make that point clearer.

Rhology said...

(cont)


the Bible makes most moral questions easy and everything else at least decidable. I said that Christians arguing in good faith easily disagree about fundamentals.

If I read an evolution textbook and dissent from it and give bad argument why, like for example I conclude that evolution couldn't've happened b/c it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy, is that the textbook's fault or my fault?


I saw no moral moral question there

(Looks again.) Ooops, it would appear you're right. Sorry about that. (Retractions are always a live option on this blog, haha.)


I disagree with much of that (Meh Atheism post)

Why? *Should* anyone else believe what you believe? Even if it's true?


I was trying to show in advance why I would advocate such a position.

And I'm trying to show you that there's no reason why anyone else would care. So why even mention it?


You can try to show people the consequences of their actions, and you can inflict those consequences on them if you disagree.

AKA you can force your own moral intuitions on others. I guess your worldview contains the maxim that might makes moral right?


from my point of view that chapter and others like it make the Bible internally inconsistent. God gets a pass from most Christians for actions far worse than any earthly madman.

Who cares about YOUR point of view? You're supposed to be proving that the Bible is internally inconsistent.
The Bible presents all men as rebel sinners, enemies of God. He is the Creator and the Judge, and He can put anyone to death at any time He wants. Sometimes He lets people live long lives, but that's not b/c they deserve it but b/c He is displaying His patience and mercy.
And you beg the question when you say "far worse". This is just one more example of your inability to keep your hand out of the cookie jar, to live consistently with your stated axioms.
You've been fairly consistent so far; consistency requires you to withdraw this statement and say sthg more like "God gets a pass from most Christians b/c He does stuff I don't like." To which we all respond, "So?"


My apologies.

Gratefully accepted.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I am indeed acting irrationally. So what? What's wrong with that?

I fear that I am acting irrational by continuing our discussion.


You're avoiding the question, actually. I think it's pretty important.

Larry Clapp said...

Here's the dilemma, as I understand it: If you define something as "good" because God commands it, then it's arbitrary (and you highlight this in your response to Brian Westley; we draw breath at God's sufferance and he can do as he likes to us, in the same way that I can break my toys or shut down programs on my computer). If you say God commands it because it's "good" (objective and independent), then you don't need God.

YOU can't say anything, if you want to be consistent.

And indeed, we agree there. If he wants to express a preference, bully for him. But again and again (and again and again and again ...) he insisted on having reasons, which everyone took great delight in shooting down.

In any case, your core axiom that "Good is that which God commands" makes further discourse futile. You're right: by definition, no atheist can be good, not even theoretically. To you, it's just a contradiction in terms.

Regarding the foundation of ethics, here are my thoughts. I make no claims that these are "true", or even consistent; I'm thinking out loud. I also make no claims that no one has said this before. At best I have "rediscovered" an old idea.

Long ago, men looked around and they saw that killing people indiscriminately led to chaos, which they didn't like. They said "don't do that". They saw that honoring your parents led to order, which they liked. They said "do that". They found that doing some things led to stuff they liked and other things led to stuff they didn't like. They encouraged the former and discouraged the latter. Somewhere along the way, they said "This isn't just me saying this, it's the gods saying this! You should obey!" Holy writ, and our "moral sense", is just (ha!) thousands of years of condensed good (and sometimes not so good) sense. But at its core it's just people talking to people, and people agreeing on certain things. Agreement. Between people. That is all.

Thank you and good night. I have enjoyed our conversation.