Mourning sorrow: Nigerian Christians fear more retaliation after Muslim gangs kill 500 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Gentler, jollier atheism
In USA Today, Tom Krattenmaker says it’s not easy being an atheist. Because of anti-atheist prejudice and some atheists who perpetuate negative stereotypes (i.e., Religulous), Krattenmaker said other atheists are trying to give atheism more positive PR:
A new current in non-belief is intent on showing the public what atheists are for. You might be surprised by what’s on their short list. Because, save for the belief-in-a-deity part, it sounds a lot like what most Americans value. Care for one’s community and fellow human beings, love of country and cherished American principles, the pursuit and expansion of knowledge — these are the elements of the new “positive atheism.”
Just in time for the Christmas wars.
Topic: Religion, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top61 Comments to “Gentler, jollier atheism”
I hope that people take this seriously. After all, it doesn’t help to have a civil public dialogue if everyone is constantly haranguing one another Dawkins-style (or Falwell-style) about how stupid and evil one another’s belief systems are. Anyone can rehash the past (Stalin, the Crusades) or point out aberrations in the present (the Columbine killers, abortion clinic bombers.) We can do better than that, though.
Let us hold on to the truth that we fervently believe. We still believe in the one God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ; He is the only way to the Father and atheists are lost without knowing Him. But we can’t let that keep us from giving atheists the dignity they are due as fellow human beings created in the image of God. I think that evangelism, civil public dialogue, and social justice will all be much easier if we can all respect and listen to one another.
Report comment to moderator
But all those values are just tacked on because they’re popular. There’s no basis in atheism for any of that. “I don’t beleive in God but I’m still a nice guy”. Great, but so what? I might say “I don’t like Hondas but I’m still a nice guy”. I once went to Delaware but I’m still a nice guy”. It’s just a meaningless statement.
Report comment to moderator
What is your bible except a collection of stories illustrative of “tacked on” popular values?
Consider your ten commandments. Five telling you what and how and when to worship + 5 with specific “popular” (in fact, just about universal) rules.
You don’t really need a deity to tell you that murder and theft are not good things, do you?
Of course, a lot of the then popular “tacked on” values in the bible are not so popular any more.
2 Chronicles:
15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;
15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
15:14 And they sware unto the LORD with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets.
15:15 And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the LORD gave them rest round about.
Report comment to moderator
Ooh, Acadia pops up and becomes the first person in history to point out that we don’t follow Mosaic law any more! It’s not like that whole question is answered in the Bible itself, in the New Testament. Ever hear of the “New covenant”? Next please.
Report comment to moderator
I think it will help, in chatting with atheists, if we just don’t talk to them about the logical end to their worldviews. “Just be good for goodness’ sake”? Tell that to a psychopath (who may in fact be an atheist). How do we define “good”?
I have no problem supporting the atheists among my troops, since they’re essentially another faith group. They might not like that treatment, but it’s really the best they’re going to get, given the confusion and disorganization inherent to the movement.
Religious freedom from all may in fact allow for freedom from religion, but if you’re all alone in a universe which is just an accident, and you’re about to die, and go to be nothing, it’s bound to be really lonely….which is what atheists must live with.
Report comment to moderator
Aracadia is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
“Aracadia is wrong.”
That’s new?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
So…
You think murder and theft are immoral do you? One would think that you believed in moral absolutes.
If not, then who gets to say that theft and murder are wrong? The majority?
Report comment to moderator
If you have no God what motivation is there to do any good thing? Build an orphanage, feed those who hunger? Atheism means every man for himself and to heck with the rest of you. Oh wait, there is no heck, right?
I think the atheist society will be just like Israel in the time of the judges: “.. in those days there was no king in Israel and each did what was right in his own mind.” Sounds like a prescription to absolute pandemonium, no?
Report comment to moderator
Rerun #101.
Some atheists say “This is the only life we have; let’s be kind to each other and make the best of it we can. Some say, “Let’s do any old evil thing; why not?”
Some religious believers say, “Let’s be kind to each other or we will go to hell.” Some religious believers, they are going to hell any way, speed them along at the stake or with stones.”
Which are you?
Report comment to moderator
Random Name:
Which are you?
Neither (or none, I can’t tell how many alternatives you’ve posed).
The more important question is far deeper than you imply. How about this: What is evil? How do we recognize it? Can the atheist offer an answer that isn’t ultimately based on personal preference? I don’t see how he can without positing moral absolutes.
Report comment to moderator
John M.: If Christians don’t follow Mosaic law anymore, does that mean the Ten Commandments no longer apply? Or if they do apply, why not the other laws?
On what basis do you retain some and exclude others?
Chronicles is rather past the Mosaic period anyway, no?
Thorn: What a brilliant argument! Not.
Make It Man: That’s rather the point. Most people, at most times, in most cultures, have understood that murder and theft are wrong. They have not all needed the God of Moses to tell them so. In fact, anyone who does need a dictate from a deity to figure that out is probably someone you don’t want for a neighbor.
Sawgunner: If your motive to do a good thing is either to please God or to not be punished by God, then is it any real virtue to you? You have a motive other than simply to be good.
Random Name is quite right: Religious belief does not guarantee virtue, and lack of it does not guarantee dissloution.
Report comment to moderator
And then there are some of us religious believers who say, “Let us be kind to one another because what we do to others, it is as though we are doing it to Christ, after all, they are made in the image of God.
Fear of hell is not what motivates us, we strive to be more like Him – that’s our motivation.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Can the atheist offer an answer that isn’t ultimately based on personal preference?
Can the theist?
You will answer based on your unproven, chosen, set of presuppositions. Your argument will be persuasive only to those who have chosen to share them, and not to those who don’t.
It is still personal preference.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s rather the point. Most people, at most times, in most cultures, have understood that murder and theft are wrong. They have not all needed the God of Moses to tell them so. In fact, anyone who does need a dictate from a deity to figure that out is probably someone you don’t want for a neighbor.”
No.. the point is whether they understand that it’s wrong because they believe in absolutes and are made in the image of God therefore have knowledge of good and evil, or whether that understanding is “evolved” or relative or “just is”. If one acts as if they believe that morals are absolute, but says they believe in relative morality, then which do they really believe?
In addition, as has been stated here many times before, the atheist has no logical grounds upon which to denounce the supposed morality or immorality of others. If they want to admit to an absolute morality, then I believe they have grounds for their denunciation. Otherwise any blather about how everyone just understands what’s right and wrong is meaningless.
Report comment to moderator
‘Non-belief’ IS a belief. One of the founding principles of atheism is doubting their own existence. And the more confident they are, the more vocal the become.
Report comment to moderator
John M: Define “Mosaic Law”. Where in the NT, and preferably within the Gospels does it say a)that Mosaic Law should be honored or b)that it should not. You might start here:
One of the most controversial theological issues among Christian scholars,and one that has troubled the Church throughout its history, is the questionof the applicability of the OT law to the NT Christian. To state the problemsimply: Which of the 613 laws1 given by God at Sinai are binding upon Chris-tians in our time? The confusion in the Church today…
I suspect that literalists have more trouble with this than most.
Sawgunner: “Pprescription for pandemonium”. You mean like schisms and wars and things? Killing people for their beliefs in addition to things that matter, like food or oil?
Report comment to moderator
“You will answer based on your unproven, chosen, set of presuppositions. Your argument will be persuasive only to those who have chosen to share them, and not to those who don’t.
It is still personal preference.”
The difference is that you depend soley on your own preference. A failing attempt at it. The fact that men like C.S. Lewis have changed their alliegence is evidence that christianity is persuasive against atheistic ideals.
Atheism is a weak attempt to avoid the absolute true God. It will not excuse you.
Report comment to moderator
Brothers and sisters,
Rev. Doug Jones wrote a thought-provoking little piece once called “Rethinking Milk Buying.” Definitely a keeper — you’ll want to have some copies handy to share with your atheist friends.
In a nutshell, Jones exposes the radical deception inherent in all non-Christian worldviews, and in the atheist worldview in particular:
Report comment to moderator
I think it is hard being an atheist because atheists are severely disliked. I’m not an atheist, but more of an agnostic, skeptical (atheistic) on certain traditional religious beliefs (like eternal damnation, the infallibility of the Bible, the truth of Islam, etc.) but hopeful that God does exist and for a happy ending.
But one reason WHY atheists are so hated is they seem (because they probably are) smarter and more philosophical minded (it should come as no surprise that atheists are vastly overrepresented among scientists and professors of philosophy). They tend to be good at refuting religious claims that are not well argued. And in this sense they — the outspoken ones like Dawkins and Hitchens — are like the little kid who told you Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Indeed atheists have been persecuted since Socrates was forced to drink the Hemlock because of this dynamic.
Report comment to moderator
Just to clarify before people jump on me: But one reason WHY atheists are so hated is they seem (because they probably are) smarter and more philosophical minded ON AVERAGE. I think as an empirical matter this can be proven just as it can be proven that doctors, lawyers, and accountants are ON AVERAGE smarter than construction workers. From the data I have seen atheists are better educated and have fewer social problems and are underrepresented in prisons.
Report comment to moderator
#6 Thorn,
You will have to do better than that. Arcadia is always wrong
Report comment to moderator
It’s not like that whole question [weirdness of the ten commandments, etc.] is answered in the Bible itself, in the New Testament. Ever hear of the “New covenant”? Next please.
The “New Covenant” doesn’t answer anything about the inexcusable immorality of the barbaric Hebrew deity known as Yahweh. It’s just an irrational excuse for Christians old and new to ignore the OT whenever it pleases (they still cite Leviticus and Deuteronomy whenever it suits their purposes).
Report comment to moderator
The fact that men like C.S. Lewis have changed their alliegence is evidence that christianity is persuasive against atheistic ideals.
No – it’s just evidence that mid-20th-century scholars of medieval fairy tales could easily get carried away with themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: The fact that men like C.S. Lewis have changed their alliegence is evidence that christianity is persuasive against atheistic ideals.
The fact that men like Dan Barker have changed their allegiance is evidence that atheism is persuasive against Christian ideals.
The fact that men and women occasionally change what they believe is not evidence that one is more persuasive than the other except to that individual.
I am not an atheist, by the way.
Make It Man: No.. the point is whether they understand that it’s wrong because they believe in absolutes and are made in the image of God therefore have knowledge of good and evil, or whether that understanding is “evolved” or relative or “just is”. If one acts as if they believe that morals are absolute, but says they believe in relative morality, then which do they really believe?
Most Christians do not even claim absolute morality. Murder is wrong by Judeo-Christian morality, by Humanistic principles, in most pagan systems and Eastern religious traditions as well.
But yet, almost all of them define murder as something other than the deliberate taking of human life, in order to have some deliberate killing that is not considered murder. Some consider abortion to be murder but capital punishment to be acceptable, even commanded. Some take the opposite position. Some see assisted suicide of the terminally ill as mercy and others as homicide. Quakers are pacifist, spurning all war, while most Christians — and most everybody, really — understands that it is sometimes necessary.
So where is the absolute?
In addition, as has been stated here many times before, the atheist has no logical grounds upon which to denounce the supposed morality or immorality of others. If they want to admit to an absolute morality, then I believe they have grounds for their denunciation. Otherwise any blather about how everyone just understands what’s right and wrong is meaningless.
The Christian has no logical grounds upon which to denounce the supposed morality or immorality of others either. You say homosexuality is wrong because a sentence written down several thousand years ago and said to have been spoken by your god says so. I say homosexuality is fine and, because I do not believe that line was actually spoken by any god, you have no grounds to say I’m wrong … we do not come to the question with the same framework.
Report comment to moderator
“Most Christians do not even claim absolute morality.”
So what? My point was not about what people claim. It’s about how they behave. And all people act as if morality is absolute.
Let me ask you this. Is there anyone in the world whose actions you would condemn as wrong regardless of their personal convictions about those actions?
Report comment to moderator
The arguments of religious believers and their behavior (and I suspect motivations) vary. At one end, are those who are so drawn toward the idea of goodness and kindness that they find in Christianity that their motivation is mostly positive.
Klasko’s posts (such as #13) convey that motivation to me.
On another tack is the the idea that there are no “absolutes” is so horrible that it can’t possibly be true. That you can’t stand the idea of universe with no absolute values reflects your wishes. It is not an argument for its truth.
I don’t consider an argument based on denying the theory of evolution, on a belief in a virgin birth and a resurrection from the dead, on questionable historical claims (starting with the Garden of Eden, running through claims such as Noah and the Flood,, etc.) as providing convincing underpinning for your claim of “absolute laws” of morality.
Many secular people find the idea of “eternal Hell” disgusting. Christians argue, doesn’t matter if you don’t like it, that’s the way God does it.
Many of us secular people argue, doesn’t matter if you don’t like the idea that there are no absolute values, doesn’t mean there are.
Old argument. Deep ruts running around this track.
Report comment to moderator
Let me ask you this. Is there anyone in the world whose actions you would condemn as wrong regardless of their personal convictions about those actions?
Of course. I find many people’s actions wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t that an indication that you do believe in absolute morality?
Report comment to moderator
I never said I didn’t. You assumed it.
Report comment to moderator
If you are one of those persons who say that no one should impose their moral views on others (especially those who are religious), then I don’t think you should do so. If you think that there are people in the world who are doing the wrong thing and they should stop no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behaviour, then it seems to me that you DO believe that there is a moral standard that people should abide by regardless of their individual convictions.
In other words, there are moral absolutes. It’s inescapable. We live as though there are moral absolutes – regardless of what we claim. To say otherwise BEGS the question.
Report comment to moderator
So do you or do you not claim to believe in moral absolutes?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t consider an argument based on denying the theory of evolution, on a belief in a virgin birth and a resurrection from the dead, on questionable historical claims (starting with the Garden of Eden, running through claims such as Noah and the Flood,, etc.) as providing convincing underpinning for your claim of “absolute laws” of morality.”
That’s interesting. I’m quite sure that I haven’t claimed anything about evolution in this argument- either for or against (I think you should make no assumptions about my belief on this subject also). And I know I haven’t mentioned anything about a virgin birth, resurrection, the Garden of Eden, or the Flood.
My argument about absolute morality so far, has more to do with observations of human behaviour than any story in the Bible.
Do not assume more than has been said so far.
Report comment to moderator
The moral argument for God is very weak. it involves the presupposition of absolute values. God exists therefore there are absolute values, there are absolute values because god exists. And around we go again. Neither prove each other until one is independently verified.
Thus, some will lower the argument to utility, absolute values are useful and even necessary, therefore they exist and therefore God exist. three logical leaps are needed here.
Reread Random at #27 — the ruts continue.
Report comment to moderator
If you are one of those persons who say that no one should impose their moral views on others (especially those who are religious), then I don’t think you should do so. If you think that there are people in the world who are doing the wrong thing and they should stop no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behaviour, then it seems to me that you DO believe that there is a moral standard that people should abide by regardless of their individual convictions.
But I don’t necessarily say they should stop, unless their actions are demonstrably harmful to others. If someone told me he felt it was ok to murder co-eds, I would say it doesn’t matter what he feels, it’s still wrong.
This is where I find the absolutes: In those things that almost all people at all times innately know to be wrong. (Murder, theft, etc.) People may argue over whether those things are wrong because a god decreed them to be, or because evolution programmed us to reject things that threaten survival and cohesion, or because it’s bad karma … but 99 percent of the time, we won’t argue the whether, just the why.
But then there are things over which is there is much disagreement. Homosexuality? Eating meat? Abortion? Non-married sex? These are all things which a lot of people think are wrong and a lot of people think are fine. These, I think, probably are much more relative than absolute. They are matters of opinion, where things like the taking of life or property are far more fundamental.
Report comment to moderator
“This is where I find the absolutes: In those things that almost all people at all times innately know to be wrong.”
Murder – If there are people in the world who decide to kill off the minority in their country and call it right, then who says that they are wrong? The minority certainly doesn’t get a say in the matter.
If a majority of people in the world decided it was right to kill all religious people because it was “for the good of mankind”, then who gets to say that they are wrong? Who says? If it’s good for the majority, then isn’t it right?
If one claims that there is no God, then how does one proclaim any moral to be absolute? Again, you come back to the majority rule. What if the majority is wrong? If there is no God, then there is no one to say an action is absolutely wrong (and no reason to).
Talk about circles…
And you can say the moral argument for God is weak, but it doesn’t make it so. I will concede that it does not prove that God exists. I will assert that the behaviour of people who act as if there are absolutes, is a very good indication that there is a God.
Report comment to moderator
The moral argument for God is very weak. it involves the presupposition of absolute values. God exists therefore there are absolute values, there are absolute values because god exists. And around we go again. Neither prove each other until one is independently verified.
This is an almost totally inaccurate portrayal of what I have been saying. There is no “presupposition of absolute values”. And, I did not argue that God exists therefore there are absolute values.
I am not presupposing anything in the argument. I’m arguing that since people act as if there are absolute morals (and it’s demonstrable), that it indicates there is an Objective Person who mandates those morals. I’m also arguing that if one asserts that there is no God, that there is no logical basis for behaving as if there were absolute morals. This is also demonstrable. I would (and this is the only place you sorta got it right) conclude that because people behave as if there are absolute values that it indicates the existence of an Objective Person who formed those morals.
Report comment to moderator
If there is no God, then there is no one to say an action is absolutely wrong (and no reason to).
On the other hand, if we just happen by nature to have an innate sense that certain things are wrong, it’s natural to seek explanations for why we do. Religious myths could be developed to explain that sense that might have no actual reality. (After all, if you say murder is wrong because the God you believe in decrees it, then you by necessity believe that all other explanations for that sense are wrong … but a believer in another religion can just as easily decide that his explanation is right and yours is wrong.)
Report comment to moderator
“On the other hand, if we just happen by nature to have an innate sense that certain things are wrong…”
Oh no. I don’t think I’ll let you get away with this one either. If you believe in natural selection, then there’s no reason that people with altruistic notions to have passed on their genes. And if we take nature as our example for how things came to be, then there’s NO indication that we should have this kind of sense of right and wrong. The animals don’t seem to have a sense of guilt. They just get what they can get according to their fitness. So there doesn’t seem to be a good explanation for this sense of absolutes.
Report comment to moderator
If we take nature as an example, then why do we need any sense of what is true, or even need an explanation? Are you saying are creatures who desire meaning?!!! Imagine that!
Report comment to moderator
The animals don’t seem to have a sense of guilt. They just get what they can get according to their fitness.
Humans have the ability to predict the future that other animals lack … by which I mean, we understand the potential consequences of our actions farther out than the next few moments. Your dog may learn not to run out in the road because you train him that he’ll be praised if he doesn’t and scolded if he does. But he does not understand that his existence can come to an end if he gets hit by a car.
Humans also have the ability to feel empathy. If our actions hurt someone else, we understand that what we’ve done has a consequence, even when it’s a consequence for someone else, and understand that we would feel bad if it happened to us.
These two things lead to the overall idea of morality in the first place … that things we do can have long-reaching consequences, and that things that we do can hurt others — whose hurt we can experience through empathy — even when they don’t hurt us directly.
Virtually all of the universally-held moral ideas can be traced directly to those abilities we have, with no need to appeal to a deity of any kind.
Report comment to moderator
Hi SteveG:
I had asked, “What is evil? How do we recognize it? Can the atheist offer an answer that isn’t ultimately based on personal preference?”
You replied by asking:“Can the theist?”
Yes, the Christian theist can. That’s what the Christian theist does. He acknowledges the absolute moral code given by God and reflective of the mind of Christ. What the Christian does not do is argue that morality is what he prefers it to be. Any atheistic accounting of morality, though, reduces to preference. Try to demonstrate otherwise.
Take Spinoza’s anything-but-profound assessment of God’s character as inexcusably immoral and barbaric (post 23). I’d like to see Spinoza enlighten us where the moral code exists on which he’s basing his conclusion.
I’ll just point out here, SteveG, that a couple months ago you had to be reminded that only 3 or 4 days prior to that date, you had actually made the argument that there were no moral absolutes. While it’s progress that you’ve come to acknowledge their existence, you still have work to do; you have to tell us how we can know these absolutes. It doesn’t do any good to come to these posts and criticize Christians for this or that offense, but when asked why such things would be offensive you would merely reply, “Because 99% of people know that’s offensive.”
And you should realize that you’re begging the question in the last few paragraphs of 41. Who says hurting someone is “wrong”? It hardly follows that because we can predict the future and feel empathy, that our actions contain moral elements. You might be able to say some things about preferring not to hurt or be hurt, but it doesn’t say anything about the inherent rightness or wrongness of the actual hurting.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name at #27:
If there are no moral absolutes, can anyone rightfully decry as morally “wrong” any action of any other person or group? You’ve done this. I’ve seen it! The point of Frank in Spokane’s post 19 appears to have gone over your head. In the absence of moral absolutes, you have a hard task trying to get anyone to appreciate your indignation.
Can’t we call torturing old ladies an absolute evil?
Report comment to moderator
Atheists create strife when they try to get into public policy. That is when they become disliked. Living out their personal atheistic lifestyles is their business and they are free to do so, but when they get behind causes that alter our laws in a antichrist direction, that is when they open themselves up to the disdain of those that disagree with them philosophically.
Fairly similar to how christian conservatives are viewed as well when they attempt to alter public policy based on their right leaning ideologies.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: I wonder if you read my post past the point you quoted.
You indeed assert a basis for an objective measure of evil. What you don’t do is notice that your basis is founded on a subjective belief … an unproven, unprovable and not-universal belief.
Because the explanation you offer depends on first accepting the unproven supposition, it is just as subjective as any other.
You say: What the Christian does not do is argue that morality is what he prefers it to be.
I disagree. In choosing to be a Christian, you are adopting the moral view you prefer. And even within Christianity, you will find a lot of room for disagreement on many moral issues … are Christians for or against capital punishment? Depends on which Christians you ask. (For just one example.)
It’s amazing how many supposedly clear and obvious understandings of scripture there are that lead to opposite conclusions on various things.
I don’t recall the past conversation you refer to, but let’s discuss what we mean by “absolute.”
Do I believe certain things are absolutely wrong for everyone? Yes … putting a gun to someone’s head and killing them just for the thrill of doing it is wrong for anyone, anytime. But do I believe that deliberate killing is always absolutely wrong? No … I support capital punishment in limited circumstances and I accept that war and its inevitable casualties is sometimes necessary.
You said: And you should realize that you’re begging the question in the last few paragraphs of 41. Who says hurting someone is “wrong”? It hardly follows that because we can predict the future and feel empathy, that our actions contain moral elements. You might be able to say some things about preferring not to hurt or be hurt, but it doesn’t say anything about the inherent rightness or wrongness of the actual hurting.
Most of us recoil from the idea of deliberately hurting someone else, because we know how they are going to feel and can imagine how we would feel if it were done unto us. This becomes a moral idea by being reflected in the general population. Various theologies and philosophies then overlay their explanations for why we feel that way. The prediction/empathy explanation is an evolutionary reductionist explanation. The “God made the moral order and instilled it in us” explanation is a theological explanation reflected in Christianity and other major religions. The “doing hurtful things to other brings hurtful things back to us through karma” explanation is an Eastern religious explanation.
None of these explanations are provable or disprovable, and all of them have significant numbers of people who agree with them. But whether any of them or none of them or some combination of them turns out to be the correct explanation, the fact remains that most people, in most cases, would not want to deliberately hurt someone else.
Report comment to moderator
The point of Frank in Spokane’s post 19 appears to have gone over your head.
I found the quoted sermon kind of inane and misguided.
Report comment to moderator
Hi SteveG:
It was in post 48 of this thread where I referred to your argument of only 6 days prior when you had claimed there were no moral absolutes. It wasn’t the first time you had made the claim, either. In the space of 6 days, you had *forgotten* you’d done the 180…on moral absolutes. That’s a credibility diminisher if you’re talking morals.
You say:
That’s ironic. Jones is demonstrating how inane and misguided it is for a person to profess one belief, then act as though he believed the opposite, which is exactly what you and, more demonstrably, people like Random Name do in these threads all the time.
What does Random Name do? He expresses moral indignation at Christians who make judgments he disagrees with. And…he claims there are no moral absolutes. Do the pitfalls and contradictions there really need to be explained? Oh well, you don’t have to answer for him; it would just be nice if he’d let the rest of us know the objective basis for the umbrage he takes. If it’s just his preference, then never mind him.
Your case is similar even though you do (for now) acknowledge moral absolutes…but really you don’t. You do acknowledge people have preferences. You say that “[m]ost of us recoil at the idea of deliberately hurting someone else…[which] becomes a moral idea by being reflected in the general population.” SteveG, an idea “being reflected in the general population” does not comprise a moral absolute. It comprises no more than a popular opinion.
The general population may be right about their belief, but their belief does not determine the moral absolute, otherwise it wouldn’t actually BE an absolute. It’s bewildering someone would wish to point to popular opinion as a foundation of moral absolutes. Were the ancient Mayans wrong for making human sacrifices? What does the passage of Prop 8 in California tell you?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: SteveG, an idea “being reflected in the general population” does not comprise a moral absolute. It comprises no more than a popular opinion.
(Your link does not work, by the way.)
What does comprise a moral absolute, then?
Is there an answer that does not require an appeal to your own religious beliefs?
It’s bewildering someone would wish to point to popular opinion as a foundation of moral absolutes. Were the ancient Mayans wrong for making human sacrifices? What does the passage of Prop 8 in California tell you?
The passage of Proposition 8 by a slim majority (52.1 percent) tells me that gay marriage is not a moral absolute on either side. Slightly more than half of the people disapprove and slightly less than half approve. The slightness of the difference suggests opinion, not innate conviction.
If the California Supreme Court had declared a right to sacrifice humans and a ballot initiative seeking to overturn it was introduced, the vote would be more like 98-2, not 52-47. THAT is a moral absolute.
See, the thing is, you think a “moral absolute” must come via the dictate of the god you choose to believe in. But how is that binding on me? I don’t worship the same god you do. Why should I care what your god says about homosexuality, or unmarried sex? My theology finds both of those just fine, so long as they’re done responsibly and among the consenting.
How is your morality any more “absolute” than mine, other than in your inistence that your unprovable religious beliefs are right?
Report comment to moderator
Regarding Jones … when he says When you first walk up to the grocery store, you assume that you and the store are two different things, not one, thus showing your rejection of most Eastern and New Age religions, he’s showing that he doesn’t understand “most Eastern and New Age religions,” not that regarding the store as a material entity constitutes rejecting them.
People who criticize things based on their total misunderstanding of what those things are have no credibility. The concept of “oneness” doesn’t mean that I am the store and the store is the clerk and the clerk is the parking lot. It means that I and the store and the clerk and the parking lot share the same constituent components (we’re all made of elements and there are only so many of those… we’re all subject to the laws of the universe … we’re all finite in duration … and we’re interconnected so that my action to the clerk may later influence his actions toward his wife, and her actions the next day to their children … see the movie Crash for examples.)
When you walk down that same dairy aisle and select the same kind of milk, you assume that the world is not chaotic, but orderly, regular, and divided into set kinds of things.
Duh. Is there anybody who thinks the world is so chaotic that you might walk down the dairy aisle and come out the other end in Saskatoon? This is inanity.
When you stand in line with others, expecting others to respect your space and person, you reveal your rejection of moral relativism and your deep trust in absolute ethical norms.
Nonesense. It shows that I, like most people, don’t want people crowding me in line. It doesn’t in any way assure me that the lout behind me won’t crowd me anyway.
When you calculate your available change, compare the price of the milk, and make the exchange with the clerk at the register, you engage in a complex array of thought processes involving nonmaterial rules of reasoning, thus showing your rejection of materialism and evolution.
That’s the most ridiculous part. What does he mean “nonmaterial?” Is he a neurologist as well as a minister so that he can say with authority that thought processes are “nonmaterial?” This is too stupid to even consider taking seriously.
Report comment to moderator
Hi SteveG,
Wow, this thread’s off the beaten path. Feels like a room in The Overlook Hotel.
Sorry about the faulty link. It worked in preview, but the source code shows the link address itself is deleted. Just a couple ‘a tags.’ If you’re all that curious, it’s here. I’ll be interested to see if it works after I post.
I think you may misunderstand the term “absolute.” You ask, “What does comprise a moral absolute, then?” but immediately thereafter you ask, “Is there an answer that does not require an appeal to your own religious beliefs?” The former question is not controversial; not among philosophers, theologians, or dictionary editors. A moral absolute, *by definition* is independent of external agency (such as public opinion). It’s character is entirely intrinsic; hence, if something is an absolute evil, it actually is evil, and not evil as a result of people reaching a consensus to describe it as such. This isn’t disputable if you wish to make proper use of the term absolute.
The controversy is over whether moral absolutes exist. Based on your (mis)understanding of the term, it seems you actually do not believe in moral absolutes. An absolute moral good or evil is such without any consideration of its popularity or effects; it is innately either good or evil. There’s no getting around that. Among those who believe moral absolutes exist, yes, there’s disagreement over what they are and how we know them. But the disagreement itself is in no way evidence of their non-existence.
I tried to make the point in a couple other posts that not believing in moral absolutes leads to unsatisfying consequences, both behaviorally and philosophically, because one undermines his entire foundation for moral criticism. This, in part, relates to your objection about why some moral code should be binding. Unless a person is violating an absolute, immutable moral code, why should anyone be bound to it? I’m surprised you don’t see the myriad contradictions in your penultimate paragraph at #48.
Lastly and briefly, since it’s possible you may not even check back here and no one else is either(!), I’ll quickly mention that you’ve misread Jones. Notice that he uses “nonmaterial” there to modify “rules of reasoning,” not “thought processes.” I take it you’re not familiar with the presuppositional apologetic.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm. The link works in preview. I’ve made successful links here before. The address disappears in the source code. What gives? Here’s the clunky version: http://online.worldmag.com/2008/09/09/smart-vile-or-hokey/
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a test
and another
and another
Report comment to moderator
An absolute moral good or evil is such without any consideration of its popularity or effects; it is innately either good or evil. There’s no getting around that. Among those who believe moral absolutes exist, yes, there’s disagreement over what they are and how we know them. But the disagreement itself is in no way evidence of their non-existence.
When I refer to the absolutes being the moral ideas that most people at most times in most cultures would agree on, that’s not an appeal to popularity. It’s an observation that there are some moral ideas that are so pervasive and so common to humanity that they are intrinsic … or at least close enough to intrinsic for there to be no practical difference.
I am not really interested in hair-splitting semantic arguments about whether or not that constitutes a belief in absolutes or not. I’ll leave it at the description and you can hang whatever label on it you like.
Lastly and briefly, since it’s possible you may not even check back here and no one else is either(!), I’ll quickly mention that you’ve misread Jones. Notice that he uses “nonmaterial” there to modify “rules of reasoning,” not “thought processes.”
OK, but that distinction doesn’t improve the vapidity of his argument. If he thinks materialism and evolution don’t allow the existence of non-tangible intellectual concepts, he has no understanding of materialism and evolution. If he does know better, then he’s happy to lie to his audience in hopes of deceiving them.
Report comment to moderator
In a discussion on moral absolutes, and especially considering the way you’ve attempted to portray the concept, there’s a world of difference between “close enough to intrinsic” and “intrinsic.” The fact that you offered 98% agreement about a thing as, what, evidence? definition? that a thing is therefore absolute demonstrates you are woefully unfamiliar with the terms of the discussion.
And no materialist has, or can, give a satisfactory account for the existence of anything immaterial. Anyone who believes so is naive and deceived.
Report comment to moderator
I am quite familiar with the terms of the discussion; you keep overlooking the point I’m making in your rush to declare my ignorance.
I’ll try approaching it from a different angle: If there are moral absolutes, how would we know what they are?
Believers in any of a variety of religions would say, as you do, that absolute moral rule come direct from the deity … but they can never agree on what they are.
What I am suggesting is that those values that are absolute are those that there is no real disagreement about. The fact that 100 percent of humans don’t agree is beside the point. If 98 percent agree, it’s fair to infer that the other 2 percent are wrong.
On the other hand, if you offer a proposed moral absolute that only 60 percent agree with, it’s much harder to dismiss the 40 percent as wrong, and the degree of division suggests that it’s reasonable to consider that particular moral position to be relative.
If you believe, as Christians often do, that man is created in God’s image, and that “God’s law is written on our hearts,” then it stands to reason that moral principles that come natural to almost everyone are the result of that, while those that only some of us insist on are not.
And no materialist has, or can, give a satisfactory account for the existence of anything immaterial. Anyone who believes so is naive and deceived.
Bearing in mind that I’m neither a materialist nor an atheist, I still think this is a crock. The “rules of reasoning” that Jones refers to are simply the result of biological thought processes, which are electrical activity in the brain. Jones takes a position from which one could argue that the very ability to conceive of evolution proves that evolution can’t be true. It’s the kind of sophistry that sounds clever and impresses the uneducated.
Report comment to moderator
The “rules of reasoning” that Jones refers to are simply the result of biological thought processes, which are electrical activity in the brain.
Do we live in the same universe? The law of noncontradiction is of the same essence as a migraine headache? Modus ponens is kind of like an adrenaline rush? Could you ask a materialist to point out a syllogism on an EEG? I’d like to see it.
I hope to address the ‘absolute’ thing later. I appreciate that you’ve returned here to offer me responses.
Report comment to moderator
Do you deny that thought takes place in the brain?
Why do we have brains then?
Report comment to moderator
Why do we have brains then?
Our stomachs don’t produce the food we eat. The food is something external that we take in and process. Those nonmaterial rules of reasoning Jones refers to must exist, and they must exist independent of us or our brains. We apprehend and make use of them.
If global warming killed off all humans, would the law of noncontradiction vanish like fog? If there are moral absolutes, *by definition* they don’t “arise” from anything; they exist on their own. We apprehend them. The materialist is the most hard-pressed to assert otherwise. Neither love nor logic is something that emerges from the ooze. (I can hear the objection that love is a mere matter of chemical occurrences in the brain. I have to assume you see why that idea is problematic.)
It wasn’t my intention to be hasty finding fault in any argument of yours. I read some of your language as implying that moral absolutes were dependent on consensus. Noting that most people do not like something like taking a bullet in the head is, at bottom, a neutral statement (in our context). It isn’t necessary at all to infer from that fact that murder is an absolute wrong. What of those Mayans? What about the acceptance of chattel slavery throughout much of history? On these things, it’s hard to get the true you. Your second-to-last paragraph in #45 is a case in point. Simply pointing to a few contradictory possible theologies and philosophies, some of which make absolutes impossible, and saying “Eh, who knows, could be any of ‘em” is a difficult position to engage. Why not just argue your view? If your view is no more than just “pick ‘em,” despite the antitheses between them, then we’re essentially back to no moral absolutes.
Report comment to moderator
The law of non-contradiction is a logical principle, not a moral one.
As for your stomach/food analogy, food is also material … and you’re talking about an input, not output. “Rules of reasoning” are concepts that we can use to describe how the physical processes work … they don’t exist independent of the physical processes they pertain to.
At any rate, materialism rejects the idea of non-material things … spiritual beings, gods, ghosts, etc. (And remember, I am not a materialist.) It doesn’t in any way deny the existence of non-material ideas and concepts. Our thought processes are explained by biological activity. The concepts that we speak about are not held to be the non-material things or beings that materialism excludes.
Report comment to moderator
Noting that most people do not like something like taking a bullet in the head is, at bottom, a neutral statement (in our context). It isn’t necessary at all to infer from that fact that murder is an absolute wrong. What of those Mayans? What about the acceptance of chattel slavery throughout much of history? On these things, it’s hard to get the true you. Your second-to-last paragraph in #45 is a case in point. Simply pointing to a few contradictory possible theologies and philosophies, some of which make absolutes impossible, and saying “Eh, who knows, could be any of ‘em” is a difficult position to engage. Why not just argue your view? If your view is no more than just “pick ‘em,” despite the antitheses between them, then we’re essentially back to no moral absolutes.
But we’re not at all back to no moral absolutes, and it’s this binary viewpoint that I oppose. Many people who do believe in moral absolutes seem to take the view that every moral idea they have is an absolute, and if I don’t agree with them all the way down the line, I must not think anything is absolute.
It is from that way of thinking that people say things like, “If you don’t agree gay marriage is wrong, you must believe just anything goes.”
The point I’ve tried to make a few times now is that you can look at all the diverse strands of thought I mentioned in that earlier post and find a few things on which they all agree, despite the great difference in the ways they get there. The atheist, Christian, Buddhist and Druid are all likely to agree that murdering someone is wrong. Those, I identify as absolute because they appear to be so fundamental to human thought, they must be intrinsic to our makeup, even though there will always be exceptions.
You mention individual cultures where murder (human sacrifice) or slavery have been accepted. But as time passes and our species becomes generally more civilized, those things fade. Does anyone today practice human sacrifice? And while slavery does still exist, I daresay it’s less prevalent now than in the past, and will fade even further in the future.
(Besides, if you make an exception for capital punishment, then you also don’t hold the deliberate taking of human life to an absolute wrong.)
Report comment to moderator
The law of non-contradiction is a logical principle, not a moral one.
What did I miss? Channeling the materialist, you asked why we have brains. Your question was in the context of discussing non-material “rules of reasoning.” As far as abstract versus material existence, laws of logic and moral absolutes fall into the same category: the abstract. The materialist can’t account for either. And, by the way, materialists historically claim far more than just the non-existence of ghosts and sprites. Good grief; materialism denies the mind! It fails in accounting for logic as it fails in accounting for love, which is why nobody takes it seriously anymore.
The stomach/food analogy has, as any analogy does, its shortcomings. I have a hard time believing you don’t see the point. Anyway, this is a strange statement:
So the law of noncontradiction depends on physical processes. That’s bizarre. What do you mean by this? You’re not a materialist, so I wonder what your nuance is.
The reason I say your mish-mash agnostic-minded approach to morals returns us to ‘no absolutes’ is because it abandons even the pretext of a moral authority and/or opens itself to wildly conflicting possible moral conclusions, and at many points is just plain question begging. Your attempt to throw off eras of distasteful history isn’t satisfying. Someone living during such times and taking the same approach to morals as you do would, by your reasoning, legitimately conclude that slavery is, at worst, a morally neutral practice. And why does a decline in these practices prove anything? Who says the trend is positive? We’re all just products of our times.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!