Valentine's Day

Jesus tells us to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44). On this Valentine's Day, everyone seems to think of those closest to them. In addition to that, wouldn't today be a great day to reach out and show love toward someone who would least expect it; someone with whom you have had some serious differences?

Moral Hatred?

I came across this picture on Facebook recently that several of my friends and relatives had "liked:"

Needless to say, I was a bit disappointed that these people I cared so deeply about could be sucked in by so obvious a straw man version of the moral argument.  For anyone interested in a genuine presentation of the variations on the moral argument for theism, I have written an article here:

MORAL ARGUMENTS AND THE CHARACTER OF GOD

I did not know the gentleman who had originally posted the picture, but he had made it open to comment by the public, so I decided to try to engage him in a discussion to at least point out the straw man nature of the argument in his post.  In fact many (but certainly not all) atheistic philosophers have conceded the point I was attempting to make; i.e., without a theistic god there can be no basis for objective moral laws.  This does not mean atheists cannot behave morally.  Of course they can.  Someone does not need to know the speed limit is 55 mph, for example, to be driving below the limit.  Even if the theist is correct and God's character is the source for morality, the atheist's personal moral code may still be largely in line with that objective moral law (in fact, Christian theology actually predicts why it would be so, but that is for another day).


By the time I joined in the conversation, it had already been going on for quite a while.  But what I got in return for my engagement was a reminder of what Jesus meant when He said, "I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world." John 17:14.  The responses the author addressed to me grew increasingly hostile.  Eventually he resorted to flat out insults and cursing.  I have decided to post them here (with the names changed) for two reasons: (1) to illustrate to Christians what they will occasionally face when sharing their faith so you are prepared to greet it, and (2) to also remind Christians that the degree of hostility I witnessed in this individual I have also unfortunately witnessed in many Christians online.  As you will see I reminded one Christian in the course of our discussion, Peter told us, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." 1 Peter 3:15.

I am hoping by reprinting this discussion here it can serve as a reminder to people on both sides of discussions such as these as to how far more mileage can be made by behaving with decorum.  I found it ironic that the original purpose of this gentleman's post was that atheists can behave morally.  I agree with that comment, but I cannot help but think that he did not help his cause much by repeatedly and egregiously failing to even show the slightest amount of common courtesy.

Fair warning before you read this.  Other then the names of the parties involved, I have not changed anything.  I have left in all typographical errors, capitalization and punctuation errors, and have not edited anything for content.  Please be aware that I certainly do not condone the type of language used by this gentleman, but I felt that the only way to fully prepare people for what they will face is to be brutally honest and let you see it for yourself.


I have referred to the gentleman who posted the picture as "Mr. Smith."  His comments are in bold.  My comments are in italics, and the other Christian who briefly participated ("Mr. Jones") is in plain text.


--------------------------

Mr. Jones. I am sure you probably have come across some Christians who have told you atheists cannot be moral, but that is due to their misunderstanding of the arguments actually being made in the scholarly marketplace. The point is that on an atheistic worldview there can be no foundation for objective moral values. Morality cannot be derived from mere matter, so if materialism is true, objective morality is a mere illusion. Moral rules are nothing more than opinion. But this means that one person's moral code has no more claim to being "right" than anyone else's. There is no "right" morality, only opinion. So when the materialistic atheist makes a moral judgment (such as strongly implying, as you did in an earlier post, that it is morally wrong to murder, something you believe Christians would still be doing today if they had not been forcibly stopped), thence or she is not acting consistently with his or her own worldview. A consistent materialist would have to say, "It is not my preference that you murder, but I understand your opinion may be different and I have no basis to tell you otherwise." This does not mean an atheist cannot BEHAVE morally. After all, if objective morality exists, a person's opinion of morality can coincide with that objective standard even if he or she does not recognize that standard as the source. But a theistic worldview allows for a source for objective moral values whereas an atheistic worldview does not. As (an earlier commenter) correctly observed, this fact has been recognized and embraced by many leading atheistic philosophers. To the extent your picture creates a caricature of theism and creates the impression that the argument that atheists cannot behave morally is actually being circulated in scholarly circles, it is attacking a straw man and is therefore inaccurate. I thank you, though, for your willingness to open up this discussion. Obviously I believe these are very important topics that deserve our attention and respectful discussion as opposed to the "one liners" and ad hominem attacks that often characterize discussions such as these.

I apologize for the typographical errors, but I am not particularly skilled in typing on a smart phone.

@Mr. Smith: "honor your mother and father", "do not kill", "do not covet your neighbor's wife and property", etc. And let's not forget "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Yeah, the Bible is nothing but garbage and such concepts are too barbaric and disgusting to teach our children.

I'm not saying religions and some religious people don't have their problems but to say that there are *no* moral religious people is false. I mean, I suppose you could try to argue that Mother Teresa and Ghandi were not moral or not religious but I think you'd fail; they were both moral and reliogous. Where there are at least two counter examples, I think it is reasonable to believe that there are others.

 

@ Mr. Jones. "Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and respect." 1 Peter 3:15. Your point is well made, but beware using too much sarcasm. It is difficult sometimes not to allow our emotions to get the better of us, especially when discussing something so dear to us. But we must be cautious of any tactics that tend to send the conversation toward antagonism or else all opportunity for a meaningful dialogue will be lost. People will reject the message because they reject the messenger.

@Ken: I was responding with the level of hostility I perceived in Mr. Smith's posts but you make a good point. To be honest, I wasn't finished my comment when I accidentally posted it and it's too much of a pain to try to undo that action on my mobile device.

quote"The point is that on an atheistic worldview there can be no foundation for objective moral values. Morality cannot be derived from mere matter"/quote

 there is No Foundation of any moral values on the bible. it has but 3 laws. don't kill, don't steal, and don't diddle your neighbors wife.

 aside from that, it is ok to beat your wife, beat bad kids, own slaves, coerce and lie to others to gain power, cause wars, lie to get donations, lie to enthrall soldiers, lie to keep people believing in god, on odd one for you, as for the honor thy mother/father commandments, Jesus himself said in Matthew 10:35-36;

 "For I Have Come To Turn Man Against His Father, And Daughter Against Her Mother, A Daughter In-Law Against Her Mother In-Law-- A Mans Enemies Will Be The Members Of His Own Household."

the bible contradicts the only 3 decent commandments so often, it is as if they are not even there, or they do not apply to the people in the bible.

An Atheistic world view would actually be MORE moral and dignified than you think. as proven above, morals were not derived from religion or bibles. morality and decency comes built into us.

"to coerce good people to do evil, that takes religion"-Steven Weinberg

 to prove this point, I would like to point out all the animals of the jungles and forests that break up fights within their own group.

 if you honestly think morality is just opinion, then obviously you have never felt your heart drop witnessing something tragic.. like loss of a child, or seeing someone immorally killed. you can feel it. That is morality. Not god.

quote"this fact has been recognized and embraced by many leading atheistic philosophers. To the extent your picture creates a caricature of theism..."/quote

 "leading atheistic philosophers.. umm what?

 did you really just lump all philosophers that are not religious all into one lump sum and call act like they sit around circles every weak discussing philosophy like religions do?

 You are Sadly Mistaken Mr. Minister.

 there are No Leading Atheistic Philosophers. Never have been, Never will be.

 ... you are obviously trying desperately to defend the sanctity and dignity of your religion, whichever one that may be, but I digress, Atheists Do No Exist.

 calling people who do not believe in your god, Atheist, is like saying you have a habit of Not-Smoking. or like saying your Hobby is Not Collecting Stamps.

 you are obviously lost on quite a few ideals.. likely misled by the lying churchs you have attended. but if you wish, I will point out as many of your screw ups in human morality I can.

 in the meantime, watch this for homework ;)

 http://www.youtube.com/​watch?v=8QWwzT4ulkA

this one will give you a quick view of the world without christians ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KlMWzKj4s

I really do not have the time to school yet another christian on these matters, so I will merely link you to videos with more information than I can toss up at will ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8

saying offensive things should never be anyones worry.
offense is only taken by people who demand respect. people who demand respect can suck cock.

not to mention, freedom of speech does not address offensive speech. therefor, I disregard anything anyone takes as offensive. I really don't care ;)

@ Mr. Jones. The golden rule is found in virtually every moral system in recorded history. Some version of it, either phrased in the positive or the negative, can be found in Egyptian, Jewish, Norse, Babylonian, Hindu, Chinese, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Greek and of course Christian moral codes. The point of your original picture was to defend the moral behavior of non-theists. For the record, I agree with you that non-theists can behave perfectly morally and some great acts of altruism have been carried out by people who do not believe in a theistic god. Yet I wonder if, when someone was responding to you, you would appreciate being told that you were “misled” by your “lying” instructors, you are “obviously lost on quite a few ideals,” that your discussion partner will “point out as many of your screw ups” as he or she could or that you need to be “schooled” and given “homework?” I will not repeat what you said in a more recent comment about people who demand respect. I wonder if you were in a court of law and the judge demanded respect, if you would say the same thing to him or her. That being said, you may feel free to use whatever tone you wish in responding to my points. It will not bother me. I am simply trying to make a friendly suggestion that if your goal here is to actually to convince anyone of the truth of your position, your overall tone can often be more powerful than the content of what you say, so you may consider toning down the sarcasm somewhat. The choice is yours, of course. It makes little difference to me either way.

In an earlier comment to another individual you stated, “God is a generic term bro. but thinking about it, why did you jump in screaming its an attack on christianity?” I agree with you that your original picture was aimed at god, not specifically Christianity. Accordingly, my comments to you never mentioned the Bible or Jesus Christ, only general theism. Yet you responded to me by stating, “there is No Foundation of any moral values on the bible.” I never said there was. That actually would be a completely separate discussion (which I would be happy to have, but to launch into it today would sidetrack us from the moral argument which your original picture is addressing). I argued that “a theistic worldview allows for a source for objective moral values whereas an atheistic worldview does not.” You shifted the focus of our discussion from general theism to the more specific Christianity (or perhaps including Judaism as well, having invoked “the Bible”). This is what you apparently criticized the individual with whom you previously spoke for doing. To be clear, I will attempt to keep our focus on theism. Christianity is a particular brand of theism, true. If theism is false, Christianity is obviously false as well. But if theism is true, we would have to examine several other steps in the argument to bring us particularly to Christian theism.

You also stated, “there are No Leading Atheistic Philosophers. Never have been, Never will be.” Respectfully, I believe David Hume, Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and J.L. Mackie would disagree with you, to give only a few examples. I would refer you to Nietzsche’s famous “Parable of the Madman.” That being said, you seem to disapprove of the term “atheist.” You, like many, believe that atheism is not an affirmative stance but rather simply an unwillingness to believe in something for which you see insufficient evidence. Your position is very similar to Sam Harris here. While I do not accept this position, to explore this path would sidetrack us, and I do not wish to lose focus. So from now on I will use the term “materialist” instead if that is acceptable.

Now to your main point: “An Atheistic world view would actually be MORE moral and dignified than you think. as proven above, morals were not derived from religion or bibles. morality and decency comes built into us.” “if you honestly think morality is just opinion, then obviously you have never felt your heart drop witnessing something tragic.. like loss of a child, or seeing someone immorally killed. you can feel it. That is morality. Not god.”

I never said morality is just an opinion. Quite the contrary actually. Under a theistic worldview there is a foundation for objective morality. Under a materialistic worldview, however, there is not, and only under that worldview did I contend that morality would be nothing more than opinion.

I actually wholeheartedly agree with your statement that “morality and decency comes built into us.” The key question is, “Why?” How did it get there? You are correct that morality is something we feel. Nobody can witness a brutal slaying of an innocent person and keep themselves from responding that it was a morally atrocious act for which the perpetrator deserves to be punished.

My question to you, then, is this. Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. Materialism is the sum total of reality. Everything we see is the result of time plus matter plus chance, so to speak. If that is so, how did this moral sense, which you concede we all feel, become implanted into us? More importantly, what makes your or my moral sense “right” and Hitler’s, for example, “wrong?” On what naturalistic basis can we conclude that Hitler was immoral and we are morally right for calling him so?

I often use the example of a law book. Suppose I walk up to a gentleman and punch him in the face with no provocation. That person believes that I was legally wrong for doing so. I, however, insist that I was legally justified. We go back and forth for hours before someone pulls out a law book and we look to it to find the answer. Lo and behold, it says that I was legally wrong. I may genuinely believe that I was legally correct, but that does not change the fact that there is this objective standard governing us (i.e., the law book) and according to that book I was wrong. As a result, I am punished.

Take this example now to the moral law. Suppose the person I hit says that I was morally wrong for doing so. I insist I was morally right. Where is the materialistic “law book” to which we can turn to resolve this dispute? If all we are left with is the differing opinions of the masses, we have no objective standard. By definition, an objective standard must transcend those who are subject to it. Where do you find that transcendence in materialism? Hume, Sartre and Mackie all concede it is not there.

If you, or anyone else still reading, is interested in researching the variety of moral arguments that have been raised by theists, I have written an article on the subject:

http://​www.tenminasministries.org/​moralitycharacter.html

It goes into far more detail than a discussion on Facebook permits and discusses both theistic and materialistic positions.

Thank you again for the use of this forum to discuss these issues. You have been very kind in allowing everyone, including those who disagree with you, to express their positions and for that you should be commended.

@Ken Coughlan; sorry, but none of those religions can be called a "moral system" as they all demand complete obedience of their followers. that is not moral.

 "For the record, I agree with you that non-theists can behave perfectly morally and some great acts of altruism have been carried out by people who do not believe in a theistic god"

For the record, I can agree that Some religious leaders throughout history can be deemed "moral" but not very many. Morality did not come from any religion at any point in history.

 I recently watched a documentary where they were studying the effects of arguments among groups of monkeys and apes. to your dismay, none of them put up with killing each other. most even broke up petty disputes before they got out of hand. it was all very concious thought.

 funny you religious people seem to think that your are the moral guidline for humanity, yet throughout history religious leaders have been guilty of more genocide, racial intolerance, petty hatred, and arrogance than any non-theist leader to this date.

(also, Judges deserve respect. they worked their ass off for that position. he does not demand respect, he deserves it.)

as for your second paragraph;

 "I argued that a theistic worldview allows for a source for objective moral values whereas an atheistic worldview does not."

 sorry, but there is nothing "objective" out any religions. I would love to see you remove all the immoral acts in the bible/qur'an/torah (I tend to lump all religious texts together as bibles my bad) or even fix the wrong/contradictory parts.

 the (holy text) is infallible. meaning that regardless of what it's followers seem to think, their bible is the word of god and Must be treated as such. atleast the Jews have the balls to stick to their story.

third paragraph; there aren't. I argue the existance of the word "atheist" as it's not only derogatory, it is redundant. as I pointed out, it's like saying my habit is not smoking. those philosophers are just that. philosophers. nothing more or less.

"I didn't say morality was an opinion, only under these circumstance would they be an opinion."

 you are not very good at this are you?

 "Under a theistic worldview there is a foundation for objective morality. Under a materialistic worldview, however, there is not, and only under that worldview did I contend that morality would be nothing more than opinion."

 as I pointed out, in religion there is nothing objective. everything is written in stone. and disobedience is the upmost wrong you can ever do. that is not objective morality. that is subjective morality.

under a materialistic (atheist) world view morality would encompass so much more than religions ever could. because Atheists, alike science, allow for future corrections and additions. whereas religions, do not.

"I actually wholeheartedly agree with your statement that morality and decency comes built into us. The key question is, Why? How did it get there?"

 No you don't. you believe some asswipe with a god complex put it there. whereas in the scientific rhealm, you can watch as things like that evolve through time and species. if you open you eyes that is.

seventh paragraph; "time+matter+chance" is not what the scientific rhealm advocates. that is what you are told the scientific community thinks, but it is wrong.

 this moral sense came built into us because if it didn't exist, no animals would exist. they would eradicate themselves and humans never would've evolved. in any society, if you kill more people/critters than are being conceived that society/species is doomed to exinction.

funny you bring up Hitler... why does every theist bring up Hitler like he's some big example of atheist hatred. when the guy was roman catholic and hated the idea of evolution.

 "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

 - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2"

 religious "moral codes" often allow for this type of hatred.

eighth paragraph; funny you bring up that type of morality, as no where in the ten commandments or various other religious moral codes does it ever bring up random shit like that. that is one of the many things the ten commandments left out.

"if this guys isn't my neighbor, I can punch him out without provocation." this type of justification is what allowed for the crusades and various other genocidal acts perpetrated by various religions.

"Where is the materialistic law book to which we can turn to resolve this dispute?"

 It's called Common Law. and you can find one at any local library or you can stop and ask your local police if your predetermined conduct is allowed in society.

as for a rebuttal from me; none of what you have said disputes my picture at all. religious people seem to think they are the beginning of all human morality. which they are Not.

and you should really stop using this debate as a medium to spam your religious propagandist website. as the Op, I feel it would be my duty to delete them. spam is immoral.

Mr. Jones.  Thank you again for the opportunity to speak on these issues.  Because this is your post and you do not seem to want to hear much more for me I will only make a few closing remarks.  Besides, I do not see the purpose to rehashing the same ground we have already been over.

The moral argument does not claim any “religion,” as you repeatedly refer to, is the source for objective morality.  The argument is that morality finds its source in the character of God, not in the human moral preachings of any religious sect.  Again, we are discussing an argument for theism in general, yet you keep returning to individual religious systems.  If you are interested in learning what the moral argument actually says, I have already referred you to the article.  If not, you are certainly well within your rights to continue to knock down straw men, but this will bring you no closer to truth.

I also never said Hitler was an atheist, although I believe there is strong historical evidence for the possibility that his religious comments were more a deliberate design to appease the Catholic Church into complacency (especially given his obvious influence by Nietzche). However, that is neither here nor there.  I only used Hitler as an example of someone evil.  If you prefer another example, interchange “Charles Manson” with “Hitler.”  The logic of the argument remains the same.

I am aware of how to find a legal answer to the assault dilemma.  My question to you was where to find the MORAL answer.  You referred me to the common law.  By this I can only assume you are equating the common law to the moral law.  The common law changes, however.  Things legal at one time will become illegal at another.  It is not a fixed standard.  Therefore, if you truly believe the answer to my question is to refer me to the common law, then that again leads back to my point: under a materialistic worldview there is no such thing as objective moral values.

Anthony D’Angelo said , “Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.”  You are clearly passionate and persistent in your beliefs.  In and of themselves, there is nothing inherently wrong with these qualities.  However, you do not appear to be familiar with even the most basic naturalistic philosophical arguments to support your worldview, to say nothing of the opposing theistic arguments.  You do not need to disagree with everything that comes out of a theist’s mouth just because a theist said it.  As I already mentioned, many of the best philosophers in history who would join you in your rejection of religious systems and the existence of God have conceded the point I have been making.  They do not see it as fatal to their worldview, although it does serve to awaken certain harsh realities.

Your disdain for all things religious has guided every response you present, even when it takes you down a path different from that being discussed.   You repeatedly direct the discussion to what you perceive as the “evils” of religion rather than talking about the subject at hand; i.e., whether materialism can adequately provide a source for objective morality.  Even if every religious system in existence is wrong, materialism is not necessarily correct by default.  It is possible all religious systems AND materialism are equally wrong.  The truth may lie in some (currently unknown) other theistic-based system.  At a minimum you must affirmatively demonstrate that your worldview is internally consistent and has adequate explanatory power before anyone is persuaded it should be accepted.

If you wish to become seriously involved in discussions in this field (rather than simply posting catch phrases that are sure to serve as a rallying cry to like-minded people but do little to convince any genuine seekers to your cause), I would encourage you to begin by reading J.L. Mackie’s “The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God.”  Professor Mackie was one of the leading atheistic philosophers of the 20^th century and his work is respected on “both sides of the aisle.”

Thank you again for your time.  Unless invited, I will post no more.

‎@Ken Coughlan
I never made any attempts at ending our conversation.

morality cannot possibly have anything to do with the "character of god" as god is anything But what we humans consider moral.
in Richard Dawkins words;
... "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

This is not a character anyone should be basing morality off of.

I never said you said Hitler was an atheist, I said most christians always involve that retard somehow.

Common human laws change because we, as well as everything around us, evolve. what was true 2000 years ago, has no relevance today. that means that your morality is derived from people 2000 years ago. who wouldn't have had a chance at understanding the types of laws humans need this day and age. sure, punching someone for no reason was wrong back then, just as it is now. but things need to be updated. ie; hacking. according to biblical law, I can hack anyone I wish. (without stealing that is) there are numerous examples where human morality needed updating. but that is not allowed under religious rule. (if god didn't want us to do that, he would've told us so) so we can do anything we wish, so long as we don't kill, steal, cheat on spouses, or piss off our neighbors.
Religion is outdated garbage. has no relevance in this day and age.

"many of the best philosophers in history who would join you in your rejection of religious systems and the existence of God have conceded the point I have been making."
they have conceded that for morality to exist, there must be a god?
I think you are lying to me now.. stop it.
I would like you to go ask Richard Dawkins that question. or Stephan Hawkins. or Albert Einstein.. you sir, are full of shit.

"Even if every religious system in existence is wrong, materialism is not necessarily correct by default."
Materialism is Not all there is to the scientific explanation of the universe.
quote from wiki;"To many philosophers, 'materialism' is synonymous with 'physicalism'. However, materialists have historically held that everything is made of matter, but physics has shown that gravity, for example, is not made of matter in the traditional sense of an inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist So it is tempting to use physicalism to distance oneself from what seems the historically important but no longer scientifically relevant thesis of materialism."

I tend to side with psysicists rather than philosophers.
and to add to "is not necessarily correct by default" I argue the same thing to religious people all the time. when scientists say "I do not know" religious ideologists often cry "That must mean god did it!" and science cannot argue insanity. so the "god did it" crap is ignored until future scientists find the answer that first scientist didn't know. then, of course, those religious folk are no where to be found to retract their arrogant statement "that means god did it"..
"You repeatedly direct the discussion to what you perceive as the evils of religion rather than talking about the subject at hand"
ummm yea.. human morality must not be allowed to mask the evils of religion. religious people seem to think that their bibles are moral. but when you read it cover to cover, your left with much more death and destruction than any morality.

whao.. your last paragraph there is kind of insulting.. I have used no catch phrases, in fact, the arguments you are using are centuries old and have been disproven numerous times, but for some reason, you still seem to think god equates to morality (via his character).. I am not rally crying anything. I care not for convincing anyone anything. I care about the lies being spewed forth by people like you.
I've read many books on debates between reality and theists. and frankly, I am sick of them. they all end the same. reality wins, religious people give no shit and keep on believing. some religious people shift how they think about the bible, ie; some approve of evolution, most don't. this does nothing to sway the fact that god isn't real.
one quote I have always remembered..
"evil people do evil things.
good people do good things.
but it takes religion to coerce good people into doing evil things."
that is my type of philosophy ;)

Mr. Jones:

Most of the points you raised in your most recent comment did not deal with the matter at hand (again substituting the beliefs of particular religions for the general notion of theism).

I will only provide some references fo...r your future reading, if you are interested, in non-theistic philosophers who concede objective moral values would be evidence for the existence of a theistic god and therefore contend that morality must be subjective. Again, the point here is not that non-theists cannot be moral. Nor is it that "morality" in general cannot exist without a theistic god. The point is that "objective" moral values cannot exist without a theistic god. Without such a god, morality must be subjective.

J.L. Mackie:
"If we adopted moral objectivism, we should have to regard the relations of supervenience which connect values and obligations with their natural grounds as synthetic; they would then be in principle something that a god might conceivably create; and since they would otherwise be a very odd sort of thing, the admitting of them would be an inductive ground for admitting also a god to create them. There would be something here in need of explanation, and a being with the power to create what lies outside the bounds of natural plausibility or even possibility might well be the explanation we require...If we adopted instead a subjectivist or sentimentalist account of morality, this problem would not arise."
J.L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 118.

David Hume:
"There may be four hypotheses framed concerning the first causes of the universe: that they are endowed with perfect goodness, that they have perfect malice, that they are opposite and have both goodness and malice, that they have neither goodness nor malice. Mixed phenomena can never prove the two former unmixed principles. And the uniformity and steadiness of general laws seem to oppose the third. The fourth, therefore, seems by far the most probable."
David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (London: Penguin, 1779, 1990), 122.

Even Richard Dawkins' theory of reciprocal altruism reaching a critical frequency in a population is an attempt at explaining morality subjectively. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Mariner, 2006, 2008), 247.

Of course, all of these positions commit the genetic fallacy (confusing epistemology with ontology; i.e., how people arrive at a belief with the truth of that belief), but that is not the point here. I would strongly encourage you to read the resources I have cited and become versed in the moral arguments, both from a theistic and non-theistic perspective, before forming an opinion or assuming that the arguments against your position are equivalent to an easily dismissed straw man.

I do not expect to have convinced you to become a theist in the course of our dialogue. That was never really the point anyway. My goal has only been to point out that your picture introduced a false straw man argument, which of course is easily dismissed (that is the point of a straw man), and instead introduce you to the existence of the genuine argument and encourage you to do the research yourself and come to your own opinions on the matter. If nothing else, I hope you will recognize that I am not "lying" to you. I have been attempting to simply steer you in the direction of the genuine argument and the very thought-provoking points made on both sides.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. I wish you well.

you aren't doing your homework Ken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA
Dawkins stance on morality.
quit quote mining and lying to people.

if your god created morality to be one set of rules that would withstand the pressures of human futures, it would be much longer than ten commandments, and would not entail obedience as the first 4 rules of morality.
your religion is Wrong ...Mr. Coughlan.
not only is it wrong, it is absolutely IMMORAL.
teaching children lies about evolution is wrong and immoral.
lying to people to keep them in church is wrong and immoral.
stoning disobedient women is wrong and immoral.
demanding absolute obedience from anyone, is wrong and immoral.
Religion, in itself, is Wrong And Immoral.
in the words of Christopher Hitchens;
"I am absolutely convinced, that the main source of hatred in the world; is Religion."

human decency evolved along with everything else on this planet. if you think god is the source for all human morality, then why didn't he teach his children back 2000 years ago, everything we know today as morality?
why did he force us thr...ough a trial and error stage before we learned that it is wrong to enslave fellow humans?
why does the bible give instructions on how to abuse your slave without killing him?
there is No Morality in religion. there never was.

Thank you again, Mr. Jones. This post is your "basement," so to speak, and I appreciate your generosity in giving me the opportunity to speak.

Again, your comments focus on the "set of rules" allegedly established in Christianity, the t...eachings of particular religions over the years, evolution, etc. This is again shifting the focus from the point of our discussion: Can physicalism (a term of which I believe you approve) provide a source for objective morality? You have yet to present an affirmative case for it. Instead, all of your comments have attacked religion. Even assuming you could disprove your opponent's position, that does not mean you have proven the veracity of your own.

I do not see any new points being raised, so I think this is probably a good time to bring our public discussion to a close. In public arenas such as this, the parties to a discussion are often more concerned with winning points in the eyes of their observers than they are with having a genuine conversation. Neither is willing to concede even the smallest ground for fear of how it will make them look to others. If you are interested in continuing our discussion, feel free to e-mail me at kencoughlan@tenminasministries.org and I would be happy to continue the conversation between the two of us. That way neither of us will be subject to these pressures and perhaps we can openly discuss your objections and both come to understand each other better.

Thank you again, sir.

and quite thanking me like I am permitting you to speak. freedom of speech is freedom of speech. and I am one that dares not oppose that freedom.

come to think of it, you haven't answered any of my questions directed at you, I don't think you have even read any of my responses to you... are you here merely to try and defend the fact that religious people claim that without god there can be no morality?
and this time, answer my damn question instead of posting insanely long responses that have nothing to do with what I asked you.

I have answered that question multiple times. My position has been that without a theistic god (whether that be the God of Christianity, Judaism, or some other theistic god unlike either of these), there can be no OBJECTIVE morality. Subjective moral rules may still exist. Even in a theistic universe people can act according to the objective moral law even if they do not acknowledge the existence of the theistic god behind it; even if they think that all morality is subjective, their subjective beliefs may line up with the objective morality they do not acknowledge exists.

With that, I will be drawing our discussion to a close. I will not be posting here again. If anyone would like to discuss this question with me further, my contact information was included previously. I enjoyed our discussion, Mr. Jones, and look forward to the opportunity should our paths cross on Facebook again.

well then... you can direct yourself back at the picture.
With a theistic deity, there can be No Morality. Morality means YOU decided not to do something evil, religious morality means YOU think your god would not approve of your actions, ...you fear hell, you fear losing your afterlife paradise, and that is what makes you stop. that is not morality, that is being threatened into doing good.
most of the deities I've ever heard of, are sadistic jealous assholes. where you claim to be morality, I can see none. and I don't give a shit how many "atheists" you can dig up that will conceded to "without god, there can be no "objective" morality."
I've even shown you how it is theorized that morality evolved along with humans and animals.. but you disregard that. you keep bouncing back to "my god this, my god that... blah blah blah.."
Your god is a fuckhead. and if he did exist, would do the planet a world of GOOD by killing himself.

------------------------------------------

I was true to my word and have not posted again.  To date, I have not heard from this gentleman on my e-mail.  I hope if nothing else comes out of this discussion it can serve as a reminder to us all, no matter which side of the debate you are on, that if you are trying to defend your own morality (or that of God), it is a good idea to do your best to behave morally while doing so.  God bless.

CARPE DIEM!

“Dead Poets Society” was a lousy film.  It blanketed itself in a cover of pretentiousness, claiming to deliver a positive message for our youth when in reality it was nothing more than a blatant attempt to proselytize its viewers into its existentialist worldview.  John Keating (played by Robin Williams) sounded more like he belonged in the pulpit of a church that worships at the altar of Kierkegaard than leading a high school poetry class.  Any value that could otherwise have been found in this film was completely destroyed by the existentialist worldview of its lead characters.

Now I must deliver a confession.  That opening paragraph was solely designed to get your attention.  In truth, I very much enjoyed “Dead Poets Society.”  My sister-in-law’s cousin actually starred in the film (Robert Sean Leonard, currently playing Dr. James Wilson on “House”).  I thought Robin Williams’ passionate performance was inspiring, and while I could challenge a number of his character’s philosophical conclusions, that did not prevent me from recognizing this as a high caliber movie with a number of positive messages behind it.

That brings me to the movie “Courageous” which opened in theaters this past weekend.  It shocked many industry professionals by having a larger opening box office than any of the other films that were newly released on Friday (#4 overall) despite being shown in less than half the number of theaters as its nearest competitor.  The basic premise of the film is a call to men to be better and more responsible fathers.  Yet that message gets lost in some of the criticism that instead focuses almost exclusively on the Christian worldview of the main characters.

Much of the feedback for this movie has been positive, and many of the negative reviews have raised legitimate cinematic concerns such as their opinions on the quality of acting, the pace of the film and its overall running time.  While I may have a different opinion on some of those issues, I cannot dispute that they are within the legitimate realm of a movie reviewer and I have no criticism of them.  My point is more about reviewers (whether professional or laypeople making comments on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, or some other site) who count the philosophical perspective from which the story is told as a mark against it.

Hollywood features routinely advocate a particular philosophical view.  Sometimes it is blatant, as in “Dead Poets Society.”  Other times it is more subtle, like the postmodern skepticism inherent in the conversation of the nature of a Big Mac in “Pulp Fiction.”  The fact that philosophy is imparted through the arts is nothing new.

Yet we scarcely read a review of “Pulp Fiction” claiming that it could have made a more profound impact if only it had lain off the philosophical musings.  People do not criticize Robin Williams’ performance because he sounded too much like an advocate for his character’s worldview.  In these films and others, viewers appear to accept that the worldviews of the main characters are simply the perspective from which the story is told.  “Slumdog Millionaire” focused on people from a Hindu background, but audiences did not allow that to detract from the powerful point of the story.  “Eat, Pray, Love” was a tribute to New Agers, but it still brought in over $80 million domestically.  Why do so many Americans seem willing to be entertained by a film that deals honestly with the lifestyle and opinions of existentialists, postmodernists, Hindus or New Agers, yet cannot get past characters who unabashedly discuss their Christianity?

Some people will react to this post by claiming there were other reasons to dislike “Courageous,” all of which are related to the overall quality of the film.  Like I said earlier, if that is your honest opinion I will not dispute you.  However, I believe we would be required to stick our hand in the sand to avoid admitting that much of the criticism that has been launched against “Courageous” has been because it allegedly sounds more like a message preached from a pulpit than a fictional story produced for our entertainment.  To those critics I can only remind them of how audiences stood on their desks and cheered, “CARPE DIEM!”

The Dominance Form of Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal was a 17th Century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist.  He was also a Christian.  At the time of his death, he was working on a treatise on Christian apologetics, but he had only gotten so far as to compile a series of notes.  Still, these notes were published posthumously as his Pensees.  Note 233 contained his famous wager:

But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...

There has been disagreement among philosophers as to how to properly interpret Pascal’s comments.  Ian Hacking, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, suggests that Pascal was making an argument from “dominance.” [1]  According to Hacking, Pascal proposes a dichotomy between the potential effects of wagering on God’s existence versus wagering against it.  If God does not exist, then neither belief nor unbelief bears any potential bad effects.  However, if God exists then wagering for him brings salvation whereas wagering against him entails damnation.  Because salvation is certainly superior to damnation, people should wager on God’s existence.  The “wager ‘God is’ dominates the wager ‘he is not.’”[2]

However, if this is indeed what Pascal meant, then he smuggles in some hidden assumptions.  “Belief in God,” for example, does not by definition entail salvation nor does unbelief by definition bring about damnation.  Mere belief in a “god,” without more, does not logically mandate salvation.  It is only because of the connection between belief and salvation borne through Christian theology that Pascal draws this conclusion.  The dominance form of the wager, therefore, is really contrasting “belief in the Christian God” versus “no God.”  Seen this way there are clearly other alternatives, such as the Islamic “Allah” or any god from the Hindu pantheon.  Thus, the wager does not exhaust all possibilities.

Rephrasing the wager as “belief in the Christian God” versus “not believing in the Christian God” would at least exhaust all logical possibilities (the latter category encompassing both atheism and other divine beliefs), but the “Christian God” side of the wager no longer clearly dominates (based solely upon potential effects).  For example, the Islamic “Allah” is now on the opposite side of the equation from the Christian “Yahweh.”  Which side of wager dominates now clearly appears to depend upon which of these two alternatives is factually true, as both carry damnation for non-believers if they are correct.

 Despite these deficiencies, the dominance form of the wager may still hold value to certain people depending on the options being explored.  Ultimately, this formulation of the wager is an existential argument.  It does not claim to prove the truth or falsehood of either alternative.  It simply illustrates the existential benefits of belief in the Christian God versus the acceptance of atheism.  If a person is examining only those two alternatives (because they have already discarded other worldviews), then the wager can have some efficacy in illustrating the dominance of the potential effects inherent in theism over those of atheism.

---

[1] Ian Hacking, “The Logic of Pascal’s Wager” in Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide, ed. William Lane Craig (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002), 17-24.

[2] Ian Hacking, “The Logic of Pascal’s Wager,” 21.

Are We Shying Away From Exclusivity?

I was at an Episcopal funeral service recently and something puzzled me.  The gospel reading was from John 14:1-6a.  The puzzling part comes from the "a". For those of you who do not know, when you are citing to only the first part of a verse you denote that with an "a" following the verse number.  Similarly, when citing only the last part of a verse, that is denoted with a "b."  So this gospel reading stopped in the middle of verse 6.

Why is that particularly puzzling?  Here is John 14:6: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

The reading proudly declared that Jesus is "the way and the truth and the life," but stopped short of affirming "No one comes to the Father except through me."  Over the past 24 hours I have pondered what possible reason there could have been for stopping right in the middle of this verse.  Perhaps there is some innocent explanation.  But given the trend in many churches today, I am left wondering.

Jesus clearly declared that His way was the only way.  His was a claim of exclusivity.  In our postmodern culture, many people find that to be offensive, so far too many churches have watered down the gospel and slip into a practical universalism.  We all are simply expressing different paths up the same mountain, so to speak.

This may be a less offensive message, but it clearly is not what Jesus taught.  Truth, by its very nature, is exclusive.  This is one of the most vigorously resisted, yet easily proven propositions in the marketplace today.  Simply put, to disagree is to argue "It is exclusively true that truth is not exclusive," obviously an unsupportable argument.

So Jesus' statement was a most reasonable one.  The only pertinent inquiry is whether it was true.

This is why I am left sratching my head.  I have tried to come up with some reason why the reading would have stopped right in the middle of such a prominent and important verse.

Inflation, Superstrings and Teleology

            Former atheist Antony Flew abandoned his atheism and now believes in God.  When he wrote about the reason why he suffered this reversal of philosophy he largely attributed it to the teleological argument; i.e., the observation that many of the properties of the universe appear to be so finely tuned that even miniscule modifications in one would render life as we know it impossible.  For example, “if the strong force coupling constant, which determines the strength of the strong force that binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus, were slightly less, the electrical repulsion between protons would cause all atoms except hydrogen to break apart, thus eliminating the possibility of complex life forms such as ourselves; in contrast, if this constant were slightly greater, all the hydrogen would have been burned to helium, thus causing stars to burn too quickly for life to evolve” (Robin Collins, “Design and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis” in Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide, ed. William Lane Craig, 2002).  This is but one of countless examples, including the cosmological constant, electromagnetism, the gravitational force, the neutron-proton mass difference, the mass of the electron and many others.

            In any other arena, when we witness the type of precision we observe in the laws of the universe we immediately conclude it is the result of intelligence.  Nobody looks at a personal computer and believes it arose from blind chance.  There are too many complex interactions involved.  An intelligent mind must have been behind it.  Of course, this line of thinking would lead to the conclusion that an intelligent mind is also behind the precision in the universe.  That conclusion is obviously unsatisfactory to naturalists, so they argue that the appearance of design is actually illusionary.  One approach to this argument is to claim that ours is not the only universe.  There are in fact countless universes, each one containing physical laws that vary slightly from the others.  In the vast majority of these universes life is impossible, but we happen to live in the one in which the laws lined up properly so that we came into being.

            There are many multiple universe theories, but perhaps the most promising are those involving an inflation field and superstring theory.  This is how it works.  Our universe allegedly began from an extremely small region of space that underwent enormous expansion as a result of an inflation field.  That field imparted a very large energy density to the space as it expanded.  The expansion in turn caused the temperature of space to decrease.  As the temperature dropped, new universes were formed much like water droplets form when water vapor expands and cools.

            If true, this would account for the creation of multiple universes, but not for the variation in physical laws from one universe to the next.  For that, we have to turn to superstring theory.  According to this theory, all matter is ultimately made up of strings of energy that are vibrating in 10 or 11 dimensions of space-time.  6 or 7 of those dimensions are so compacted as to be unobservable.  The shape of those dimensions, however, dictates the vibration of the strings, which in turn affects the masses of fundamental particles and the resulting forces between them.  If, as the inflationary theory suggests, the universe began in a state of extremely high energy, these dimensions would go through rapid variations in shape, causing different masses of fundamental particles and varying physical laws from one baby universe to the next.

            These theories are truly fascinating.  At present there is (to my knowledge) no experimental data to support any of them, but that does not mean we should not explore them and see where they lead.  After all, how will we ever know if a new idea is true if we discard it before even exposing it to critical evaluation?

            Some atheists point to inflationary/superstring theories and claim that they defeat the teleological argument because, if true, they demonstrate that a designer is not necessary to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe.  But is this true?  What the skeptic raising this argument fails to realize is that even if the “universe-generator” proposed by their theory explains the fine-tuning in our individual universe, the fine-tuning in the universe-generator itself still presents them with the same explanatory problem.

            In order for this theory to be true, “there must be one or more mechanisms that: (1) cause the expansion of a small region of space into a very large region; (2) in the process allow for the generation of the very large amount of mass-energy needed for a universe containing matter instead of merely empty space; and (3) allow for the conversion of the mass-energy of inflated space to the sort of mass-energy we find in our universe.”  Collins, 135.  The inflation field satisfies the first need.  The second comes from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity that showed that space expands at an enormous rate.  The third requirement is met because as space expands, the amount of energy in space also enormously increases, giving us the energy needed to form the type of matter needed for our universe.

            So we have the inflation field and General Relativity working in harmony together to run this universe-making machine.  Without either one, the machine does not work.  You also need all the intricacies of string theory to be true.  Why should high energy cause the compacted dimensions to vary in shape in the manner necessary to alter the vibration of the strings?  Certain background laws of physics must also operate for string theory to hold true.  They cannot vary from one universe to the other; otherwise string theory, itself the alleged mechanism for bringing about the variation, would cease to operate.  Why should these background laws be such as they are?

            The problem is that the skeptic explains one level of fine-tuning by proffering another level of fine-tuning that must be explained.  Some critics would claim that this is simply a matter of inserting a “God of the gaps.”  “Sure,” they respond, “we may not know how the fine-tuning of the universe-generating machine is to be explained as of today, but that does not mean we should resort to inserting the existence of God.  If superstring theory has taught us anything it is that we may be able to explain apparent design through purely naturalistic means without the need to resort to a designer.  Given time, we will come up with a naturalistic explanation for superstrings as well.”

            Actually, what superstring theory teaches us is that we may be able to explain apparent design through a method that is equally complex and also creates the appearance of design.  This too begs for an explanation.  But then that new explanation would also need to be explained, and the next, and the next and so on, ad infinitum.  By constantly explaining things by means of answers that themselves require an explanation for their existence, the skeptic has invited an eternal regression of explanations.  In order for a causal chain to reach an ending, it must have a beginning.  In other words, the skeptic claims “a” caused “b” which caused our current state “c.”  As a practical matter they work backwards, observing “c” and trying to come up with an explanation for it, “b.”  When it is pointed out to them that “b” appears to require its own explanation they come up with the new explanation “a.”  But what are we to do if “a” also seems to require it’s own explanation?  In order for the causal chain to ever reach “c,” there must be some initial, self-explanatory, self-existent cause that started the chain moving in the forward direction.  There must be an initial cause.

            As long as the naturalist’s explanations continue to appear to require design, we must eventually arrive at the existence of a designer.  Inflationary and superstring theories do not alter this conclusion.  They simply move it back one level.

            Some may object that God Himself requires an explanation for His existence.  First, this is contrary to the very definition of God, who is a self-existent being.  Leaving that aside, however, only things that exist within time require a cause.  If something exists outside of time it does not change, and therefore never goes from a state of non-existence to one of existence.  Therefore it does not require a cause.  Theism teaches that God created time and therefore is not subject to it.  Inflation theory, however, requires the “cooling” of the universe in order for these baby universes to be created.  This requires the existence of time in whatever state in which these universes are created.  Therefore, inflationary theory itself requires an explanation.

            In conclusion, I personally am fascinated by inflationary and superstring theories and find their potential interrelationship to be a very promising notion for how the laws of our universe could be so finely tuned (assuming multiple universes exist; an assumption that is unnecessary given theism, but certainly not in any way damaging to theism).  However, the skeptic who claims that these theories, if true, would eliminate the logical need for a designer have not fully explored their logical implications.  In reality, we are no closer to removing the need for a designer than we were when we began.

Does God Stay Silent to Drive us to our Knees?

I was listening to a sermon the other day in which the pastor was talking about suffering, and he made an observation that I thought was worth sharing.  I apologize, but I started listening in the middle of the sermon, so I don't know the name of the pastor.  It was a radio program and about the best I can do to give credit where credit is due is to admit that the thoughts I am about to share are not my own.

The pastor told the story of someone caught in an addictive behavior who prayed nightly to God to remove the temptation of this addiction.  But for years the inner inclinations remained.  Most of us ask why God remains silent in the face of such persistent prayer.  A key question that many of us overlook when asking this question, though, is whether we would really be as persistent in our prayer life if we did not have that constant thorn in our side.  Struggle has a way of driving us to God and forcing us to recognize our inability to overcome everything this world throws at us on our own.  When all is going well, we do not often acknowledge our need to rely upon God.  This could result in far more disasterous (and eternal) consequences that far outweigh the temporary suffering we face in this world.  So perhaps God allows some suffering to continue precisely because He knows that without it a person will never come to see their need for Him and never come to true faith.

It is a sad truth that even the most devoted Christians do not pray as often as they probably should.  Our own difficulties, however, are usually what drives us to our knees.  How would our prayer life be if God removed all pain from our lives?  What would our relationship with Him look like if we never spoke?  Perhaps God knows that for certain people, if He granted their prayer requests too soon, they would never pray again, and the relationship would be lost.

I admit to not having reflected too deeply on this pastor's comments just yet, but they piqued my interest enough that I thought they were worth sharing in case anyone else wanted to contribute their thoughts.

God bless.