1. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #83622 by PaulEmecz on October 30, 2007 at 5:16 pm

phil rimmer

His greatest-good-at-all-times test requires a sacrifice

I'm not convinced that House would agree. He is very much a realist - he knows we often talk idealism but act according to our own selfish motives, and he is not above these. I think the quest for accurate diagnosis is most important to House - knowing the truth is so much more important than the greater good that he is sometimes happy to take un-necessary risks to find out what's actually going on. I know with House he hides any hint of genuine altruism very deeply, pretending to be entirely selfish (but completely honest about this). However, he isn't simply a utilitarian, even though he is clinically pragmatic.

Newatheist

if, for example, your morality included something like female circumcision. You give yourself too much credit if you claim you would simply "rise above" prevailing views and reach the conclusions you reach now, which are based on your current influences.

I'm not just giving myself credit - it goes to anyone who can reason. You use the example of female circumcision because you know it's wrong. It is unreasonable - contrary to reason.

I say, using reason, that having your own children at the detriment to the point of death for refugees and orphans is morally wrong.

Is it or isn't it? You're the father who's a believer in dualist, objective morality. Is it right or wrong? I'm begging for your answer

I'm not a consequentialist, but I don't see how my having children causes death for orphans anyway.

My having children is not wrong. It is reasonable for me to have children. I aim to act by such rules that I would be happy to be made into universal laws. So, would I be happy for there to be a law that said you could have children if you could look after them and bring them up? Yes - sounds okay.

Now, I'm not claiming to always get it right. It worries the heck out of me that my carbon footprint is so large that we would need three worlds to support us if everyone had such large feet. Reason tells me I should produce less CO2 - but I don't. I'm a hypocrite - or just morally weak - and I hate that! There are all sorts of contradictions, but if I want to ask whether it was right to fly abroad for my brother's wedding, I would use reason to work it out.

2. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79802 by PaulEmecz on October 18, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Steve99

Given the rules of math, how could PI not be the value it is?

It must be the value it is, given the rules of maths. So, the question is, who has given us the rules of maths?

3. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79798 by PaulEmecz on October 18, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Newatheist
Okay, easy one first:

evolution's timescale doesn't fit with the development of human thought and ideas

How did you reach this conclusion?

Evolution involves change over millennia. Our sexual inclinations, all of our instincts, are based on changes that 'fit' the way we lived before we were developing science and writing books etc. The reason our inclinations survived is because they suited the environment we were in thousands of years ago. Society changes much more rapidly. Women still find physically strong men attractive, but their genes are much more likely to survive, in the world as it is today, if they choose based on different criteria.

So, we have to use reason to act AGAINST our inclinations. When steve99 says

Our morality is based on hundreds of millions of years of what works.

he's somewhat missing the point.

There are deeper issues here as well. We are here, in the way that we are, because our genes have survived. There is something about us that 'fits'. Does that automatically mean that the survival of our genes is the goal of humanity? Clearly someone like DrB would have to argue that there is objectively no goal, that we will choose goals for ourselves but there is no right answer. Should we agree with Nietzsche who saw compassion and love as negative forces supressing the instincts that will lead us to thrive and, ultimately, survive?

With regard to the God questions, I have always seen it as a simple choice. Either there is no God and no objective morality (which does seem much more likely, sadly) or there is a God. There being a God doesn't necessarily mean that there is obkective morality. The existence of a being more powerful than ourselves gives no reason why we should do what that being wants (unless it suits us to do so). I'm not arguing that we should be good for any sort of reward like Heaven. If there is eternal life, my idea of what God might be like would not be compatible with the idea of people being punished in hell.

However, I am considering the existence of a God that designed the universe. Would THAT give us morality that we OUGHT to follow?

I just want to be clear. It is obvious that, given the size of the universe, my day-to-day moral choices aren't going to have a huge effect on God. The effects of my actions on people are far more relevant. I wouldn't not steal in order to please God. I would refrain from stealing because it is wrong. Why is it wrong? This is the question. This is it. Why is it wrong?

In terms of the other questions, I do worry greatly about how easily I could help people in developing countries. I'm not convinced that money is the solution, but I could do more to make trade fairer and change the way things work.

You ask

What does God demand of you?

I don't think of it like that. I have three gorgeous children. I try as best as I can to bring them up with a clear idea of right and wrong. Ben is a bright lad, and as a result is inclined to lie about things to avoid bad things happening to him. However, he does not like it when people lie to him. So, by encouraging him to think about how he would feel if lied to, Ben is beginning to over-ride his inclination to lie and he tells the truth.

So, would I be angry at him if he lied? He would only be doing what comes naturally. I would prefer it if he didn't lie, and that would be my expectation of him.

I don't know if you've seen a program called House. I can really recommend it. It shows, as I see it, what a rational approach to human behaviour would be without believing in God. House is an atheist, doesn't believe in the existence of objective morality, so he does whatever works out best for himself. You can argue as much as you like that there are moral rules that we make up (or that have evolved) but House would still ask whether it worked out better for him if he followed them.

If there were no objective morality, things would still keep going as they are. However, for those commited to seeing the world as it really is, we would need to change the way we talked about our choices and behaviour.

I cannot accept that change, because it just doesn't square with my experience of the world. I also believe in God, for different reasons as it happens*, and was wondering if my belief in God could give me a reason not to change the way I talk about choices and behaviour. I certainly won't take the middle ground of making up morality then treating it as something that I hadn't made up.

*I saw this on a different thread, and thought it was interesting. It was said by Russell Blackford, an Australian writer and philosopher:

I actually think I'd do better for the theist side than some of these people. I'd pound away at the fine-tuning argument - I know enough physics to study up the facts and dazzle an audience with them. I wonder why the godly never try that tactic. "Well, Mr Hitchens, what's your contrived explanation for the fact that Planck's constant is just right? What about the amount of dark matter in the universe? And on and on it goes. Isn't the most obvious explanation that this universe has been fine-tuned by intelligence? It seems a bit desperate postulating an infinite number of universes just to avoid the obvious answer. And don't give me that stuff about ultimate 747s; the intelligence concerned may not be anything like a human brain, which had to evolve over time. In fact, how do you know conscious intelligence isn't the ultimate reality? It sure feels that way, doesn't it? After all, we have no satisfactory explanation for how conscious intelligence could supervene on material events, or how it could come into existence if it wasn't built into the universe from the start. The whole field of philosophy of mind is in disarray trying to deal with this. Blah, blah, blah." Admittedly, I'd end up making an argument more for some kind of idealist deism than for theism, but even that would be worth doing for a bit of fun. Someone should attempt this.

4. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79603 by PaulEmecz on October 17, 2007 at 11:40 pm

If morality is objective, then it is objective to God too... and not vunerable to his subjective opinion.

Surely words like 'objective' and 'subjective' mean something different when you are talking about the creator of a universe who designed its laws? If God really did make the laws of the universe hold according to God's will, would we still describe that will as subjective?

5. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79602 by PaulEmecz on October 17, 2007 at 11:36 pm

What could there possibly be in the nature of the universe that could make 1 + 1 = 3?

This would be easy to imagine. The law of contiguity (which doesn't hold in our universe) states that when two particles make contact with one another, a third particle comes into existence that binds the two together. Hence, if you add two particles together, you get three.

What you are saying is that, once you define 2 as 1+1, certain things follow necessarily. I am arguing that it is possible that the reason they follow necessarily is because the universe was made this way. It is hard for us to imagine a universe where they don't follow necessarily, but just because we can't imagine that, it doesn't make it impossible.

By the way, when people say, as Goldy has, things like "And we said there can [be objective morality], without God", why don't you respond to that? Is that really what 'we' ('you') say?

6. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79532 by PaulEmecz on October 17, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Goldy

would that not depend on various other factors, such as which interpretation of God? Jewish, Christian or Islamic.

The argument I have been putting forward has really been a deistic one, although people have asked me what I believe about other things and I have answered. However, I have never claimed to get morality from religion in any way. The question is all about whether there can be objective morality, which there cannot, without God.

The next question is, woud this change if there was a God who designed and created the universe? I'm not sure that this question has been thoroughly discussed.

7. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79531 by PaulEmecz on October 17, 2007 at 3:16 pm

steve99

Logic is based on axioms which we define. These don't come from God. Logic is not absolute.

Honestly, I have read enough of your posts to know that you are too intelligent to be saying what I think you're saying. Genuinely. Please say it again using different words so I can be sure what you're claiming here. So far, there have been very few people who have really engaged with the question I'm asking (they seem to think I'm saying that atheists aren't moral). You have, and you tend not to say stupid things. So I think I just don't understand you here.

Do you really, really think we create logic? Clearly we express logic in our own terms, but if there were intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, do you really think they'd have different logic?

I hate all types of apple. Granny Smiths are a type of apple. I don't hate Granny Smiths.

Surely, however you express them, these statements contradict.

This isn't just a language game - I'm not talking logic into existence and then arguing that it must have been created. I'm saying that this universe is such that the laws of logic apply. What if the universe was deliberately made that way? Is that possible? What might be the implications if it were true?

8. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79521 by PaulEmecz on October 17, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Goldy

what do YOU think (leaving God out of this)

I don't remember ever claiming that I involved God in any way in my moral decision-making.

Yet, despite your question, you have said previously that you do get your morality from another person. God

No. The way I answer moral questions is using reason. I don't read scriptures or pray for a sign in answering moral dilemmas.

The point is that reason cannot arrive at what I should do. Dr B agrees, and can probably explain it better than I can.

My assertion, which should be what we're discussing as it is the thing I believe we disagree about, is that IF there were a God who was responsible for the existence of reasoning beings and in logic itself, there might be a right answer to questions of morality.

9. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79493 by PaulEmecz on October 17, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Steve99

We don't just make it up. Our morality is based on hundreds of millions of years of what works.

That's the problem - evolution's timescale doesn't fit with the development of human thought and ideas. Why is it that men are more promiscuous than women? (Statistics are difficult on this, because for every hetersexual sex act involving a man, there's also one involving a woman, but the figures are eye-opening when you look at the number of partners that gay men have as opposed to lesbians) A simple answer would be that those men who are genetically inclined towards promiscuity would have been likely to father many children, with many partners, and therefore their genes would have survived. The reverse is true for women - during and after pregnancy they would have needed to have the same partner around to provide food and protection. Sleeping around would not have done much for their genes as they can only have children with one partner at a time.

So our instincts are not very reliable there. We can use reason to work out how we should behave sexually, but usually people just use reason to rationalise their sexual behaviour, which is different.

The bottom line is that I have to decide whether to follow my instincts or not. On what basis could I make that decision? Either I go with someone else's answer (again, how do I pick?) or I use my own rational capacities.

10. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79252 by PaulEmecz on October 16, 2007 at 3:21 pm

The fact that people call something bad is what makes it bad.

That's bad reasoning. (I called it bad, so it is bad. Does that mean I win something?)

I'd like to know, Paul, if you think you know all of the objectively moral things, and I'd like to know if you live your life according to objective morality.

These are interesting questions. I remember clearly at the age of 17 worrying about what I might think about my life when I was 80 - I wanted to be a theoretical physicist. I imagined that, if my life went perfectly to plan, if I made huge advances in my chosen field, contributing to human understanding in a way that simply wouldn't have happened if I hadn't existed, I could still ask "Did I do the right thing?"

My big problem, as a 17 year old who could easily see through the flaws in my Catholic upbringing, was that I didn't know what the right thing was for a person. What are we meant to do? So I took a degree in Philosophy. I have always given a great deal of thought to what I should do. Have I arrived at a clear understanding of objective morality? That's a hard question. You have to make assumptions, and in many cases you could assume two different things. For example, is it intrinsically wrong to kill an innocent person for their organs? Instinctively we would say yes - when I suggest to five of my students that if four were about to die and we could kill the remaining one and save them, they are horrified. Even though the end seems to justify the means, it seems wrong. Yet when I tell them about anencephalic baby Theresa, whose parents wanted to make use of her organs but were stopped by a court injunction, they are outraged.

Reason has its work cut out, and it is hard enough to keep regulations consistent. However, the law on euthanasia is being discussed in the UK, as are guidelines concerning embryo research. I often think carefully about these difficult moral issues.

Do I live my life according to objective morality? That may be an even more interesting question. I have very high moral standards - I boycott a number of companies (buying petrol is hard), do a bit to campaign about improving international trade regulations, use green energy etc. However, I am hugely aware of the gap between my standards and my actions. I don't know if you've seen Schindler's list - the bit at the end where he is in tears, looking at his gold wedding ring and crying "If I'd sold that, I could have bought (freed) another 2 people". That's kindof how I feel when I think about it - that I'm so very privileged living in the UK and I don't do nearly enough, or nearly as much as I could, to make the world fairer.

It's funny. I remember my older brother once saying to me that the problems people face in Ethiopia (this was in 1984) were so bad that he couldn't think about it - he just ignored the question. I have always worried about it. I chose a vocational career, while he earns a lot more money in a more commercial job. But he's written a few novels and they've sold tens of thousands of copies and he gives the money to charity (as well as running marathons and competing in triathalons etc.). Are we both just trying to pay off some sort of guilt that was caused by our religious upbringing, the horrific way in which the famine in 1984 was broadcast etc.?

I don't know. Sometimes I feel like I do enough - more good than harm (which would be a feat given what I know about my carbon footprint and the number of people abused just to get my groceries on the table). Other times I feel like I've just been ignoring a whole host of issues which, if I truly acted rationally I would do much more about.

The first step is to believe that there is right and wrong - that we don't just make it up. The next steps are to start to do something about the things that are wrong. I'm a long way from being in a place where I could honestly say I feel comfortable with my behaviour, confident that I was acting entirely morally, objectively.

Would it have been easier, shorter and more honest just to say 'No'?

11. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79027 by PaulEmecz on October 15, 2007 at 11:31 pm

You are completely blind to love and relationship, unfortunately.

Horrificly untrue. As it happens, my relationships are the most important thing to me. I am so lucky to have the most amazing family and some incredible friends. If I didn't believe in morality, it wouldn't stop me loving the people I love. I don't think it would hugely impact on my behaviour at all. As you know, there are lots of reasons to explain why I believe what I believe and value what I value, and they have very little to do with the existence (or not) of objective morality.

This is an academic discussion, in every sense it seems. The question is, could there be objective morality? The answer is, clearly, no. People have got angry, irrational, angry at having been irrational and some have actually attempted rationality. Reason, as you so frequently and reliably hint at (but then strangely refuse to accept), shows us why there can be no morality.

So let's be hypothetical. Let's imagine that we are different from other animals in that the whole universe was made just so that we would evolve. Arrogant, maybe ignorant, maybe a perfectly predictable and understandable assumption for any species of rational animal to make. So, what if...?

You say "So what? So you can choose between your own morality (which is 'There is no morality') or God's morality. Well, they're both the same, because you're the one choosing. If you choose God's morality, it becomes subjective, because you chose it."

Now my position is that moral truth is more true than scientific truth. It is Synthetic A Priori. If there is morality, then we can say some things about what it is like. You seem to want to argue about the "But how can there be morality?" question, which I think get's muddied by your inexplicable refusal to be clear that there is no morality, no actual right or wrong. We are asking a 'What if...' question here. What if there was, objectively, a creator who made the universe and with whom we spend eternity?

So my point is this. If there is objectively an answer to the question 'How old is the universe?', you could still ask 'Why should I accept this as true?' but whatever you do or don't accept as true, that doesn't change what is true. If God made us deliberately, if rationality was designed to be able to reveal moral truth, the fact that we can accept or deny this would not change the reality.

You can reject the idea of a creator, and all it entails - fine. A very reasonable response. But if rationality merely exists in this universe because it is a universe that God designed just to be that way, you cannot reject what can be demonstrated to follow rationally from the assumption that this is so.

12. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78911 by PaulEmecz on October 15, 2007 at 11:12 am

Reason

13. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78547 by PaulEmecz on October 13, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Veronique,

You describe your husband's suicide, and say:

I suspect that my thinking about this particular event in my life has meant that I have reached understandings about human behaviour that could not have crossed your front door welcome mat. If this is not so, please tell me.

I have never been that close to an event so traumatic, so I won't pretend to have been where you have been in your head. However, it is possible to reach an understanding of human behaviour without such extreme experiences. My first proper job as a Philosophy graduate (I switched to Philosophy after A levels in Maths, Physics and Chemistry because I wanted to understand the world better - that didn't go quite as well as I'd planned!) was working in a hostel for 65 homeless men and women in Oxford. I worked there for nearly three years. As well as being among the most rewarding times of my life, it was also the most challenging. It made me realise that most of what goes on in society, the 'rules' that people have, is crap. What people call 'morality' is largely hypocrisy and double-standards. The worst examples were people who actually worked at the hostel. I remember one guy - he described himself as a 'born-again Christian' - who would barely talk to a co-worker because she was a lesbian. She didn't think much of me at first - possibly because of my faith - but that changed when I popped across the road to the gay pub and picked up a copy of Pink News for her. Amazing how such a tiny act makes a big impression!

So I get why people can't stand 'the religious' - I hate hypocrisy and smug superiority as much as any atheist might. I hated seeing someone trying to 'help the homeless' out of some sense of duty - I'm so very blessed and they're so very wretched that I have a duty to help them. What help could they be?

As you can imagine, I met some people who had been through very traumatic experiences. I went through some difficult times myself, and have been since. The suffering we go through definitely does teach us things too, although there are some lessons I would happily unlearn if I could change some things in the past.

My time in Oxford opened my eyes to just how much total crap there is in our society. So many of our 'values' are double-standards and self-interest dressed up as genuine concern. However, if anything it taught me that there are alternatives. It is possible to reject the views and values of those around us. Society can get it wrong. There is a perspective from which we can judge society - society is not the source of meaning and values.

14. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78538 by PaulEmecz on October 13, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Robert Maynard

If you tell a person who wants a flashy funeral at a countryside church that you're going to disregard their wishes, and toss their corpse in a ditch the minute they clock off, you're filling their mind with awful images of things happening to the body they've spent their whole lives with. You're unnecessarily increasing their anxiety; their difficulties in facing death.

Yes. Then they die. If you had been less honest, they may have experienced less pain, died more peacefully, with dignity. Either way, they are dead, so what does it matter, or to whom does it matter, how they died?

I apologise to Veronique, who did indeed write movingly and with searing honesty, that my arguments are at the moment entirely academic. I won't deny that this may make me sound like a supercilious tosser in the wake of such a powerful contribution. However, this is a discussion thread, and Robert at least is making an attempt to move us forward to a greater understanding of morality here. The thing is, Robert, that there is a serious problem with morality among the living if it stops being relevant when you die. You end up with a morality that condemns someone for breaking a promise, but would be unable to condemn someone else for, say, mass genocide. Anyone who kills all the people who disagree with them ends up being morally right.

There is clearly a frustration for some people that we are dealing with abstract examples here. However, I recently reread Judith Thomson's superb defense of abortion that includes a famous violinist attached to your kidney. Abstract argument can work.

So, killing everyone I disagree with. Is that morally wrong?

15. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #78379 by PaulEmecz on October 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Okay, so if I have a preference that my corpse should not be violated, this counts for nothing? Why?

Can you see where this may lead us? Why is it that a dead person's preferences don't count? What about someone who is dying - do their preferences count less? If I murder someone, does it matter? After all, they're dead, so it can't matter to them, can it?

16. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #78374 by PaulEmecz on October 12, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Dr B

On our team now? Or just trying your hand at concern trolling.

I have only ever been on the 'rational thought' team. That's why I'm arguing against this sort of 'team' thinking. I can't believe that more than 40% of Americans take Genesis literally. I teach 12 year olds who can see how ludicrous that is. What's interesting is that, according to the news, Science teachers are too afraid of debate to talk honestly about evolution.

Now, for those who don't know, my specialism is Religious Studies. I ALWAYS talk honestly, and encourage debate. At 12, students are asked to think critically about what is written in Genesis and what different religious people believe about it. They also consider a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe and human life. Vastly more critical thinking goes on in an RS classroom than in a Science lesson. I don't tell students what to think, I just get students to think. They can see for themselves whether a literal interpretation of Genesis makes sense. They can also see that a scientific account of the origins of life doesn't answer the fundamental question of what we should do with our lives.

I'm all in favour of thinking. As soon as you replace thinking with a creed, you lose something vital.

17. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77193 by PaulEmecz on October 8, 2007 at 6:04 pm

I am amazed at the reaction to Sam's comments. I think his response is completely un-necessary, as he spoke very clearly in the first place. If anything, the responses he has received underline many of the points he was making.

I would go further. I think there is an inherent danger in deliberately trying to form a 'movement'. What Sam stands up for is rationality. Let's use reason, then. Let's not try and form such a large group that we start believing and accepting things without question.

I read Sam's comments carefully, then I read the responses on the previous thread. People had misread and misunderstood much of what Sam had said. I have been reading a lot of the articles and comments on this site for a while, and notice that a number of people seem happier repeating the same tired comments again and again, and seem genuinely uncomfortable when being asked to think. You can't stand up for human reason by any method that by-passes rational thought.

I also think that his comments about meditation were perfectly placed. They required people who had got into the habit of dismissing 'religion' to stop and think about one particular issue, rather than arguing unthinkingly against people who had a much better idea of what they were talking about.

Most critics of Sam Harris that I have read have displayed a disappointing lack of reason.

18. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #77180 by PaulEmecz on October 8, 2007 at 5:05 pm

My challenge would be for you to come up with an immoral action which cannot be criticised on these grounds, and I'll rationally defend any practices which it won't cover. :D

I can't resist a challenge...

Okay, there are some people who, for whatever reasons, choose to have sex with corpses. Whilst this would shock the people whose bodies are being used, they are now dead. You seem to be suggesting that, as no harm is being done to them, and those involved are happy, this is a good act? Are you really happy to say that, if a journalist finds out about this and exposes them, resulting in outrage and anger etc, that the journalist has done something immoral? Is what the necrophiliacs are doing only wrong if other people are aware of it (and therefore potentially suffer because of it)?

I had earlier used a much milder example of a friend whose ashes I had promised to sprinkle into the sea. There is a real-life example of a group of policeman sharing photos of abused women. Is it really only when people start suffering that this becomes wrong?

19. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #73804 by PaulEmecz on September 26, 2007 at 8:20 am

Dr B

Real consent is only possible when there's no gun pointed at your head.

I was once mugged. Two young lads (18?) came up to me and said "Gimme your money or we'll knife you." It was before I was married, and I was working in a hostel for homeless people in Oxford. The guys I worked with had nothing, yet didn't hold people up. I said "No." They took my keys and kebab by force, and taunted me with them. I said I needed the keys - that they were for the hostel in the centre of town. "Do you get paid to work there?" one asked. "Yes" - I had done 6 wonderful months as a volunteer before getting a paid job. Eventually, the one 'in charge' said "Give him back his keys". The other asked "Can I keep the food?" I said no. He then asked "Can I borrow 50p for some chips?"

We all have choices. I gave the lads a bit of money for food - which I told them they could keep! Now, I would choose to give them the money by force, because I have a beautiful family who depend on me in many ways. My parents were brought up in Hungary in the 1940s and 50s. They didn't have complete freedom, and at times they had guns pointed at them, but they always had choices.

You could point a gun at my head, but it wouldn't take away my ability to make a choice.

The real question on this thread is, can one choice be objectively better than another? As you know, I strongly believe that helping others is in fact better than murdering, stealing, raping etc. What do you think?

20. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #73796 by PaulEmecz on September 26, 2007 at 8:04 am

I'm not sure how many people are still reading this, but it seems to have reached a sort of impasse. My understanding of how things stand is:

PaulEmecz
God designed the world and intended reasoning beings to inhabit it. Things were made in such a way that, through reason, we could discover ethical principles that would enable us to live fulfilled, moral lives. Without God, all you have is behaviour, which might be aggressive, murderous, altruistic etc. but not good or bad. People may call behaviour good or bad, and we may use the term morality to mean 'whatever people happen to call good or bad in this place at this time'. According to this, you cannot say 'Myra Hindley was bad', you can merely say 'People called Myra Hindley bad'. You cannot say 'Myra Hindley should not have done that' you can merely say 'People in our society believe that Myra Hindley should not have done that'.

Various atheist responses
You can't just say what you just said. You keep saying what you just said. What you just said is dualistic, so you can't say it. Why do you keep saying what you just said? I'm bored of what you just said. Why don't you explain how you reach morality (and don't say what you just said because it's repetitious and wrong)? Of course I can say Myra Hindley should not have murdered and abused children. Just because I don't believe in absolute values, that doesn't mean I can't value kindness and the Golden Rule. If lots of people say "You should be kind" then that is morality. What's your problem? Why do you need some sort of absolute morality? Why do you need a should that we should do? Have we missed the point?


The impasse comes because I have said how we can reach morality with God, and have shown why there can be no morality without God, and it is no answer to merely say "By morality, we mean what people say they value, rather than what people should value". It is also no answer to accuse me of dualism as though it was obvious why this was wrong. It is also frankly depressing to condemn cogitation as though the examined life was not worth living.

Please, either admit that the atheist position does not allow us to say that one course of action is objectively better than another, and that there are things that one should and should not do, or give some justification for suggesting one set of values over another.

21. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72195 by PaulEmecz on September 20, 2007 at 2:06 pm

BMMcardle

I like to be kind, honest, etcetera, because it makes me feel good.

Why does that bother you so much?

It depends what the etc. consists of. The implication that you do whatever makes you feel good is worrying. I don't like the thought of a great number of people living according to that principle.

Only the religious can be high and mighty.

I do tire of the generalised digs at the 'religious'. Atheists can be high and mighty too. Some religious people are not. Why not just say "I don't like people being high and mighty".

Believing in God doesn't make me a believer in religion. I have seen some very ugly traits in religious people - the mocking of people with different beliefs is one of the worst. It is interesting to see that this doesn't just happen among the religious - it is clearly a human trait that others share.

22. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72189 by PaulEmecz on September 20, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Robert Maynard,

do you accept that there is a science called psychology which consistently reports that our conception of right and wrong is explicitly formed by our brains, that individual brains form differently, and that brains are subject to various forms of functional compromise?

Psychology - is that the study of the soul? It isn't the most reliable branch of science. Are you really asking the right question here anyway? If we looked at how our conception of space and time were formed, what would this tell us about space and time?

For a long time many people thought that if you pushed something, it moved, and if you stopped pushing it, it stopped moving. Just because they did not realise the relationship between force and acceleration, this does not mean it was not there.

Ah. Your earlier post asked

is your thinking at least in-this-century enough that you'd concede that what we "know" is entirely a product of our brains development

I'm not sure what's happened in the last half dozen years that should have challenged my way of thinking. I'm well aware that an understanding of the brain helps us answer epistemic questions. I couldn't agree with your quote, though. What we "know" also has something, at least something, to do with the way the world is. There's a lot of scientists on this thread that would consider your comments fighting talk (although they do seem to have missed them somehow).

23. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72154 by PaulEmecz on September 20, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Newatheist

Please read my response to Lauregon. I think you fall into this trap. Your evidence that child porn is wrong is basically evidence that shows that child porn damages children. So, why is damaging children wrong? Ultimately you need to make a value judgment that there can be no supporting evidence for. You have to choose to value something. Is harming a chimp wrong? A tree? A lake? You cannot answer that sort of question without having made some assumptions. These assumptions cannot be based on evidence.

I make assumptions too. However, my assumptions have the added value of being compatible. Do yours?

24. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72148 by PaulEmecz on September 20, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Lauregon

[atheists] cannot consistently argue that we should value kindness, honesty, courage and wisdom. - PaulEmecz

Why can't they? Those qualities serve the long-term well-being of advancing societies. They're pragmatic virtues. Anyone can value them.

I didn't say that athiests can't value the listed virtues. Atheists can value kindness. They can value ruthlessness. They can value greed. They can choose to value anything. My point is that they cannot turn around and say "You should value x" or "It is right to value x".

You say

Those qualities serve the long-term well-being of advancing societies. They're pragmatic virtues.

I know you hate to be pinned down to whichever specific outcome you happen to choose at any given moment, but the point is that your argument is really:

'If you value the long-term well-being of advancing societies, then you should value the virtues'.

Oh. Why should I value the long-term well-being of advancing societies? What if I don't, and instead I value conflict among societies, believing it to speed up the process of evolution, killing off the weak majority and leading to the survival of the strong minority? What if I crave constant improvement, rather than stagnation at the current stage of our evolution? As soon as you realise that people actually can have different values, you can no longer argue that they SHOULD have your values. Your arguments about why we should be honest, kind etc. are based on one (or in fact many as you have stated them) assumptions about what is actually intrinsically or ultimately valuable.

25. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71775 by PaulEmecz on September 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Dr B

Is the marksman guilty of murder? I think most people would say no.

It's an interesting case. I was briefly in the Officer Training Corps of the TA as a student. After 6 months, I decided that I wasn't happy just following orders. I needed to be able to make a decision for myself about whether a war was right. I have great difficulty with the idea of signing away our moral responsibility.

Whether it is murder depends on the law - murder is unlawful killing. The real question is whether the soldier is morally wrong. It is quite possible that there is no moral guilt surrounding this case. If it was a genuine error, and each person merely intended to do the right thing, maybe nobody has acted unlawfully or unethically.

Again, I do have to question the nature of the set-up. Are we assuming that it is morally acceptable to shoot someone in cold blood?

I'm interested to see where this is going, but I don't think I agree with some of your basic assumptions.

26. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71767 by PaulEmecz on September 19, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Lauregon

You seem unable to let go of the idea that there must be a divine pay-off in the end in order for humanitarian behavior to make sense.

That's not it. It isn't a 'reward' - my beliefs aren't that we get rewarded for doing good deeds. I don't believe that at all. There are all sorts of reasons why people do bad things. Most paedophiles were abused themselves as children. I wouldn't want to condemn them to eternal punishment. The idea is simply that if this is it, we have a life of limited length and then die, and ultimately all people die and that's it, what difference does it make, ultimately, if we made one person happy or another sad? How would the universe be any different, ultimately, one way or the other?

So when steve99 said

Good deeds, even minor ones, have effects that spread. Show love to a neighbour and this may make them show more love to others.

he missed the point. That only makes sense if there is eternal life.

I would value Jesus' teachings even if I didn't believe in God. - PaulEmecz

Why? How would your valuing of them be different from that of atheists who value Jesus' ethics?

I would be an atheist who values Jesus' ethics. It wouldn't be different at all.

As it is, you're stuck with being unable to explain how you know with absolute certainty what "God's" morality is.

Why would I need to know with absolute certainty? I don't think we know anything about the world with absolute certainty. My belief in God is compatible with belief in objective morality, objective values. I can believe in God and believe that honesty, courage, kindness, wisdom etc. are real virtues. I don't see that an atheistic position would allow me to believe in objective values, which is where I see newatheist's difficulties stem from. This is not to say that atheists can't be or are not courageous, kind, honest people (I have never said that). It just means that they cannot consistently argue that we should value kindness, honesty, courage and wisdom.

27. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71412 by PaulEmecz on September 18, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Lauregon

Could Jesus' teachings on moral issues make sense to you apart from "God?" If not, why not?

Many reasons. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' means you do good to others. Now, if they're going to die, and never remember what you did, what difference does it make to them, ultimately? In fact, what difference does any of it make, ultimately?

Justice is an important concept, but again this makes no sense when millions died in the Holocaust etc.

I would value Jesus' teachings even if I didn't believe in God. However, if I didn't believe in God, I would find myself in newatheist's position, trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true.

28. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71383 by PaulEmecz on September 18, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Lauregon

Your two-answer model is a bold declaration of dualist thinking... but in reality, life just isn't like that

Surely this is nonsense. I mean, I'm just saying that either there are things we ought to do, or there are not. If I said that either you believe in God, or you don't, am I caught in a loop of my own presuppositions?

Veronique
You say

You must realise somewhere within you that you make your own moral choices on acceptable behaviour.

This was in your, frankly, patronising appeal that ended

You are privileged and you should be cognisant of that. Calm down. Live and enjoy.

Love
V

Philip contributes an as-always polite and friendly comment, and suddenly you're saying of me (and Dianelos)

Their waffty wankering is pure bullshit.

and you sign off with 'God rot them.'

No one is forcing you to contribute here, but if you're going to get involved, please respond to the issues being raised. I'm not struggling to make moral decisions, but the status of moral statements is important. In the UK, religious groups have made a significant contribution to debates on ethics. Questions about embryonic stem cell research, therapeautic cloning and the like are coming up again, and discussions about euthanasia and assisted suicide continue to rumble on. These are important issues, and in the 21st Century, it is a real challenge to see how we should approach them.

I would much rather prefer that law makers were representative of the population, and the UK has a huge 'secular' contingent. However, who will represent those that are not part of an organised religion?

I think the claim that morality come from society is far more worthy of the title "waffty wankering".

I agree that we have to continue trying to discover why we behave as we do. But will our increased knowledge temper our behaviour?

It's a bleak picture you paint, a heartless response to an important field.

I think it is vital to ask these questions. I am deeply saddened by inconsistencies within the law, for example with regard to abortion. I think it is terrible that in the UK we treat a foetus with severe disabilities in a different way, that people abort foetuses with Downs' Syndrome long after viability. We seem to have substituted important principles for pragmatism, and no longer seem to value every life.

I agree with you that the injustices in world trade and international economics are criminal, but rejecting objective morality would seem to lead more towards a laissez-faire approach than a determined effort to ensure justice and equality of opportunity.

Jesus' teachings on ethical issues strike a chord with me. Morality, with God in the picture, makes sense to me. I am unable to get any alternative view on morality to sit comfortably and consistently.

29. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71358 by PaulEmecz on September 18, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Newatheist,
While I'm not averse to being blunt, I would certainly not be rude in the manner you suggest. The reason I mentioned 'this country' was merely that it was UK Law that Langham broke. I then misunderstood when you said: "I'm not exempt from my own reference". I thought you were including yourself as a member of the (whichever) country and therefore as, in some small way, responsible for the country's morality. Forgetting which country it is, which is irrelevant, I think the distinction is important. You realise that there is no objective morality, no 'should'. You are not part of the ignorant herd who behave as if their subjective opinion is objectively true. Therefore it would be wrong to include yourself among them. What I have argued is that society acts as though the values of the society are objective values. I think this is demonstrably true. You, on the other hand, realise that this is impossible, that nothing is objectively valuable (value judgments being subjective). That is why I considered you exempt from your own reference.

You say "I think child porn is wrong." I say you know it. You respond with:

I think it's more dishonest not to concede that without the knowledge that sex harms the child, I might conceivably hold another opinion

To go back to my smoking analogy, I might hold another opinion about whether smoking damages your health if I didn't know that cigarettes contained tar. That doesn't change the way things are.

I sense in what you say a struggle which the word 'opinion' brings out. You say 'There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions.' This sheds even more light on your struggle, and possibly throws us into even more confusion. In places, you are treating opinions as though they are unverifiable. In other places, you treat them merely as unverified.

I think this is right. For example, I am firmly of the opinion that Damian Hirst is over-rated and over-paid as an artist. This is unverifiable. Nothing would count as proof of this. It can neither be correct nor incorrect. I am also of the opinion that humans have visited the moon. This may be correct, or it may be incorrect. It is fair to say the statement is unverified, due to the nature of the evidence, but not unverifiable. It is possible at least to imagine evidence that would convince us that my opinion is correct.

It is therefore misleading to suggest that, just because something is uncertain, we should say of it

"That's just my opinion", and that phrase should always be followed with "but I could be wrong…"

We need to distinguish between what is unverified (but capable of verification) and what is unverifiable.

Now that that's clear, I will muddy the waters slightly by reminding you of Karl Popper's insight into science, that scientific propositions cannot be verified, only falsified. Fine – that's a helpful perspective. However, let's choose to agree that the term 'verified' above simply means something like 'seems most probable given the evidence available'. We don't want to have to follow every sentence in science with "That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong…"

Most people would agree that opinions about the most attractive man/woman, the most desirable job etc. are purely subjective and unverifiable. Most people see morality differently. They would not be happy at all with statements like "I think sexual abuse of very young children is wrong, but that's just my opinion and I could be wrong".
So, we can have a discussion about whether moral statements are verifiable, but I have argued all along that from an atheistic position they are not. What I have most recently said is that it would cause great internal conflict, 'mental gymnastics', to hold onto the belief that moral statements are not capable of being correct.
You seem to be conceding this. When you say

There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions. I believe (know?) my opinion is correct.

you seem to still be talking about your opinion on whether child abuse is wrong. In other words, you treat 'Child abuse is wrong' as a statement that could be correct.

I really hope you don't feel bad about this. I think the implications of rejecting the notion that such a statement might be correct are dire. I can see why you want to continue to use terms like 'right' and 'wrong'. If you are honestly going to move to a position where you reject the idea that any moral statement is capable of being correct or incorrect, you will need to get used to the internal struggle, the mental gymnastics, call it what you will.

30. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71149 by PaulEmecz on September 17, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Robert Maynard

To summarise my position, I accept only two responses to morality - one is that there is no morality, nothing we should or shouldn't do. Moral codes have simply arrived, like social conventions, in a way that might be explained by evolution, sociology, psychology or whatever. There are no 'oughts'.

The other possibility I see is that some things are right and others wrong, there are things you should and should not do - and I have said that I do not see how this could be the case without God.

Strangely enough, people have argued with my position. Out of this argument, my most recent point has been that if you do not believe that there are things you should do and others you should not, there must be 'mental gymnastics' going on. We've been brought up to believe in objective morality - our society behaves as though some things ought not to be done. It is not suggested, if you read the newspapers, that Chris Langham was merely going against convention, or acting in a way that some people believe is wrong, in their opinion. By looking at the worst sort of child porn, the vast majority of people would say he actually is wrong. Does it not require a genuine mental effort to give a response to Langham, once one has realised that morality is not objective?

31. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71060 by PaulEmecz on September 17, 2007 at 5:48 pm

newatheist

Firstly I would count myself as one of the "people in this country", (Australia in my case) so I'm not exempt from my own reference.

Yeah, you are.

I think child porn is wrong.

This is the same as

Child porn is wrong.

Now, you go on:

My knowledge that child sex is detrimental to the child fires up the parts of my brain associated with sympathy and empathy, and I express the opinion that child sex is wrong for anyone to do.

No, no, no, no, no.

Why not say "My knowledge that cigarette smoke contains tar fires up parts of my brain associated with self-preservation and protecting my children, and I express the opinion that smoking is damaging to anyone's health."

You're just calling this an opinion because, in retrospective analysis, you think it has this status. This completely lacks integrity. Child abuse is wrong. You know that, just as much as you know that smoking is bad for you. Let's not start calling this all 'opinion' as though it allows you to pretend not to know it. You KNOW that raping a child is wrong. You do. To deny this, to claim that you see it merely as an opinion, is just dishonest. What you should be asking is 'How can I know things like this?' instead of being disingenuous about it.

I'm sorry to be so direct, but come on. Do you really want to admit that claiming that you don't know that child abuse is wrong, that it's merely a matter of opinion, is not going to cause you huge conflict with your peers? Either you are very unpopular, or you keep the truth of your beliefs hidden from others, or, as I imagine is nearer the truth, you don't believe that these are just opinions at all - you just said that because you thought you had to.

32. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70839 by PaulEmecz on September 17, 2007 at 4:01 am

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1479,They-let-anybody-onto-the-faculty-at-Oxford-nowadays,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

That link should work just by clicking on it.

33. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70637 by PaulEmecz on September 16, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Dr Benway,

A relationship is a necessary aspect of moral action.

Why?

One of the novels I've never written involves a young man waking up to find out he's the last person on Earth. In my head, it looked a lot like the beginning of 28 days later, although I had the idea many years before... All sorts of questions would be raised, particularly concerning the purpose of life. The lead character decides that he wants to create a memorial to the achievements of mankind, and I suppose that's a way of asking what the purpose of the human race is, or whether it has one if the human race were to eventually become extinct (which it will).

It would have been a challenge to write, but one thing is clear. The main character has moral choices. He can make good or bad choices, but he has choices. He can be strong or weak, brave or cowardly, decent or depraved. He could define the very best of the human race, or the very worst.

Maybe you'll want to argue that he must have a relationship to be moral, and this would necessitate God, with whom he must have a relationship, thereby proving God's existence - I'd be a bit surprised if you did that, though (I have never tried the moral argument for God - some people think I have, but then they thought that about Kant and they were mistaken there too). What seems clear to me is that he could lead a good life or a bad one, regardless of any relationships he has or does not have.

34. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70532 by PaulEmecz on September 15, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Downunder,

Dr B was just responding to an example I gave. There's no point discussing the content of the ought with Dr B, as it wasn't his ought.

In terms of general 'oughts', you said:

The difference between a) we 'do' breathe clean air.
b) 'ought to'
c) 'should'
d) 'must'

These are hypothetical imperatives. What they really mean is "If you want to be healthy, you ought to...".

Moral commands are seen by some as categorical imperatives. Regardless of your own wishes, you ought to keep promises, for example. This is a different sort of ought, because it is independent of any desires or wishes we have.

35. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70529 by PaulEmecz on September 15, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Dr B

In your example, the "ought" is "don't kill innocent human beings."

No. The example was simply of someone holding contradictory beliefs. Anyone who could reason would see the contradiction in what this girl was arguing. You cannot hold that a foetus is an innocent human being, that it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, and that it is not wrong to abort in the case of rape. These beliefs contradict. The ought is that you ought not to hold contradictory beliefs.

Notice that morality involves, at minimum, two persons: someone acting, and someone being affected by that action. A planet with only one sentient being would be amoral.

Not at all. Did you see my example of a friend who had wanted his ashes sprinked over the sea? His wishes count for something. What has planet to do with it anyway? The last human couple on Earth make certain promises to the other. The woman dies. The man, maybe rationalising as you did, breaks all his promises. Not only does he not bury her, but he preserves her body and continues to share her bed as though husband and wife.

Humans from another planet (does it matter how they got there?) come across this man. According to you, it would not make sense for them to form any opinion about whether he should or should not have done these things. There was no morality - he was alone on the planet.

36. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70483 by PaulEmecz on September 15, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Dr B

Reason cannot provide us with "ought" as one cannot derive "ought" from "is." Thus "we should do what reason dictates" is meaningless. Reason issues no commands.

Some things are contrary to reason. I know someone who argued that abortion was acceptable in some circumstances. She also argued that killing an innocent human being was always wrong. She accepted that at birth, a foetus was a human being. She also accepted the premise that at no point from conception to birth does the foetus become a human being. She readily accepted that a foetus was innocent. However, she said that in the case of rape, abortion was not wrong.

Now, reason tells us that it is unacceptable to hold all of these beliefs. Reason demands consistency. As you may know from my Kantian phase, that is not all that reason demands. But let us look at the above. Why is it wrong to hold all of those beliefs? Because it is unreasonable - it is contrary to reason. No other justification is needed.

Reason demands that you act according to reason.

Now, I have said that morality may not exist (and there was much discussion about what this might mean, but I took morality to mean that there are some things that we should do, and others that we ought not to do). I have also said that it might. So, if it did exist, can we use reason to work out what we should do? You know we can.

I don't really get where you're coming from, Dr B. There are two possibilities, morality or not - do you accept that? If so, we can ask what the morality option would look like.

Do I need to spell that out any more clearly? I am not saying that there must be 'oughts', I am merely saying if there are oughts, we can say certain specific things, including what some of those oughts would be.

37. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70465 by PaulEmecz on September 15, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Newatheist,

Let me explain the basic conflict. Firstly, we need to agree on something. Most people, the people that we work with, our families, our friends, believe that there are some things you just shouldn't do, and some things you ought to do. A friend of mine made me promise that, after he died, I would sprinkle his ashes into the sea. I promised I would. He died. I ought to keep my promise. Most people, if asked, would agree that I ought to keep my promise to my friend. All sorts of surveys on moral behaviour back this up – people behave as though morality is objective, that it is actually wrong to cheat, steal, have meaningless affairs and lie to your partner etc.

Now, we need to be clear about this. When most people use the term 'wrong' in this context, they don't merely mean that they don't like it. They mean that it ought not to be done. This is the prescriptive bit. They actually think that cheating, stealing and sleeping around casually are bad things and should not happen.

You have a different view on morality. You can see that society has developed a code of behaviour, different codes in different societies etc. You can see that casually cheating on your wife is contrary to our society's code, but that this doesn't make it objectively wrong. By 'wrong', you mean 'contrary to society's moral code' (or something like this), not 'objectively wrong'.

When you are talking to friends, family or colleagues, and you comment on any person's behaviour, what do you say? For example, one of your friends says "It turns out John was sleeping around while his wife was pregnant. That's really bad." Do you agree? "Did you hear about Chris Langham – jailed for ten months for looking at child porn?" Could you imagine yourself saying "That's awful".

So, what is it you're saying? Your friends think you're saying "Langham was wrong to look at child porn." You may actually say that. If you did, they would take it that you believe that Langham should not have done that, he did something very bad, and that his actions were objectively wrong. However, you don't believe that. You have misled your friends – you merely believe that people in this country would see Langham's actions as wrong.

There's mental gymnastics there, every time you discuss human behaviour with anyone. People generally don't ask ontological questions about the existence of moral truth. They ask things like "Should I declare my earnings if I sell a few of my paintings on the side" etc.

There is also mental gymnastics within yourself, although you could easily pretend there isn't. You think Langham was wrong. You don't just think other people reject his behaviour, you reject it too. This is where the backflips and contortions come in. Langham looked at the worst possible types of child porn (category 5). You (I hope) strongly believe he should not have done that. Having had this discussion about metaethics, you realise that you cannot claim that there is any objective truth about this, so you need to explain it all some other way. Now this is where I just have to make up what you do, because you might twist and turn in any fashion. So, you might say "Yes, I think it's wrong, but I know that it's just an opinion. I am aware that I cannot make objective moral claims." It doesn't feel like it's an opinion, though. You don't treat it as an opinion, do you?

Be honest, there must be severe mental gymnastics here.

38. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70007 by PaulEmecz on September 13, 2007 at 4:01 pm

steveroot

Clearly you have values, and these are subjective, but you think 'So what? I still have them'.

You are making unwarranted assumptions about what I think.

I don't think they're unwarranted. You volunteered your marital status which you used to make a point about the values of atheists. You treat these values as though they are more than just an opinion, as though they are better than other values might be, but your position doesn't allow for a perspective from which one value system can objectively be seen as superior to another.

the great teapot

Is it wrong to beat a dog, eat a sheep, keep a chicken in bad conditions.

Yes. Not sure. Yes.

Obviously the circumstance would have a bearing on the answer, but I can answer ethical questions. Some are more difficult than others. You find this in any area though. 'Is that green or blue?' 'Is the bath water warm enough?' Just because it becomes hard to answer whether water at 30 degrees is warm enough, it doesn't stop icy water from being too cold and boiling water from being too hot.


Dr B

You argue that we ought to accept God's purposes as our own because God wants us to have the best life possible.

Again, I don't like your choice of words. This is not about what God wants. I think we should do what reason dictates. God has made a universe that has evolved reasoning beings. He has made the universe with an order and structure that reason can comprehend. Acting in a reasonable way is in accord with God's design and purpose of the universe. This is not purpose as in 'What did God want us for?' but purpose as in 'How did God intend things to be?'

39. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69754 by PaulEmecz on September 12, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Goldy

First time I had sex - I didn't know what to do but things seem to have taken care of themselves. My body responded in the way it was meant to

Thank you to those who answered honestly. I'm not trying to trip you up or make you watch your words. This quote is just an example of how I think atheism requires you to believe one thing but say another, a little like the problems I described in theist beliefs. Sex isn't 'meant to' be like anything. The atheist world view is that we are like we are because being this way has resulted in our genes having survived, not because of any intention.

I think that if one really took on board the implications of atheism, it would mean a much bigger shift than we actually see (so what? If Christians really took on board the implications of their beliefs, it would mean a massive shift for most of them).

Lauregon, thank you for your post. I am genuinely surprised that you really don't feel the inconsistencies. Maybe you live in a fairly safe society, where people's human rights are generally respected etc. In such circumstances, people don't worry about a lack of objective morality, because evolution seems to have done a good job. I imagine that the vast majority of the world, who are much worse off than any of us on this thread (simply by using computers we are in the wealthiest 10% of the world), might not be so happy about things.

Steveroot,

You say

I've raised two successful, well-adjusted children; I've been married to my only wife for 25 years now

Clearly you have values, and these are subjective, but you think 'So what? I still have them'. How can this honestly ring true? Can't you see that simply by describing your values to us to make a point, you are somehow acknowledging that morality is more than just a set of customs. Please at least admit that our society treats its values as though they are objective. Why else would you state them in this context? I mean, if someone writing on this post was to say "I'm an atheist and I'm a paedophile," surely we'd all have a very different reaction. Why? Because, say what you want about there being no objective morality, being a paedophile is wrong. Ask society.

Clearly, as I have always said, you can claim that morals are just subjective, just what society happens to hold, and this might change. I've acknowledged that possibility, that there is no objective truth about morality. However, to believe that causes a conflict, surely. You are saying that rejecting murder, rape and paedophilia is a subjective act on behalf of society, but surely you recognise that society doesn't see this as subjective. Morality is prescriptive - people don't just think they hold an opinion about incest, they believe that other people should not have incestuous relationships.

It's funny, because I'm not actually arguing against the atheist position about morality. As a believer in God, it is not a position I hold, but I have been clear all along that the lack of 'objective moral truth' was a valid response to metaethical questions. I'm just asking, does it not cause some sort of conflict to believe that morality is subjective when people treat morality as prescriptive? Do you not have to do some sort of mental gymnastics, as people have been on this site, and really behave as though morality is objective for most of the time. I mean, when it comes to arguing about ontology with a theist, you'll admit morality is subjective, but surely you don't let people know, when a child is abducted and people say how terrible such a thing is, that it is merely a subjective opinion that child abduction is wrong. Surely you find yourself treating morality as prescriptive and doing so whilst at the same time recognising that morality is subjective must cause some intellectual conflict. It must.

I have been honest about the difficulties of holding theist beliefs. Please be honest about the inconsistencies in holding atheist beliefs.

40. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69522 by PaulEmecz on September 11, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Lauregon

I suspect that pantheism has at least a chance of being accepted by at least some atheists

I don't choose what to believe on the basis of how convincing it might be to atheists. You seem to perceive faith as some sort of corporation touting for business. I want to say that I don't really choose my beliefs at all - I find myself believing whatever seems most convincing to me after having studied an issue.

Of course, a bit of introspection tells me that it doesn't quite work that way. I believe in God because I think the reasons for believing in God are far more convincing than the reasons for believing in, for want of a better term, 'not God'. I am happy with my Christian faith, as it has been useful in deepening my understanding of God. However, I have had, and still have, an awareness that some of my reasons for believing specific things, such as that Jesus died to reconcile humans to God, have more to do with where I was brought up and the people in my life. I think the concept of humanity reconciled to God through an act of self-sacrifice fits very well with what I believe about God, but of course God could be reconciled to humans in another way.

This makes me feel uncomfortable when people in my church make negative comments about other religions, and claim that Jesus is the only way to God. If it turns out that Jesus' death is crucial, I'm sure Hindus won't miss out just because they have a different set of scriptures. If it turns out that Jesus was simply a wise man about whom stories were made up, I won't be thinking "What was it all for?" My faith allows me to live with integrity, but with a genuine fear that I am almost being forced by my circumstances to accept things that may or may not be true, that I needn't accept. I strive to maintain intellectual integrity, and am honest when talking to close religious friends, but often decide that it would not be constructive to express all of my thoughts on Sunday in church. I think many religious people accept things that, somewhere inside, they have real doubts about.

Talking with people on this site, I have a picture of how it is for an atheist. Obviously it is unhelpful to categorise, and I know religious people have many different backgrounds and belief sets. However, I sense something of the same fear and concern. I feel it myself when I consider some of the positions expressed. You seem very commited (as in fact I am) to the pursuits of science in trying to better explain and understand the world. Atheist belief means making assumptions about whether there is any intent or purpose behind the world. While a simplistic understanding of evolution allows people to say "I have two eyes so that I can sense perspective", a better understanding shows that there is no intent there. You do not treat people well in order that your genes survive, rather your genes may have survived because of your tendency towards altruism.

So, there may be explanations of how the world has come to be the way it is, but these aren't explanations of WHY the world is this way. It just is. There is something liberating about this, and it must be refreshing to be able to distance yourself from religious belief and religious believers, many of whom do make a genuine and concerted attack on reason. However, there is a double-edged sword here, and I feel genuinely uncomfortable just thinking about the honest atheist response to morality.

An honest atheist response is that morality doesn't exist. Sure there are conventions, and moral conventions are different from other cultural conventions. "Do not steal" is different from "Circumcise your daughter", but the latter is blatantly arbitrary, and moral rules could potentially be the same. You want to be able to cling on to the Golden Rule, and are happy to be able to point to societies where the Golden Rule has evolved. However, your position has to be that if society changes, and it could so easily change after a viral pandemic or nuclear holocaust, the Golden Rule may be lost and something much less palatable could arise. You want to believe that evolution means progress, but the concept of progress requires a sense of objective value that is beyond the scope of your belief system.

Just as I live my life with that uncomfortable feeling that some of my beliefs don't quite fit, but that I just hang onto them for convenience (because they don't contradict other beliefs, and having those beliefs allows me to be part of a community where my faith can deepen and grow), I see a similarity among many I have been discussing with here. You momentarily grasp that your position takes from you the ability to reject the behaviour of paedophiles, rapists and the like, then you grab onto a convenient belief, that evolution has led to the Golden Rule, and suddenly it seems acceptable to hold to the Golden Rule as a superior position to fascism. You ignore the fact that choosing one over the other means making a value judgment, or you just revert to being an animal and claim that you make that choice, just like the choice to eat and sleep, because this is how you have become as a result of evolution.

I could not be an atheist. I could imagine believing that there is no God (I think it is less likely, but is clearly possible given what I have experienced), but the intellectual dishonesty that would be part of my daily life would affect so much more of my life than my faith does.

Without wanting to discredit your position in any way, I'm not scoring points here, how do you cope with the inconsistencies of being an atheist?

(Possibly the best recent example of the sort of uncomfortable tension I mean could be seen in the film 'Match Point', which I think captures my concerns perfectly)

41. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69309 by PaulEmecz on September 10, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Dr B,
It is possible that there is an all-loving, all-powerful creator. It is also possible that there is a God, but that God is much like us, God's nature is constantly changing and God behaves unpredictably, angry one day and kind the next.
If there was a God, and if God changed his mind constantly and was unreliable, what reason would there be to follow God's plan?
However, it is possible, at least possible, that God is all-loving and all-powerful. It is possible that God has created a universe in which I can flourish. If this is the case, if God really is a much more competent designer than I am, am I not faced with a choice? Should I buy a car from the manufacturer, or try and build the car myself? If I acknowledge the existence of a superior being, what is so wrong with making it my goal to fulfil that being's purpose for my life? If I was in the presence of Van Gogh, would I say "I've got nothing to learn from you". If Professor Dawkins graced my study, would I say "I'll reach my own understanding of evolutionary biology without your help, thank you very much".
You seem to suggest that God may have designed us for His own selfich pleasure – like the hammer. You may be right – it would then be pointless trying to fulfil God's purpose for us. But what if God designed us to have the best life possible? What if the ability to reason was unique in the whole universe, and it could be used well or poorly? Why can we not say "Let us reason well, as this is the thing that singles us out, that defines our human nature". I'm a long way from giving evidence to support belief in the existence of a truly superior God. Hypothetically though, if such a God did create the world, why would it be wrong to wish to fulfil such a God's plan for intelligent, reasoning life in the universe?

42. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69186 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 11:23 pm

Lauregon

You're the one here who appears desperate, the one here who has begun from a conclusion and is doggedly trying to make the non-fitting pieces fit.

2126

I don't recall saying anyone "should" do anything.

2054

I agree that there are rules we SHOULD keep.

43. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69184 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 11:12 pm

The universe is not determinstic and predictable, so God could not have just 'pushed the button' at the start and waited for humanity.

I think you're confused. Just because the universe is not deterministic, this doesn't mean God couldn't have created the conditions suitable for the evolution of intelligent life and just waited. If I want to breed rabbits, I can't know when a couple of rabbits will copulate, but if I put them in a hutch together, dim the lights and play romantic music, surely it's just a matter of time?

44. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69111 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Lauregon,

You STILL haven't answered my question concerning how people would learn of it if there was such a thing as the morality of "God." Why is it that you refuse to answer questions asked of you that bear strongly on the discussion?

I have answered this one repeatedly, over and over again. Even Dr B. rightly accuses me of having given two quite different answers. My earlier answer was something along the lines of God having designed us with a specific purpose - find out what we're for, our uniquely human attributes, and BINGO! Aristotle and Aquinas filled in some of the gaps. My more recent responses hinted at a Kantian solution, one of categorical imperatives, discernible through reason.

Is this not enough? If you're desperate, I suggested that there might be some mileage in Situation Ethics (the 'love' principle) - this was in discussion around the concept of 'objective' morality and the possibility of a relativist approach. Relativism does not equal non-cognitivism though!

45. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69108 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Steve99

You are (wrongly) claiming that reason and logic were created by God. If this were the case, then you can't use reason and logic (as in an ontological argument) to declare that he exists. It is self-contradictory.

I wasn't claiming to have an ontological argument for the existence of God. I was claiming the existence of morality (but not in any physical sense).

I wasn't so much claiming that reason and logic were created by God, as that the world was created by God, and laws of logic hold in this world. On what basis do you say that this is 'wrong'? It may be unlikely, but I don't see any alternative explanation.

46. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69100 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Steve99,

whenever the idea of a circle arose, a calculation of the ratio of the circumference to the diameter will be the same number.

And when do you think that was...

47. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69099 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Steve99

If he is sentient then he has choices.

Wow. Where'd you get that from? Please, explain how that works...

48. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69097 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm

There are some very reasonable and simple ideas about what this situation was like.

Please, enlighten me.

49. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69080 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Dr B,

I didn't say God created oughts. I did say God designed and created the universe, and it is a universe where certain laws can be discovered - this includes moral laws. These moral laws did not exist before the universe began. Does that mean that they are concrete, physical objects?

Steve99,

Because they are abstract, this means they do not need any type of creation, and they are beyond the whim of any God.

Please, look at the universe, it's structure and the beauty of it. Don't talk about 'whims' as though we're talking about a cartoon character. I may be wrong about God, I accept that, but if you're responding to the possibility that I am right, don't try to discredit what I'm saying by imagining that I'm claiming something else.

What I'm claiming is that before there was a universe, there was not. When there was not a universe, there were not patterns, such as Pi. The 'idea of a circle' had not yet been conceived. The circle did not exist.

This is not 'reification'. It's something else. Now, I have to say I'm on shaky ground about what the world was like before there was a world, but let's be honest, we all are.

50. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69069 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Dr B,

We're stepping outside the problem. I get that you don't like the solution, but please acknowledge that it's been stated. Steve99 and I are debating it at the moment - at least enter into the debate. I'm claiming that God didn't just create the physical universe, but is also responsible for all meaning and truth in the universe. Laws of logic and mathematics simply didn't exist before the universe began. Now, I can see all sorts of problems with this claim - it is absurd, but then as I said all claims about how the universe got here are. It does get around the is/ought problem though. It's an ontological argument. As soon as you accept the existence of a categorical imperative such as 'Do not break promises', you no longer need to ask "But why should I follow that categorical imperative?"

So, instead you might deny the existence of any categorical imperatives. Fine. I always maintained that that was an equally valid, if ultimately disappointing, option.

I just couldn't really live with "There are no rules, but child abuse definitely breaks them".