51. 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.

52. 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.

53. 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?

54. 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.

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. 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.

60. 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.

61. 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?'

62. 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.

63. 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)

64. 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?

65. 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.

66. 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?

67. 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!

68. 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.

69. 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...

70. 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...

71. 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.

72. 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.

73. 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".

74. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69066 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Steve99

Given the idea of a circle, then once you choose a certain numeric base for representation, the digits of Pi are determined. Not even God has any say in the matter.

Just a quick question, before I get on with planning some lessons for tomorrow - who was it who gave you the idea of a circle? Oh, no, I get it, the idea was out there, waiting for intelligent minds to evolve to conceive it (or was it perceived? Not a perfect circle, surely!)

A bit like we discussed before, God is an absurd explanation to give of where mathematical laws originate. A much better explanation would be...

75. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69061 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Dr B,

Are you claiming that morality is nothing more than pragmatism? I am arguing that we should use reason to determine what is morally right. I have said this, and keep saying it. Using reason enables us to discover (discover, not invent) what is morally right or wrong. Now the real question is, how is this possible? It is only possible if there is 'objective morality'. How might 'objective morality' be possible? Now you know I've given an answer to that one. It may not be your favourite answer, but I can't see any other cards on the table...

76. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69059 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Goldy

As it is, you are using the "biblical" argument for change

Nope. Never have done - in fact, I think I've been quite clear about that.

77. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69045 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Lauregon

Stoning people to death is thought by some---even today in the US---to be a moral solution to violating "God's laws." Do you agree that it is?

No I don't. But what's interesting is that your position appears to be that, in some countries, it is right! As far as I can see, if we consider a stable society where sharia law is enshrined, maybe a society where the majority of people are happy (particularly when they look at crime rates in other countries), if this country stones people to death for adultery, and if people are happy with this, it is, according to your logic, the right thing to do.

I know you have tried to argue that the Golden Rule is superior to this way of thinking, but you haven't given a convincing argument. It's not that I need convincing - I have other reasons for believing in the Golden Rule - it's just that the criteria you have given, of stable societies and happy people, means that IF a society is happier and more stable with sharia law than with the Golden Rule, then sharia law is actually better than the Golden Rule.

78. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69039 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Goldy

No deity decideds what is right or wrong, society does.

This is a terribly weak position to take. I mean, pitifully so. How do you account for those who change society? It was wrong to be gay, and continued to be wrong to be gay when people started to protest. They were wrong - society decides what's right, after all. Then, at some moment, this 'society' suddenly started to change, and being gay suddenly started to be right. And instead of saying that homophobes became more enlightened, we're to say that gay rights activists moved from being wrong to being right without changing their minds at all. That just isn't how it is.

We have to see morality as something fundamentally different from mere social conventions. If you watch X-Factor, you'll see some seriously deluded people who are just wrong that they have the X Factor. 'Society' laughs as they murder the song. They think they're right, but society tells them "No". But they still want to come back next year. This is so different to paedophilia, rape, incest and murder. We can't just say "Well, I think I know what the judges will say. He's murdered a young child, but he did look cool." We don't say murder is wrong because we think society will agree with us. It's wrong, and would be wrong even if the judges didn't agree.

Steve99

The idea that God determines morality is dangerous. This allows supposed representatives of God on Earth to dictate what morality is and to override people's natural inclinations. As Steven Weinberg says - for good people to do bad things takes religion.

No. When someone claims to be a 'representative of God', surely they have to be judged against some other standard. When I hear Christians saying "If Harry Potter had been around in the Old Testament times, he'd have been stoned to death", that's how I know it is rubbish. I use reason to work out what is right and wrong.

For good people to do bad things doesn't take religion. Look at the Holocaust. How many good people turned a blind eye to what was going on, not just in Nazi-occupied Europe either?

Besides, I'm not takling about religion here. This is a philosophical point. For morality to do the job, it needs to be more than just mob rule.

79. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68990 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Dr Benway,

There was a judge, so the story goes, who, tired of hearing a witness giving long answers to questions, demanded that they should give a yes or no answer to the questions. The witness claimed that neither answer was appropriate. "Nonsense" declared the judge. So the witness asked "Do you still beat your wife?"

Okay, so I get your question. You said:

Paul-as-my-sockpuppet:
God made us; he knows what we need, what will lead to our deepest sense of fulfillment and happiness. He wants a loving relationship with us, and for us to have a loving relationship with each other. Rules against murder, stealing, and so on, support the kind of social stability required to allow attachment bonds and individual and family development... and so on.

The reason to pay attention to God is because it's in our interests to do so. How do we know this? We list our interests and confirm, from religious teachings, that God is in support of these interests.

Me:
Now you won't have any trouble imagining how humans can develop rules without reference to God.

Yes. Clearly we can both arrive at the same rules. You won't find most religious people arguing either. Most religions teach that the non-religious can arrive at moral rules by applying reason without reference to scripture.

The thing is, it is not an ethical question, but a metaethical one. It is about the status of ethical statements. We talked about chess before. Now, chess may not be a great example, as there are many ways, I'm sure, that you could play chess with the pieces and board as they are. Imagine though that we also had a record of all the games that could be played (up to maybe 100 moves). I believe that from these, using reason, we could work out how chess ought to be played.

Now, we both arrive at the same conclusions (even possibly agreeing about en passant), but imagine if we then ask "But was chess designed, was it meant to be this way?" You could argue that it was not, that the chess board had just appeared, and that the physical book of possible games had arisen through some amazing process (I am not ridiculing evolution here, it is truly amazing how complex systems arise out of simplicity). You could say "This is how we choose to play chess, but there is no 'right' way". You could argue that some societies agree on chess rules, and this even accounts for 'should' statements about how you should castle, etc.

The thing is, while ethics doesn't seem to change much according to your metaethical assumptions, it is those assumptions that we are discussing here. If there was no intention behind chess, if it had not been designed to be played the way it has, it would completely change the way we looked at the game. I think the same is true of morality.

I'm not sure how to convince you of this point if you cannot see it. You want an answer on the 'is/ought' problem, but don't seem able to imagine that God could be the author of morality. My belief is that the laws of logic and reason themselves were created by God, and therefore when we discover moral laws by reason, and follow what reason dictates, we are acting as God intended. Clearly you can act that way without believing in God, but if you don't believe in God, how do you answer the question "Why should you act that way?"

80. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68942 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 7:38 am

Goldy,

Really?

Me: 'The actions of Myra Hindley weren't wrong'
You: 'Yes indeed'

Do I really need to trawl back through your earlier comments to see if this is really what you've been arguing?

To my ears, this puts you in that group, that I have always acknowledged made sense, that holds that there is no such thing as 'good' and 'bad' or 'right' and 'wrong'. My argument was never that there must be right and wrong, just that there could only be some actions that we SHOULD do if we brought in God. You now seem to be saying "Well, Myra Hindley wasn't wrong." I always allowed for that approach, but since Donald came in with:

1832
"OF COURSE I would describe Myra Hindley as immoral, and Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Yong Il, ..., etc, etc."
1840
"yes, of course I do say Myra Hindley SHOULD not have done those crimes."

I have been asking where this 'should' came from.

It does seem to me that Goldy and Lauregon have just dropped the "There really are some actions that we should do and some we should not" and are now pretending that they never believed in 'that' definition of morality. That's not fair - they should not have done that...

81. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68931 by PaulEmecz on September 9, 2007 at 6:55 am

Okay, so I can see there's a problem with debating with too many people. I have consistently said that there either are things that we should do, or there is no morality. Lauregon, you confuse things by saying that morality is just 'customs', and then claim that there are things we SHOULD do. Why SHOULD I follow customs? It's hypothetical. You argued this in comment 2054:

"I agree that there are rules we SHOULD keep. Rules against murder and unjustified theft, for example. …people treating others as they themselves would choose to be treated would serve to create better, less murderous and rapacious civilizations. Obviously, to me at least, this understanding is a gift of evolution."

Effectively, what you're saying is that human societies have evolved to have certain customs, such as not raping. If you live in a society that does not rape, you are less likely to be raped. So, you seem to be saying "If you do not value rape, you should not rape". It's circular and fairly uninformative. It also makes a huge jump that you can't make. People who are thieves don't want their things stolen. Choosing to be a thief doesn't make it more likely that your things won't be stolen.

So, two problems you need to answer:

(a) Just because I don't want to be a victim of theft, why should I not steal? My stealing doesn't make me more vulnerable to theft.

(b) Conventions have arisen, such as 'Men sleep with women'. In some societies, terrible things happen if you are found breaking this convention. You could say "You should refrain from sleeping with people of the same gender" on the basis that doing so would help create a society in which men sleep with men and women with women. However, what if you don't hold the same values as society? Why SHOULD you keep the conventions?

82. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68666 by PaulEmecz on September 8, 2007 at 3:26 am

Goldy,

I'm glad we're clear. The actions of Myra Hindley weren't wrong, they were just 'unconventional'.

83. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68621 by PaulEmecz on September 7, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Lauregon

by definition, the word "morality" is derived from the Latin word "moralis," which means "custom." I take "custom" as referring to human provenance.

Good. You have moved forward, accepting that 'morality' is merely a set of customs. "Do not rape" and "Circumcise your daughter" are just conventions. One is not 'right' while the other is 'wrong'. These are merely descriptions of human behaviour. In some societies they may say "It is wrong not to circumcise your daughter" but all they mean is "It goes against the customs".

I think I see your position clearly now.

84. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68520 by PaulEmecz on September 7, 2007 at 11:48 am

Dr B

Apologies. I was trying to respond to several points quickly, and didn't make it clear who the points were directed at. I realise that there is a great difference between what you are saying and what Lauregon is saying. I just get annoyed when people say things like (this was Goldy):

It requires an assumption "It is good for your genes to survive". Again, on what basis can we make such an assumption.

Why else live? Because God says so? Then I am sure he'd have made us immortal.

People won't answer the question, instead making a dig at theism. If they tried to answer the question, they would see the answer - oh no, there is no basis for morality. Better just make some inane comment about morality not having to be objective - it's just a description of how people behave (but some societies are still better than others, because [back to baseless assumptions again])

85. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68342 by PaulEmecz on September 6, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Dr B (2122)

Perhaps you've not heard any convincing discussions regarding ethics, because you've been insisting that your pal, God, join the debate.

Maybe you missed my earnest request to leave MY beliefs aside while we got clear about atheism and morality. Forget God. The question, AGAIN, is how you can get at morality. Notice what happens - re-read some of these posts (e.g. Lauregon's 2126). The argument seems to be something like:
1. I'm not saying that there is a 'should' or an 'objective' morality. You need that because (insert random 'God' comment here).
2. I'm saying the Golden Rule is good because it gives us (insert random unsupported value statement here - e.g. 'society's continued survival')
3. You mention rape or fascism, but they clearly go against (random unsupported value statement here - e.g. 'society's continued survival'), which makes them wrong
4. So why do you keep claiming we need God to say rape is wrong?

Please, let's stop this thing going round and round. Please, look back at the argument you have made. You can say "There are no objective values, nothing that we SHOULD do. You can choose the Golden Rule if you want a stable society. You can choose 'Might is right' if you want a fascist society. No-one can say one is better than the other, because no-one can say which state of affairs we ought to value". You cannot say "There's no objective morality, we don't need 'should', but the golden rule is good because it brings about things that are good, that we should try and bring about".

If there is no 'should', you cannot condemn rape, fascism, child soldiers etc. You can't make up morality then say it has any sort of authority.

86. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67752 by PaulEmecz on September 4, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Goldy

Examples have, I believe, been given of animals showing "moral" behaviour

Well, humans are animals. It depends what you mean by 'moral behaviour'. Reciprocity is definitely there with many species.

There is such a huge difference between saying 'That chimp shared his food with the other chimp' and saying 'Sharing that food was the right thing for that chimp to do'. It is slightly confused by the fact that we see survival as a goal, so sharing the food may actually be the right thing to do if the chimp wanted to survive, but this is hypothetical. There is an if. It requires an assumption "It is good for your genes to survive". Again, on what basis can we make such an assumption.

Dr B
I'm not saying it's easier to explain morality with God. I'm saying that I haven't yet heard a convincing reason to believe in the possibility of a moral imperative, something I ought to do, without belief in God. Nothing I am hearing on this site has convinced me otherwise. I just don't hear an answer - why should I follow any codes of conduct?

87. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67748 by PaulEmecz on September 4, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Steve99

Clearly you think any theist explanation of the existence and origin of the universe is absurd. So, give me an explanation (I know you won't have any evidence, but I can live with that), in a way that doesn't sound absurd.

Dr B

I see above that you now reject the notion of objective morality.

Not at all. I think the term is unhelpful and that the word 'morality' implies a code, guidelines or set of rules that people SHOULD keep to.

Goldy

The code of conduct which we follow and term morality is just that, a code

As I said before, if we simply refer to the rules people live by as morality, we end up with a word that's meaningless. Some people go around in gangs stealing, vandalising etc. but they would never grass up a mate - it's part of the code. If we really think that any code for behaviour is moral, that soldiers who rape as a weapon of war are acting morally, then I want to use a different word.

If, however, we are saying that rape is wrong, we are saying something else. We are no longer just describing a code that some people keep to (after all, what would make our code better than the rapist soldiers?), we are saying that this principle of not raping is actually right.

So, some people follow a code, some don't. That's true. The question is, SHOULD people follow this code? SHOULD soldiers reject the code that requires them to rape? Morality is more than just saying what people do, it's saying whether people should do it.

The point is, Goldy, that if you think the code is right, you have to be able to say why.

Incidentally, what gave the impression that I'm following the words of prophets?

88. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67710 by PaulEmecz on September 4, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Corylus

"Murder" is the killing of another human being. Why then do we call it "murder" in some circumstances and "manslaugher" in others?

I have nothing but awe and respect for dictionary writers. Wow. They somehow manage to accurately define words that seem to defy definition - how would you define 'how' or 'would' or 'or' - I find words tricky. But they do have meanings. Murder means unlawful killing. The value judgment only comes if you assume that the law is inherently good. Few do. Particularly my parents who were brought up in communist Hungary. The police were hated more than the armies of Russians.

It's very easy to misunderstand my arguments. Goldy seemed to think he scored points by saying that religious societies stone gays and atheist societies don't. I have never suggested that atheists are in any way less moral than theists (I may have suggested different reasons why some atheists may behave one way and some theists another way, but on balance I know of so many theists who behave in such terrible ways that I have never claimed that theists are more moral people). My real question is, is there any basis for believing in morality (not 'People behaving in this or that way' but the notion that one way of behaving is better than another)? Clearly some atheists behave one way, some another, some theists one way and others another, and you or I may have nice warm feelings about some behaviours and fear and loathing about others, but are some beahviours WRONG, and is there anything we SHOULD do?

So, the 'atheists are nice people really' argument is not relevant. The question is 'How can we say what is 'nice' and what is not?' I recognise two consistent answers - we can't; there is a designer outside this universe who has made a world allowing for intelligent life with a specific purpose.

89. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67702 by PaulEmecz on September 4, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Goldy

If God is the source of morals and he says stone gays, then stoning gays is moral and you have to agree with it if you believe in him. Otherwise, why believe if you are not going to follow what he commands?

I'm not making a claim about what God 'says'. I've never heard God speak, and am not sure how I would know it was God if I did! I am making a claim about the world around us. I am saying it was designed by God. Steve99 said:

It might have been at least vaguely possible to imagine a non-interventionist designer when we believed the Universe was simply deterministic and mechanical, centuries ago. But not now. The idea is ludicrous.

Yes. I think the idea that there could be a universe, of this sort or any other, is ludicrous. I think any explanation of how there could be a universe like this will be ludicrous. So, do you think by just saying 'I don't know how the universe came to be' that you are somehow saying anything less ludicrous? 'Claim ignorance – no one can attack you, and you can attack anything they claim to know'.

Lauregon said

Okay, here again, you seem to be reserving the term "moral" for absolute rules that transcend human reason.

Not at all. In fact, if you remember, I have been a staunch defender of reason. I think reason allows us to go beyond science. I think it needs to. I think reason is the tool with which we can pick science itself up, dust it off, and look at it. I do reserve the term moral for statements about what ought to be done, not merely descriptions of what is or isn't done.

Donald

What Donald wrote: "humans can individually, and collectively, have preferences. That is the origin of morality"

What Paul seems to have read: "any action by any individual leading to achievement of an instance of any preference, even an unusal one, gives rise to an action that is morally good".

No point in continuing if you are going to misinterpret like that.

Not fair. If you want to make a point, make it. My point is simple – we have many preferences, some good, some bad. If that is the case, then morality cannot be about maximising preferences. I didn't so much 'read' all that into your comments as extrapolate from them. Your argument was based on the idea that fulfilling preferences is intrinsically good. It clearly is not. If anything IS good or right or proper, it must be something other than the mere fulfilment of preferences.

So, what is it that is intrinsically good or right?

Lauregon

Paul persistently refuses to accurately acknowledge the concept that a person treating others as he or she would choose to be treated may be or is the basis of human morality.

There's nothing wrong with the Golden Rule. However, the question is how you move from describing how people behave to saying how they SHOULD behave. Some people follow the Golden Rule and they are happy. They live in stable societies. Some people think it's every person for themselves. They may or may not be happy. They may or may not live in the same societies as the Golden Rule people. Some people follow the Golden Rule and are terribly unhappy and live in awful societies. No amount of describing what people actually do will amount to any statement about what people SHOULD do.

If by 'morality' you merely mean how people behave in society, I can concede that this doesn't need God. This would include the Golden Rule people as well as the fascists, those who are greedy, selfish or violent etc.

If by morality you mean something more, if you want to say that it is right to follow the Golden Rule or that a society that follows it is a good society, then you need to show how you arrive at these value statements, and it's not by merely describing how people behave.

It's ironic that you say I 'persist in leaping to hypotheticals'. All you have ever come up with is hypotheticals:
"If you want a stable society, then you should…"
"If you want to be happy, be fulfilled, have integrity, then…"

The real question is, is it right to want to be happy – is happiness intrinsically good? Is it right to want society to be stable, for people to have their interests met etc? You haven't given any satisfactory explanation of how you reach these value judgements. Why do you value the Golden Rule?

90. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67657 by PaulEmecz on September 4, 2007 at 7:30 am

Dr B

Paul-as-my-sockpuppet:
God made us; he knows what we need, what will lead to our deepest sense of fulfillment and happiness. He wants a loving relationship with us, and for us to have a loving relationship with each other. Rules against murder, stealing, and so on, support the kind of social stability required to allow attachment bonds and individual and family development... and so on.

The reason to pay attention to God is because it's in our interests to do so. How do we know this? We list our interests and confirm, from religious teachings, that God is in support of these interests.

Me:
Now you won't have any trouble imagining how humans can develop rules without reference to God.

Okay. It's not quite what I would have said, but let's just follow this through. My argument is that the world is structured the way it is because God designed it. I argue that he made a world that could evolve intelligent life, and made it so that, using reason, we could determine our purpose, what is 'good' for humans. You say "No, no intention behind it at all".

Here's a parallel. I find a catapult. It has clearly been designed to project objects a great distance. You look at it and say "That's not been designed. It's just ended up that way." Maybe your argument is that a tree has evolved that grows catapults. The reason it has survived is that people have used it to project the tree's fruit a great distance. Either way, there is no planning or intent behind it.

Now, I use the catapult to project rocks at people I don't like. I say I am using the catapult as it was intended. I can say that its purpose is to project small objects. I spot you using the thing to scratch your back. It brings a smile to your face.

I believe there are two options here. You can claim it has been designed, with the specific purpose of projecting objects. You could claim that there is no design at all, and you can use it however you want. However, you cannot say "I think it just appeared this way, but you OUGHT to use it to project objects".

What I'm saying, as I have always said, is that with a designer, with a specific purpose for which we are made, it makes sense to say we should not harm ourselves, we should protect others etc. Without a designer, all you can say is that we could help others, or we could help ourselves. Whatever.

Your argument seems very strange. You have found the catapult, and have found that, after careful examination, it works really well at projecting small objects. You now argue that this somehow makes the designer of the catapult irrelevant! Make it a much more complex object - a computer. You find that if you press this and type that, it will do certain things. You treat it as if it was designed, and work out what it might have been designed for. But, since you are now able to work it, you think it makes more sense to claim that there was no designer.

I understand how complexity could arrive out of simplicity. It is possible that, if the universe mysteriously popped into existence complete with the laws of nature, intelligent life could evolve out of mere chemicals. However, what you end up with is not a created or designed thing. Just as with the catapult, you may as well scratch your back with it as use it to project things. If there is no desginer, why should we act in a way that meets our interests?

All you can do is give a set of rules that might best meet a person's interests. You cannot then say "And a person should act in such a way as to meet their interests." You cannot reach anything that I would call 'morality'.

Also, you misunderstood totally with:

The reason to pay attention to God is because it's in our interests to do so. How do we know this? We list our interests and confirm, from religious teachings, that God is in support of these interests.

If you're using God as designer, you know what he supports by working out what he designed things for. If he intended there to be intelligent, rational beings, then working out what makes intelligent, rational beings thrive and be fulfilled would help us understand God's intentions. We don't need scripture here.

91. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67647 by PaulEmecz on September 4, 2007 at 5:31 am

Donald

humans can individually, and collectively, have preferences. That is the origin of morality

No.

Some humans prefer to have sex with corpses. This doens't make it morally right. The mere existence of necrophilia isn't some sort of proof of its inherent goodness.

The question is, what SHOULD we prefer? Which preferences are GOOD? What is it RIGHT to choose?

92. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67199 by PaulEmecz on September 2, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Corylus

Simply by using the word 'rape' aren't you defining the act as wrong??

Not at all. Rape is basically forced sexual intercourse. There is of course huge emotional baggage with the term, as there would be with incest, necrophilia etc. However, there is no assumption in the definition that it is wrong.

Now, let me be clear about 'morality'. Some people have defined 'morality' simply in terms of the way people behave. In societies where homosexuals are stoned to death, it is morally right to stone homosexuals to death. I disagree with this definition, I think it is unhelpfully broad and I mean something else when I talk of morality. I think the term implies that there is a good, right, proper, decent way of behaving. There are things one should do, and things one should not do. I dislike the term 'objective morality' simply because there are thoroughly decent, relativist moralities that still hold that some actions are wrong and others right. For example, Situation Ethics holds that there are no moral absolutes, and the individual should decide, in each situation, what the most loving thing to do is. There is a subjective element to Situation Ethics, and I'm not sure that it would be helpful to talk about it as 'objective morality'.

a) You accuse me of not having any basis for believing in morality.

b) You do not accuse me of not have any basis for believing in science.

Now you're hitting the more challenging philosophical questions. The scientific method makes huge assumptions. You need to assume that things will behave in the future as they have done in the past. You need to assume that by making observations about the world, the world will not behave differently (a genuinely thorny problem that I'm not sure scientists have really come to terms with, even after all this time). You need to assume that time, and causality, works forwards.

So, you do need to be aware of your assumptions when using the scientific method.

The simple truth is, as Dr Benway has taken pains to point out (quoting Hume rather than Moore), you cannot move from statements about the way the world is to statements about the way it should be.

I am not denying that atheists may have codes of conduct. They may think that they are behaving morally. That would be like a religious person claiming that there is such a thing as God's will because they were acting according to God's will. Just because an atheist says s/he is behaving morally, this doesn't mean that the atheistic world view allows for there to be moral principles that one ought to follow.

93. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67177 by PaulEmecz on September 2, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Okay, God isn't popular on this site, and I fully understand why. Ignore that for a bit. Let's pretend there is no God (not an impossible feat for most of you!).

There is no morality.

That's the cold, hard truth. Some people accept it, some people fight against it, but there it is - moral rules just don't exist. There is no imperative. There is no should.

This isn't a God question, you see. There is no morality, and no-one could give me even a shread of evidence that there is - what sort of evidence could there be?

Now, the question is, for people who believe in God, does this reality change? It would be quite possible, as I acknowledged in my last post, that there might be a creator and yet no morality. I haven't given time to the 'God but no morality' idea because it doesn't seem the best explanation of the facts, but it is certainly possible.

Finally, is it possible (or even likely) that there is a God, and that God made laws to govern space and time, but also moral laws? Certainly this seems possible. The next question is, what would these moral laws be like?

So, do you agree that morality is at least possible with God? Do you see why it is impossible without God?

94. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67170 by PaulEmecz on September 2, 2007 at 11:51 am

Lauregon,

In response to my question - Why should we act morally? - you said:

Because civilizations tend to work better

So, why should we try to make civilisations work better?

This is the problem - you can't get at should from where you are coming from. Ultimately, you will keep hitting an assumption, that it is good for people to be happy or something like that, which has no basis.

95. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67169 by PaulEmecz on September 2, 2007 at 11:44 am

Okay, so here it is, Dr Benway. There are two possibilities. Firstly, there is no such thing as morality. I agree that this is possible, and am fully aware of the implications of this. There can be no 'ought' statements. You can't say "She should have held the door open for the man with the pushchair". There is no should. (Obviously you CAN use the word should in a hypothetical sense - if you want paint to dry evenly, you should use a roller rather than a brush, for example. You can say 'If you want to be accepted by society, you should not steal', but you can't say 'It is right to try and be accepted by society'.)

Second option - there is morality. I like this option. It's nice and furry and cuddly, and fits much better along with my many other beliefs. Clearly, we cannot verify moral statements through experience, so how could we arrive at moral imperatives?

This is where I think Kant's categorical imperative comes in useful. If there were morality, if it was the case that there were rules that people SHOULD follow, what would they be like? Well, certain rules are clearly wrong. 'You should break your promises' doesn't work. If that were a rule, promises wouldn't exist.

I don't really want to present all of Kant's arguments, although they are on my website at: http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/kant/index.htm

As I have always maintained, there is no way to prove that morality exists. I have never claimed that there is. I am happy with those people who claim that there are no rules or principles that we OUGHT to follow. However, if there is such a thing as morality (Synthetic A Priori - truths about the world that cannot be verified through experience) then we can say what must follow from this being the case. Kant argues that if there is morality, there must be a God.

I feel that this has been misunderstood on this site - it has been suggested that I have been using it as a proof of God (there is morality; there can be no morality without God, therefore there is God) - not so. I could believe in God and morality, or in atheism with no morality. I cannot see any argument for being an atheist who believes in morality.

My reasons for believing in God have been stated many times, and are not connected with morality. Maybe I haven't addressed the idea that there could be a creator and yet no morality. However, my question still stands, if I am wrong about God, how could there be morality?

96. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67163 by PaulEmecz on September 2, 2007 at 9:57 am

newatheist

Firstly, let's agree that "The world is round" and "I think the world is round" amount to the same thing. Do you think the Earth is, basically, spherical?

Forget the discussion on induction - I was merely trying to show that people might disagree about objective reality. Kant used some interesting terms. Analytic means 'true by definition' (such as 'All bachelors are unmarried'). Synthetic truths are truths that could be false. I am 35. This is true, but it wouldn't be a self-contradiction if I were 22 or 60.

He also talked about a priori, things that are verified prior to experience. For example, mathematical proofs do not rely on experience for verification. If you try to prove that 2+2=4 with a pile of beans, you've misunderstood the nature of mathematical statements. A posteriori statements are verified through experience. "The temperature today is 17 Centigrade" is synthetic a posteriori.

As it happens, people disagree a lot about things that are verified by experience. This is where objective is not the same as indisputable. When someone commits a crime, there is an objective truth about whether or not Mr Smith is guilty, yet there may not be agreement on whether he is guilty or not.

Kant talked about the Synthetic A Priori. These are truths about the world that are not verified through experience. Moral truths are included among the Synthetic A Priori. We can, and must, go beyond science.

How do I prove that rape is wrong? Well, this is an important question. You say you think rape is wrong. I equate that with you saying "Rape is wrong". What does this mean? It means more than that you just don't like rape. It is an imperative, you are saying "You should not rape". I'm very curious as to how you can say this.

So how can I claim that you should not rape? Dr B is particularly interested in how I arrive at an ought, when you can't move from an is to an ought. I'll post an answer to that one later.

97. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67066 by PaulEmecz on September 1, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Also, you seem to be fairly indifferent to the value and significance of the Golden Rule. Where do you think it came from and why do you seem to devalue it?

Not at all. It is basically THE fundamental principle of morality. I have been responding to claims that the Golden Rule was the result of evolution, that it was a principle that, if followed, made it more likely for your genes to survive. Well, this may be true. If it is true, and this is the only explanation for the Golden Rule, then this is not a reason why we SHOULD follow the Golden Rule. If anything, it suggests another rule, 'Do whatever is required for the survival of your genes'. Again, however, there is no imperative here. It is merely the case that anyone who acts in such a way as to secure the survival of their genes is more likely to have their genes survive. I pointed out that selfishness, short temper or various other traits might equally lead to the survival of your genes. If it turned out that murdering your opponents actually did lead to increased survival of genes, would this make it GOOD? Would you be morally obliged to murder your opponents?

So, not at all against the Golden Rule. I'm just against people explaining it as a result of evolution (particularly 'and then claiming that it is right to follow the Golden Rule').

98. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67064 by PaulEmecz on September 1, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Lauregon,

I'm not a Catholic in any sense. I understand the term 'lapsed Catholic' to refer to someone who was born a Catholic, somewhat like a secular Jew (although you're a secular Jew even if your parents weren't religious, whereas I'm not sure that this applies in Catholicism - it's not an official term, just one I have heard people use).

There are many things I miss about the Catholic Church. In Mass there was a great sense of awe, a lot of peace and time to clear my mind. Catholicism, as far as I experienced it, values spirituality much more than Protestant, particularly evangelical, churches. I am currently a member of a non-denominational church in the village I live in. Most of the people in the church would be able to sum up their faith in a couple of sentences (something like 'God sent his son Jesus to die for the sins of humanity'). What I got from Catholicism was the sense that the world is a much bigger place, and life a much more complicated thing. There wasn't this sense that you could understand God so easily, or necessarily answer every question. What kept believers together was not a shared set of beliefs, but more a commitment to living a better life and growing closer to God throughout it.

There's a lot of things I can't stand about the Catholic Church. Clearly its approach to contraception has caused terrible problems. I also think there are things made out to be essential, such as priests not marrying, that actually have a completely unexpected historical explanation (the Church could not afford to support the families of priests).

My biggest problem is the Magisterium. I also can't agree with there being an infallible human. The Church can advise, but it shouldn't direct absolutely.

You asked:

how would you know what "God's" ideas of morality or "right" are? From where comes that information?

Put very simply, I believe God designed the universe, and therefore studying God's creation helps us understand what we are here for. This answers Dr B's question as well. God intended there to be rational, sentient beings in the universe. As such, it is our purpose to act rationally. It allows for the possibility of categorical imperatives.

You said:

I imagine at least most of the people here agree that we should act morally.

This is absolutely the most crucial point, on which the whole debate hangs. I totally reject the definition of morality that allows us to see morality as something we don't have any obligation to adhere to. There are rules in every society, but I believe there are some we SHOULD keep. This is what I really mean by morality, what I have been calling 'objective morality'.

I am not so sure that most of the people here would agree with you - please could others respond. Should we act morally? If so, where does this imperative come from? The mere existence of a rule is not a reason why we should keep it. What reason can there be?

Why should we act morally?

99. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath