A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

Isn't the problem with the ' You falsely assume only theists are bound by morality'?

By "bound," do you mean "unable to do otherwise," or "morally obligated"?

If you mean the first, your statement is true but trivially so: nobody is "bound" in that sense, but that hardly constitutes any kind of problem, since morality assumes free agents: "ought implies can."

If you mean the second, then your statement is simply false. For anyone who subscribed to a morality-rationalizing ideology would be rationally obligated to follow it: whether he did follow it or not would be a different question -- but he would have at least a rational obligation to do so, whether he did or not.

He might even have a moral obligation as well, if his system should turn out to be true.

If I think morality is a human construct, then why would I be 'bound' to it?

Oh, you wouldn't. Neither physically nor rationally nor morally would you have any duty to be a good person.

Sure, I might construct a moral system and then try to live by it, but it would just be the equivalent of saying 'let's see if I can get to the end of the road without treading on any cracks'. An amusing game, but there would be no reason why I shouldn't replace it with a different game at any point.

Absolutely right. Under Atheism, morality's just an option. Nothing requires it, either physically or morally. Nothing can compel it, nothing makes even a mass-murderer or a serial rapist in any reasonable sense "bad."

So, you can treat morality as sociology; 'I see many people in China are playing the 'don't tread on the cracks game'.

If you do, it becomes completely trivial. So what if people in China don't like the step-on-cracks game...or theft, or murder, or lying, or graft, or infanticide, or rape, or racism? Or what if they do?

But if you are saying that Morality is a thing in itself, something we should be bound by, then the atheist has to give a reason for believing that.

Congratulations! You've just arrived where I started the question.

And that reason has to be something more compelling than 'I just made it up'

Yes, yes it does. Absolutely. Now we're on the same page!

[attofishpi]

But secular moral systems exist too

Irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant, quite pertinent.

Theft, racism, rape, infanticide all of these "exist" too: but are you going to argue that "existence" makes them moral too?
What you really have to do is to prove that, under Atheism, one of these systems is obligatory. If they're not, then their existence is merely incidental -- unless you can show that one of them rationally or morally requires our compliance.

An Atheist needn't prove anything. Most mammals i am aware of appear to exhibit an amount of empathy or at least love for their offspring as do we. It is natural for an intelligent species to real eyes early on that this is of benefit. (is that proof?)

[Immanuel Can]

If that was the case, then we could not replace them with meaningless symbols like 'P' and 'X'.

You've confused formal logic with propositional logic. The symbols are the former, and the truth-claims they may symbolically represent are the latter. To represent the latter with the former no more makes them identical than the sign saying "stop" is the same as the action of stopping one's car.

You understand that when I wrote 'value' I did not mean 'assess the worth of', or 'make a guess about'? It isn't the same as 'evaluation'.

No; until you said so, I could not be sure what you meant. The wording was ambiguous, and there'd be no reason for me to assume one rather than the other.

Like pure maths, it is simply a value that exists relative to other values. It is entirely abstract.

This isn't so. Truth is empirical. Symbols are formal, and as you say, "abstract." That is, they are "abstracted" by being at one remove from reality. In contrast, "truth" always has reference to an actual state or empirical reality.

[Immanuel Can]

But secular moral systems exist too

Irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant, quite pertinent.

Incorrect. He was assuming that stating that they "exist" somehow answered the question. It does not, since many things generally understood to be bad, undesirable or evil "exist" every bit as much as the good things do.

An Atheist needn't prove anything. Most mammals i am aware of appear to exhibit an amount of empathy or at least love for their offspring as do we. It is natural for an intelligent species to real eyes early on that this is of benefit. (is that proof?)

Sure an Atheist needs to prove stuff. Everybody does, if they want to be rational.

Now, if they don't, then okay: they can carry on like lunatics if they want; but rational people don't do that. Rational people give reasons.

The observation that mammals have empathy is irrelevant too. Most mammals also kill, or are killed by other mammals. Are you recommending that state of affairs? Surely not.

What the "rational" Atheist needs to do is to show that empathy is morally right, and obligatory under Atheism itself. That's quite different from merely showing it exists.

[attofishpi]

Irrelevant.

Its not irrelevant, quite pertinent.

Incorrect. He was assuming that stating that they "exist" somehow answered the question. It does not, since many things generally understood to be bad, undesirable or evil "exist" every bit as much as the good things do.

Belief in God appears to render nobody more ethically astute, in fact those that claim to believe in God make up the majority of America's prison system.

An Atheist needn't prove anything. Most mammals i am aware of appear to exhibit an amount of empathy or at least love for their offspring as do we. It is natural for an intelligent species to real eyes early on that this is of benefit. (is that proof?)

Sure an Atheist needs to prove stuff. Everybody does, if they want to be rational.

Now, if they don't, then okay: they can carry on like lunatics if they want; but rational people don't do that. Rational people give reasons.

Good. So be reasonable, do you honestly think that homo sapiens would not have moral fibre without Christianity?

The observation that mammals have empathy is irrelevant too. Most mammals also kill, or are killed by other mammals. Are you recommending that state of affairs? Surely not.

I mentioned offspring not their prey, rather blunted blow?

What the "rational" Atheist needs to do is to show that empathy is morally right, and obligatory under Atheism itself. That's quite different from merely showing it exists.

Its not obligatory beyond man's justice. I think you are getting your back up here. ..and man's justice is just_ice in comparison to our God's.


Beyond Reasonable Doubt?
http://www.androcies.com

[Immanuel Can]

Belief in God appears to render nobody more ethically astute, in fact those that claim to believe in God make up the majority of America's prison system.

False-cause fallacy.

The phenomenon of the "jailhouse conversion" is widely reported, as is the professing of people like Presidential nominees to be Theists. You may take both sorts of profession with the same degree of seriousness. I do.

Good. So be reasonable, do you honestly think that homo sapiens would not have moral fibre without Christianity?

You're missing the point completely.

The question is not "CAN an Atheist choose to be good," as anyone CAN choose anything they want -- good or bad. The question is, "Given Atheism, MUST anyone be good?"

Try to keep those distinct in your thinking, and we'll not spend so much time arguing about things about which we may actually agree anyway. So far as I can see, we agree that people CAN do what they want to do: we don't (perhaps) agree over whether or not an Atheist is morally obligated to do the right thing.

You would have to show me why he or she is...and you'd have to show him or her too. That would be rational.

Its not obligatory beyond man's justice. I think you are getting your back up here.

Ad hominem, off topic, and factually false. Nice trifecta in one line.

[Londoner]

Me: Isn't the problem with the ' You falsely assume only theists are bound by morality'?

By "bound," do you mean "unable to do otherwise," or "morally obligated"?

If you mean the first, your statement is true but trivially so: nobody is "bound" in that sense, but that hardly constitutes any kind of problem, since morality assumes free agents: "ought implies can."

First, I am quoting somebody else. But I doubt if by 'bound' they meant that an angel with a flaming sword prevents us from being bad. If that was the case, we would have noticed.

I assume we understand that when we say we are bound by morality, it means that moral assertions contain an imperative. If I say 'eating babies is bad' the 'bad' bit contains the imperative 'so don't do it'.

If that wasn't the case, then what would 'eating babies is bad' mean? I'm happy to accept the possibility that it means nothing, but that wouldn't satisfy somebody (atheist or theist) who is arguing there are such a things as morality.

If you mean the second, then your statement is simply false. For anyone who subscribed to a morality-rationalizing ideology would be rationally obligated to follow it: whether he did follow it or not would be a different question -- but he would have at least a rational obligation to do so, whether he did or not.

No it wouldn't. You would need a rational reason for adopting that particular ideology in the first place. If I have picked 'Mormonism' out of a hat to be my moral code, my having picked it doesn't make 'following Mormonism' rational.

He might even have a moral obligation as well, if his system should turn out to be true.

And how would we discover whether that system was 'true'? Do a sum? Look at it through a telescope? Plainly not; that sort of evidence just isn't applicable. If we are explaining why we think a particular system is true, it can only be about subjective feelings, that we just feel it makes sense. That sort of evidence is the sort of thing a theist might refer to, and an atheist considers invalid. But the atheist has nothing better to support their own moral system. So I would say the atheist is using a double standard; they reject the theist's system as irrational, while exempting their own views from the same test.

But if you are saying that Morality is a thing in itself, something we should be bound by, then the atheist has to give a reason for believing that.

Congratulations! You've just arrived where I started the question.

And that reason has to be something more compelling than 'I just made it up'

Yes, yes it does. Absolutely. Now we're on the same page!

Yes, and there is no need to adopt that patronising tone. Has it occurred to you that I might agree with you in some respects even though I differ from you in others? I think you misunderstand the nature of logic, but I am sympathetic to you view on religion - at least in the sense that I do not agree with most of the arguments directed against you.

[Immanuel Can]

First, I am quoting somebody else.

It's always hard to know what "they" mean, then.

But I doubt if by 'bound' they meant that an angel with a flaming sword prevents us from being bad. If that was the case, we would have noticed.

No doubt. But some Atheists think that the regularity of Natural Laws makes it impossible for us to have actual freedom-of-will: we're predetermined by physical causality, they say. So we need to rule that out.

I assume we understand that when we say we are bound by morality, it means that moral assertions contain an imperative. If I say 'eating babies is bad' the 'bad' bit contains the imperative 'so don't do it'.

But that's just a value judgment, amounting to "I don't like you eating babies." That's what Hume thought, and a fair number since him have taking the same view -- that "morals" are just expressions of personal preference. You and I can see, however, that that would never be good enough: what if I DID like eating babies? Where are we then? If Emotivism is true, then we're without moral guidance.

No it wouldn't. You would need a rational reason for adopting that particular ideology in the first place. If I have picked 'Mormonism' out of a hat to be my moral code, my having picked it doesn't make 'following Mormonism' rational.

Of course. But you and I, as philosophers, are interested in the rational. One can become a Mormon or a Moonie, an Atheist or an Anarchist for completely irrational reasons: but philosophy has nothing to say about that, except that it is not reasonable.

He might even have a moral obligation as well, if his system should turn out to be true.

And how would we discover whether that system was 'true'? Do a sum? Look at it through a telescope? Plainly not; that sort of evidence just isn't applicable.

I think it is.

If we are explaining why we think a particular system is true, it can only be about subjective feelings, that we just feel it makes sense.

Well, to my knowledge, "feelings" don't make anything so.

But the atheist has nothing better to support their own moral system. So I would say the atheist is using a double standard; they reject the theist's system as irrational, while exempting their own views from the same test.

Oh, I wouldn't. I agree with you that an irrational Theist would, and so would an irrational Atheist: but I think we're not interested in those, are we?

Yes, and there is no need to adopt that patronising tone. Has it occurred to you that I might agree with you in some respects even though I differ from you in others?

I have no "tone." It's email. I have a lovely assortment of smileys, and little else. In point of fact, I was taking you seriously. But it's hard to tell that on email.

I think you misunderstand the nature of logic, but I am sympathetic to you view on religion - at least in the sense that I do not agree with most of the arguments directed against you.

I thought as much. I wasn't slamming you, just making a quip. Again, it's so hard to detect "tone" on email...

[Londoner]

Me: And how would we discover whether that (moral) system was 'true'? Do a sum? Look at it through a telescope? Plainly not; that sort of evidence just isn't applicable.

I think it is.

What would it be?

[Immanuel Can]

Me: And how would we discover whether that (moral) system was 'true'? Do a sum? Look at it through a telescope? Plainly not; that sort of evidence just isn't applicable.

I think it is.

What would it be?

I would expect, if this place were created, that its structure would reveal certain basic facts about the Creator.

For example, if the Creator were rational, we would be living in a place that operates according to reason, laws and regularities...that we would find that science would work on this reality.

Oops. We do.

Well, I would also expect that if God were good, then his creatures would at least have an awareness of morality, whether or not they always followed that awareness. And there would be serious consequences to ignoring our moral nature.

Ooops. We do have that.

I would expect that if God wanted us to know Him, he'd put some sort of impulse within us to seek Him out; so there would be some sort of universal religious character to all ancient societies...

Oops. All ancient societies are religious.

Furthermore, if He is the Source of life and goodness, I would expect that persons and societies that rejected their connection to God would quickly decline into self-indulgence, corruption, confusion and death...

Ummm...maybe like the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union did, and like the UK and America are now starting to do?

And if God was a God of relationships and love, he would make some gesture to arrest this, and would undertake some kind of self-revelation, so that people actually could come to know Him, instead of spiraling off into disaster.

Hmm...empirical evidence is starting to pile up.

[surreptitious57]

Morality is a human construct and one that applies to anyone capable of making moral choices. It therefore is irrelevant if some
one happens to be an atheist as well. You falsely assume only theists are bound by morality. But secular moral systems exist too

Isnt the problem with the You falsely assume only theists are bound by morality

If I think morality is a human construct then why would I be bound to it? Surely I would only be bound to it in
the sense that it was identical to me that I couldnt not be moral because morality was anything I want it to be

Sure I might construct a moral system and then try to live by it but it would just be the equivalent of saying lets see if I can get to the end of the road without treading on any cracks. An amusing game but there would be no reason why I shouldnt replace it with a different game at any point

You can treat morality as sociology I see many people in China are playing the dont tread on the cracks game. But if you are saying that morality
is a thing in itself something we should be bound by then the atheist has to give a reason for believing that. And that reason has to be something more compelling than I just made it up

Human beings who can exercise moral choice are bound by those choices and all others too. As moral beings we can choose to be morally good or morally bad and all points in between. It makes no difference if someone is a theist or an atheist or if they have a pre existing moral system they are obligated to honour. For even those who have no identifiable system as such still have a basic sense of morality albeit one which is unique to them. In any case those who have pre existing moral systems violate them in multiple ways which renders obligation to them rather questionable

[thedoc]

No-one is bound to any moral code or morality, it's always a choice that is made all the time. An individual can choose to follow a moral code or to abandon it when convenient.

[Harbal]

God exists.

Hallelujah.

Of course, humans make up all sorts of names for what they can't understand

Do they? I don't understand Chinese writing but I haven't bothered to make up a name for it. I just call it Chinese writing, because that's what it is.

[thedoc]

God exists.

Hallelujah.

Of course, humans make up all sorts of names for what they can't understand

Do they? I don't understand Chinese writing but I haven't bothered to make up a name for it. I just call it Chinese writing, because that's what it is.

But what do the Chinese call it? See, you've made up your own name for it, (I'm giving you extra credit, because someone else made it up and you absconded with it). So you've made up a name for something you don't understand.

[Harbal]

But what do the Chinese call it?

I have no idea but it's probably something I wouldn't be able to pronounce anyway.

See, you've made up your own name for it

No I haven't. It's more of a description than a name.

I'm giving you extra credit

Thank you, I'll try to spend it wisely.