A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Immanuel Can]

A very line there.

Word missing, maybe?

The other thing I wanted to ask. You seemingly rejected philosophy for its gloomy and abstracted lack of efficacy in "real life". So you embraced religion instead and that apparently suits you better. So why have to "backslid" to philosophy? What draws you? Why not develop theistic ideas with peers on religious forums rather than struggle with those who think differently?

I became a Christian while doing philosophy. I've never thought of those two as requiring different skills. I know some people do -- mystics and pietists, for example, believe you cannot do reason and be a person of faith. I think that's wrong. Likewise, many critics of religion accept the same false division: they think that to have faith, you can't think, use evidence or employ logic. I think that's nonsense too.

What's the value of putting one's faith in something when one has no reason for it? I don't think I could ever believe -- or want to believe -- anything that way.

No, it is a classic example of an "ought" based on the idea of fairness.

"You gave the other monkey a grape for the task. You OUGHT to give me one too".

We don't know whether that's a product of decision or mere herd instinct. Behaviours we call "altruistic" or even "justice related" appear to us in the animal world, just as savagery and brutality do. And we have a terrible habit of anthropomorphizing. But in reality, we don't know how to interpret the causes of those behaviours, much less any rationalizations that might go along with them, because, as Thomas Nagel has so pithily put it, "Nobody knows what it's like to be a bat."

Humans have far less control than you assume too. We imagine ourselves with a control that we have never even come close to achieving. Yes, we have extra qualities - it does not need to be said, it's so obvious - but one could easily describe humans as "just doing what humans do".

Yes, you could. But then you'd have to concede that wife-beating, pedophelia and environmental devastation were also "just humans doing what humans do."

If we're all animals, then why blame us uniquely for what happens? We don't condemn foxes for killing rabbits, or sharks for eating fish, so why condemn humans for killing, maiming, raping and polluting, or celebrate them for charity, love and kindness?

How can you say we deserve praise for doing anything when "it's just what we do," and how can you say we have a duty to stop doing anything, when it's just "doing what we do"?

[Immanuel Can]

This damn thread is ridiculous beyond words...

You're still way behind. You haven't figured out that nobody's said an Atheist can't choose to be good. And you haven't figured out that there's a difference between that and saying that an Atheist has a reason not to be evil.

Keep working on it, or feel free to go and do something that you find more useful. You're not here by constraint.

[Londoner]

If it was really a compulsion, or instinctive, we would not see it as a moral issue. For example, we don't tell mothers 'It is bad to eat your baby' because (assuming they are sane) they never want to do it. But we might say 'It is bad to steal' because even sane people may feel the impulse to do it, and because sometimes it might benefit them to steal.

And there are many instinctive responses that we do not regard as moral. We spend a lot of time teaching children not to do the things that come naturally to them. What's more, we look at whole societies and call them immoral and they do the same to us. History shows us that old men and women in the wrong pace and with the wrong ethnicity can find themselves in mass graves.

All this makes no difference because even if it is all correct it applies equally to theists and atheists. There is no difference between them as regards what drives there moral behaviour.

I agree. Both the theist and atheist are asserting values that are not derived from science, or reason.

[Harbal]

I became a Christian while doing philosophy.

Isn't a Christian someone who aspires to emulate Christ and to adopt his values and adhere to his teachings? Well, unless Christ was a mean spirited, patronising, self important, sneering weasel of a man, you are not a Christian. So there.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree. Both the theist and atheist are asserting values that are not derived from science, or reason.

That's the debate point: is there a grounds for morality? Atheists have to say "No." They even have to say it about Theists.

Theists say, "Yes." And they say that Atheists have just got the situation wrong.

But the difference is this: under no circumstances -- whether Theists or Atheists are right about ontology (what actually exists) -- will Atheists find a grounds for morality. But if Theists are right, there IS such a grounds. And everybody is responsible to objective morality, whether they want to be or not.

[Harbal]

Theists say, "Yes." And they say that Atheists have just got the situation wrong.

No, this is just what you say. Does the Archbishop of fucking Canterbury say it? I very much doubt it, but you obviously think you know better than he does.

[uwot]

Both the theist and atheist are asserting values that are not derived from science, or reason.

First of all, let me say that I take your point about logical positivism. Ethics is not my field, so thank you for that. Philosophy of science and metaphysics are though, and the above made me think. In a way, you could say the same about blue, or any other sensory perception. On the one hand, there is a range in the em spectrum that stimulates a sensation that most people experience and agree to call 'blue'*. They might disagree about the exact point at which blue becomes violet or green, but there is a cause for that perception of blue that is understood by science. How any particular wavelength actually turns into the conscious perception of blue is a mystery that science currently does not have an answer for. Essentially this is the point that David Chalmers is making with his distinction between the easy and hard problems of consciousness. The point is, there is no scientific explanation for the perception of blue, or to use your terms, by calling something blue, both the theist and atheist are asserting descriptions that are not derived from science, or reason.
The analogy is that an atheist does not believe that there is a transcendent (Platonic if you must) form of blue. They can see blue, so know perfectly well that it is part of the human palette, but see no reason to believe that the perception of blue would exist if there were no sentient beings to perceive it. Blue Theists would insist that blue is real independently of any perception of it. Sorry to mix up morality and god, but I trust you can appreciate the analogy: morality may or may not exist transcendentally, but most of us can see it.

*As it happens, Russian has a different word for 'sky blue' and 'navy blue'; Russian speakers literally perceive them as different colours and make a decision about what is green or violet much quicker than speakers of Latinate or Germanic languages.

[Necromancer]

In this discussion there is also the inherent claim by some "Humanists"/Atheists/atheists/Humanists that the fear of Hell and the reward of Heaven plays no part for those who are Christians/religious in their moral life and that this is the same case for Atheists/atheists!

Really, the fear of Hell and reward of Heaven makes no difference for the Christian/religious believer? Is this truly the case in them being Christians "head and tail"?

My suspicion is that it is quite hard for the Atheist/atheist to stay disciplined for the moral life, not impossible, but still quite hard (for motivation, rewards in daily life, support etc.).

[Greta]

Why assume there is a supreme being? Why assume that it is male? Maybe, maybe not. No one knows. You too.

My point precisely: it would be useless to assume. He would have to self-reveal in some way, or we'd all be guessing.

"He" would have to self-reveal? No assumptions?

Basically, you found that observations of humans and reality rather depressing so you instead joined with people who'd decided to create their own happier reality together.

No. There were no "people." It was just me. And my decision was based on what I was reading and thinking by myself. To be perfectly honest, I didn't have a particular hankering for human company at that point.

But you're right about my observation of human beings and reality. I was also very impressed by the overwhelming emptiness of the answers I was being offered by some of the "best minds" of the human tradition. When it cam particularly to the issue of what is wrong with this world, they all seemed to go dusty on answers.

I think there is a misplaced expectation on philosophy. Philosophy is like exercise - an annoying thing you do so that you can make the most of life's opportunities. In itself, on a personal level, philosophy ultimately leads nowhere. Meanwhile religion leads people into paradigm silos which also ultimately lead nowhere. Those who gain from religion, did it themselves, seemingly finding religion to be a suitable conduit for them.

Humans have this longing for the ideal, the perfect. It draws us and drives us. We speak with awe of deities and examplars who embody the control and capability to which we aspire. Maybe in a few billion years God will unambiguously exist through the endless striving to this goal? Or maybe that's how log it take for God to grow up? Or gestate??

My issue was the opposite: from where does all this evil come...and not just the evil in the world, but all that is wrong with every individual person, including myself. I wanted somebody to talk boldly about that, but it seemed I was getting two kinds of answers: one was, "don't worry about it, it's just how it is" and the other was, "imagine it differently, and in particular, imagine it's not really as bad as you think, and it will all go away." I thought both of those answers, in all their forms, were really hollow. It seemed somehow morally cowardly to me to think of accepting such platitudes in place of real answers.

And I should add that I could see that the problem of evil isn't just a Theistic problem. It's a problem for everyone. Take Humanism, for example: how can we take seriously the idea of the "goodness of mankind" when the same ideology tells us that all the wars, rapes, murders and oppressions of human history come from exactly the same moral nature to which Humanism tells us to look for our hope? What is "evil," if we're all really "good"? Or take Materialism: it has to deny the very existence of anything as "evil," since all things are said to be contingent phenomena, just late and accidental products of natural laws. But how can one be troubled by seeing evil, and take solace in saying, "I'm going to pretend it's all a wash"?

Again, that's cowardice.

So thinking about what evil might be makes you look for answers. And if you aren't happy with pat answers, you've got to keep looking until you find something. Anyway, that's how I thought about it.

I do not believe in evil. I do not think it is a real thing in the world. Was the proto-planetary asteroid that eventually grew to become the Earth "evil" as it "ate" and destroyed all the smaller asteroids while it cleared its space in its orbit? Were the cyanobacteria that destroyed 95% of all life on earth being evil as they flooded the atmosphere with oxygen (toxic to the anaerobic organisms on the planet at the time)? Are predators evil? Not according to plants, who benefit from fewer herbivores.

Are chimps evil when they take over another tribe, kill the males and babies ("slaughter of the innocents") and rape the females? This is just entropy. There are two basic things that happen in reality - growth (either via expansion or accumulation) and entropy, the breaking up of those structures. Each must happen or reality would stagnate. Trouble is, change is hard. Anyone who has worked in a restructuring organisation knows how much "fun" change is, especially when one is "retired".

Entropy is change and thus, in a sense, entropy is time itself. We could say that time itself is evil because it always brings change, and change is more troublesome than stability. So none of us are perfect as we all live in time and, in order to survive, we must inflict a constant stream of entropy on to others and the environment.

An "evil person" is basically just damaged goods, inflicting more entropy than is necessary. It is not possible to be "evil" and happy, other than in a shallow, ostensible way. A front. In truth, any happy-seeming "evil" person is hiding from the private torments that drive their needlessly destructive acts.

[Dubious]

This damn thread is ridiculous beyond words. There's a debate going on here that is being conducted in the same way as one would expect the dark side of the Moon to be speculated about. We are not talking about a phenomenon who's presence or absence can only be inferred by something else, or that can only be established through logical analysis. Unless we are psychopaths we all know through first hand experience, theists and atheists alike, that we have a functioning morality, it's part of our psychology and is a compulsion. Most of us, if we saw an old man or woman fall over in the street, would go and help them. Not because of what our religion might say or what we believe God would want us to do, but because it would be our instinctive response to such a situation. I don't doubt that there are moral positions that are informed by religion, some of which, incidentally, are downright wrong, but we all have an "every day" morality and only an idiot would deny the possibility of it being present in the case of atheists. Unfortunately, such an idiot is among us at present.

I think this is the 'normal' view among those who don't attempt to artificially over-analyze morality or worse cut it in pieces based on atheistic or theistic determinants. I agree, it's an exercise for idiots and after all this intellectual BS has passed it will be as it was before it began...soon to recommence with the likes of IC around. Behavior, as restraint and empathy, depends on an active morality being present. For those who have it life can be somewhat more complicated than for those who have none. All flavors of morality are grounded in the human psyche. Name it how you will, there is no other source.

[Immanuel Can]

"He" would have to self-reveal? No assumptions?

Who's assuming?

If He has chosen to reveal His nature, then assumptions are simply not necessary anymore. We have what we need to know. We can choose to believe it or not...but we don't need to assume anymore.

I think there is a misplaced expectation on philosophy. Philosophy is like exercise - an annoying thing you do so that you can make the most of life's opportunities. In itself, on a personal level, philosophy ultimately leads nowhere. Meanwhile religion leads people into paradigm silos which also ultimately lead nowhere. Those who gain from religion, did it themselves, seemingly finding religion to be a suitable conduit for them.

That's a tidy theory. But in my experience, far too tidy. Something more basic is in play. People are looking for the meaning of things, and for the explanation of why they are where they are, and for who they really are. Philosophy has many versions of that. So does political ideology. So do world religions. So does Atheism, at least by implication if not explicitly -- though the dogs will howl to hear me say it.

I do not believe in evil. I do not think it is a real thing in the world.

See, that's what I could never believe.

An "evil person" is basically just damaged goods,...

"Damaged"? How does one judge the condition of being "damaged" if no normative index is available? And where would we get such an index, if everything and everyone that exists is merely a contingent product of material forces?

It's true that we don't call rocks "evil" if they roll down a hill and crumble. There's nothing particularly "bad" about one rock becoming divided into several, no matter how great the impact. That's simple entropy, and it's neither good nor bad...things fall apart: big deal.

But can we view human beings the same way? Is their condition a matter of indifference? Well, mine wasn't to me, even if anybody else was to them. And I didn't think hiding from that realization was a good way for me to proceed. Hiding from the truth, I've found, gets us nowhere. So I felt I had to face up to what I had seen in the world, and what I had seen in myself, and give some credit to the intuition that things in both were not what they should have been.

That was a start for me in a lot of things...among them, an interest in understanding ethics.

[seeds]

"He" would have to self-reveal? No assumptions?

Who's assuming?

Greta can certainly correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that what she is referring to is the ”assumption” that God is a “male” humanoid looking chap with a large pair of huevos dangling between some hairy legs.

Granted, even I, for lack of a better word, am guilty of using the pronoun “he” when referencing God. But again, it is just for a lack of a better word for an entity that (IMO) has no gender.

I do not believe in evil. I do not think it is a real thing in the world

.

See, that's what I could never believe.

Greta is right, there is no such “thing” as evil as if it were something that you step in and can’t get off your shoe, or some kind of literal contagion that can randomly infect one’s psyche, or worse yet, something personified in the form a horned demon.

All “evil” is, or ever was, is low consciousness and the actions resulting from it, which, ironically, is something (low-consciousness) that God “Him”-self (sorry Greta) has imposed on humans for the sake of maintaining the integrity (believability) of the “illusion” of objective reality.

(P.S., please don’t interpret this minor interjection as my siding with the atheists against you.)
_______

[Greta]

"He" would have to self-reveal? No assumptions?

Who's assuming?

Greta can certainly correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that what she is referring to is the ”assumption” that God is a “male” humanoid looking chap with a large pair of huevos dangling between some hairy legs.

Granted, even I, for lack of a better word, am guilty of using the pronoun “he” when referencing God. But again, it is just for a lack of a better word for an entity that (IMO) has no gender.

Very nicely put I always use "it". Then again, I do not consider entities called "it" to be inferior to gendered things - which seems to be the usual objection. The Sun is an "it" and it is the closest thing we have to a deity - it created us and we are made from its body, and it sustains us 24/7, making all that we value possible. An it. Another notable "it" - the Earth.

These genderless entities are far greater than any gendered entity we know.

I do not believe in evil. I do not think it is a real thing in the world

.

See, that's what I could never believe.

Greta is right, there is no such “thing” as evil as if it were something that you step in and can’t get off your shoe, or some kind of literal contagion that can randomly infect one’s psyche, or worse yet, something personified in the form a horned demon.

All “evil” is, or ever was, is low consciousness and the actions resulting from it, which, ironically, is something (low-consciousness) that God “Him”-self (sorry Greta) has imposed on humans for the sake of maintaining the integrity (believability) of the “illusion” of objective reality.

(P.S., please don’t interpret this minor interjection as my siding with the atheists against you.)
_______

It's okay, Seeds, I'm an agnostic so it's safe to agree

Copy & paste from another forum:

I don't believe in evil, nor in judgement, aside from social games. Social animals are always engaging in argy bargy. These tussles means nothing. The "evil", the "judgements", all of it - meaningless outside of the personal and practical domains. In terms of existentialism they are as important as volcanoes and asteroids - just entropy and reality reforming itself.

"Evil" happens because reality is diverse. There will logically be adults who are the most moral, those who are least moral, and those in between. It's always relative.

[thedoc]

"He" would have to self-reveal? No assumptions?

Who's assuming?

If He has chosen to reveal His nature, then assumptions are simply not necessary anymore. We have what we need to know. We can choose to believe it or not...but we don't need to assume anymore.

The difficulty is when some people will deny that an occurrence is of God rather than being a random event. They will cite rational explanations of the particular event, claiming that a rational explanation excludes God, but there is no reason to assume that God cannot work in rational explainable ways. Neil DeGrass Tyson likes to claim that religious people worship the "God of the gaps" in that religious people can only claim God's involvement for things that science can't explain, and if science can explain it then God is excluded, but this is wrong. I believe that God exists and I also believe evolution is the way things got to be the way they are. God created the Universe and life, and Evolution and the Big Bang is how God did it.

[seeds]

The difficulty is when some people will deny that an occurrence is of God rather than being a random event. They will cite rational explanations of the particular event, claiming that a rational explanation excludes God, but there is no reason to assume that God cannot work in rational explainable ways. Neil DeGrass Tyson likes to claim that religious people worship the "God of the gaps" in that religious people can only claim God's involvement for things that science can't explain, and if science can explain it then God is excluded, but this is wrong. I believe that God exists and I also believe evolution is the way things got to be the way they are. God created the Universe and life, and Evolution and the Big Bang is how God did it.

Spot on, doc.
_______