Gary's Corner

[henry quirk]

You're a deist.

You don't have any holy edict that says slavery is wrong.

Slavery is something that you don't like.

Yes, I believe in a Creator. I arrived at this belief thru reason coupled with intuition, and, also thru reason & intuition, I conclude morality is definitive (not subject to interpretation) and objective (applicable to all, everywhere, every-when; independent of what anyone likes or dislikes about it)

No, the big blank book of deism doesn't say slavery is wrong.

I might, for all you know, think enslavin' certain folks is a grand idea, but I don't becuz I know it's wrong to use persons as property.

But, enough of that: i'm not here to promote or defend deism. What's on the table: does atheism offer a moral grounding? It doesn't (in the same way materialism, determnism, scientism, etc. do not).

The atheist (materialist, determinist, or science worshiper) may dislike slavery, but can't oppose it on any grounds other than distaste.

[Immanuel Can]

On a more serious note.

Atheists are supposed to have axioms about morality.

They actually have none. So nobody sensible is "supposing" that.

And that's why you're not answering. You know that's true, too. Or if you don't, then you should, and can easily confirm it.

[MikeNovack]

Seems to me all Mannie is sayin' is atheism cannot ground morality...atheism offers no 'should' and 'should not'.

STOP -- separate questions.

a) Can the atheist derive morality his or her morality from atheism? << does "there is no god" imply some code of morality? >>
NO --- but the atheist isn't going to trying to derive much if anything from "there is no god". Likely nothing beyond "in that case it is useless/unnecessary to consider anything derived from "there is a god".

b) The atheist can certainly construct a system of morality. You are free to argue that this will not be a correct system of morality because not derived from what you consider the one true basis of morality. But that does NOT mean the atheist is amoral (not following some system of morality)

You can't even assume the atheist's system 0f morality is wrong. False premises (his or her wrong basis for morality) does not NECESSARILY lead to false conclusions (rules of morality). You would need to show that at least one rule does not match your correct system. Look, the reality that false premises do not necessarily lead to false conclusions is fundamental to science. A theory is proposed, for which the conclusions derived from this theory match existing observations. We then seek a new observation to see if it also matches (still uncertain) or not (theory is wrong).

Its the same here. You can't just say "the atheist's basis for morality is wrong so some rule of the atheist's system of morality is wrong. That's bad logic. You have to find an example.

[Immanuel Can]

Seems to me all Mannie is sayin' is atheism cannot ground morality...atheism offers no 'should' and 'should not'.

STOP -- separate questions.

a) Can the atheist derive morality his or her morality from atheism?
NO --- but the atheist isn't going to trying to derive much if anything from "there is no god".

Right. So Atheism is amoral. QED

b) The atheist can certainly construct a system of morality.

Not from Atheism, as you have just admitted. So he's going to have to invent something his own worldview denies is real...such as a duty to one's fellow man, or empathy, or communality, or whatever...but his Atheism will mean that none of it is genuinely morally required, or even real.

that does NOT mean the atheist is amoral (not following some system of morality)

It will mean he's being irrational and inconsistent, following things his Atheism denies can be real.

So there's a difference between what the irrational Atheist may choose, and what the rational and consistent Atheist can choose.

There is no rationally-consistent Atheist morality.

[phyllo]

You're a deist.

You don't have any holy edict that says slavery is wrong.

Slavery is something that you don't like.

Yes, I believe in a Creator. I arrived at this belief thru reason coupled with intuition, and, also thru reason & intuition, I conclude morality is definitive (not subject to interpretation) and objective (applicable to all, everywhere, every-when; independent of what anyone likes or dislikes about it)

No, the big blank book of deism doesn't say slavery is wrong.

I might, for all you know, think enslavin' certain folks is a grand idea, but I don't becuz I know it's wrong to use persons as property.

But, enough of that: i'm not here to promote or defend deism. What's on the table: does atheism offer a moral grounding? It doesn't (in the same way materialism, determnism, scientism, etc. do not).

The atheist (materialist, determinist, or science worshiper) may dislike slavery, but can't oppose it on any grounds other than distaste.

You're in the same boat as the atheist.

You don't have any axioms about morality.

You're formulating a morality from what you see and feel. It's as solid as what the atheist does.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't have any axioms about morality.

You're formulating a morality from what you see and feel. It's as solid as what the atheist does.

So now you show you know "what the Atheist does" isn't "solid," and doesn't justify any axioms about morality.

Why did you pretend you didn't know?

[phyllo]

So now you show you know "what the Atheist does" isn't "solid," and doesn't justify any axioms about morality.

You say it's not solid.

[Immanuel Can]

So now you show you know "what the Atheist does" isn't "solid," and doesn't justify any axioms about morality.

You say it's not solid.

No, you said it. And you're right, in that a "nothing" isn't "solid." For the Atheist, morality simply cannot be rationally explained.

And that's why you haven't even tried.

[henry quirk]

You don't have any axioms about morality.

Sure I do: a person, any person, anywhere or when, has a natural right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

From that extends what is and isn't permissible among and between persons (morality).

Yours? What can extend out from 'I just don't like it?' Nuthin'.

I can say slavery is wrong and coherently defend the assertion.

You can't.

[phyllo]

You don't have any axioms about morality.

Sure I do: a person, any person, anywhere or when, has a natural right to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

From that extends what is and isn't permissible among and between persons (morality).

Yours? What can extend out from 'I just don't like it?' Nuthin'.

I can say slavery is wrong and coherently defend the assertion.

You can't.

Apparently, you have convinced yourself that you are doing something superior to what an atheist might do.

[henry quirk]

The atheist can certainly construct a system of morality.

Based on what? Atheism sez there is no God, so there's no objective moral measure. What's left to the atheist but his feelings?

[henry quirk]

Apparently, you have convinced yourself that you are doing something superior to what an atheist might do.

As far as moral groundings go, yes, natural rights grounded in an objective moral measure (God) is superior to sympathy, empathy, and shared humanity.

[phyllo]

At least IC is saying that he has the stone tablets directly from the infallible head honcho.

[henry quirk]

At least IC is saying that he has the stone tablets directly from the infallible head honcho.

Can't see how that's my problem. Take that up with him.

To sum up...

My thrust is this: it doesn't matter if deism or Christianity is right or true, only that either does what atheism, and by extension, materialism, determinism. scientism, cannot do, which is: offer a coherent moral ground.

Even if there is no Creator, and no one has a natural right to life, liberty, and property, a man will still refrain from slaving, raping, murdering, thieving, and defrauding if he chooses to recognize his fellows have natural rights.

Now: what I'd like is your admission you have no coherent moral grounding to say why slavery is wrong.

[MikeNovack]

The atheist can certainly construct a system of morality.

Based on what? Atheism sez there is no God, so there's no objective moral measure. What's left to the atheist but his feelings?

How about this.
Human morality exists because humans have evolved as obligatory social animals (and obligatory social animals must have predictable social behavior). This would imply that we have had morality longer than we have been humans (all our evolutionary relatives are also obligatory social animals)
The "feelings" referred to are evolved as tools to enable this morality to work.

Henry, why do you think you are going to be better off getting to "slavery is wrong" from a belief in God and the moral laws coming from this God? Certainly not, for example, from the Bible.