Londoner wrote:Immanuel Can wrote:
Me: And how would we discover whether that (moral) system was 'true'?
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.
The objection would be that to describe those regularities as operating according to 'reason' is to anthropomorphise them. We do not think of (say) Gravity as an entity, that has decided that objects with mass should draw together, because to do so is in some way 'reasonable'.
This objection misses the point completely.
Given the alleged randomness of the origin of the universe, what we ought to expect, from every scientific law we know, is pure chaos. Nothing ought to cohere or produce order. Where the very intricate order of our universe comes from is a huge question, scientifically. One does not even need to be a Theist to understand that.
Science only notes that certain relationships are the case; it does not (cannot) answer 'Why?'
This is true: and for that reason, we know that science is not the comprehensive answer to all the important questions in the universe. For deductively, we know there must have been a "why": and if science cannot speak to that, then it is science's limitation that is on show.
We can present no end of ideas 'why' the universe might be the way it is, including that it was created, but we cannot show one is better than any other.
We certainly could if the Supreme Being had spoken to us concerning that. So maybe the real question is, "Has God spoken?"
That is to treat morality as if it was an external object, such that we could be 'aware' of it. But it isn't an object in the same way as those things studied by science, so it isn't 'reasonable' in the sense that you say (above) signals the work the Creator.
We don't know that it isn't an external "object" as you put it, or "reality," as I would. But what we do know for sure is this: if morality is not objective and external, then it's merely a social ephemera, an odd phenomenon (since it's universal) but one for which we can find no explanation as to why we ought to believe in it at all, or why anyone should.
If we accept that morality exists, we end up having to accept that a moral Law-Giver must exist as well. Absent such, there's no reason we have to be moral at all.
Oops. All ancient societies are religious.
Certainly, but again there are many alternative explanations as to why we might have this impulse. We cannot rule out that possibility, but we cannot rule out any of the alternatives either.
No, that's true: but it's very odd, and like all highly-improbable coincidences, needs some rational explanation. Moreover, was not you argument that there was no empirical evidence at all? But here you accept that it is at least
ambiguously evidentiary...you just say it could go either way. I would say the evidence leans strongly, as well.
But wouldn't this interventionist God
I didn't posit one of those. I merely posited a Creator. "Interventionist" implies He is "intervening" in a state of affairs that already exists prior to Him.
...contradict the idea that we could infer the existence of God from the regularity of the universe?
No. No more than observing a painting done by you might tell me that you are intelligent, or that you have artistic skill. I could infer a great deal about you from what you had chosen to paint, how you'd made the paint behave, the technical control with which you executed your design, and the aesthetic insight the design represented...among other things. The creation would bespeak the creator...you.
I think we would also have to ask why, if God was responsible for giving us our awareness of morality and God, he would punish us if we were not sufficiently aware
?
Maybe we aren't unaware of it at all. I have certainly never met a human being who has not thought about God. And you are clearly not one of those either.
I think the historical examples are always problematic. Usually the Roman Empire is thought of as going the other way, moving from paganism to monotheism (while undergoing a relative decline). An interesting question would be which society today we should take as our model; a society which maintains a close relationship to God and that God has caused to prosper. I suppose the best candidate would be Saudi Arabia, which is both very religious and has been blessed with abundant natural resources!
I think not. The savagery and cruelty of Saudi society is certainly related to their concept of God, but it has little to do with Theism more generally. Their "god" is certainly not the most probable one, nor the one I believe exists. Delusions about God always take their toll -- whether because of a wrong view of His nature, or because the ideologues in question refuse to think of Him at all.
But let us ask, how have Atheist societies fared? Are they, in distinction to, say, America and the UK, which have a residual Christian past, bastions of tolerance, humanity and wisdom? Well, there were certainly few more Atheist societies than North Korea today, or perhaps Red China or the Soviet Union, or Albania, or Pol Pot's Cambodia...and how did they all do? They killed 148 million in the last century, as I've pointed out before. In fact, just as you cannot name a humane Muslim country, you cannot name a single humane Atheist country. And at some point, you've got to ask what their ideologies have to do with all that, don't you?
Why do you think what I said was a rant? I was responding to what IC said... which seemed very skewed to me, and I explained why. Please tell me specifically what you think is incorrect about what I said?
Some people might even think that was intolerant. 
In my previous post, I was simply making a point in response to IC's apparent claim that atheists have no moral system compelling them toward good behavior, whereas theists do. I was trying to make the point that it doesn't seem to make a difference for "bad" behavior.