Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Howard · 06-25-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
I feel embarrassed when someone takes the time to spell out the ideas I have and give such short shrift to on these boards.... but thanks howard

Thank you. I have my occasional moments of lucidity.

Furthermore, if atheists have no basis for morality, why are we not all in jail by now?

Also, from what I've read of history, Bible-based societies do not have a very good track record in terms of either morality or human rights. So where is the evidence that God-based morals are better than all others?

Spenser · 06-25-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TiredJim
Have you read this? http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulle...?threadid=2794

Talk about headache-inducing.

I did actually. Knight made the typical appeals to human emotion while sidestepping the issue entirely. I even applaud Zac in his final posting quoting the bible for instances when God's hand led to rape, murder and kidnaping. Not one iota of response from Knight to this when his whole premise was destroyed, then the rating on who won the debate was heavily on Knights side (puke) simply because it was on a theological website.

Before any one goes accusing me of the opposite, I can concede when a theist wins a debate even if I do not agree with her argument. Knight was just a shitty debater and evidence to the ignorance of debating was overwhelmingly clear by the final poll. All knight did was try and play to the audience a.k.a. preaching to the choir.

Though I am awfully jealous of all the cool emoticons on that site, but not to the point of conversion...

Shadowy Man · 06-25-2003, 02:55 PM

Maybe all of our morality is purely subjective, just most of happen to have similar subjective moralities. The ones whose morality differs too much get weeded out through natural selection.

Thus, the appearance of objectivity is just a result of very similar subjectivities.

Would we settle on the morality most conducive to survival without even having to actively think about it?

njhartsh · 06-25-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Spenser wrote:
Fine, I'm saying demonstrate that there is an 'objective standard of morality by which most people operate.'

You're going to have to nail him down to a definition of "objective" in this context, or this argument is going to get very messy very quickly. Plenty of your fellow subjectivist iidb denizens have got the battle scars (though mine don't come from theophilus particularly) to prove it.

The most famous exposition of the Moral Argument is the one by C.S. Lewis in the first section of his (vastly overrated) book Mere Christianity. Here's Lewis's argument, synopsized by apologist Phil Fernandes:

Quote:

C. S. Lewis used an advanced form of the moral argument for God's existence in his work Mere Christianity. Lewis argued that man's idea of right and wrong is a clue to the meaning of the universe. Lewis reasoned that there must exist a universal moral law for several reasons. First, all moral disagreements between persons imply an appeal to a standard of behavior to which all persons are subject. People accused of doing wrong usually claim that their action did not violate the universal standard, or that they somehow had a special excuse for not submitting to the standard in this particular case. They do not usually deny the standard itself. Second, quarreling often occurs when one person tries to prove that the action of another person is wrong. However, the fact that two people quarrel about whether or not an action was moral implies that they agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. One person claims the action was right; the other person claims the action was wrong. What they agree upon is the concept of right and wrong (the moral law).

Lewis reasons that this moral law could not be mere herd instinct. If it were, then the stronger instinct would always win, but, this is not the case. Often, man suppresses his stronger instinct in order to do what he thinks is right. For instance, when confronted with imminent danger, a man may desire to run for safety but instead chooses to disregard his own well-being to rescue another. Therefore, the moral law is not man's basic instincts. Instead, it judges between these instincts to determine which instinct is to be applied in the specific situation.

Lewis also believed that it is wrong to say that this moral law is merely a social convention. For not everything that man has learned from others is a social convention. Some things, like mathematics, would be true even if it was never taught. The moral law is like mathematics in this respect. It is real regardless of what one's society teaches about it. Social progress makes no sense unless the moral law exists independent of societies. If the moral law is merely invented by society, then one society (America) cannot call the actions of another society (Nazi Germany) wrong.

Lewis declared that the moral law cannot be a law of nature. For a law of nature is descriptive. It describes how nature is, how it usually acts. But, the moral law does not describe how nature is. The moral law is prescriptive; it prescribes how nature ought to be. The moral law stands above man and judges his behavior.

Lewis concluded that there exists a moral law above all men to which they are subject. However, matter could not be the cause of moral laws. Matter gives instructions to no one. Experience shows us that mind is the cause of moral laws. Therefore, this universal moral law that stands above all men must come from a Mind that stands above all men.

If theophilus proves an inadequate opponent, I suggest you slap Lewis around instead. In light of the latter's widespread acclaim, it would be hard to accuse you of "raising a strawman" in that case.

- Nathan, fellow subjectivist atheist

Spenser · 06-25-2003, 04:18 PM

I believe that Mere Christianity can be categorized as many have before as Mere Assertions. Widespread appeal seems to be limited to mostly Xians in which the book further substantiates what they already assume to be true.

One can say all they want that there is an AM, but the burden of proof resides on their shoulders...

Jobar · 06-26-2003, 06:36 AM

Well, theophilus? The ball is squarely in your court. Show us this 'objective morality'.

Oh, and you must know that some believers *do* refer to it as 'absolute morality' (or in the case of a recent theist, Hired Gun, as a 'position of absolute righteousness'.) If you think that is incorrect, please tell us why.

If you do not do this, I promise you that any further attempts on your part to use a moral argument for EoG will be met with derision.

Bill Snedden · 06-26-2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Thus, the appearance of objectivity is just a result of very similar subjectivities.

Indeed! Considering that we're all human beings and share at least one goal (to live), should this really be all that surprising?

Ignoring this possibility is one of Lewis' mistakes...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Spenser · 06-26-2003, 09:40 AM

Seems my supposed 'strawman' is somewhat of a scarecrow.

*Looks around at the empty field*

Well, I know Theo will be back but doesn't anyone else have anything to say in AM or the Xian God's favor? It couldn't be that easy to destroy what so many theists wield as a weapon of choice, if it really were a 'strawman', it should be easy to demonstrate how...

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
Ummm did you say straw man??? This appears to be the very argument the OP was addressing theo. So either you have a strange idea of what a strawman is, or you are diliberately tossing a word salad.

If there is to be meaningful argumentation, there must be more than mere asserting a thing to be so.

Please explain how anything in my post "appears to be the very argument the OP was addressing."

Spenser · 06-26-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
If there is to be meaningful argumentation, there must be more than mere asserting a thing to be so.

Please explain how anything in my post "appears to be the very argument the OP was addressing."

Good point, so I am left to wonder why you keep merely asserting that there is such a thing as Absoute Morality??? Excuse me, "objective standard of morality by which most people operate"

06-25-2003, 04:18 PM	#15
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	Merely a Bad Book I believe that Mere Christianity can be categorized as many have before as Mere Assertions. Widespread appeal seems to be limited to mostly Xians in which the book further substantiates what they already assume to be true. One can say all they want that there is an AM, but the burden of proof resides on their shoulders...

06-26-2003, 09:40 AM	#18
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	Where'd Everybody Go? Seems my supposed 'strawman' is somewhat of a scarecrow. Looks around at the empty field Well, I know Theo will be back but doesn't anyone else have anything to say in AM or the Xian God's favor? It couldn't be that easy to destroy what so many theists wield as a weapon of choice, if it really were a 'strawman', it should be easy to demonstrate how...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-25-2003, 02:55 PM	#13
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Maybe all of our morality is purely subjective, just most of happen to have similar subjective moralities. The ones whose morality differs too much get weeded out through natural selection. Thus, the appearance of objectivity is just a result of very similar subjectivities. Would we settle on the morality most conducive to survival without even having to actively think about it?

06-26-2003, 06:36 AM	#16
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Well, theophilus? The ball is squarely in your court. Show us this 'objective morality'. Oh, and you must know that some believers do refer to it as 'absolute morality' (or in the case of a recent theist, Hired Gun, as a 'position of absolute righteousness'.) If you think that is incorrect, please tell us why. If you do not do this, I promise you that any further attempts on your part to use a moral argument for EoG will be met with derision.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.