kingjames1

Thank you Jeff - I am familiar with some of these titles.

Perhaps there is an important distinction that I ought to make: the cultural and the revelational.

I do believe that most 20th and 21st c. American atheists are carrying christian cultural baggage in talking about 'morality' as though it were something 'real', and not merely socially constructed. This is a cultural reality - not a logical necessity.

However, I of course recognize that there are those who hold to an ethical realism apart from christian cultural influence (e.g. the Greek philosophers in Plato's school as well as Aristotle's). I believe this reflects the more profound reality of general revelation (as understood in the Judeo-Christian scriptures - in particular, see Romans 1:18-32). To put it succinctly, humanity cannot suppress (consistently and peaceably) this universal, ubiquitious revelation of God, which is evident in all of creation (both within and without us).

Hence, man's conscience and his desire to affirm 'good' is basically revelatory of God's goodness and the reality of our accountability before the Maker.

This is my claim - I do to pretend to prove it here in this post - at least not in a way that would be convincing to a diehard atheist. But I do think it is, in the end, the only consistent and satisfying position.

I also claim that atheism is incapable of any moral foundations, despite the numerous attempts of secularists (which in my readings have been demolished by both postmodern nihilists and various theists).

J.

jlowder

Then perhaps you could pick an example and try to support your thesis, that "most 20th and 21st c. American atheists are carrying culterual baggage in talking about 'morality' as though it were something 'real', and not merely socially constructed." I still do not find any evidence for your thesis in your latest post. Indeed, you go onto write:

That is certainly one way to interpret the data, but I see no reason for believing that your Biblical explanation is the best explanation. Nontheists can also explain the pervasiveness of belief in moral realism.

A "diehard atheist"? I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean or if you believe such a label is applicable to me. At any rate, diehard atheist or not, you haven't presented any evidence for your claim. All you have done is lay out your position. And apart from a case-by-case examination of atheistic moral philosophers, I don't see how you could support your claim. But that involves a lot more work than simply making sweeping claims about nontheistic moral philosophy.

What is satisfying is a subjective matter. What may be unsatisfying to you may be very satisfying to someone else. Consistency is, of course, an objective matter. You have not demonstrated any inconsistency on the part of atheists who reject nihlism.

Another assertion without evidence. The premise, "atheism is incapable of any moral foundations," would be true if and only if the divine command theory of ethics were true and hence moral properties were supernatural properties. (If the divine command theory were false, then moral properties could be nonnatural or natural properties, both of which are compatible with atheism.) But to assume the truth of the divine command theory is to beg the question. Indeed, it reflects an a priori bias against naturalism in general and naturalistic approaches to ethics in particular.

In my readings, the arguments you are espousing have been demolished by both nontheists and theists, including Richard Swinburne, Wes Morriston, and even Robert Adams.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Gracchus

Anything that I want is good. Anything I would rather not have is evil. Thus, I do only what I think will bring me good and try to avoid evil. WE band together in various manners to avoid things we in common perceive to be evil. In common we try to take as much as we can that we consider good. Individuals from who we take the good, perceive us as evil, and band together to protect their good from our evil. When a band obtains good they divide it by giving to those who can contribute to our efforts to obtain the good and resist the evil, enough good to live on. Most good however goes to those strong enough or clever enough to take it and keep it. To this end, groups form subgroups, and large enough subgroups form sub-subgroups.
"Patriotism" is our rationalization of taking good from others, who then perceive us as evil, as we would consider them evil had they been able to wrest our good from us.
"Rights" are fictions that promise some kinds of good will not be taken from us. They are fictions because good will be taken from us by those who think they are powerful enough or clever enough to get away with taking our good in violation of our fictional rights. Children, or old people, or sick people who are not strong enough or clever enough to defend their good are destroyed, by being left out of the division of the good.

But somewhere is buried in the mind of each of us is the knowledge that will we, nil we, all good will be taken from us at last. We would rather not have this knowledge and therefor it is evil. So we tell each other stories about how after all the good is taken from us, we will be given all the good we want and never be touched again by evil. (Except of course, those evil ones who take good from us. Those who took good from us will have no good and all the evil.)

Those who threaten to expose our comforting stories are trying to take away our hope that we will receive as much good as we want, and they are the most evil of all. They are saying that good will be taken from us forever.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gracchus ]</p>

babelfish

Gracchus, allow me to welcome you to the IIDB. Pretty impressive first post!

I hope you plan on sticking around ...

Nataraja

The whole business, I think, is at the same time over-simplified and flogged to death. Is it logical to expect everything that humans do to follow logic?

Talon

J J Lowder,

Let's be clear on something. I am not "arguing" anything. I posted my opinion on the subject and that is all. I not trying to "prove" anything nor am I trying to sway your opinion... after all anything anyone has to say on morality is only an opinion.

That being said, I'm concerned that you are questioning the what the meaning of morality is. It seems simple enough. My definition is no different the the common use of the word. Morality is a set of rules or conduct that is considered "good" (now please don't ask me what "good" is, I don't believe "good" or "evil" exists either).

Simple... kill all the humans and morality is no longer a question.

Who would you discuss morality with? Have you ever discussed morality with an animal? They don't have problems with morality. Do you think dolphins have any nagging "moral" problem when they fight off sharks? The point is only humans can be proven to have these concerns and like I said kill all the humans.....

More directly, morality does not exist outside of the human mind and like god it cannot be proven that it does.

Judge not lest ye to be judged. In other words, who is to judge? I won't judge your actions and I'll be dammed if I'll allow you to judge mine.

Because everyone opinion is different, everyone is entitled to have their own concept of morality. There is no ultimate judge who can say, "This is right and this is wrong". Morality is subjective and everyone has their own version. The individuals morality is shaped by social, economic and personal experiences and pressures. I don't believe it's possible to define an "objective" moral code.


As I said, I'm not "arguing" anything. Debating on a message is pointless and futile. It's clear you find the concept of no morality unnerving. I not sure what you mean by; "From your perspective, wouldn't it be better if everyone else were "wrong," so that they would be more likely to be moral", though. This statement doesn't make any sense.

The fact that you "don't share [my] views on morality, but if I did I wouldn't want to try to persuade others" is an example of what I said earlier. You have your opinions on morality and I have mine and who are we to judge each other? (see, no ultimate judge)

I said I have no moral code and it's true. There is no objective way to produce such a thing and it's pointless to try to develop such an idea. Pointless because, simple circumstances can force a needed change in any morality I would develop. I have little use for one anyway. As long as I don't violate the "law" what difference does it make?

TALON

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Talon ]</p>

Nataraja

Who was the cretin who claimed that moral atheists are only experiencing residual religiosity? Does this mean that any child who is raised an atheist (in fact, never having known religion at all) will be, uh, immoral? Ok, so he grew up to have three kids and the whole neighborhood swears he's a great guy, is he still immoral?

babelfish

I think you could also ask yourself, how many generations until the residual effects of an ancestor's religiosity start to fade, and the descendents become completely amoral?

Or is the effect not so much from one's parents, but from society itself? In other words, even if your parents are complete atheists, if you live in a religious society, that society's morals will still rub off on you.

kingjames1

Jeff, I am making assertions...to prove them would be to write books. I simply want to dialogue with others coming from very different perspectives. If you want some proof, I suggest you begin with Alasdair MacIntyre's works on ethics, in which, in my humble opinion, the modernist belief regarding ethical realism is thoroughly dismantled (in particular, see "Whose Justice, Which Rationality".

I disagree with your supernatural/natural(nonnatural - whatever that is) dichotomy in this regard. I do not think that supernatural, natural, and social 'causes' are mutually exclusive. E.g. I hold that moral 'properties' can be understood as divinely ordained, socially constructed, shaped by the rational structure of the (created) universe, etc.

The either/or of divine command theory and secular ethics that you insist upon is questionable, at least in how it applies to my position. In my opinion, the divine command theory as it is typically articulated is a rather simplisitic representation of biblical ethics (so much so that I think it is [or perhaps, often can be] wrong).

I suppose my question to you is: how do you understand the divine command theory? Let's see if we can come to agreement on what that is, and what it is not.

BTW, which 'arguments' of mine are demolished by the authors you listed?

J.

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

jlowder

I'll add this to my list of books to read. But I don't respect people who make sweeping assertions and then offer absolutely no argument at all to backup their assertions. Surely you can summarize MacIntyre's argument(s) for the rest of us?

It is a commonplace in moral philosophy to hold that moral properties could be 1 of 3 possible types: supernatural, nonnatural, and natural. Non-natural properties are what ethical intuitionists (e.g., G.E. Moore) believe moral properties are. Again, I recommend an introductory course in ethics or moral philosophy so that you are familiar with the basic terminology of the field.

At any rate, you still have not refuted what I wrote in my previous post:

Again, we need arguments, not assertions.

I'm aware of the various versions of the divine command theory. Rather than waste my time speculating on which version you hold, why don't you just summarize the version for the rest of us?

The claim that moral realism requires theism. See, for example, Christian philosopher Wes Morriston's paper by clicking <a href="http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/goodness.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>