mdb

Hi,

I recently was sent a paper by Mark Vuletic, by a friend, entitled Twelve Officers or something like that. The paper was well intended but weak, to say the least, and fails to prove the point that theistic arguments are weak. In fact, to pose the problem of evil in a world without objective truth is a contradiction. If indeed there is no god; if indeed we are here by chance; if indeed we evolved; if indeed we live in a closed universe, the only real basis for morality is what each individual sees in themselves as being right or wrong. Granted, this may be determined by the tribe. Whichever the case, however, it is still subjectively determined, and not absolute. Therefore, the paper is invalid, because the argument is invalid. Mark tries to use theistic categories to prove the futility of these categories, when the very categories do not exist in a natural, godless world.

If one is to be an atheist, or agnostic, or unbeliever, at least be one honestly. If there is no god, neither is there right or wrong, and each person can do whatever he or she feels is right. After all, what is the basis of truth in a world where there is no objective law or law giver? In that world, I decide what is right FOR ME, and if I wanted to watch as Mrs. K as she was raped and stabbed, who is to say that this is evil? And who is to say that intervention is wrong? You? In such a world, all is relative, but neither right nor wrong.

My opinion, based on Mark’s closing paragraph, is that he was once a believer, and now that he is not he is searching for answers to his own meaninglessness. Color him hopeless. Why can’t he face it? If there is no one out there, life is pointless. Does he have the courage to face that honestly?

Skeptically yours,

MdB

-DM-

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback regarding The Tale of the Twelve Officers by Mark Vuletic. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response from Vuletic following this post. In the meantime, given that you are a registered user, I have moved this thread to our Moral Foundations & Principles forum so that others may respond.

-Don-

winstonjen

And if the shoe was on the other foot, with you the one being raped, what would YOU want bystanders to do? Watch, pray or help?

Interesting. You seem to be a skeptic with regard to what atheists think. What about the religious angle? Why is life pointless if there is no god? Wouldn't life be MORE pointless with a deity willing to give eternal life? Life as we know it has value BECAUSE it is limited in scope and time.

Jinto

But in the case of a theistic God, there is (allegedly) objective moral truth. Since the objective of the PoE are to show that such a worldview is inconsistent with reality, to then adopt an atheistic worldview to propose that there is no evil in the world is therefore to admit that the theistic provisio of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God cannot be reconciled with reality.

Funny, I reached the conclusion that he felt the ad hoc rationalizations to prevent the obvious conclusion of the PoE (that no omnipotent, omnibenevolent gods exist) were absurd, and constituted special pleading.

Wiploc

You are saying that if there is no god, people don't objectively suffer?


How would it be different if we are not here by chance, if we didn't evolve, if, indeed, we lived in an open universe?


Why don't you be honest about your religion and admit that it doesn't change morality a bit? If we can't make the case that there are things we objectively ought to do without god, then you can't make the case that there are things we objectively ought to do with god.


I like your choice of example. You picked something that we intuitively (subjectively) object to, and say that it won't be objectively wrong without god. You are using a subjective standard.

Using your subjective standard, we could easily condemn god by pointing out that if there is no god then slaughtering Midionites, eternal hellfire, and slavery aren't good.

crc

mdb

Forget the god talk. Life is pointless if there is no life after the grave, from the standpoint of its brevity on the backdrop of eons of time past and future. I will live perhaps 100 years if I am very healthy, and then, nothing. So, what is the point? History tells us that only a very few people are even remembered fifty years after they die, never to be remembered again. How can you say that life as we know it has value BECAUSE it is limited in scope, in light of the fact that death comes to us all, and in a naturalistic scheme of things, there is nothing after that?

winstonjen

Would money have value if it was available in infinite amounts? And if life has no value, would it be OK to pillage, loot, rape and kill people?

mdb

mdb

Yes, money would have value if it was available in infinite amounts, because it is available in unlimited quantity to some people today and still has value to them, albeit they take it for granted. The point you are trying to make is, would money have value if everyone had an infinite amount of it, and the answer would still be yes, if it was necessary for trade. Moneys use determines its value, not the amount that is available to us.

The question is, What gives life value in a naturalistic world? Is it
the fact that my actions do not inconvenience others? Again, if morality is subjective, you have no basis for saying that what I choose as right for me is wrong, just because it contradicts your view or makes you hurt.

But the problem we have with what I am saying is that deep inside we know that there is objective morality, even if society denies that there is.

NZAmoeba

they take it for granted because it has suddenly lost value to them.

Give a 5 yr old a dollar and they'll keep it as a prized posession... give a millionaire a dollar and they'll blow their nose with it. The more common something is, the less value it has. (thats why diamonds are expencive, but glass isn't, its how the whole world economy runs!!)

So yeah... winstonjen has you on that one...

ps. another example is ww2 germany printing more money to pay for its war machine... suddenly everyone was forced to do shopping with SACKLOADS of money... just to get bread.