Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 04-08-2003, 10:45 PM

So Albert, by your own philosophy, unplanned pregancies have less value than planned ones, since they were 'random accidents.'

In the words of Richard Carrier, found here (italics mine):

Quote:

In my opinion one of the best and most important reasons secular humanism offers to be moral is that we are indeed, in Moreland's own words, "image bearers." But in humanism, the image we are bearing is not that of God, but of our own ideals of what a good human being is and can be. This is the same thing the Christian does: he thinks about what would be good, and then attributes those qualities to god. For instance, Christians conveniently ignore the bad stuff in the Bible, only some of which I cited in the previous paragraph, because it does not fit their pre conceived notion of the ideal. They praise the Ten Commandments, but ignore the Corruption of Blood clause, and they also ignore the other commandments beyond the first ten. For example, "the Lord said to Moses" that "anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death" (Lev. 24:13-16). Almost any decent Christian today would say that this was an unjust law. But it is the law of god nonetheless. Thus, Christians pick and choose not according to the example of their god, but according to their own notion of what is just. And then they add other things, like the love of democracy and the abhorrence of slavery, to the character of their God, despite the fact that no such notions can be found in the Bible. Thus, humanists and theists are simply doing the same thing: creating an image of the ideal and choosing to follow it.

Secular humanists, just like Moreland, choose to be moral because they do not wish to "dehumanize or trivialize" their own life, because then life would lose its meaning and quality. We all want to affirm that we are "a creature of value who is worthy" of the gift of life itself, and thus the humanist has exactly the same reason to be moral as the Christian. This is a principal fact which Christians routinely fail to understand about secular humanists: the meaning in our lives is derived directly, and in numerous ways, from the significance and beauty of our own humanity and conscious existence. It is not necessary to be someone's creation for our lives to have value. As I have said many times, even if I were the accidental by-product of a giant rubber tire machine, my life would not be meaningless. It would be meaningful to the precise extent that I endeavored to make it so. But if I did nothing to make my life meaningful, even being created in god's image would add no meaning to my life. I would be nothing but a pawn or lab rat, a mere homunculus cooked up in some divine kitchen, if I did nothing on my own to make myself into more than that. The inability to see how an accidental existence would be no less valuable than a planned one is one of the greatest stumbling blocks before all Christian intellectuals.

scigirl

Wounded King · 04-09-2003, 01:23 AM

Dear Albert,

I for one am quite prepared to admit that morality is subjective. I dont see any problem with that at all. I certainly dont see where you draw the assertion that atheists believe in objective rather than subjective morality, what is more subjective than the result of a multitude of highly variable social and mental factors? I certainly know very few people who would simply ascribe morality to someones genome.

The question is whether ones own subjective morality has any objective basis, I would have thought that was where God came into it, but you say that this is simply a Calvinist attitude and that God is the ultimate in subjective appraisal.

I cant see how gods morality can be both totally subjective and yet completely unarbitrary and somehow universal, unless of course gods species of morality is one which is beyond human understanding, in which case it seems presumptious of you to claim you comprehend it.

TTFN,

Wounded

P.S. For a religion you claim leaves God as the final subjective arbiter and is only concerned with "who is a saint in heaven", the Catholic church seems to have killed an awful lot of heretics, simply expediting the process perhaps.

Non-praying Mantis · 04-09-2003, 09:22 AM

(emphasis mine)

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Well, the same can be said of Mother Teresa. So how can the wildly contradictory moral standards of a Mother Teresa and an Adolph Hitler be conceived of as producing the same failed result? If evolutionary fitness is the moral standard, morality ceases to function as a semantic construct. What would pass as morality would be simply the brute fact, the might of numerical supremacy.

YOU GOT IT! That is precisely the argument I am trying to make: evolution has little to do with the specifics of morality.

Quote:

Just because he failed? Imagine a smarter more sophisticated version of Hitler who succeeded. He could then personally impregnate his entire slave population while liquidating all other nationalities. In one generation, half the world (all the males) would be trimming their Hitler moustaches. By your own standards of evolutionary fitness, Hitler would be the world�s most successful creature, having single-handedly induced the single biggest mass migration of genes in the history of any species.

That�s how evolutionists, not creationists, must spell success. That�s why I�m failing this spelling bee.

Yes, your hypothetical Hitler would be very successful from an evolutionary/genetic point of view. However, Albert, there is more than one form of success.

I suppose that your problem is that you cannot see how evolution can produce morals without God's help.

Think about this:

Most wolves work together to help raise their pups. Wolves that do not work with other wolves to raise their pups often raise fewer pups than those that do work together. Now, from what you have (hopefully) learned about evolution, which wolves will pass on more of their genes to the next generation? Which wolves are successful?

NPM

Non-praying Mantis · 04-09-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
What business does our species have being morally responsible?

It makes us feel good? It�s how your mommy raised you? It furthers our species� success?

BINGO! Give that man a cookie!

Wounded King · 04-09-2003, 02:49 PM

Once again Albert, the world may be as immoral, amoral or just plain barking as it likes, it doesn't mean that we have to follow suit. :banghead:

Atheism does not restrict our morality, but neither does it specifically define it.

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

04-09-2003, 01:23 AM	#92
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	Dear Albert, I for one am quite prepared to admit that morality is subjective. I dont see any problem with that at all. I certainly dont see where you draw the assertion that atheists believe in objective rather than subjective morality, what is more subjective than the result of a multitude of highly variable social and mental factors? I certainly know very few people who would simply ascribe morality to someones genome. The question is whether ones own subjective morality has any objective basis, I would have thought that was where God came into it, but you say that this is simply a Calvinist attitude and that God is the ultimate in subjective appraisal. I cant see how gods morality can be both totally subjective and yet completely unarbitrary and somehow universal, unless of course gods species of morality is one which is beyond human understanding, in which case it seems presumptious of you to claim you comprehend it. TTFN, Wounded P.S. For a religion you claim leaves God as the final subjective arbiter and is only concerned with "who is a saint in heaven", the Catholic church seems to have killed an awful lot of heretics, simply expediting the process perhaps.

04-09-2003, 02:49 PM	#95
Wounded King Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 1,211	Once again Albert, the world may be as immoral, amoral or just plain barking as it likes, it doesn't mean that we have to follow suit. :banghead: Atheism does not restrict our morality, but neither does it specifically define it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.