1. Richard Dawkins infected with Satanic 'virus of mind', Christian group claims

Comment #251313 by Belgian Beer on September 21, 2008 at 10:58 am

"...your eyes are blinded and your ears will not hear any contrary view."

Funny how both Muslims and Christians say the exact same thing about those who don't endorse their long catalogue of false and immoral beliefs.

2. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81035 by Belgian Beer on October 23, 2007 at 11:38 pm

In response to Comment #81023 by room101:

There is a good answer to no. 1, but the difficulty is presenting it, or perhaps certain portions of it, in quick, snappy sound bite form for the purposes of public debate. Some of us have been discussing this point in the philosophy forum on this site.

I think no. 1 can be easily refuted on the simple basis of a lack of evidence. No one has ever demonstrated with absolute certainty the existence of a divine moral law, let alone demonstrate with absolute certainty the specific content of that law. That those who believe in a divine moral law cannot agree with one another concerning the content of that law is the clearest possible evidence that they do not in fact have access to such a law.

For example, is foreign intervention just or not? According to some Christians it is, according to others it is not. How do you choose between them? By what standard? Both appeal to divine morality and come to completely different conclusions. This is to say nothing of the wide and obvious differences between Christianity and Islam, the latter of which also claims access to divine morality. Why should one choose Christian morality over Islamic morality, or Zoroastrian morality, or Hindu morality, or Jain morality? Choice between them can only be arbitrary. Any appeal to standards other than those afforded by one's divine law effectively renders that law entirely unnecessary.

Hitchens and Dawkins rightly bring up the second problem, namely, motivation. The only motivation for obeying the divine law is the fear of eternal hellfire for disobeying it. Doing the "right" thing out of fear is obviously an appalling reason.

However, the discussion will then almost invariably turn to the origins of morality. Where do we get our morals from? I think the appeal to evolution is insufficient. Natural selection can explain why we have certain motivations and instincts, but it seems insufficient to explain the rise of complex moral systems. I think that's a historical, sociological, and anthropological question, but one which unfortunately cannot be presented in simple, sound bite form.

Needless to say, D'Souza is no moral philosopher. There are, in fact, very sophisticated Christian moral philosophers who would reject his argument that without God, there would be no ethics. Jeffrey Stout and Alasdair MacIntyre are just two such philosophers, both very much worth reading.

I agree with you, though: a solid secular argument must be prepared to challenge point no. 1 in public forums.