51. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48168 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Well, the problem is what one means by 'good'.

True true. If by good you mean "promotes survival" then I agree that a maxim like "don't kill lots of people" is objectively good. Objective in the sense that, if we could run some kind of experiment, we could empirically verify the positive effects on society (or at least show the damage done to a society without such a rule), and also objective in the sense that such a rule has been hardwired in our brains by evolution. I am hesitant to go any further, though. The whole "is" "ought" distinction is nagging at me.

52. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48166 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 11:23 pm

It just makes so much damned sense.

53. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48165 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 11:08 pm

It is bad to kill lots of people. This is objectively true (and not just opinion) as a general ethical statement, because if everyone did it our species would not survive for very long. It in no way conflicts with materialism as it could be hard-wired into our brains by evolution, and not placed there by some invisible spirit.

Watch out for the naturalistic fallacy.

54. Scopes Two

Comment #48158 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Nice. Delay doesn't like questions about evolution, gays in the military, and abortion because they are part of CNN's liberal agenda to make the republican candidates look like cave men. If the shoe fits.

55. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48117 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Anyway my main point is that the proper understanding of God is that His/Her various abilities are contingent on God's will, which in turn is contingent on God's goodness.

Action may be contingent upon will, but abilities have nothing to do with will. It is one thing to argue that God WILL NOT do anything inconsistent with its goodness, but it is quite another to argue that God CANNOT do anything inconsistent with its goodness.

56. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48098 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Dianelos,

Thank you for the reply. I know you have been swamped here. I am going to respond with caution because I am afraid that I may have not fully grasped the significance of your post. Here goes.

Now maybe you think that the force of the argument from morality hinges on whether its premise about the existence of objective ethical precepts is in fact true or not. But an argument is useful even if one is unsure about whether its premises are true or not.

I think the argument from objective morality (at least in the forms I typically here it argued) really IS based on the existence of objective moral truth, and it is so appealing because of most peoples' gut level intuition that there are in fact good and evil deeds. As you stated earlier, we treat the existence of objective moral truth as axiomatic--the foundation of the argument--and the reason people feel comfortable doing that is their intuition that objective morals really do exist. I dislike the argument because it is a sloppy appeal to intuition.

1. Deep down we all know there really are objective moral truths (intuitive judgment treated as indication of objective fact).

2. God is the only way to generate objective morality.

3. Therefore: God exists.

My original question was: on what grounds does one derive the axiom (first premise in the argument) if science tells us that our intuitions are just a product of evolution and have nothing to do with the actual existence of objective morality? It was an effort to show that science is relevant to the argument.

So what exactly does this argument say? It says that it's not logically possible that both some ethical precepts are objectively true and that materialism is true. . .

Agreed, but because of the second premise in the argument: God is the only route to objective morality (God and materialism cannot coexist). I am not going to get into the atheistic, objective morality arguments (i.e. Michael Martin) because I do not know enough about them.

What's the relevance of this result? Well it turns out that many people (for whatever reason) find it utterly unpalatable to accept that no ethical precepts are objectively true, or, in other words, to accept that all ethical precepts are true only in the sense that they reflect subjective opinion or social convention. Logic requires then that they recognize that materialism is false.

Now in what sense is the argument from morality an argument for the existence of God? It is an argument for the existence of God only for those who consider that the only plausible worldviews are materialism and theism; for them if materialism is false then theism must be true.

I am not sure what you are getting at, and what it has to do with my original question. It sounds like you are saying exactly what I said in the beginning: the argument flows from the intuition about morality.

57. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48075 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I think the proper understanding of the concept of God's omnipotency is not that God can do anything at all, but rather that God can (and actually does) do whatever God wants. Specifically omnipotency does not imply that God can do anything we might suggest. With this simple clarification we avoid all the usual paradoxes such as whether God can build a stone so heavy that God cannot lift, or whether God can commit suicide, or whether God can commit evil acts, and so on, as it is unreasonable to believe that God would want to do any of these things.

Schoolyard exchange:

Child A: My Daddy can do anything he wants to do!

Child B: No way. No one can do anything they want. Impossible.

Child A: My Daddy can!

Child B: So, when your Daddy picks you up after school, you can have him fly around the playground for us all to see?

Child A: Well . . . my Daddy wouldn't ever WANT to do that. [triumphant look on face]

Child B: . . . [head explodes]

An evasive answer in every sense of the word. Humor us for a moment and assume that God wanted to do any of the things you mentioned. Could God perform those acts?

58. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #48020 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 10:05 am

There is no such thing as a situation where we can be sure someone has the information we want, yet we do not yet know what that information actually is.

Humor me.


*Edit: imagine an agent who has been working undercover with a terrorist cell for many months. The cell has acquired a nuclear device. The cell's engineer/bomb guy has repeatedly practiced arming and disarming the bomb in the agent's presence. The agent doesn't understand the details of the arming and disarming sequence, but can see that the engineer/bomb guy knows how to do it. The time comes for the strike, and the bomb is brought to its destination in a major city. The agent calls in the cavalry, but they get there too late and the engineer/bomb guy has already armed the sucker. The undercover agent knows for a fact that the bomb can be disarmed, doesn't understand how to do it himself, and there is no one else available to disarm it. Can they torture the engineer/bomb guy to compel him to disarm it.

This is wildly hypothetical, but I would like an answer.

59. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #48010 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 9:08 am

PsyPro,

That was a brilliant non-answer.

60. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48007 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 9:02 am

Dianelos,

Can I play too? When you get a chance, please respond to post 223 on the argument from objective morality.

61. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47888 by krogercomplete on June 6, 2007 at 12:20 am

My answer is not relevant (the issue was Sam Harris's), nor is the question: as we can never know, the issue never arises.

I was just curious. If you don't want to answer the question, fine. You said that torture is never justified because we can never now for sure whether the person being tortured has the requisite information. I was not sure if that implied agreement with Sam's hypothetical or not (or that you simply thought his hypo was unrealistic, or both). If it does imply agreement, then is ABSOLUTE certainty responsible for the distinction? Is there any circumstancial case that could raise the probability high enough for you to accept torture?

62. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47882 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Because you can *never* know that the to be tortured actually has the knowledge you seek, torture is never justified.

What would be your answer if we actually could know for a fact?

63. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47875 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 9:48 pm

I will be so bold as to suggest that the US is a totalitarian system where (too many) people are so afraid of each other that communication goes via court, have a screwed up idea of reality, are a political and environmental menace to the rest of the world, and push forward archaic views about "freedom" by planting bombs and soldiers around the world.

Whoa there big fella.

64. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47815 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Teapot,

Yeah, tawdry is a great word. A friend of mine (who was studying economics in college) once asked me when I was going to drop that "tawdry" business major of mine (obviously, I was studying business at the time). It was so dismissive; I loved it. Incidentally, he was right about the major.

65. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47806 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Teapot,

I think my comments were driven more by posts I have read in the past on this site that openly condemn philosophy as "mumbo jumbo." Dianelos' arguments may ultimately be incorrect (not sure if being incorrect constitutes a "misuse" of philosophy, but whatever), but I think he/she has hit on some important issues that are given serious attention by philosophers of all stripes. It does not reflect well on atheists to simply dismiss claims as "obscurantism" without anything more. It leaves the impression that you either have no good response or do not understand what is going on to begin with (I must admit that I am guilty of both quite often).

66. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47797 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 2:39 pm

So, we have a contradiction, if you always have to do good, you are not omnipotent, and if you are omnipotent, you don't always have to do good.

This is a variant of the "can God make a stone so heavy he/she/it cannot lift it?" Theists usually respond by saying something like, "God can only do logically possible things." I have never understood why God, as a supernatural deity, is unconstrained by the laws of the physical universe (i.e. miracles) yet is pinned down by logical rules. Why is it that logical rules are somehow transcendent whereas laws such as gravity are confined to the tawdry physical world that humans occupy?

67. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47759 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 12:57 pm

steve99,

I second your encouragement of our friend Dianelos. I have been lurking in the background and have enjoyed the discussion very much. I do not consider it "philosophical obscurantism," and the contempt for philosophy I have seen in a handful of posts (on this thread and others) baffles me.

68. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47755 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Dianelos,

"Finally the fact that any ethical precept, or our sense of right and wrong in general, can be explained from a biological and evolutionary basis is irrelevant too. After all, all ethical precepts, even ones that directly contradict each other, have evolved by some natural means, but this says absolutely nothing about which of them is true."

I agree that science may not be able to judge between various ethical precepts, but I think science does have a role to play in debunking the theist argument from objective morality that you asserted in an earlier post.

Most theists I have heard argue from objective morality say something like the following: "all humans intuitively understand that certain things are morally wrong." They move from this intuitive observation to the conclusion that objective morality is axiomatically true (a blatantly unjustified leap in my estimation) and the argument proceeds from there. What science can do is help us understand exactly why all humans share this intuition and why particular ethical rules appear to be universal (evolutionary psychology has made some strides in recent decades). In other words, science has the potential to show us that our ethical intuitions are not evidence for the existence of objective moral truth.

Now, if your axiom is not in fact derived from the intuitive observation described above, I would love to hear what justifies it. Why MUST there be objective morality if, for example, our intuitions are simply a product of evolution?

69. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47556 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 12:28 am

"The argument seems more anti-collateral damage than it is pro-torture."


That is exactly the impression I was left with after reading The End of Faith. Sam gets a bad rap.

70. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47547 by krogercomplete on June 4, 2007 at 11:43 pm

kcjerith,

I am pretty much in the same boat. My "1984" alarm started to go off the first time I read this article.

71. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47543 by krogercomplete on June 4, 2007 at 11:32 pm

I like the thrust of the convention, but I'm not sure how it would actually go about dealing with religion as child abuse. As much as it pains me to say, a few of the things in Bizzaro's post resonated with me. Unfortunately Bizzaro, you lost me with that last paragraph:

"I will be so bold as to suggest that this may be the manifestation of just a bit of jealousy. I know America is very, very far from perfect, but here people are free. I can shoot my civilianized AK (or, if you're Canadian/British, my 9mm handgun) in my backyard without having to worry about being arrested for owning a gun."

As an American, I try to distance myself from sentiments like that as much as is possible.

72. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47465 by krogercomplete on June 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm

D.G. said: "Well, we are less than perfectly good so we need a place to get our morality from, but God is perfectly good so does not need to do that."


What are the practical implications of this? Is every single thing that God does perfectly good? Is god definitionally precluded from doing something that is not perfectly good? If so, how does this square with the concept of omnipotence?


"But this is a fallacious kind of argument, because reason rejects actual infinities. So it's meaningless to keep asking why? why? why? or how? how? how? in any field of knowledge. There is always an end point."


If reason rejects infinites, then how is it that reason leads one to postulate an infinite God as the explanation for the universe? Is the argument just that there can be no infinites in the natural world, and that those rules do not apply to the supernatural world? Is God just a synonym for "end point," and if so, how do we derive all the added attributes that God is meant to possess?

73. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46733 by krogercomplete on June 1, 2007 at 10:09 am

"This is an ad-hominem attack, and does not in any way counter what McGrath says."


Speaking of ad-hominems, is anyone sick of the "you make some very interesting points there," and "the point I would want to make is . . ."?

If you want to make the point, just go ahead and make it! Wait, he did make the points. ??? McGrath just blew my mind.

74. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46595 by krogercomplete on May 31, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Darwin2 said: "I do believe in Intelligent Design and I do believe in One Supreme Being who designed and created our universe and all other universes that may exist. However I believe that Darwin was correct about evolution and natural selection and I believe God used these tools to create all life forms on our planet and in our universe."


When you say "Intelligent Design," do you mean evolution by natural selection that was merely put in place 14 billion years ago by God. I only ask because Intelligent Design (as its own proponents will tell you) is not meant to be compatible with evolution. . .unless you are making the micro-macro evolution distinction that Brownback appeared to be making in the article. If that is the case, then you certainly do not agree with Darwin.

75. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46523 by krogercomplete on May 31, 2007 at 2:34 pm

One of the best examples I've seen of assuming God to be true and then reasoning forward from that. The quintessence of open-mindedness: I am happy to consider all the evidence. . .to the extent that it does not conflict with my assumption about God. Some good quotes below.


"The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God."

". . .using the gift of reason that God has given us."

"Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology."

". . .many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality."

". . .the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science."

"The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose."

"Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. . .aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected . . ."



I'm all for science; it can tell us some wonderful things about the world. But everyone knows that God created the universe, so any aspect of science that conflicts with that obvious truth can easily be dismissed. So much for moving from evidence to conclusion.

76. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46319 by krogercomplete on May 30, 2007 at 11:04 pm

Favorite part II: I love the CS Lewis quote about believing in God as you believe the sun rises because through it you see everything else. No shit. By believing in God, a difficult to comprehend universe is explained. If answers to tough questions are what you are looking for, I can make up just about anything you want. Excellent reason to believe in God.

77. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46317 by krogercomplete on May 30, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Favorite part: in response to Dawkin's argument that the designer must be at least as improbable as the thing designed, McGrath actually said that, improbable or not, the question is whether or not God actually exists (improbable isn't impossible after all)!! My eyes started to move in opposite directions as I groped for the significance of this statement. So much for improbability arguments I guess. Evolution and the wholly natural "fine tuning" of the universe will just have to be attacked on other grounds from now on. Actually, lets just change all the rules for God.

78. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #46284 by krogercomplete on May 30, 2007 at 7:02 pm

My girlfriend's aunt/uncle/cousins are JWs. Nice people, but the kids are incredibly sheltered to the point where it is almost painful to be in their company for extended periods of time. JW highlight: they are not allowed to celebrate holidays, so the other family members get the kids presents slightly before or after each holiday and just call them love presents, or everyday presents, or something else to that effect. As if God doesn't see whats up.

79. 'Einstein - His Life and Universe'

Comment #44100 by krogercomplete on May 23, 2007 at 10:14 am

"Eintstein's feelings about religion are no more valid than mine or yours, Patchell."



I think the objection was that the author misrepresented Einstein's views by failing to describe exactly what he meant by "religion" (the classic mistake Dawkins points out in TGD).

80. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42547 by krogercomplete on May 18, 2007 at 11:24 am

"They do not want free inquiry--they want easy inquiry, an inquiry that never leaves one in aporia, but always promises explanation and resolution. The typical freethinker believes that he is at home with uncertainty, and that it is the religious man who is in dire need of certainty, but the opposite is quite obviously true: the freethinker cannot really stand to have loose ends, puzzles or paradoxes. If this, then that is impossible, the freethinker says. The religious man not only assumes that paradox will occur, but he takes the paucity of reason to explain paradox as an indirect confirmation that there are realities that not even reason, as estimable and valuable as it is, can penetrate or comprehend."



This reminds me of someone strapping one arm behind his back before a basketball game and then accusing all the other players with two arms available of taking the easy way out and failing to comprehend the true difficulty of basketball.

81. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #41355 by krogercomplete on May 16, 2007 at 1:44 am

Good lord. People need to stop using the Iraq war as a litmus test for reasonableness. Just read the book and comment on the arguments Hitchens makes regarding God and religion.

82. Christopher Hitchens is Not Great

Comment #41103 by krogercomplete on May 15, 2007 at 1:49 pm

"Most (with the exception of fundamentalists) would now concede that religions are true not in the same way that science or mathematics are true, but more in line with the way a Picasso portrait conveys a subjective truth that belies the merely representational."


I hear this a lot from religious liberals, and the substance of it seems almost identical to what Atheists like Hitchens are arguing: God is a creature of the subjective. Man created God, and if God does exist anywhere, it is in our heads (the same place our impressions of Picasso's portraits reside). Sometimes I get the feeling that religious liberals are no different than atheists, they are just fond of religious language. Then again, I have not read any of the contemporary philosophers of religion cited by the reviewer.

83. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36908 by krogercomplete on May 2, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Doug Wilson said:

"But Hitchens doffs his hat to the medieval ignorati anyway . . . In distinction to the audience that Hitchens is privileged to have, all proud graduates of our government school system. You know, illiteracy and functional illiteracy have not gone away -- what has gone away is the money we spend fighting illiteracy. After the publication of my Sam Harris book, I had occasion to drop in at Richard Dawkins blog site and say a few things. This involved reading some of the other posts, and it occurred to me that just because the famous atheist is an Oxford don doesn't keep his rank and file poster from being the kind of audience that Aquinas would not exactly envy.'"



The suggestion here appears to be that the posters on this site are at least functionally illiterate as a result of the lack of money spent by the [American] government to combat illiteracy. Not only are the posters similar to the medieval audience that Aquinas had, but apparently the government(s) spent more money combating illiteracy during the dark ages. Hmmmmmm. There are sharper ways to make the point that we are dumbasses.

84. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36875 by krogercomplete on May 2, 2007 at 3:25 pm

"I am in agreement with Hitchen's on pretty much every point but I am also a bit wary of such a over-bearing voice for the cause"


I understand the concern, but for the most part, Hitchens lays his arguments down firmly and doesn't let his opponents get away with dancing around the questions posed to them. I have no problem with this type of "over-bearing." If he was constantly cutting people off and calling them names (which does happen from time to time), then I would agree 100% that it was a problem. That is not what I see from Hitchens, though. Considering all the tough talk from atheists in books, articles, and on message boards about how faith needs to get knocked off its pedestal of respect, I am glad to see one actually willing to bring it in a live, public forum.

85. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36524 by krogercomplete on May 1, 2007 at 12:14 pm

"And once you have made that key move, once you have admitted the importance of metaphysical language, the language of spirit, of purpose, of goodness, and love, you have admitted the possibility that religious language and even religious thinking might have something to offer. What it talks about may not be all delusion. The real reason for opposing Dawkins' account of everything is not because the supernatural God he doesn't believe in exists - I think we could agree that he doesn't - but because the world-as-it-is points to metaphysical realities of which he says nothing."


I don't think there is any real disagreement here. They both agree that the God described by Dawkins does not exist. Dawkins certainly believes in things like love, goodness, and [personal] purpose. The entire last article/sermon seemed to never take a solid position on anything, and at points appeared to be an endorsement of pantheism. I need more explanation.

86. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36505 by krogercomplete on May 1, 2007 at 11:05 am

For a more sober (and extremely impressive) performance, check out the Religion and Culture Panel from the LA Times Literary Festival that was posted yesterday.

87. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36321 by krogercomplete on April 30, 2007 at 11:16 pm

I loved all the talk about "mid-level" belief (as the moderator put it) as if this was a point in favor of keeping religion around. Apparently, everyone agrees that "full" belief is problematic and that as you move toward mid-level belief, things get better. The argument assumes that there is something wrong with religious belief and that we benefit to the degree we move away from it. Why not go all the way?

88. Army to EO Reps: 'Discrimination Against Atheists OK'

Comment #36290 by krogercomplete on April 30, 2007 at 8:33 pm

At least they are not claiming atheism is a religion like so many other theists do. Silver lining.

89. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35928 by krogercomplete on April 29, 2007 at 11:06 am

"All appeals to societal norms as a basis for morality are logically fallacious."

We have to make sure we separate "morality" from "knowledge" generally when we talk about argumentum ad populum. There is a difference between questions like "how many gallons of water are in the Pacific Ocean" and "is it immoral to drown someone in the Pacific Ocean." As has been discussed in some detail thus far, if there is no objective morality, than societal norms ARE morality. Asking whether or not something is morally correct in any objective sense would just be nonsensical.

"It is invalid and improper to infer that God does not exist because some theists have done awful things."

Agreed. As I understand the argument, it never had anything to do with whether or not God exists. It is used to show the danger or religion.

"The "6,000 year old" Problem of Evil (#298) is actually not a problem at all since it is an irrational question and, as such, it cannot lend any weight to arguments against God's existence."

I disagree with those who argue that the "problem of evil" actually disproves God's existence; you can never disprove God's existence. But, the problem of evil is exactly what it purports to be, a problem. It is a problem for theists, and it certainly does lend weight to arguments against the existence of God as conceptualized by Christians (to take one example).

90. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35450 by krogercomplete on April 27, 2007 at 7:43 am

John,

I think we are basically on the same page. You do not need to offer any objective justification for the golden rule unless of course you are claiming that it is objectively correct. I agree that it may be an objective fact that the golden rule is widespread among humans and the animal kingdom because it has certain evolutionary advantages, but that does not necessarily make it morally correct (rather, it is just something most people follow). This gets back to the whole "an 'is' is not an 'ought'" thing, but I think this thread has addressed the issue in some detail already.

91. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35240 by krogercomplete on April 26, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Indeed [creepy laugh].

92. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35236 by krogercomplete on April 26, 2007 at 4:42 pm

SRWB said:

"Then that is what we must continue to do."

?

I think maybe one of us missed something here.

93. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35201 by krogercomplete on April 26, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Scottishgeologist said:

"Can just imagine these guys, out in the desert, chilling out after a good bit of smiting, raping and genocide, munching away on the 'shrooms then laying down some heavy stuff, man, with the quill and parchment... They are all depicted in art as looking like 60's hippies anyway."


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!


SRWB said:

"Ok, so you say we are already condemned, but God doesn't want to judge us, he just wants to forgive us. But if we are already condemned, then we have already been judged."


Yes. And if you take two seconds to bask in the glorious reason for the original condemnation of the ENTIRE human race, it all starts to become clear. It is one thing to believe that the Bible is the word of God and then grudgingly accept the specific stories and tenets ("well, I don't really understand it but I guess that is what happened"), but it is quite another to argue that they make any sense.

94. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #34964 by krogercomplete on April 25, 2007 at 6:19 pm

M31 said:

"First of all note that presumably a child is being rated as well behaved if s/he listens to the adults and obeys their instructions."


Maybe a better title to the article would be "Study: Religion is Good for Childrens' Parents and Teachers."

95. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34949 by krogercomplete on April 25, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Fishpeddler,

It was 8. Holy shit.

96. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34930 by krogercomplete on April 25, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I am thinking of a number between 1 and 9894209375928492384928304823840293840298340293840293. If my dog gets it right, I may become a believer.

97. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34895 by krogercomplete on April 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm

wBurl said:

"So you accept that the 'sure-feels-objective-but-can't-be' quality iherent in a subjectivist morality is a problem? And yes, I am a bit hung up on why it is that at some point in the day we all live as if there was a higher authority if there really isn't one"

I think it can cause confusion and it gets our heads in a knot. To be clear, I am not sure how to describe the phenomenon of morality (where it comes from, what shape and size it has, etc.). I do not agree with the theist assumption that morality must be objective and that God is the only way to achieve such objectivity. Maybe morality is in fact objective, but I don't think our predisposition to describe it that way has much (or any) bearing on whether or not it is true. If you take God off the table for the sake of argument and try to reason from morality up to God (as theists such as William Lane Craig do with their objective-morality proof for the existence of God), I do not see any reason to assume that morals are objective. Beyond that, I do not know what to say. It does seem obvious to me, however, that whatever the results of this metaethical discussion, humans have in fact been crafting their own morality for centuries.

Rob Slane said:

"There I was, labouring under the impression that you were some of the most free-thinking, open-minded intellectuals in the world, but it seems I was wrong. I presume from this that any opinions which challenge your assumptions are viewed as unwelcome intrusions."

Don't be an idiot. If you re-read the quote of yours that preceded my comment that "these types of posts tend to fall on def ears," you would realize that I was referring to something other than "any opinions which challenge your assumptions." To repeat, you said:

"I will pray that your eyes will be opened from the darkness and superstition in which you reside; that you will be released from the self-imposed slavery to sin in which you dwell, and that your soul (yes you do have one) will be spared the vengeance of God and will find salvation."

THESE types of comments fall on def ears. No one gives a shit that you will pray to a God they don't feel exists. Everyone is happy to address your substantive arguments.

Regarding Adam and Eve, you said:

"Having full knowledge that they had been created by a God who had given them everything and set them in a perfect environment, and then hearing Him proclaim that they would die if they did the one thing He asked them not to do (and by implication enter into a covenant of eternal life if they obeyed Him - hardly an arbitrary decision made by people who had no reason to think disobedience was wrong!"

They had no reason to think it was wrong (they had no reason to think anything was wrong), because they had no knowledge of good and evil. The idea of sin or immorality would have made about as much sense to them as Chinese does to me (I don't speak Chinese). You mean I am not supposed to disobey God? What? I can't listen to the snake? This is a problem unless you want to argue that God's choice was in fact arbitrary (or unless you think Genesis is just a fairy tale). Your comment suggests you believe it was deserved punishment, though.

98. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34639 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 6:40 pm

"Oh wait, I know-- not you personally, but a whole bunch of you wearing tight shorts and whistles got together and decided it can stay. So your empathetic in-group thus gets its roster dialed in just right, but what to do about the team across town that's full of punks and thugs and plays real dirty with the full approval of their sick and twisted leader."



We really are beating a dead horse here. Everyone understands the problem you are presenting, but the fact that the above situation is not as nice and clean as it would be if there was a higher authority to appeal to says nothing about whether or not such authority exists. There is no reason to think that objective morality is a necessity, regardless of the terms humans use to express it (I get the feeling you are hung up on the fact that humans tend to express their values as if there were objective). Demonstrate the existence of God and the book that is his infallible word, and then I'll jump on board the objective morality train. Until then, remove the dubious premise that morality MUST be objective from your moral proof of God's existence.

99. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34585 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Burl,

"But kroger-- and let's just get crazy here-- if Shakespeare really was the one and only source of our grammar rules, who would you be to condemn him?"


We have two separate lines of argument here. The first focuses on the word "source," and the second has to with objective validity. The earlier posts about chimps are a species of the first--the point being that the bible is clearly not the only SOURCE of moral rules. This is just as evident among humans and among most moderate Christians who take some of what they want from the bible and take the rest from some other place altogether.

As for the second, if the bible is actually the one correct and objective morality, then I would be mistaken to criticize it. In an objective sense, I would just be wrong. This line of argument is joined necessarily to the broader issue of whether God exists and whether the bible is in fact his word (something that has not been argued directly in this thread).

100. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34574 by krogercomplete on April 24, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Burl said:

"And even if we were to grant your "evolving morality" paradigm for the sake of argument, how would decrying slavery in the Bible be any different than condemning Shakespeare for his "bad English"? Are you not in both cases importing modern sensibilities back onto the subjects at hand? And if so, how does that help the discussion?"

Well, clearly we have gone off on some tangents in this thread. No one is claiming otherwise.

I would be happy to condemn Shakespeare's bad English if anyone were holding him up as the one and only source of our grammar rules.