Comments by PaulEmecz
101. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64530 by PaulEmecz on August 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Veronique
Please don't denigrate the chimpanzees to moral obscurity and improper behaviour – please read Jane Goodall.
I think I did the opposite - I was acknowledging that chimpanzees can behave reciprocally. I even suggested that they had the rational capacities of an intelligent five year old boy. Both Jane and I (I have read articles, but nothing more) have probably over-estimated the degree to which terms like 'morality' can be applied to chimp behaviour.
Note that I mention 'morality rather than morality. I don't believe that I could say that a chimp SHOULD do this or ought not to do that. Reciprocity can be explained without being able to rationalise - some interesting experiments with the Prisoners' Dilemma have shown this. Reciprocity only requires the ability to recognise an individual, and to remember past behaviour.
102. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64414 by PaulEmecz on August 20, 2007 at 3:03 am
Baeoz
If you're talking about James Rachels' book, which is beautifully written and probably my favourite moral philosophy text, I don't get your point. The book is a summary of a number of different positions. Maybe I'll read back over it in light of this specific question, but I really don't get your point - please elucidate.
103. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64392 by PaulEmecz on August 20, 2007 at 12:41 am
Lauregon
Some people are convinced there must be a cosmic pay-off for moral behavior. Others think treating others fairly, justly, and compassionately simply makes good sense.
This gets to the heart of the issue. Humans are intelligent, sensitive animals whose rational abilities make them able to imagine being in another person's shoes. We can explain how 'moral' behaviour arises, and we can see why it has a beneficial effect on the individual and society. However, the same can be said of most human behaviour. After all, any common behaviour is likely to have some benefit in terms of survival of genes. So, losing our temper (which most people do at some point) most likely has a useful function.
If you look at sexual behaviour, most (or just many?) men cheat on their partners (it's hard to be sure, but statistics suggest men cheat twice as often as women). How do we explain this behaviour? Clearly, for a man, a degree of sleeping around has a benefit in terms of survival of genes. Sleep around too much, and you aren't around to protect the child. Stay with one partner all your life, and you just haven't spread your seed so widely. For women, sleeping around a lot has less benefit, as a woman can only have one baby at a time. She also, genetically, wants the father to stay around and feed her while the baby is small.
One problem is that our genetic inheritance can't keep up with society's developments. Evolution is way too slow. Still, sleeping around may still be a good way of ensuring genetic survival. In some situations, rape is used by some racial groups to ensure survival of their race.
The point is we have all of these complex behaviours, and we have a limited degree of control over them. We have to make pragmatic decisions in all aspects of life. However, is there something over and above the pragmatic, some aspect of decision making which we could call 'moral' or 'ethical', which relates to what we SHOULD do?
My argument has consistently been this - I understand the atheist who says 'No'. They believe we can explain behaviour, but cannot prescribe behaviour. We can say things like "If you want to be happy, don't sleep around" but we can't say "It is wrong to sleep around". We can say "This society views a man who sleeps around as a stud, and a woman who does so as a slut" (and we can explain, as above, why this may be so) but we can't say "A man should sleep around" or "A woman should not sleep around". We can say "Altruism is genetically beneficial, as society rewards and protects the selfless", but we can't say "Altruism is a good thing".
I can also understand how belief in a creator can lead us to say "Yes, there is a 'should'. There are principles we OUGHT to follow, objectively. There is a right answer to the question 'Is it ethical to clone a human being'"
What I don't see is how you can be an atheist, believing science can explain how we have arrived at the way we currently are, and then say that there are things that we OUGHT to do.
Much of what has been said in recent posts is just a way of saying NO to the question of morality. When BAEOZ says:
We don't wont to suffer, and as empathy or compassion means the act of suffering with another, we naturally disdain acts that lead to suffering of another. Thus empathy and enlightened self interest are why we have morality.
This is not an argument that we SHOULD act morally. It is merely an explanation of why we DO act morally. But as I have said before, this sort of explanation reduces morality to something else. It doesn't allow us to say that Myra Hindley was wrong, or that Martin Luther King was good. At best, we can say "Society rejected the behaviour of Myra Hindley because..." We cannot say "Myra Hindley ought not to have behaved this way."
BAEOZ, please agree - we both accept that without God there cannot be any morality (and here I mean by morality the idea that one action is RIGHT and another WRONG, that behaviour can be good or bad, that we should do one thing and ought not to do another). I believe in God, you think I'm wrong - fine. But please, please don't say "I don't believe in God, but I do think that Myra Hindley should not have done what she did." After all it doesn't add anything to the argument to bring in fantasy. Ought, should and words like that are, surely, according to your position, fantastical.
(Clearly the words ought and should can be used in a hypothetical sense, so you can say "If Myra Hindley wanted to be happy, she should not have done what she did", but I'm talking about being able to say, categorically, that Myra Hindley should not have done what she did, which on your view it would be nonsense to claim.)
104. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64356 by PaulEmecz on August 19, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Lauregon
Think of the Golden Rule as a tool that makes life less stressful.
Have you read Brave New World? The society being described IS less stressful, it is less violent, it's 'safer'. That doesn't make it better.
newatheist asked:
why add God? It's so unnecessary. Unless you just have to live forever.
The problem with any answers of the type that Lauregon might give us, describing the better society we are all working towards, is that there will come a time when there is no intelligent life remaining in the universe. If that happens, it won't matter what we did. If you have a morality that's based on some form of the greater good, if the consequence is the same in the end, what difference does it make, and to whom, what we did?
Maybe we do have to live forever, or outside time, for morality to make sense.
105. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64354 by PaulEmecz on August 19, 2007 at 6:00 pm
I just don't get where these crazy Christians come from. I mean, he said "Turn the other cheek". We don't have that lunatic brand of Christianity in England. I just don't think these people have any excuses. I don't agree that the Bible is the Word of God, but even if they think it is, it shouldn't lead to racist, homophobic, death-penalty supporting madness.
Honestly, if they lost their faith tomorrow, do you think things would change?
106. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64335 by PaulEmecz on August 19, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Lauregon
Believing that the Bible is the word of "God" and that religious orthodoxies correctly describe the existence, wishes, and purposes of an unseen almighty, omniscient, omnipotent supernatural Supreme Being is a subjective perception.
I agree with you - I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. If you re-read my posts, I have said this, and given some explanation of how we can know what God's will or purpose for humanity is, objectively.
The comment on Brave New World was in response to your comment:
The Golden Rule might be RIGHT because it makes for more stable human societies
I was making the point that this classic distopian novel describes a stable but undesirable future society. I mention my friend because of how shocking his views were to me. I went on to explain why I think that morality that exists in order to create stable societies is not morality that we ought to follow.
What makes social stability so desirable? Why should we share your values here?
107. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64323 by PaulEmecz on August 19, 2007 at 3:01 pm
phil rimmer
What do you say to the atheists who think that people in poorer countries simply don't count, or don't count as much?
What do you say to a christian who thinks the same?
This is the point. You can say to a Christian "They are children of God, made in His image". Central to Christian ethics is the sanctity of life principle. It says that every life is of supreme value because we are all made by God and have a special status in the world. While I am sure you may find the language unnecessarily poetical, it would be very clear to Christians what it meant.
The point is that from a Christian standpoint, there is a reason for treating everyone as equals. I don't see what reason you can give from a non-theistic position.
I am equally upset by racist Christians, but I disagree slightly about the muddy waters of the word. I think it is easy to arrive at a decent understanding of ethics from Christian scriptures, and there is no excuse for racism or homophobia in the Christian faith. Sexism is more difficult, as many of the writers of the Bible were clearly sexist. There is a lot of muddiness here. I don't rely on scriptures for my ethics, as I don't see a need to, although I cannot deny finding Jesus' ethical teaching inspirational.
108. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64321 by PaulEmecz on August 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm
the great teapot
what's wrong with prostitution?
Corylus covered that, but by the use of the term 'hookers' I presume this related to America (it was slightly more insightful than Pretty Woman...) In the UK, people living on the streets receive various benefits, and will get a place to live, money for food etc. However, children living on the streets who ran away from abusive homes are too scared they'll be sent back to register as homeless. In order to live, they sell the only thing they have.
Prostitution in the UK is one of the worst forms of exploitation, and the sex slave trade in Europe is a growing problem.
It isn't only those who 'use' prostitutes who contribute to the problem. A lot of internet porn also uses these poor children (and the adults they grow into). While I'm sure the question was a flippant one, I don't think enough is done to make us all aware of some of the darker aspects of the sex industry.
109. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64305 by PaulEmecz on August 19, 2007 at 1:19 pm
irate_atheist
The base purpose of human life (there is none in your sense of it, by the way) is just to beget more human life. Read RD's 'The Selfish Gene'. You may find it interesting.
I know there is a degree of ambiguity in the way Professor Dawkins has presented this, but the theory of evolution does not say that the purpose of human life is to beget more human life. This is the point I was making about intention. All that we can say, having understood evolution, is that genes that help humans beget more human life are much more likely to survive than those that hamper it. It would be like saying that the moon's purpose is to orbit the Earth. That's just what it does.
People don't use - or need - the musings of a group of unscientific pseuds when making moral choices they face on a day to day basis
Honestly, this is wearing ignorance as a badge.
Anyway, what do you mean by 'moral truth'?
Moral truth - at the very least, whatever your ethical standpoint, it is possible to identify inconsistencies in the way ethical principles are applied. For example, the UK law on abortion is ethically inconsistent. You are allowed to abort up to term if the foetus has a severe disability. You cannot treat a newborn, even a very premature one, any differently on the basis of disability. The law is wrong, whatever the justification given. Further analysis will get closer to consistency, which is a necessary but not sufficient criterion of moral truth.
110. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64250 by PaulEmecz on August 19, 2007 at 1:06 am
What a nice set of posts. I almost feel like saying 'Let's just agree to disagree' and start discussing something more interesting.
The way I feel now is how I feel when talking to a lot of Christian friends. Generally, they believe something along the lines of 'The Bible is the Word of God'. This works for them - there are many beautiful passages, and they don't just pick up the Bible and read it, they tend to read books that focus on inspirational stories from the Bible etc. So they don't regularly read sexist extracts or contradictory passages. When they read that God killed someone for working on the Sabbath, they would tend to say things like (and this one REALLY gets to me) 'That's just the God of the Old Testament'.
So, what do you do? To them, the Bible is an important part of their faith, and their faith is something that makes them better people. Phil's post (1849) 'How is doing good on the behalf of the invisible and highly improbable better living?' misses the point. Most Christians I know try hard to be more honest, less selfish and basically live with greater integrity. And it's not about trying to avoid hell either - Christians believe it was Jesus' sacrifice that put everything right, not anything that we can do.
The point is I often feel there's no point in confronting falsehood when it doesn't do any harm. Of course I confront homophobia ('Do you really think that THAT is the image of God?' etc.), but actually you can do that within their framework - the Bible is not actually against homosexuality at all, despite the way Christians use it!
I'm starting to feel that way reading Corylus' quote. We can discuss the ethics of, say, legalising prostitution based on the simple assumption that we want to do less harm and more good. That works. We don't need to answer the meta-ethical questions for the ethical ones to fall into place. In fact, when I think about it, with my own children I do just encourage them to think about the consequences of their actions. That seems to be enough - you show them that what they've said has made someone sad, you don't have to explain why it's wrong to make someone sad.
So, I won't say anything when Christians describe the Bible as the word of God, and I'll stay quiet when atheists discuss ethics. Everyone's happy.
The thing is, the whole point of this post is to ask the questions. We're not really here to discuss ethics (I deleted a long comment about the merits of decriminalising prostitution). Metaethics, questions of WHY it is right to act ethically, seem much more appropriate.
So, how can the Bible be the word of God? That just doesn't work - read it!
And (more relevantly, given the audience), why SHOULD we behave morally? Why should I care what happens to prostitutes? Your argument seems to be, put simply, that I do care, and that, given that I care about the well being of others, I should do whatever leads to the greater good. What can you say in response to someone who just doesn't care? What about things like the way we treat people in developing countries? Many people believe in reciprocity, but only within their own social group. Saying "You wouldn't like it if you were a slave and were being exploited" means nothing because they wouldn't acknowledge that as a possibility. So, if people just don't care what happens to people in developing countries, how do we encourage them towards ethical consumerism?
Surely you will come unstuck, because you assume the equal value of all humans (I am guessing here, so I realise this may not be exactly right), but can give no reason why we should value people in very poor countries. I am not at all denying that you yourself, and the people on this thread, will be inclined to value Africans as much as Americans, but if you look at the way Americans (generally) treat people south of the border, you can't really claim that they value the poor as much as people 'like them'. Even more so when greater equality has a growing price tag.
What do you say to the atheists who think that people in poorer countries simply don't count, or don't count as much?
111. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64179 by PaulEmecz on August 18, 2007 at 11:12 am
roach
It's quite easy to demonstrate that rape is actually in line with God's will. IF the Bible is the perfect word of God that is.
Isn't that why a reasonable person would, after carefully studying the Bible, decide that it is not the perfect word of God? It was certainly something like that for me.
the great teapot
Where is it revealed that I should not rape a child because it is against "Gods" will?
I thought I'd covered that in the previous post. It isn't 'revealed', it is part of the way the universe is. Aristotle investigated the world around us in great detail, contributing to many fields of knowledge, and as I explained he came up with a fairly decent explanation of human nature and what the purpose of human life is. Aquinas' virtues were somewhat different from Aristotle's, and his understanding of the purpose of human life also added to what Aristotle had written. Just as there are scientists in universities and institutions around the world developing our understanding of the physical world, there are also moral philosophers working to give us a better understanding of moral truth.
newatheist
The reason I want Ben's thinking to develop is because that is simple reciprocity. I would be disappointed if my children became adults with the moral sophistication of chimpanzees.
"Should" means if we didn't we'd be a lot worse off
This seems to be a retrograde step - you've gone from altruism to egoism. Is this really the best we can manage?
Why is morality any more complicated than asking the question "What if everybody acted that way?"
Even Ben has realised that it suits him for everybody to act a certain way, but that this doesn't require him to act that way - in fact, if everyone else pays taxes, he could quite easily avoid paying taxes without the economy collapsing (okay, so the tax example isn't his). We have many people in this country (UK) who have also cottoned on to this basic reality... So, I can see why everyone else should pay taxes, but why should I?
112. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64129 by PaulEmecz on August 18, 2007 at 12:06 am
Dr B
I think I agree with you, Dr B. I don't like the way you use language - being 'in God's favour' implies a changing will. It would be like saying "If it is in God's favour, then entropy will increase in a closed system". However, subtlties aside, I think that's pretty much how it is.
Can we establish that rape is contrary to God's will? Yes, I think we can. Aristotle, Aquinas and many others have had a good stab at investigating human nature, what is 'good' for humans or what we are meant or intended to be like. I would say it is not hard to see that rape goes contrary to human nature. I think the list of virtues that Aristotle came up with is not bad, although as with any ethicist Aristotle found it hard to be truly objective. I do think courage, wisdom, justice and temperance are excellent examples of human virtue. Aquinas's Primary Precepts, protect and preserve the innocent, encourage learning, live in an ordered society etc. are a good way of summarising the purpose of human life.
People will disagree about God's purpose for humanity, but I think there is a fair amount that most people would be able to accept. It makes sense - if God made the world, if we have a specific purpose, then it makes sense to say we ought to fulfil our purpose, just like it makes sense to say that a knife that is blunt should be sharpened.
So, Dr B, what's the alternative? If we don't accept that there's an intention behind the universe's existence, why should we be moral?
113. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64097 by PaulEmecz on August 17, 2007 at 5:26 pm
BMMcArdle
My five year old son can reason to the point where he realises that if he doesn't like something being done to him, he should not do it to other people. Surely with the great minds at our disposal, and the wealth of evidence that we have, we can do better than that.
For example, should we actually do what our conscience says? What does 'should' mean? Is it possible to have objective morality? If morality is not objective, in what sense is it morality - why ought we to follow it?
I really have not heard a good answer to this question:
If there is no God-given purpose to human life, why should we act morally?
It really isn't enough to say that people do act morally, or to explain the reasons why they do. The question is, why should they?
114. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64072 by PaulEmecz on August 17, 2007 at 2:00 pm
we ought to act according to God's will.
Yes.
I believe that the universe was designed with a purpose - I know of no other explanation of the universe's existence that comes anywhere near close to explaining the evidence. Given that, and given my belief that the universe is a wonderful thing, I believe that, just as we follow the laws of nature, we should choose to keep the moral law of the Creator.
I think when we do not, when we lie, cheat, steal, betray our friends, act hatefully, behave dishonourably, treat people unjustly etc, we know that something is wrong. We can hide from this truth, but that doesn't stop it being true.
115. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #64069 by PaulEmecz on August 17, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Dr B
What's the diff between "wants or wishes" and "will, intention, or purpose"? These are all "ought" words, differing only in emphasis or priority.
Imagine if I said that one object attracts another because God wants it to, or that God doesn't want anything to travel faster than the speed of light. Those who believe in God don't think the laws of nature are there to satisfy God's desires. Morality is no different from science. It is a fact that raping infants is wrong, just as it is a fact that pure water boils at 100 degrees at standard pressure. This is the way the world is, because the world was created to be this way.
You may disagree. You may think it is not a fact that raping an infant is wrong, because the world was not created, it just appeared (or something).
What you can't say is that it is a fact that raping an infant is wrong, but that there is no intention or purpose behind the world.
However, all is not lost, because, as was pointed out above, it is a fact that people say that raping an infant is wrong, and that's good enough...
116. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63978 by PaulEmecz on August 17, 2007 at 6:01 am
Corylus
If you notice that non theistic morality seems to make people behave better (however it is that you define 'better'), does that not indicate that there is an inherent contradiction in your own position?
I don't think it does. There are two questions - does non-theistic morality seem to make people behave better? As a teacher, I see hundreds of people from theistic and non-theistic backgrounds. Rather uniquely, as an RS teacher, I often know whether people are theistic or not. I'm not at all convinced that people do behave better from a non-theistic background. I would tend to say that people who are commited, either to theism or atheism, are more likely to have thought about morality and live more consistently than others. I do see a fair degree of homophobia among some theists, but it's firmly there among those not commited to either position, and there is less racism among the theists as far as I can see. Theists tend to be commited to living better, less selfish lives, although the good there is often undone by some of the principles still hanging around. There are many enlightened theists, though, whom I know personally and have great respect for.
However, what if it were true? Would it call my beliefs into question? I don't think so. Non-theists would still live in a universe designed by God, so no surprise if they pick up on the moral principles inherent in the world. As a Christian, I note that most of Jesus' criticism was aimed at the religious. Maybe that is what happens - maybe theists get lazy because all the answers are handed to them on a plate, and they stop asking questions for themselves - why does that show that God didn't design the universe?
No, I don't see the problem here.
117. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63902 by PaulEmecz on August 16, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Donald
And, yes, of course I do say Myra Hindley SHOULD not have done those crimes.
As regards where SHOULD comes from, I refer you to a much earlier post of mine on another thread - but briefly, SHOULD and OUGHT are the language of instruction and advice. Humans advise and instruct each other for the joint benefit of individuals and society - it's part of human culture. Wise or well-brought-up humans follow the advice. No god needed.
There is a difference between describing how people behave and saying how they should behave. Your answer is that an accurate description of the world is that in it many people behave prescriptively.
If you ask two people a question, and one says "The answer is x" and the other says "I think the answer is x", does that mean the same? Well, they both think the answer is x...
Was Myra Hindley wrong? No, but people say she was wrong. And I am a person. And I say she was wrong. So she was wrong. But that's just me saying she was wrong, that's not her being wrong.
- 'Myra Hindley was wrong' means 'People say Myra Hindley was wrong'.
- Why do people say she was wrong?
- 'Because she was wrong'.
- No.
- 'Because what she did was against the joint benefit of individuals and society'.
- Good. So, the joint benefit of individuals and society is good.
- 'No, society just says that the joint benefit of individuals and society is good.'
- Which means that it is good.
- 'If you say so.'
Does this really work for you?
118. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63899 by PaulEmecz on August 16, 2007 at 3:42 pm
_J_
If you really understand and believe what you are saying when you maintain that anything that truly exists at all has an objective reality, then your only way of proceeding logically is to let our system of determining objective truth as best we can – science – investigate and turn up whatever it turns up.
It's interesting that Professor Dawkins chose to call his most recent series 'The Enemies of Reason'. Not 'The Enemies of Science'. By 'Reason' he means 'The rigours of logic, observation and evidence.'
If I walked onto a University campus, and wanted to find those people who could tell me best how to reason, with whom should I converse? Who do you really think would have the best understanding of reason? Which discipline has Logic most prominently on its curriculum?
I am no enemy of science - I think science can tell us a great deal about the world around us. I think philosophy can tell us a great deal about science, and if we really want to know the nature of objective reality, I know where I'd go first.
Science has its place, but answering questions about morality is not in its scope. I mean, really, would you expect a scientist to tell you whether it is immoral to clone a human being? Science will answer the questions that need to be answered before we can make a moral decision - what are the benefits and risks of cloning?; what is involved in the process of cloning? etc. Would you really say to a scientist "And have you got any evidence about whether it's morally right or not?"
119. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63896 by PaulEmecz on August 16, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Dr B
It is important to be careful about what we say on this thread - I am about to continue an ongoing discussion simply about the word 'decent' in a minute.
Your original point in 1822 talked about God's wishes and what God wants. This is the bit that I wasn't happy with - it's not the same as God's will.
When I married my wife, I made various promises to her. To each question, I answered 'I will'. That means that I intend not to sleep with anyone else, I intend to look after her when she is sick etc. Now, looking after a sick person can be a real trial, and I may well want to give up. I might wish I could leave her. However, I intend to stay with her if that happens. Not long ago on this site I suggested that if I did not believe in God, my commitment to my wife would be less strong. That was wildly misunderstood. If it was in my own best interests to leave my sick wife, or to seek comfort in the arms of another as she lies in a coma on a hospital bed, why should I not do so? The should comes from the morality that I have been talking about.
This is not about the whims of an all-powerful being. It has nothing to do with God's wants or wishes. It is to do with God's will. What is God's intention or purpose for this universe?
If you talk about wishes and wants, these can clearly change. It would not make sense (as Plato demonstrated) to believe that what is good could change according to the wishes of an all-powerful being. However, we are talking about the reason why God created the universe, the will or purpose or intention. The purpose of intelligent life in this universe is unchanging.
You said
But don't you see that you still need a bridge from the "is" concerning God's will to the "ought" of the rules we accept for ourselves?
No, I don't see that. If God made us for a specific purpose, that gives us an ought. Why should a knife be sharp? Because a knife's purpose is to cut. Why is a murderer a bad person? Because one of the purposes of human life is to protect and preserve the innocent. That is an unchanging, God-given purpose.
_J_
I suspect that bouwe, by 'decent', meant 'functional' (in the sense of 'that's a pretty decent bridge').
What would we say a decent bridge was? Would a decent bridge allow a train to plunge off it into a river? That would be madness. Madness.
The real question is what was the bridge for? I have a colleague who insists that morality is constructed by the minority in power in order to control the vast majority. As the minority are vastly more priviliged, it is in their interest to maintain the status quo (Lauregon's stable society). If people were allowed to steal, they would lose out (being so wealthy), so it is immoral to steal, etc. If this is the case, if morality is constructed by the very few in power, and its purpose is to keep them in power, would that be a decent, functional morality?
I know how bouwe was using the word. I was merely making a point - morality can fulfil a purpose, but if it is a subjective purpose, then why is morality itself good? Put another way, to reject my view of morality (as dealing with what is objectively right and wrong, what we ought to do) stops morality from being something which we should adhere to.
120. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63882 by PaulEmecz on August 16, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Corylus
Say that you are right and that (for a consistent atheist) morality, be it subjective or objective, does not exist.*
My question? So what? What are you going to do about it?
I am a great lover of the truth. I simply cannot live with an unacknowledged contradiction. I don't know that it's a good thing, but it's how I am.
It makes sense to believe there is no God and no morality. I wouldn't argue with someone who said that (well, I would agree about morality but not about God). It makes sense to say God created the world and intended intelligent life to exist, and this is compatible with morality. It simply doesn't make any sense at all to say that the universe merely sprang into existence, but there is somehow something that we OUGHT to do as intelligent people. It just isn't right to say that.
Does it help to point that out? I don't know. Does it lead to people behaving better? I don't know. That's not why I say what I say. I say it because I am convinced of it.
So, I'm not sure which people you mean who don't believe in God. Do you mean the ones who share the same moral code - something like the Golden Rule - but are confused about why they OUGHT to follow it? They'd be easy to get along with. Do you mean the ones that realise that morality, a genuine OUGHT, doesn't go with Atheism? I think that's a sensible position, so I'd find it hard to convince them of anything else. There would still be the legal system that would, to an extent, protect us should such people suddenly desire to do terrible things (and therefore do them, lacking any reason not to). They would know they could lose freedom acting immorally. While they could do much that is wrong and get away with it, there would be limits.
I wouldn't ever want to bully someone into believing what I believe, or trick them. I am not a fan of Walden Two - I think that's an atheistic response to the lack of any objective morality. I still think you can point out moral truth and people can see it, even if they haven't got consistent reasons for believing that we should act morally.
121. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63874 by PaulEmecz on August 16, 2007 at 1:26 pm
_J_
the objective truth of morality is that it's built up from a huge and complex interaction between brain cells, chemicals, entire human brains, societies and cultures and traditions, experiences, and so on, and so on. Looking for a complete, objective statement of morality is looking for something truly, unimaginably vast. This doesn't mean that such a thing doesn't exist. But it's something we can be fairly confident that we're never going to nail down in absolute detail.
I think what you're doing in approaching morality scientifically is a kind of anthropological explanation of morality. In terms of what I am calling morality (the idea that we actually should do one thing and ought not to do another thing), what you're doing is explaining why people believe in morality. You aren't actually talking about morality at all.
Let me be clear - that's just what YOU are doing. It would be quite possible to use a scientific approach to work out moral rules, but that wouldn't work without a creator. Having a creator means that we have a purpose. Aristotle says that a knife is a good knife if it cuts well, because the purpose of a knife is to cut. I have a collection of stones (well, three - not sure if it counts as a collection). Are they good stones? Well, wouldn't that depend what they're for?
So, why is there intelligent life in this universe? If you simply believe that the universe popped into existence with no prior cause and just happened to be suitable for the evolution of intelligent life (why you'd believe that is still a mystery to me), then there is no purpose to human life. It would not be possible to have one good human and another bad human (I hope that answers Dr B.s point).
So, if we assume that there was a creator of the universe, who intentionally set it up so that intelligent life would evolve, then we can use observation and reason to work out what moral laws would hold.
It's not that science can't investigate morality without a creator, it's just that without a creator, there would be no OUGHT. A smooth, flat stone might be best if it was for skimming, a large, round one if it was for weighing down papers. What are we for? Lauregon earlier suggested that the purpose of life was to live in 'stable societies'. I have to say I didn't think much of that, and I think you need to look at what an individual is for before you can answer questions about what society should be like.
Donald, you can't in all fairness accuse me of having 'made your own definition of "morality"' - I literally copied out a definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
You say 'OF COURSE I would describe Myra Hindley as immoral' - do you mean that she should not have done what she did? I would say it is obvious that you mean this, but I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting you. If she should not have done what she did (which I believe is obvious) then we must ask where we get SHOULD from.
Corylus, I will answer your question in a bit - the family is calling...
122. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63780 by PaulEmecz on August 15, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Just reading that last comment back, I am in the UK, where Myra Hindley lived, and that's why at the end I use the term 'our country'. As I say, you can use any exmaple from your own country, and I clearly believe that morality holds across different countries. I don't know if I'm being overly defensive, but I just think we all know what we mean here when we say something is wrong - I'm just asking "Is it wrong?" I think that most people answer 'Yes'. Good, because I am convinced that they are right and that this isn't as contentious as some people make out.
The question then comes "What makes it wrong?", which is where I believe God comes into the debate. I acknowledge that Duncan, and others, can easily claim that there is no morality, that Hindley was not actually wrong - if that's his view, he should say so. What he can't do is claim that objective morality doesn't exist and yet that somehow she was objectively wrong because although objective morality doesn't exist, morality does exist, objectively. It is too easy to try to confuse what is a simple question. Was Hindley in fact wrong, and ought she not to have done what she did?
123. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63779 by PaulEmecz on August 15, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Donald,
I think there is a bigger issue concerning rainbows, which is hinted at when you talk of different cultures. In some, their language is only able to talk about colours as either light or dark. Since all scientific theories, any statement about the world around us in fact, needs to be expressed in one language or other and interpreted by individuals from a subjective perspective, there will always be an element of subjectivity to any statement. The rainbow example was merely trying to make the point that, regardless of whatever people believe, there is some objective reality. I also mentioned the age of the universe - we may have different opinions about what that might be, but there is an objective truth.
You could turn round and claim that people experience time in different ways. You could even question whether it is meaningful to talk of time as 'existing' in the earliest moments of the universe. You may also claim that it would be impossible to measure the age of the universe without some agreed physical location from which to measure it. Maybe you might say there is no right answer as to the age of the universe.
I wonder if you're trying to bring the argument back to the old ground of ontology - does 'colour' actually exist? Do space and time, come to that? I think there is a right answer to questions about the physical world - what I'm really claiming is that it is possible for people to actually check how many bands of colour they can see in a rainbow or in a spectrum, even though most people don't actually check and just take someone else's (a teacher's, usually) word for it. There are dangers, particularly highlighted in this thread, in making every question an ontological one. I have appreciated the idealistic theism vs naturalism debate, but it also goes round in circles and doesn't always clarify things.
Anyway, so you think there is no right answer to the colours of the rainbow question. You say about my statement about objective morality that
It seems your "evidence" is subjective.Isn't all evidence 'subjective' in some sense? All experience of the world is subjective, but don't let's say that we cannot make any statements about an objective reality. What sort of humpty-dumpty science would that leave us with?
Then,
Morality either is or is not objective. If it is not, then it doesn't exist.
More subjective opinion.
No. Just to label this 'subjective' because it relies on the use of words, and meaning is 'subjective', is to muddy the waters. The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that moral means:
concerned with goodness or badness of human character or behaviour, or with the distinction between right and wrong
What I am saying is that if there is no right and wrong, then there is no morality. If there is no objective standard of goodness or badness, then there is no morality. I am quite happy to use different words. Some people may choose to say "When I talk of morality, I am not talking about what is right or wrong, I am merely talking about rules of conduct that exist in a society". Let's use different terms, then, because if we're talking like that, there will be no right or wrong answer as to what we mean by society or what these rules might be. We'll be muddying the water again and there will be nothing meaningful we can say about morality.
I take morality to refer to what one OUGHT to do. When I say it is objective, I mean that when soldiers rape women as part of warfare, this is actually wrong, not merely contrary to my view on what is right or wrong, or contrary to general agreement in my part of the world about what we should or shouldn't do.
Your next bit astounds me.
Decent implies some standard that is objective, something next to which we can measure a thing. Humanistic morality cannot be decent unless morality is objective. Humanistic morality can be pragmatic, but I'm not sure that even makes it morality, let alone 'decent'.
Now you switch into insulting humanists. Why?
Firstly, this wasn't a comment about humanists, let alone an insult! It was a response to bouwe:
I hasten to add however that just because morality doesn't seem (to me) to be objective does not mean that "anything goes" -- so long as we agree on the golden rule we can work out a decent humanistic morality.What I was saying was that the word 'decent' implies a standard of rightness and wrongness. I am not claiming even that humanistic morality is subjective! There may well be humanists who hold that morality is objective – good, because I don't see how it would be morality if it wasn't (but let's not get back to humpty dumpty again). I merely said that IF humanistic morality is not objective, it could not be decent, If morality is not objective, nothing is decent. Things may be seen by some people as decent, but there would be nothing that actually was decent.
Honestly Donald, I think you find it easier to obfuscate, throwing in quotes about meaning and questioning whether there is any right answer about statements about the objective world, but really you have a very firm belief in objective reality, you just don't believe in morality (which, as I said above, refers to what one OUGHT to do – call that what you will if you think 'morality' means something else). Why not come out and say this, rather than pretending that I am somehow attacking humanists?
Going back over very old ground, let me ask you a very simple question.
Imagine whatever horrific event you like, but I will use Myra Hindley as an example. As I'm sure you know, she abducted, sexually abused, tortured and murdered five children. Do you think she OUGHT NOT to have done this? I want to say 'Was this wrong?' or 'Was this immoral?' but you can cloud the issue by questioning the meaning of the questions. More than just going against agreed codes of conduct, was she actually WRONG to act this way?
I am sorry to use such an awful example, but it cuts through the crap about different definitions of morality which can go round in circles and gets to the point – the vast majority of people in our country act as though this behaviour is actually wrong, that it ought not to be done. Are they right? I think the answer is simple, and is much easier to be certain about than the number of colours of the rainbow, which you say there is no right answer about.
124. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63712 by PaulEmecz on August 15, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Lauregon
more stable human societies
Who says that's what's RIGHT? I remember clearly having a friend who thought that the society in Brave New World was a utopia, not a distopia. What about Walden Two?
You can't make objective value judgments that are subjective!
125. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #63502 by PaulEmecz on August 14, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Dr B, the reason for the 'stuck record' is that no decent response is ever given. Imagine if I did that with belief in God, saying that the (sociological) fact that the majority of people believe in God somehow shows that God exists. That would be even weaker than traditional proofs of God's existence. However, it's fine for bouwe to claim that belief in the Golden Rule somehow means that morality exists. This is an ontological question - belief in morality doesn't mean morality exists.
And then you go on to misrepresent (deliberately or ignorantly - I wonder which...) my argument! Did I say we ought to do what God wants, that whatever God wants is good? That's not the point - swot up on the Euthyphro dilemma and you'll see that Plato had seen the flaw in that reasoning millennia ago.
The question is, how could morality exist? Once answer is given by Utilitarians: people desire pleasure and the avoidance of pain, therefore pleasure is good, pain bad, therefore we ought to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. However flawed the reasoning is, there is a greater error - if the universe is an isolated system, entropy always increases and the universe has a limited life-span - no-one is going to survive the universe, so whatever we do ultimately makes no difference.
This is such a simple point that I get surprised when atheists argue so much around it. A few agree - there cannot be morality without God. They say "and there is no good reason to believe in God, so there is no good reason to believe in morality". It is the vast majority of the others, who say daft things like asking "Why should we do what God wants?" who have missed the point and failed to respond adequately.
Either admit that there can be no such thing as morality, or give some justification for believing in it!
Incidentally, my argument is fairly clear. I believe that the universe was designed by God in such a way that intelligent life could evolve in it (and I can't see any decent scientific explanation for the existence of the necessary conditions for the evolution of intelligent life in the universe that explains this rather unlikely phenomenon better than an intelligent designer of the universe).
I believe that the ability to reason and have experiences (and again, I feel science is lacking in being able to explain how having any experience is possible) are therefore 'God-given' (in the sense that God intended these abilities to evolve, and made it possible for them to do so). I think we can use reason, and our ability to experience, to discover the objective moral truths that I believe to exist in this universe. I think that's what we do, and I think that explains why the Golden Rule is so prominent. However, it also explains how the Golden Rule might actually be RIGHT rather than merely popular. Without the existence of God and some form of afterlife, how could morality, ontologically, exist?
126. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #62814 by PaulEmecz on August 11, 2007 at 4:14 pm
to say that all ethical questions must be decided by the individual underlines the point that morality is not "objective," even though we would dearly like it to be so.
That's the bit I disagree with. I think that every individual has to decide for themselves what to believe about all aspects of the world we live in. How old is the universe? What is the world around us made of? Is it possible for our actions now to influence the past? Can we change the future? What is the best way to protect the many species of the world? We have to decide what to do based on our best understanding of the way the world is.
The way the world is, this is what I mean by objective reality. You and I may disagree about the age of the universe, but there is an objective truth. We may disagree about the point at which human personhood begins, but it is not merely a semantic issue. I cannot redefine personhood in such a way that I am no longer to be considered a person - I am a person, and there was a time when I was not a person, and these are facts. We may disagree about the transition, but it happened.
I do think some moral propositions are objectively true. I think there is a reality. It is not merely coincidence that you mention the Golden Rule. Just as people will tend towards a more accurate scientific understanding of the world through observation (most people now believe the Earth to be something near spherical), it is natural that people will tend towards a more accurate understanding of what is objectively true about morals. It does not surprise me that most people agree with some form of the Golden Rule.
I hasten to add however that just because morality doesn't seem (to me) to be objective does not mean that "anything goes"
On the contrary, that's exactly what it means. Morality either is or is not objective. If it is not, then it doesn't exist. What you have is a bunch of behaviours - some people may agree to "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine", but there is nothing to stop people from breaking their promises if it suits them. Rather than a 'decent humanistic morality', you're describing essentially selfish behaviour. Unselfishness would occur, but we cannot say that it is good when it does, as nothing is objectively valuable or good. We could explain how unselfish behaviour might come about, and be genetically advantageous, but this doesn't get us anywhere near the point where we can use words like 'decent'. Decent implies some standard that is objective, something next to which we can measure a thing. Humanistic morality cannot be decent unless morality is objective. Humanistic morality can be pragmatic, but I'm not sure that even makes it morality, let alone 'decent'.
127. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #62438 by PaulEmecz on August 9, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I'm back from holiday, and Dianelos has left - farewell. And bouwe (not to be confused with Dr B - it's very odd looking back at the old contributions and expecting to see a bird's bottom. Let's hope he keeps the Bowie image for a bit, or this bit of the post will be nonsensical) seems to have totally misunderstood what 'objective' might mean.
Dianelos said this:
I find nothing unethical in laws that allow abortion in the first trimester. Which is not the same as saying that I find abortion in the first trimester to be ethical: Whether to seek an abortion or not is an ethical question that the people concerned (i.e. mainly the pregnant woman) must decide by themselves, as really all ethical questions must be decided. But if they decide for abortion then I think society is ethically obliged to offer safe means to do so.
He could equally have said
I find nothing unethical in laws that allow the use of cannabis. Which is not the same as saying that I find the use of cannabis to be ethical... etc.
Having worked for a couple of years with drug abusers, I am convinced that decriminalising cannabis, cocaine, heroine et al would be the right course of action, at least here in the UK. It would help us get on top of the drug problem, and remove a large amount of secondary crime. However, it wouldn't make the use of cannabis ethical in all instances. There are certainly some cases where the harm done by cannabis use is easily out-weighed by the benefits, but certainly not in all cases.
The point is that there are objective facts about the damage done by cannabis use, and the benefits of cannabis use. However, just because there is an objective reality, that doesn't mean we'll all agree on what that reality is.
The same is true in science. There are a number of bands of colour in a rainbow. I've seen one (and, more helpfully, I've seen light pass through a glass prism, which is a clearer image). I've counted. I have to say, I think there are only 6 'colours in the rainbow' (by which we commonly mean something like 'identifiable bands of colour'). You'd be surprised how many people would claim the number is 7. They don't check, they just believe what everyone else believes, on the assumption that someone is bound to have checked and they would have said if it there were only 6.
Believing that objective morality exists does not mean that we can say "and all people will agree about morality" in much the same way as believing that rainbows exist would mean that everyone would agree about rainbows. Even if someone points out the objective truth, and provides evidence, there will still be some people who revert to "But most people believe there are 7".
Incidentally, the law on abortion in the UK is inconsistent, allowing abortion at the very latest stages if the foetus has severe disabilities.
Is that last sentence objectively true?
By the way, why is child torture worse than adult torture?
128. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #57981 by PaulEmecz on July 22, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Okay, so my post took a few minutes to write and I missed:
Why does consciousness have to be anything more than the electrochemical neuronal processes of a highly evolved organ?
Between you and me, as one conscious being to another, it IS more that a chemical, neuronal process. We KNOW it is. We EXPERIENCE consciousness. If you dismiss our experiences, on what basis do you know about the electrochemical processes?
This sort of reductionism does not explain anything. A much more complex answer is needed, even if you are a naturalist (there are still a few on this thread, although their position has taken a bit of a hammering...)
129. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #57980 by PaulEmecz on July 22, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Elli
I suppose you could argue that it [the Zeitgeist's ethics] improves because it increases the likelihood of our species surviving - in that as "morality" changes over time, it ultimately leads to a more "successful" social environment for the human species to prosper - measured by various indicators of human achievement, health etc.
It's fascinating to see what you put in speech-marks, Elli. You can't hide the picture you're painting of human morality - it's all about survival of genes. If it is, get rid of the speech marks and the word 'morality'. You are entirely in a descriptive realm, having moved totally away from any discussion of the prescriptive. You are merely describing what there is - a species that has evolved to display certain behaviours, which can be explained by referring to the benefit these behaviours have in relation to the survival of genes. You can't say that one person behaves well, another badly. You cannot say that someone is wrong in their actions, or that a person should not have done what they did. My earlier post, (1449, #56880 on p29) indicated the problem of bringing intention into a description of evolution. If you are merely describing what human animals do, Elli, you aren't free to make value judgments about their behaviour. You can't say that it is good for the human species to survive, prosper or achieve.
This is not to say that your position is wrong. If you are right, however, then there is no point in ethical debate. There is no future in asking whether it is right to harvest embryos from aborted foetuses for use in stem cell research. All you could do, as an 'ethicist', would be to explain behaviour - to predict whether society would accept such research, to explain why some groups found it unacceptable etc. This would not be about right and wrong, but about behaviour.
Paul Creber
You appear to be asking us to believe that your perception of the almighty permitted these and a billion other species to inhabit the earth and meet their frequent and savage doom over three billion years solely so that consciousness might finally blossom and God's image be replicated in a species which has walked the planet for mere milliseconds of the evolutionary day. Further, you appear to be asking us to give credence to the hypothesis that all this happened on a minute speck of matter in a nondescript galaxy in a universe whose longevity measures 50,000 times our own. Exactly which planet are you on, Dianelos?
Well, the answer is obvious, isn't it? I mean, isn't that the point? I take issue with the word 'nondescript'. Our galaxy contains intelligent life. How unlikely is that? It is improbable enough for our universe to contain thinking beings. Do the maths. Either there are millions of universes, or our universe was designed, intended for the evolution of rational, conscious life (or, by a huge, improbable chance, there is only one universe, but this universe has, luckily, evolved reasoning life-forms).
There are intelligent people here. Intelligent, and witty. Surely there must be times when you smile at the irony of it. Religious people are simple – they accept whatever they're told, however daft, it's memetic (and before Dr Dawkins added that word to our vocabulary, it was just pathetic). Intelligent, rational people (let's call them 'scientists') dismiss religious belief by comparing it to believing in Santa Claus or fairies. (I had a conversation with my seven year old daughter. She asked if fairies were real. I asked her what she thought – she said they're not real. I said 'You're right, they're not real.' She asked me about the tooth fairy. I asked her what she thought. She said 'It's a little person'. She was only six at the time…). So, along come some intelligent people with questioning minds (let's call them 'philosophers'). They realise that the whole of science is based upon assumptions that cannot be proved by science. Science talks about a world we have no direct experience of. So they start to consider different ways of explaining reality. Now the philosophers look at the scientists, who are laughing at religious people for believing in a God they have no direct experience of, and laugh.
What's happened on this thread is that the scientists have realised that belief in God doesn't mean you have to believe rubbish just because of memetic influences. Philosophers have realised that you can be a scientist and question your assumptions. The debate has risen above the muck-slinging of the ignorant and the slightly-less ignorant. It's developed (evolved?) to the point where labels like 'scientist', 'religious believer' and 'atheist' are no longer useful. Dianelos has somewhat dominated, polarising the debaters into 'naturalists' and 'theistic idealists' (Dr B, as a naturist, you fall in your own camp, and Steve99, who has recently come out, has yet to display any camp-ness), although debaters on both sides are slightly uncomfortable about this. Quantum mechanics has been introduced, and nobody really understands it so people can say what they like about it. And out of nowhere the morality card has been played (again) and the camps and not-so-camps have polarised again. The music stops, a chair has been removed, and everyone fights to put their bottom on a seat…
Talking of bottoms, Dr B said:
The Bible recommends capital punishment for a number of sins. Adultery is one; don't think homosexuality is explicitly mentioned.
Well, you'd be surprised. It's a bit of a fixation with the Old Testament in particular. For example, Leviticus 20:13
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Having said that, gathering sticks on Shabbat was not popular either (Numbers 15:32-36). Is the Sabbath still Saturday? That rules out certain Saturday jobs...
It's funny, you read it now:
While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
and you can't help thinking "That's a bit harsh". Still, rules are rules.
Okay, I have to admit, I'm off on holiday, gone until the 9th of August, and (despite myself) I'm going to miss this thread. Could I ask you all to refrain from posting, just for a couple of weeks? I'll return from holiday, having read all of the previous posts, and be ready to search for Schrödinger's cat, absolute, objective morality and consciousness - just don't start discussing anything else. Okay?
130. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #57427 by PaulEmecz on July 19, 2007 at 9:59 am
Talking of finding wallets, a very strange thing once happened to me. I found £120 on the street in Bristol (which I handed straight to the police). The very next day, I heard, from my Mother in Law whose car we had borrowed to pop over to Bristol (a 2 hour drive) to drop off my niece, that I had been speeding (what are the chances?) and had earned a £60 fine. I remember thinking "I found £120 - I wonder what the other £60 is for?" The very next day, Mother-in-Law rang up and said "I got another letter. You were caught again - same day - and it's another £60."
Now, being a rational animal, I merely attribute this to coincidence, and not some divine intervention (which could be put to much better use). The good news is no one claimed the £120 and it paid for the tickets. I also drive more slowly now...
What I do attribute to the divine is moral authority, without which I was neither right nor wrong to hand in the £120.
131. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #57425 by PaulEmecz on July 19, 2007 at 9:51 am
No answer to my question regarding God's rules
Hang on - I passed you on to a Biblical expert. There's something for everyone in the Bible, and if you don't like what you're reading, read on - you're bound to find the exact opposite statement sooner or later. Oh, the joys of having a collection of scriptures written by many writers over 2000 years...
You know my answer to this one. We use our God-given ability to reason (yes, something over and above anything displayed by non-human animals). Please don't make me go over the whole "It's so unlikely that the universe should have intelligent life in it that it must be either one of millions of universes, or it must have been 'designed'" argument. Anyway, the rules I believe our reason would agree upon aren't going to be so different from what any reasoning person would come up with - it's the Categorical Imperative, Golden Rule sort of thing. I think it leads to a strong sanctity of life ethic, but that's hardly the point.
The point is, whatever rules you come up with, the question still remains "Should I follow the rules?" Remember that word - SHOULD? I still can't see any way of getting to SHOULD from a naturalistic perspective. I know what Searle would say - somehow it is contained within an imperative that we SHOULD follow it. In terms of practical ethics, though, we are so often faced with contradictory imperatives that this just isn't good enough. For example, in the case of the doctors in Alder Hey, who stole organs from dead children whose parents hadn't consented, in order, at times, to save the lives of other children. SHOULD they have acted in this way?
We need more than imperatives, we need categorical imperatives. I don't see how you can argue your way into categorical imperatives. Given that, SHOULD we follow any rules?
I think we SHOULD, and I think there is room in my philosophical position to give justification for this. Is there really any SHOULD for you?
132. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #57320 by PaulEmecz on July 18, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Dr B
I know someone who can help you there - Dr. Laura Schlessinger (you're both doctors - I'm sure you'll get along really well):
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
This is a Utah website, so I think that gives it a bit of authority!
Incidentally, the whole social contract thing must be really annoying if your born in Utah. You can't argue with society's values, though! Oh, sorry, you can, if society's values include valuing free thinking. That way, you get your values from society, and this includes the right to question the values of society (let's not think about where we'd get our new ideas from for the moment). Again, not great if you're born in Utah, which is hardly the free-thinking capital of the USofA.
Is it fair to say, Goldy, that you have a world view that explains lots of things around you. You have then found that it doesn't answer ontological questions about the existence of meaning, morality, self etc. Rather than question your world view, you've decided to just catch the ball and throw it away again. It means you're not the last one to be picked when they're choosing cricket teams. However, given the nature of this website, and this thread in particular, don't you think that a little more is called for when you start to get that hot-under-the-collar feeling that your belief-system isn't as coherent as you had previously assumed?
_J_
Does this sound familiar?
In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was _J_. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. He had seven sons and three daughters, and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants and five coats. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.
If that sounds like you, please make the most of it all. You never know what might be round the corner...
133. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #57239 by PaulEmecz on July 18, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Dr B,
I already know you find moral statements meaningful. Are you trying to justify that by giving an example of a contract between two people? It doesn't work, because you then have to ask "Is it wrong to break a contract?" So, when you have a contract between two people and one person breaks it, that is wrong according to the agreed contract, but is it morally wrong?
I much prefer Elli's approach, which makes it clear that, if we reject objective morality, which has no place in a naturalist's vocabulary, then all moral statements are only meaningful within a context.
This means you can say things like:
"The majority of people in the UK reject the use of rape as a weapon in war."
This means you can't say:
"The use of rape as a weapon in war is wrong."
(Obviously you can say that, just as you can say "Oranges taste purple to me" or "The future's bright, the future's orange" or any combination of seemingly meaningful words. Would it communicate anything more than "I reject the use of rape in war"?)
134. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #57226 by PaulEmecz on July 18, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Elli
Welcome to the thread. I like your posts. You're my kind of stupid.
I can't help getting sucked in by the morality debate (I sit on the sidelines wishing I could experience the consciousness debate, not feeling able to contribute to the question of free will - but I think debating morality is always good). I spent a long time trying to convince some people on another thread that there really is only one sort of consistent approach to morality from a naturalist perspective, and that is something very similar to the position you appear to hold.
Well this is absurd. Everything has some reason. It is precisely the REASON something is done which gives rise to the ethical contemplation. If you are going to use a word like gratuitous, you have to at least make it meaningful (oh shit, I just used the M word).
It is a strange definition to prefer. It almost makes 'gratuitous torture' an oxymoron. Torture is 'inflicting severe pain', but given that severe pain can be inflicted accidentally, I understand torture as meaning the deliberate inflicting of severe pain. If something is deliberate, it isn't without reason.
However, 'reason' is a slippery fish. In the case of torture, the usual motive is to find out information of some sort. Is Dianelos suggesting someone who enjoys inflicting severe pain on others for no other reason that their enjoyment of it? If so, could I humbly recommend Il nome della rosa by Umberto Eco (which I actually read in English - a step up from just renting the DVD of the film).
Can I confuse things and jump in with a topical Potter reference (in 48 hours I will possibly be rushing to Tesco...) and suggest that the Dementors, creatures who suck all good feeling out of you, may be involved in gratuitous torture. However, they are still used to guard Azkaban and, at one point, Hogwarts, which many would think of as good.
(Now, the temptation is to come back and argue that the Dementors were behaving wrongly in sucking out good feelings just for their kicks, but that Fudge, or whoever, was acting morally is using them as guards - which means that the torture, from Fudge's perspective, would not be gratuitous. Please don't argue that - it would just be repetitious...)
I think the biggest problem here is that Dianelos jumped from a discussion about whether moral statements are meaningful, to the question:
Can you imagine any context where gratuitous torture would not be wrong?
In fact, he could as easily have asked:
Can you imagine any context where gratuitous torture would be wrong?
If you can come up with one example where it's wrong, then the question must have been a meaningful one!
135. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #56880 by PaulEmecz on July 17, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Not commenting on this thread is harder than giving up smoking (which I did successfully 11 years ago...).
Philip1978
Most of these creatures snuff it, some baby creatures develop over time[...] fur to adapt to the cold[...] Evolution is a gradual process over many many years, starting from simple to more complicated as the need arises.
Sorry to point this out, but it is still a common mis-statement of evolution, which I hear quite often from my (secondary) students. Creatures don't develop fur to adapt to the cold. They just develop fur. Some of them develop thinner coats. It's just that the furry ones survive. Evolution doesn't happen 'as the need arises' - it is in no way a response to need.
The reason why this misconception becomes a problem is because people can talk about evolution in language that suggests an intention or purpose. One of my biggest (and I claim unresolved) issues with naturalism/atheism, is the introduction of 'ought' into the vocabulary. According to a purely scientific account, I am not altruistic in order for my genes to survive, but rather my genes have survived because I am altruistic. Many people have tried to jump from a statement of the way things are to a statement of the way things should be. They point to lots of societies that have developed moral codes, and then they have pointed to the increased degree of human happiness and concluded that having a moral code is a good thing. To be honest, most of the people I have discussed this with don't even see the problem in that approach.
People behave in different ways. Some of these behaviours contribute in a positive way to the survival of their genes. Altruism, abiding by the law of society etc. may be behaviours that lead to survival of genes. You cannot move from this to saying that you SHOULD behave in these ways. Equally, a degree of selfishness, aggression etc. may make the survival of your genes more likely, but that doesn't make any of these behaviours objectively good.
136. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #56315 by PaulEmecz on July 15, 2007 at 12:43 am
I am going to print out this discussion and take it away with me as holiday reading. I only found this thread fairly recently, and really have had nothing to add due to the high standard of contributions on both sides. I also posted my 'last' contribution to this site on another thread, so have reluctantly rendered my now penultimate contribution erroneous in making this post.
I think that from what I've read Dianelos has presented a convincing argument for theistic idealism. In most cases, the defenders of naturalism come across much like theists often do when struggling to hold onto their faith when it seems clear there is a better explanation. Can I urge Naturalists to dip their toe in the water of idealistic theism – there is no harm at all in questioning some of your basic ontological assumptions, and I think it may improve science to do so, even if you don't end up agreeing with Dianelos. Particularly on the issue of consciousness, I have heard many people claim that AI will soon provide us with proof of the naturalistic position. Turing was wrong, though. It is not enough to behave as though you are conscious – any conscious person will know that there is a difference. Limiting yourself to naturalistic explanations is, well, limiting.
The reason for my post is to ask Dianelos a question. I myself am a Christian. I find many things that other Christians do and say and believe infuriating, even depressing, and yet there are Christians I know who are open-minded, who help me in my quest to better understand the world around me. I also find church a good thing for myself and my family.
People on other threads have accused me of – well, I'm not sure what they think they were accusing me of, but they didn't like the idea that I could be a Christian without believing the Bible to be the Word of God; I think it would have been easier for them if I was a sexist homophobe etc. I told them that I have rejected those things that I think are wrong, and only believe those things that I think are right.
When I explained the importance of redemption and my belief in Jesus, people started telling me that I'd lost the argument. They didn't say why, and it didn't seem to relate to their arguments (and I made it clear that I wasn't using this in relation to my arguments). So, am I anywhere nearer asking that question…
My Christian faith includes things that I believe about God that, if they were not true, would radically change the nature of reality. For example, my belief in justice, equality and the sanctity of life rely upon my belief in a loving creator. If I didn't believe that all people can be redeemed and get to heaven, life would not be fair, there would be no justice etc. My experience of morality, that some things are objectively right and wrong, is reliant on a just and loving God.
However, my Christian faith includes believing many things that need not be the case. For example, what if Jesus hadn't died for our sins? What if there was another way that God could prepare us for heaven? My beliefs don't contradict – I am happy to believe that Jesus died to reconcile humanity to God. However, I recognise that this is a long way over and above what I must believe about God for my other experiences to make sense. I teach religious studies in the UK, and think that of all the subjects I see on the secondary curriculum, it is the most interesting, challenging and important. It is the only subject on the Basic Curriculum whose content is not determined by the Government, which has always appealed to me. It also develops very important conceptual inquiry skills. From the moment 11 year old students walk through the door, they are being made to question. What is truth? What is justice? We look at things from the perspective of six different religions, and from a humanist perspective, which involves students in not just developing their own opinions and being able to express them, but also in seeing how a different set of beliefs results in a different way of looking at the world.
So, being part of a religion has benefits to my life, and it doesn't involve me in holding beliefs that contradict. The world COULD be the way I believe it to be, and naturalism certainly doesn't convince me to think otherwise. However, when I ask WHY I am holding on to my specific Christian beliefs, it is for very different reasons than my acceptance of theistic idealism. I like my faith, it enriches my life, and it is broad enough not to conflict with core beliefs like justice, morality, love. However, when it comes to truth, which I value so very much, I feel uncomfortable. In particular, your post:
"The case of Jesus' resurrection is a special case: my guess is that God was so moved by the disciples' grief that he caused them to experience the bodily presence of Jesus for a few days after the crucifixion. You see God incarnated in Jesus had had the kind of personal relationship with the disciples that we humans have with each other, so that was really a special case."
These beliefs may be familiar, and the redemptive element may point to a necessary aspect of a loving God, but we can explain the existence of miracle stories, which occur in most religions, from our understanding of human nature. I don't want to debate this, as I really feel I have nothing more to add to these debates, but I am particularly interested in your response to this question:
"Is it really right to hold onto these beliefs, in Jesus' miraculous resurrection, in Jesus as God incarnate?"
137. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55920 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 10:11 pm
This will be my last contribution to this site.
I had typed out quite a long 'farewell', by which time I had been logged out and it was lost. Probably just as well!
I began contributing when I read a post on witchcraft where Sam Harris replaced words like 'the Devil' and 'Witchcraft' with 'God' and 'Religion'. Then someone posted:
Rationalists (Empiricists) are at an extreme disadvantage when called to counter the beliefs of the faithful. Us rationalists know how to conjure a hypothesis, gather data from an impartial experiment, perform analysis, and compose a conclusion. We know how to use the scientific method. This endeavor of science is far too complicated for the believer. They either do not understand its parts and purposes or they are too lazy to find the truth. Until we improve our educational system, and teach these goons how to think, we'll be carrying their water and fixing their problems.
Religion is such a damn hassle.
Isnt it just easier to NOT believe, but know?
I responded with:
Philosophers are at an extreme disadvantage when called to counter the beliefs of the scientific. Us philosophers know how to conjure an argument, question the nature of empirical observation, attack assumptions made by empiricists and undermine their conclusions. We know how to use the philosophical method. This endeavor of philosophy is far too complicated for the scientist. They either do not understand its parts and purposes or they are too lazy to find the truth. Until we improve our educational system, and teach these goons how to question, we'll be carrying their water and fixing their problems.
Science is such a damn hassle.
Isnt it just easier to NOT 'know', but to question?
The first response to my contribution was to ask for my comment to be removed! I was accused of 'trolling' (which I had to look up).
So, my immediate impression of people on the site, who largely seemed to be supporters of Dr Dawkins, was that they were happy to insist that everyone questioned the basis of religious belief, but were unhappy to question their own beliefs.
I started to ask questions, my most recent being
What is the basis of the moral authority with which an individual can question society's norms, rules, laws, traditions etc.?
This last one never was answered.
Corylus asked me:
You are a religious studies teacher, you must have some naturally atheistic students in your classes. How do you deal with them? Do you, as you have done with us, imply that they don't have; and can never experience; a valid understanding of morality?
The honest answer is that it isn't until A level that students really ask, or understand, the question of the foundations of ethical belief. Atheists have an easier time at school in the UK than those who call themselves 'religious', but nonetheless I would never say anything that would prejudice anyone against atheists. I would particularly never imply that atheists are less moral – this hasn't been my experience, and wasn't my intention here. I did once ask a hypothetical question "Is it possible that…" quoted above, with regard to atheism. This was merely connecting to the idea that religious belief may have evolutionary value to humanity, and I was wondering whether part of that may be as a foundation for morality.
When A level students do question the foundation of morality, they are generally intelligent enough to do this for themselves. I had a student last year who is an atheist. He believed there was no rational basis for believing in ojective morality, but this was a conclusion he came to by himself (despite the rest of the class strongly objecting, many of whom had no religious beliefs themselves). He would be very interested in any answers to the question above!
Goldy said:
the deep philosophy is all very well, but it doesn't impinge on real life much… I'll stop my questioning now and let you get on with your life
Thank you Goldy and anyone here who managed to avoid making personal comments about my humanity(!) and who engaged in honest debate – Corylus, it seems right that yours is the last post I respond to. Thank you. I apologise for the time I got affected by the comments and made a generalised reference to atheists – it was wrong, and I would urge anyone still reading to limit their responses to the substance of the issues they are discussing.
It is clear that most atheists are much the same as most religious believers – they treat other people as they would want to be treated, without really asking 'Why?'
If I can leave here with one thought, it's that you should continue asking questions:
Questioning increases understanding.
138. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55813 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 12:49 pm
kkant
now you are left with nothing, no ideas at all about God other than your "feelings".
What I actually mentioned was a "God-given ability to reason". If we are in a universe designed by God, that hardly leaves us without any clues.
I have to say I'm losing patience with this thread. Reading back through the comments, I get called illogical - well, flaws in logic are easy to spot: why not point some out? I keep getting told I'm not answering questions, but when I read carefully they're just not there.
My position is very clear. Either we are part of a universe designed by God, with a God-given nature which can be determined by reason, or we don't. I believe we do, and that it is part of God's design for us as humans to unite and make a life-long commitment (marriage).
I've heard from another source, from someone who doesn't believe that the universe was created, that analysis of human relationships shows an evolutionary inclination for couples to split up after four years. The argument was that, if humans were inclined to split up sooner, their offspring would not have gained enough strength for the mother to nurse their young. Obviously, if couples were inclined to stay together for life, the man's genes would not have been as widely spread, which again would make survival of genes less likely.
Now, instead of any intelligent suggestion as to a source of moral authority that can provide a perspective from which to criticise society, its norms and its laws (which have been given as THE source of morality by some) I just get personal insults about my own relationships. I believe we are intended to stay together for life, and on that basis made a commitment to my wife. I thought it was very honest to imagine that if I believed we were not intended to stay together for life, and if I believed that my genes were around just because somewhere in my past my ancestors had had several partners resulting in survival of genes, my commitment to my wife might not have been so binding. Is that really a basis, given that I DON'T believe the latter, for saying my wife is to be pitied?
I have had to endure ignorant references to things I clearly don't believe, about not wanting to piss god off, and am now being told that my humanity is corrupted.
Why not just respond to the questions?
By the way, Corylus, you should know better than to try
Countries with high levels of atheism are not known for their anarchy or moral depravity (Sweden, Denmark etc.)
There are many religious communities that are very peaceful. That doesn't mean they're right ontologically.
What is the basis of the moral authority with which an individual can question society's norms, rules, laws, traditions etc.?
139. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55787 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 9:19 am
People believe in God, but that doesn't mean there is a God.
People believe in morality, but that doesn't mean that objective morality exists.
Giving evidence that people believe in morality, however sophisticated, doesn't show that there is morality. You need to come up with something more than that. The bottom line is that, however people expect me to behave, that doesn't answer the question of how I SHOULD behave from an OBJECTIVE standpoint.
140. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55769 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 7:30 am
Goldy
How is it that I, an athiest, a person who cannot, seemingly, understand the concept of morality, can be shocked by your assertions?
I never said that an atheist cannot understand the concept of morality. It is really a question of moral authority. But why do we need to understand morality? The way you describe it, it wouldn't matter whether there was any understanding there at all. Observations of chimp behaviour make clear that reciprocity can occur without a deeper understanding. All an organism needs is the ability to recognise an individual and 'remember' what that individual did last time they had any encounter.
Now, you may want to come back at me and say "Of course, I'm talking about the same sort of morality that chimps exhibit, you're right, you don't need to have to understand morality, so long as you can see the consequences of your actions you'll soon learn to be 'altruistic'." However, if you want to argue that there is something different at work with humans, I would like more than just your repitition that humans are able to make laws and have expectations of one another.
I cannot believe the only thing stopping you chasing other women is the thought that you'd lose points in the heaven lottery
Did I say that at any point?
I have to admit that it's a difficult thing to try to imagine what I would do or believe if I truly, honestly didn't have my current beliefs. It may have been a mistake to speculate. Can I ask you to answer this very clearly, as I don't think I get it.
In the case of people in agony, who ask for morphine (the example was given above). You either give it or you don't and they die either way, and that's it, and they have no memory of it. Why does it matter, either way, whether or not you gave them morphine?
If I can grasp why their suffering matters, even though it makes absolutely no difference to what the world would be like after they die, I might have a chance at understanding where you're coming from.
If you were with them when they died, and you were out of morphine, and their family asked "Did they suffer?" would you tell the truth or lie?
I just can't see how morality is morality in your world view.
141. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55758 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 7:00 am
Hobbit
I dug around for reference to the transplant issue. David Hill, a a consultant anaesthetist at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, said:
As an anaesthetist I am horrified that any of these patients are operated on without proper anaesthesia. You would think such an important issue would be well-documented and debated in anaesthetic literature. In fact I've been able to find precious little about it. There are some statements that anaesthesia is not needed but nevertheless should be given*, there are some statements that it should be given 'just in case'.
*Pallis C, Harley DH. ABC of Brainstem Death. 2nd edition 1996. BMJ Publishing Group
142. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55731 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 5:13 am
Corylus
I'm definitely here for my own good, not to convince other people of something! I think I might have said that earlier...
N.B. What are your views on Gay Marriage by the way?
Kant said that homosexuality and masturbation are among "the most abominable conduct of which man can be guilty".
Luckily you have misread my commitment to Kant.
My views on Gay Marriage are very similar to my views on heterosexual marriage. Marriage is a life-long commitment. Personally, when I got married I made a religious commitment and feel that the commitment I made to my wife has more meaning that it would have had if I had merely been making a social contract. For that reason, I think it is terrible that gay couples cannot get married in a church (in most cases). However, I feel that gay couples can still make a religious commitment as God is not limited to religious buildings or religious institutions, so all is not lost...
143. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Comment #55724 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 4:45 am
I wanted to get in before the great teapot's apology and post a link to a simulator:
http://www.grand-illusions.com/simulator/montysim.htm
There was a similar case in the great gold rush. A man had three cards: one gold on both sides, one silver on both sides and finally a silver/gold card. A spectator would remove a card from the bag - let's say its face is silver. Our man wagers that it is also silver on the reverse. Well, it's 50-50, right? I mean, it can't be Gold-Gold, so it's got to be one of the other two cards: 50-50. So lots of people happily bet their hard-found gold.
Now, our man always says silver when he sees silver, and always gold when he sees gold. How often does he win? It's got to be two out of three. I'd take those odds.
So, did I submit this before the apology came flooding in?
144. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55698 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 2:45 am
Have you told your wife that the only reason you hang around her is because you don't want to piss off god
I know a fair number of men who got married and really wanted it to work, then they stopped feeling that so they left their wives. The law in the UK isn't enough to compensate for this. In many cases, the wife didn't have nearly the same level of career development due to having stopped to have children. She is then left in a low-paid job while he has lots of status, money, opportunities etc.
I think this can happen when you see marriage as a contract. I see it as a much deeper commitment, and it is not because I'm scared of God. My belief in God means I believe that a deeper level of commitment is possible. If your wife was left severly disabled by illness or accident, possibly even with her personality slipping away, would you maintain your commitment on the basis of the agreement you made with her? If you truly would, I am very impressed at the level of commitment you are able to invest into what was nothing more than a mutual agreement.
145. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55689 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 1:53 am
In response to the Hobbit:
I have witnessed many D&C procedures through my work. I have never seen one done with an anasthetic. It would be cruel to subject the patient to pain and discomfort during the procedure (sometimes they need to use cautery).
To what evidence do you refer? Quote your source. Is it the usual right wing christian science that is easily pulled apart in reputable peer reviewed medical journals?
The House of Lords (here in the UK) conducted an inquiry into "fetal sentience." One part of the study dealt with the ability of a fetus to feel pain. Conventional wisdom among researchers is that the brain's cortex is the only location where pain can be felt. However, they mention recent evidence that if an adult suffers from an injury or disease which causes the cortex to function poorly, that some sensation may be felt from an area lower in the brain. They speculate that a fetus may be able to sense some "form of pain sensation or suffering" before the cortex is linked to the lower levels of the brain. They note that babies who are born with a major brain defect can sometimes feel pain. This includes babies born with hydranencephaly in which "the cerebral hemispheres are substantially or entirely absent at birth" and anencephaly, in which "the cerebral hemispheres and the top of the skull may be absent."
They concluded:
"After 23 weeks of growth, higher areas of the brain are active and starting to form connections with nerves that will convey pain signals to the cortex."
"By 24 weeks after conception the brain is sufficiently developed to process signals received via the thalamus in the cortex."
"While the capacity for an experience of pain comparable to that in a newborn baby is certainly present by 24 weeks after conception, there are conflicting views about the sensations experienced in the earlier stages of development. The current scientific understanding is that 6 weeks after conception the elements of the nervous system start to function. Most scientists currently agree that this marks the earliest possible point at which sensation might occur."
146. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book
Comment #55686 by PaulEmecz on July 12, 2007 at 1:45 am
Hobbit
have you made this known to the Christian community you interact with? Have you tried to get others in that community to see things your way when they take the bible literally?
Yes.
Not sure how to respond to the rest of that. You seem to be ridiculing my position, but I find it hard to work out why. Does it annoy you that I question my faith and only believe those things that I agree with? You say:
I