101. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64703 by Elli on August 21, 2007 at 11:59 am

Has anyone ever told you that you look like Jason Priestley?

If for an action to be moral it is only through the will of god, then for it to also be objective, what of the supposed omnipotence of god? if objective than god is unable to change his will. You may posit that one objectively should do what god wants - but this raises problems, first of which is "why?" and secondly, one must acknowledge that proof of god is a necessary pre-requisite to this way of thinking - and therefore one can not logically use morality as evidence of god. Circularity and all that jazz.

If you are suggesting a god that creates the universe and sets laws in motion and then buggers off - then ok - I can see how people can maintain this conclusion (although I do not agree) but you are not saying this at all. Your theism is a strong interventionalist theism, no?

And in any event, in response to your penultimate paragraph, I find it very difficult to maintain a position that morality is objective (as you are aware). My rationale has been outlined in above posts to this thread.

So what is left? The issue of a designer of a system not being bound by them is irrelevant. Omnipresence... omnipotence.. omniscience... etc.. objective morality... it doesn't work.

102. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64675 by Elli on August 21, 2007 at 8:48 am

The following point has been raised before, credit going to the brilliant doctor, but I feel it is being ignored, and warrants more attention:

Being cognisant of the "ought-is" issue, if a moral law (an "ought") is objective, then such law is not and can not be the will of a god. Such god would likewise be bound, and any pronouncement of morality by such god would be observation, not intention. This is inconsistent with theists view of god. This leaves the theist in the position of morality being the will of god (and in that sense it is arbitrary, and an "is"). The "bridge" from the "is" of the will of god to the "ought" of our actions that Dr B attributes to these theists is that we ought to act in accordance with what this or that god wants. But how can someone know the mind of something unknowable? It goes back to the same problem of proof of god, to which different cultures have arisen at different gods. So to use morality as part of the proof of a god is a logical mischief. I also agree with Dr B that to argue from authority cheapens one's sense of honour and human dignity (and disrespects the "personhood of others").

I clearly borrowed heavily from the lexicon of Dr. Benway, but my conscience is eased by the words of Edward G. Bulwer-Lytton, "Imitation, if noble and general, ensures the best hope of originality". Furthermore, I really do think that this is being skirted (if not heartily ignored). I don't think you can have it both ways and be a proud citizen of logic-land. Or is it I whose logic is hanging in the sky much the same way that bricks don't?

103. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63850 by Elli on August 16, 2007 at 12:30 pm

I concur with USA_Limey. _J_ you are nothing short of brilliant.

I **always** love everything you write, and your post #160 above was the best thing I read in a while.

Back to darwin2, there is another possibility that it is all an elaborate hoax - even that outrageously hilarious book. Alternatively, perhaps darwin2 is not Mr. Killoran but is assuming his identity on this site just to have some fun. I can't decide... it seems like he is for real, but some of the things he says are really just impossible for a person to consistently maintain. Esepcially for a person claiming to be in his 60s.

It sure makes for fun reading though.

104. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63214 by Elli on August 13, 2007 at 2:17 pm

darwin2, out of curiosity how old are you? you seem like a very young person, as you have misunderstood even a high school level grasp of evolution. If you are very young, as I suspect, I commend you for coming on this site to learn more about science and hope you will take the words of the wonderfully erudite contributors here to heart.

105. The Out Campaign

Comment #60246 by Elli on August 1, 2007 at 11:28 am

SharonMcT wrote:

Elli: Loved your post (270)

Thanks, but I am actually a little embarrassed by it. I let him get away with exactly what he is on here to do: to provoke and get under people's skin in the hopes they get angry and make atheists look like zealots. I should have just ignored him, its not like he will ever change his mind. If David Robertson were to ever change his mind I wonder what he would do with the nappy?

(nappy=diaper for the americans on the site)

106. The Out Campaign

Comment #60183 by Elli on August 1, 2007 at 9:02 am

holy crap Robertson! (and I chose those words carefully).

I should not engage you in this conversation as you clearly are an internet troll. I really wonder why you are on this site at all - it speaks volumes to me about your state of mind... in fact your general use of language and references also reveals one twisted little mind. I will correct you on one thing as you totally misrepresented me - and how you are fully prepared to bare faced lie is amazing to me given your holier than thou attitude. So much for the religious having better morals - Robertson just proves that religion in fact corrupts morality. I never suggested that people can not know things from official sources and studies but rather from casual glances at the internet. This is what you claim I say, and claim Dawkin's says. Let me quote it word for word from your lying mouth:

The notion that one cannot know things from official sources and studies but rather from a casual glance at the Internet is one that I find both mildly amusing and somewhat alarming.

I spoke very clearly about possible reasons for official studies being insufficient given the personal nature of the content, and that internet polling can *AUGMENT* these studies. You then deliberately misrepresent me and make it seem I say something different.

THIS IS ABHORRENT AND DESPICABLE BEHAVIOUR. YOU ARE A LIAR AND DELIBERATELY SEEK TO DECEIVE OTHERS. I am convinced that it is religion that corrupts the minds of people like you to justify behaviour which is otherwise socially and morally unacceptable. You are a case study in this. Your bigotry towards homosexuals disgusts me, as does your prejudice towards people who choose to separate from their spouses rather than suffer through a miserable loveless charade.

(it seems I got a little more worked up there than I thought I would! ;-) I guess I was warned by others and didn't listen... back to my green tea)

107. The Out Campaign

Comment #60175 by Elli on August 1, 2007 at 8:34 am

Thanks to Logicel and Corylus for your kind words. I read that letter Robertson wrote (which Corylus linked) and it certainly was a strange read. My eyes are now bleeding and my brain itches.

Henri, I am going to have to agree with the others on the issue of sycophantic dawkinism. On the surface, I tentatively agree with you regarding the general notion of individualism and avoiding herd mentality and groupthink. But in practice, the other posters here have made me aware of the nuances of such an outlook. I know nothing of Nietzsche other than "there's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist" (apologies to Eric Idle) but the posts of Robert Maynard make a lot of sense to me. If we agree with someone's opinion on a topic does this instantly make us devoted followers? Of course not, as you agree. But if we find ourselves repeatedly agreeing with someone's opinion, how should we act in order to not become an acolyte, as you term it? Should we deliberately express views which are contrary to our own conclusions simply to avoid the possibility of agreeing too much with a certain individual? It seems a bit much. This site happens to be a Dawkins website, but it is also one of the very few outlets for this type of forum and critique of media. If someone has an avatar with a humurous depiction of the website's namesake does this render them a sycophant? - surely not, I say!

Quetzalcoatl, is green tea with ginger and fresh mint worthy of your exalted praise?

Katherine, if these people you live with are your friends and care about you, they should be happy for you to express yourself honestly and respect your rights to harmlessly live sans deity.

108. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60017 by Elli on July 31, 2007 at 1:30 pm

My instincts tell me that with the proliferation of the internet and the explosion that is the "information age" that it must surely be easier to combat the ignorance and propaganda that can infiltrate the less developed world. I would have thought that even in fairly undeveloped parts of the islamic world, that access to internet would be somewhat common. And with all this, I really would have thought that young people would be exposed to a world of ideas that would help to combat the stupidity and myopia of much of the communities of which Hitchens speaks. But my intuitions appear wrong. It seems that either because of or in spite of the internet boom, religious fundamentalism, especially in the Islamic world, goes from strength to strength. It may not be as counterintuitive as I first thought, but it still amazes me that with all this access to information, that people can still seemingly willfully close their minds to it all. The good news is that with people like Hitchens leading the way, the antidote is also going from strength to strength and I certainly hope that the problem of religion's poisonous fangs can be alleviated in my lifetime. I would love for my future children to grow up only having to learn about these problems in history books.

109. The Out Campaign

Comment #60004 by Elli on July 31, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Q wrote:

...David Robertson has raised many of these points before, particularly "atheism as a religion", "fundamentalist atheists", "followers of Dawkins", "atheist hypocrisy"... the points above have been answered and debated many times on other threads...

I wasn't aware of this. I guess it just means he is trolling, as I am very confident that these points would have been responded to most eloquently and cogently by many people on other threads. Given this, David, you have clearly made your point on these issues and there is no need for you to continue to restate your position. I am sure Prof. Dawkins is fully aware of your position, so any continued rehashing of it is nothing more than spam, or trolling as it is properly called. Even though, I would still appreciate a response, especially on the linguistic trickery which I feel you are doing by referencing words like "religion" and "fundamentalist" where they clearly do not belong and only misrepresent. In the alternative, perhaps you have already stated your position on many other threads (seems like an extremely high likelihood) so just refer me to those threads.

110. The Out Campaign

Comment #59972 by Elli on July 31, 2007 at 9:25 am

The Wee Flea said the following:

1) Firstly it shows, as RD admits the quasi religious nature of this site and the movement he is trying to start.

2) For something that is supposed to be based on empirical evidence and science it is somewhat amusing and ironic that RD bases his opinion that there are more atheists on 'widespread informal surveys of the Web!

3) Again the fundamentalism of RD and followers is clear. We know we are right. We know we have all the arguements on our side.

4) Good to see that RD has not lost his sense of humour! I like the joke about the 'gentle' patter of atheists feet - as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots.

5) This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate. Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant.

6) Its kind of sweet that you want to hold 'A' Fellowship groups where people who believe nothing (an atheist after all is just someone who does not believe in God) reaffirm one another in their lack of faith. What else will you do, united around your lack of belief? Hold tea parties? knit? listen to George Carlin?

7) If a religious group were to produce this kind of material (as many do) you would all be shouting about commercialism and making money etc. Does this not apply here?

I have not been on this site very long, and I very young and green when it comes to all this, but I would like to comment on these points, as I feel Mr Flea raises some fascinating points, and he has piqued my interest.

1. Quasi-Religion. I agree with Flea to some extent, in that this website appears to be an attempt to galvanize and unite people of similar mindset. The thing is, do we call this "religion" or do we find a more appropriate word. So what actually is "religion". Does a "religion" have to be a social movement based around a belief in a god, or can something completely un-godly be "religious". I have quasi-religious feelings towards Arsenal F.C., but should I *really* be calling these feelings "religious". I guess it depends on whether we want to redefine certain words. I think it is important to note how powerful language can be in influencing opinions etc. Words should be carefully chosen. And given that clearly the athiest "movement" is precisely about not accepting god theories as valid, and that religion has always been about organised god worship, it seems very CHEEKY to call this site a "religious" movement. In fact, it is obvious a deliberate linguistic ploy to do so. Other than the bad choice of words, I agree with Mr. Flea. The promotion of a logo and selling of t-shirts is encouraging solidarity and the unification of a "movement" and why not? team-spirit can be a good thing. It would have been very hard for females of today to be able to acheive the things we are without the *collective* work of the feminist movement. Outspoken individuals would have only gotten things so far, as they are easier to ostracise.

2. I sense that Mr Flea has developed a keen personal dislike of Mr. Dawkins, as point no.2 is not really fully thought out. How should anyone go about seeking a sensible evaluation of something. I imagine it is by looking at a variety of sources and thinking critically on the veracity of the information garnered from each source. If one looks at official census data one may be lead to conclude that x% of a population were non believers. However, a modicum of critical thinking would reveal that official data regarding a touchy and personal subject like religion and belief may not be the most accurate. I personally see absolutely nothing unscientific about looking for alternate sources of information, and the internet (where people feel much more comfortable revealing personal things) seems like the ideal place to augment data such as this.

3. Like with point 1, I think it is problematic when words that are commonly and historically used to describe one thing are used to describe something else. Using the word "fundamental" may convey the gist of your opinion on this, but it seems a little cheeky to do so here, as it misleads, and presumably intentionally so. But your gist is correct, and I have no problem with it. Dawkins seems very confident that he is correct in what he writes and says and that his arguments are superior. I view this as entirely reasonable. Should not we all arrive at confident conclusions after we have examined boatloads of evidence? But there is a HUGE difference between (1) being overtly confident that you are correct but willing to change your mind if proven otherwise and (2) being supremely confident that you are and at all times will be correct.

5. Why is this a call for discrimination, anymore than Jews wearing stars of david necklaces or Christians wearing crosses? I see people with car bumper stickers that read "What Would Jesus Do" and all sorts of other logos, such as fish etc. Virtually all social groups develop logos and identifiers which are proudly worn. Sports teams, religious groups, book clubs, music groups. Why is publically identifying with any group a call to discriminate against others? Especially when the principles that the group stands for is, among other things, principles of free thought, reason, and human rights?

Oh, and George Carlin is really a very funny guy. He is sometimes too vulgar (even for me and my dirty mind) but he sure knows how to cut to the core of an issue. As for what fellowship groups may seek to do, I imagine they could discuss ideas for improving the quality of life for the many oppressed and disadvantaged people of the world, bringing education to the uneducated, forming charities, volunteering in the community -- all those warm and fuzzy things. I am sure it wouldn't all be about listening to Carlin and drinking tea.

Good points though Mr Flea. It is good to have someone raise these atypical kinds of points as they are not the sort of things that would occur to most people, and it gives all of us a chance to respond and share our views.

111. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59722 by Elli on July 30, 2007 at 12:14 pm

fides wrote: "the most fundamental human right of all is the right of the individual to choose their relationship with God."

So why not allow your child this right?

Indoctrinating and labelling infants with one particular view of god and religion greatly diminishes this right.

112. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58867 by Elli on July 26, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Why not wait until the kids are old enough to form their own educated opinions? What are these people scared of? Their children deciding for themselves how they want to view the world? Likely.

I always get so sad when I see the children of Hassidic jews (like 5 or 6 years old) in full Hassidic attire with Hassidic hairstyle and all. The same applies to the children of the Amish, Muslims or whatever. Sure, we can suggest that these kids will eventually grow up and will be free to make up their own minds (assuming they live in a free society) but in all honesty it is obvious that no matter the best intentions of the parents, these children have had their ability for free thought stifled and their decision making ability (in this regard) grossly hindered.

Some young kids break free of these shackles and open their eyes to the indoctrination of their parents and teachers that got in their heads when they were young and didn't know any better. But not many.

I realise Christians will read this and say "yes, but you are talking about fundamentalist religions and cults, my form of religion is harmless and full of virtue" and this is what makes me so sad. The delusion that each parent thinks their personal religious form is correct and that their children need to be brainwashed into thinking likewise lest they be influenced by someone else to think differently.

Sure, teaching a 4 year old to pray to jesus may seem like a different can of beans, but it really isn't. It is exactly the same thing.

113. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58834 by Elli on July 26, 2007 at 10:59 am

Firstly, who is Hawkins? I assume you mean Stephen Hawking?

Secondly, fides, you are not distinguishing between an action/thought being childish and the kinds of acceptable actions that adults can take towards children. I can perfectly logically contend that to believe in jesus is childish (just as it is childish to throw food at other people) whilst at the same time hold the view that one should not coerce their children into believing in jesus (or throwing food). There is nothing inconsistent here. Why can't you see this?

Your penultimate paragraph is a non sequiter. Meditation may lead to a sense of peace and freedom from fears, but there is no evidence of a causal relationship to your god person. Also, your "faith" doesn't teach you any of the things you mention. Your faith is just your belief sans evidence. All the nice ethical actions you raise are inherent in all of us. You may read them codified in some religious texts, but your faith has nothing to do with it.

And frankly, it is in my opinion most certainly child abuse to indoctrinate children with your religious beliefs. It saddens me to no end that people delude themselves to not be able to see this.

114. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #58095 by Elli on July 23, 2007 at 11:43 am

Absolutely brilliant. I love it. I needed a good smile today :-)

115. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57669 by Elli on July 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Very good questions, Dianelos.

Speaking of the Zeitgeist, would you say that its ethics slowly improves (after all we now have human rights, workers' rights, equality for women, we have abolished slavery, democracy is dominant, and so on)? And if you think it improves, how do you justify this belief of yours? I mean, if ethics can only be measured against the Zeitgeist how can you judge one way or the other?

I think "improve" is probably not the right word. It really just progresses, and it has the appearance of "improvement" (i.e. getting "better" or more "good") precisely because it accords with our individual moral change. From the perspective of a lunar rock, it neither "improves" or otherwise... it merely progresses. I suppose you could argue that it 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.

I know you want me to say it all derives from an internal compass of what is "right" and "wrong" and therefore concede that this compass must be a donation from somewhere (presumably divine), but I simply see no need nor no evidence for that. In fact, I find this intellectual escapism and merely shifting the question upwards.

an ethical stance that is too careful to advise people to do what they think is right goes against all notions of humanism and free thought

Does it really? What of the person that is thoroughly convinced (and has thought deeply and intelligently) on the concept of gay people, or slavery, or women's rights. And concludes (as most people did not all that long ago) that a woman has no place in politics or a gay person has no right to parenthood. Should we honour their actions?

And what's more an ethical theory is supposed to say something more than just, well here is the Zeitgeist and here is you and just balance the two the best you can

Is it? Why? Why is any theory *supposed* to be a certain way? Give me an example where a better approach is warranted - specifically. I can think of a scenario regarding abortion. What if a particular society thinks abortion immoral but a certain individual thinks it immoral to allow the unwanted child to the detriment of all other interests. What more do you propose the individual do, other than evaluate and balance the pros and cons of a certain action, lobby for social and political change, educate themselves on the issues and so forth. I wonder what it is you propose? - that everyone just act exactly however they feel personally and privately empowered to act by their current perhaps uneducated view of a certain issue. Does this make it ok for a bible literalist to murder a gay person? What exactly are you proposing?

You say I don't really answer the question, and I am sure I have only scratched the surface, but I think I have made a much more sincere attempt to answer the question than you have. Genetics (evolved sympathy and empathy), memetics, the balancing of personal and societal interests, and the gradual change in human values over time (sometimes not so gradual). It does not require high level philosophy to recognize that morality simply can not be absolute. Even the most cursory investigation of human history (even recent human history) reveals that. We are stuck temporally whereby it gives the impression that certain moral precepts simply must be absolutely true at all times. It *feels* absolutely impossible that torturing babies for fun can ever be anything but morally wrong. But it is because our lives take up a fraction of a fraction of a slither of time in the span of our species. Perspective is an ass.

__________________________________________
Aside (gratuitous Douglas Adams homage):
The only person to survive the total perspective vortex was Zaphod Beeblebrox, but I would wager that the late great Carl Sagan would stand a good shot also.

116. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57629 by Elli on July 20, 2007 at 10:49 am

bouwe: I have only one thing to say - "lemmiwinks" ;-)

dianelos: I was not exactly using a serious tone in my previous post. Perhaps I should have used more emoticons... although the reference to aeronautical linguine dragons should have indicated the spirit of the post. Oh, and I win anyway because I am a girl, and the girl's are always right don't you know!

To be serious for a moment, I actually think you have not understood my point about morality. You still seem to think that I am describing an externally imposed set of rules. I have not said this. In fact, I went to great length in explaining the scenario that Mr. Draftee would be faced morally by the decision to join the military. I refer you again to my posts #1526, 1530 & 1532 as I don't think my repeating the point will add any clarity.

117. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57610 by Elli on July 20, 2007 at 7:28 am

Can I claim victory now? It appears Dianelos has moved on to later discussions and ignored my responses on morality. Is that tacit agreement?
I doubt it. It is probably just the Aeronautical Linguine Dragon (FSM's cousin) controlling our perceptions of reality.

118. Darwin or Design

Comment #57486 by Elli on July 19, 2007 at 2:06 pm

SciFi Guy: What is at issue is the idea of teleology in nature. Is a strictly a-telic darwinian account able to do the heavy lifting its proponents claim it can do. I think that is false based on the evidence we see. Behe's argument is quite relevant here and I think he makes many good points, yet Mike Behe has no problem with common descent or "evolution" in general, he objects to the a-telic account that acts as a creation story for atheists. Hopefully you can see the distinction and get past this false ID vs Evolution meme you are propagating.

Taking away the fancy language, this paragraph just says that you think un-designed (atelic) evolution is false based on the evidence you observe – but you do not actually go any further than this vague assertion. You don't state any evidence; you merely invoke an argument of authority by referencing Behe without actually quoting anything he says. You then think that readers will hopefully be able to see the distinction, but you haven't said anything – you pretty much just say you think nature is designed, so there! Surely you have more sophisticated arguments than the "it is because I say it is" argument?

(I may regret asking this, as I am not all that keen to be reminded of the eye/flagellum/Comfort's Banana arguments)

119. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57448 by Elli on July 19, 2007 at 11:30 am

Yes, that is right. It really comes down to sympathy and empathy. How we would feel if we were on the other side of the situation (or how we remember feeling when in fact we once were). It is not about calling on a "higher authority" and I don't think anyone should really want it to be about that. A lot of what we "feel" is absolute morality is really just derivative of evolved sympathy/empathy. So I agree with you: We feel less sympathy for lost pencils than we would for a lost wedding ring.

120. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57434 by Elli on July 19, 2007 at 10:16 am

But you *are* right to hand in the money. Why? because had it been you who lost the money, you would like the finder to hand it in. This general behavioural sentiment evolves within a society over time, such that a hard-wired "social contract" exists whereby people within that society *should* hand over the money because it accords with the unwritten social contract. It is "right" precisely for this reason, not because of some absolute divine ruling that would only shift the question up a level, and not answer it at all.

It "feels" *right* precisely because it can not "feel" any other way given its hardwired nature. Not unless the individual is programmed differently (for whatever reason).

121. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57413 by Elli on July 19, 2007 at 9:01 am

DG: …Nazi Germany's social contract to use the inferior races for medical research was considered moral, would you agree it was moral?

I am already regretting using the term "social contract". I hesitated at first as the word "contract" can be misleading. I did not mean that what we consider moral are those things that a particular society has in fact currently and officially agreed upon. If a state in the U.S. outlawed abortion this does not instantly confer a morality status on the population of that state. By "social contract" I meant the more abstract notion that humankind evolves a "hardwired" assent between individuals within the society* as to what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. These "social contracts" are often codified in laws as a by-product of this hardwired abstract social contract, but not the other way around. So if Nazi Germany enacted eugenics legislation, this political social contract would not trump the innate hardwired social contracts that have evolved naturally. To answer your question, would I agree it was moral? Only if the society in question had in fact evolved innate assent that this kind of behaviour was acceptable. I do not, as a matter of fact, conclude that the Nazi German society had in fact been hardwired thus. Although we can easily imagine tribes of Fiji (for example) where until recently cannibalism (for example) was perfectly acceptable – as it was a hardwired "social contract" in the way I described above.

[* Note that humankind has historically been grouped together in societies, which until recently developed non-contiguously with separately evolved morality. In recent times the human "community" has become more globalised and morality has become more standardized across humanity – but there are obvious exceptions in the less developed world.]

As for your hypothetical of the young man and the military service, I think the above clarifies my position, and the confusion that I may have generated by using ambiguous words such as "contract". My fault – although I am Irish originally I currently live in the US and have totally lost my ability to use the English language effectively! (but I am young, so I may get it back – reading the wonderful posts on this site helps, that's for sure). Let me answer you:

According to the social contract theory of ethics what should that young man do?

The political contract of military service may conflict with both the individuals sense of morality and with the morality of the society in general (from whence this man emanates). If the man refuses the military, he will break a social/political law, but not breach an ethical "contract" (personal and presumably societal). If he performs military service the opposite scenario applies. There are times (many) where political contract is at odds with an individual's morality. If the individual's morality does not accord with the "social contracts" (hardwired societal assent) then such individuals find themselves in a situation where they either adjust their own view of morality (perhaps through education) or attempt to adjust everyone elses. Think of the feminist movement, or any number of shifting standards of societal morality – that often gets changed by the minority changing the view of others through education and awareness (feel free to throw in the wonderful term: "zeitgeist" here).

Sometimes, of course, people do ignore their own moral thinking – and this is normally condemned by history. With notable exceptions (Oscar Schindler and his ilk) those individuals in Germany who ignored their moral thinking are thoroughly condemned by us for doing so. But this is not an indictment of naturalism's theory of how morality evolves and is expressed by humankind. It is merely an indictment of how societies and governments can often lag behind the shifting moral zeitgeist. In fact, they invariably do. There is more at play here than a simple morality-politics equation. There are other factors in the equation such as money, power, corruption, greed, memetics… oh, and more often than not, religious dogma that retards the progress of societies to catch up to the moral zeitgeist by indoctrinating and infecting minds of even the most otherwise intelligent people to ignore science and reason and invoke primitive ideas as everlasting and unchanging – and then celebrate this as if it is a virtue (the 2004 U.S. elections and the whole "flip-flop" issue was a case study in how the virtue of changing ones mind cost the Democrats an election due to the Republicans cleverly appealing to the religious by characterizing changing one's mind as a vice.)

Oh, so what should this man do?

This man should assess his own moral instinct against the moral instincts of the society (not the official government contracts, but the innate social contracts). If he feels he is in the minority moral view he should educate himself on his outlook. Think about whether his concept of morality in light of military service is acceptable or not. If he is convinced he is "right" then he should do what he can to educate others on his viewpoint and try and effect a shift in the zeitgeist of the society – whilst all the time weighing the "values" of social change against the "values" of the effects of his social insubordination. It may be that it is best to do the military service and try and effect change in some other way, or perhaps a refusal to serve is warranted, even if it disrupts society and his life and family negatively. It is a balancing act – and one that tests the intellect, but that is life! – Mature people realize that complex issues require sophisticated thought. If it turns out that his moral instinct is in line with the majority of the society and only conflicts with the political environment, then it should be a much easier task to lobby those in charge and effect political change to get it in line with the societies innate social contracts.

I hope I have satisfied you DG. I fear you will still think I am missing the point, and perhaps I am, but maybe others on this thread can have my back on this – I am pretty new to all these ideas.

122. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57170 by Elli on July 18, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Ok, I just read this:

DG: "By gratuitous I mean "lacking any reason"."

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).

J, you are a very smart eyeball.

123. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57166 by Elli on July 18, 2007 at 12:44 pm

"Usually one considers only these two possibilities, but no matter"

Then perhaps I do not understand what you are trying to say. I still find the notion of attaching personal MEANING to the proposition to not make a whole lot of sense.

"Can you imagine any context where gratuitous torture would not be wrong?"

Easily. Where it does not breach any social contract (in the more abstract way that I discussed above). For example, primitive man may have derived great enjoyment out of hunting other men, or perhaps females or fat females, or perhaps especially hairy men or men with different colored hair, and would not have felt a twinge of remorse at doing so if such behaviour was societally acceptable. Without an evolved sense of morality as is currently in human societies, and without any social contracts against the act, to cause another human pain and to derive pleasure from it is perfectly conceivable. I am not even convinced one has to look that far back in the evolutionary chain for such an example.

To be honest, I don't even understand your final paragraph. I feel like you are mixing a whole lot of concepts together.

124. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57136 by Elli on July 18, 2007 at 10:59 am

I actually think the question does not make sense. The phrase:

"Gratuitous torture is wrong, whatever peoples' opinion about this may be."

is neither meaningful or meaningless. This is not a valid question.

Yes, there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong in a physical event. Of course not. Because "right" or "wrong" is only sensible when viewed from a context or viewpoint. You are miscategorizing "context" as "opinion". Within a society certain social contracts exist. Some are constructed and arbitrary, others stem from evolved behaviours, like altruism. From the context of our current existence of humankind, the breaking of social contract (from evolved morality to agreed law) is "wrong" precisely because it is a breach of contract.

You say: " I don't know about you, but to me the proposition above is eminently meaningful, and if naturalism has trouble with this then the much the worse for naturalism"

but this seems like trickery to me. Your use of the word meaningful makes little sense to me. It is linguistically cunning (no dirty jokes please) but it says nothing. and then you conclude 'naturalism' has trouble with attaching meaning to the proposition, and that this is a chink in naturalism's armour. From my viewpoint, naturalism explains perfectly well why and how human actions are deemed as morally acceptable or not. Obfuscating the issue with notions of "opinions" and "meaningfulness" are just red herrings.

125. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57117 by Elli on July 18, 2007 at 10:02 am

Thanks to everyone for your replies. I am having a go at it, and Dr. Benway's summary is helpful.

I must admit though, it does sound an awful lot like a bad movie plot...

The first stumbling block for me is on what makes this particular idealistic theism more explanatory of reality. We can maintain that we 'feel' like there exists some moral ideas that are absolute (noting the possible errors in the definition of 'absolute') but it is fairly clear that morality is not absolute, in virtually all meanings of the word absolute. I see little problem here at all, I dont even think it is that controversial a point. Humans have evolved along an unbroken path that includes forms of life as simple as bacteria to as complex as modern humankind. Dianelos would not argue that bacteria follow absolute moral laws.

Using the same argument, Dianelos, do you maintain that only humankind are conscious? surely not. Some forms of life (including humankind) exhibit consciousness whilst others do not appear to - not to the same level of sophistication (like Dennett's Lancet Fluke worm). But all life irrefutably evolved from humble beginnings, so where in this continuous chain was consciousness "thrust" upon those animals that have it? (and better yet, how?).

No need for people to answer me if the answers have been given earlier... I will keep reading... but I didn't want to look like I had committed a post-and-run.

126. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56851 by Elli on July 17, 2007 at 1:26 pm

I always fantisized about young Obiwan hitting on me, not Yoda, but I will take what I can get! and I assure you I look much worse without the makeup... small blurry photos are a girl's best friend ;-)

127. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56828 by Elli on July 17, 2007 at 12:33 pm

-- "If after our death we find ourselves conscious on the other side, we will know the correct answer"

No. You will only begin to understand more fully the nature of consciousness.

In what sense would a peaceful man that abhors violence attempt to "conquer" the universe?

Conquer: overcome and take control of by military force (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

128. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56795 by Elli on July 17, 2007 at 9:09 am

Agreed, minstrel. And I am sure that Hitchens gives his children all the knowledge and intellectual tools necessary to conclude that the stories are rubbish and the "ethics" of the plagues (etc) questionable. There is a way to uphold family gathering traditions without indoctrinating children, and I am confident Hitchens, of all people, is able to do so with his family.

LOVE your avatar by the way ;-)

129. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56791 by Elli on July 17, 2007 at 8:48 am

Wow this is a long thread!
Looks interesting...

Can someone let me know if it is worth my time to go and read it all (or is it the same old rehashed rubbish)?

130. The New New Atheism

Comment #56790 by Elli on July 17, 2007 at 8:30 am

"the then widespread practice of child-sacrifice"

Evidence please. What outlandish bare-faced lying by Mr. Berkowitz... unless he is privy to evidence of widespread child sacrifice occurring in the period around 2000 years BCE... which I would be fascinated to read. This reminds me of one of Hitchen's points (I just finished his book) where he observes the absurd proposition that humanity thought it perfectly fine to murder and steal until the jews hit Mt Sinai.

However, isolating the supposed religious significance of the Bible from the communities and interpretive traditions that have elaborated its teaching is invalid. It is like deriving the meaning of the Constitution today by reading its provisions without reference to "The Federalist Papers," which provides authoritative commentary on its principles; without reference to the two centuries of cases and controversies through which the Supreme Court has sought to construe its meaning; and without reference to the two centuries of experience through which the American people have sought to put the institutional framework it outlines into practice.

Interesting... is he trying to argue the bible was written by a committee of men?