Here is an opportunity for any Atheist (Note 1) to set the record straight regarding your acquisition and possession of your moral and intellectual principles.
Go Ahead and use the comment space for this post to list the following:
1. Your position on absolutes, and how you acquired that position (e.g. the evidence)
2. Your moral principles, the moral authority for those principles, and how you acquired those principles.
3. Your intellectual principles, the grounding authority for those principles, and how you acquired those principles.
Go Ahead. Share the fundamental basis for your worldview.
Note 1: Not banned, of course. Looking for rational responses, not rants.
27 comments:
I wonder how many atheists will post before one of them lets fly with an insult or arrogant statement?
Fingers crossed...
1. Not sure what you mean by 'absolutes' so I don't know how to answer that.
2. I get my moral principles from my sense of empathy. I'm able to define my own morals because I am a kind person who cares about others. I don't need morals to be dictated to me by someone else, especially not a thousands of years old scrolls found in a cave in the desert.
3. Also not sure what "intellectual principles" means. Like my sense of morality, I use my own mind to determine all my principles. I examine evidence, have discussions with people, and try to be as rational as possible. I have beliefs but any one of them is subject to change.
The fundamental basis for my worldview? Once more, not really sure what you are really asking for.
It's clear from your blog that you were likely never an atheist. Just saying. Nice try, though.
1. Your position on absolutes, and how you acquired that position (e.g. the evidence)
- depends man... what layer of such are you wishing to refer to? Meaning, if you are speaking 'absolute' in one way, then we have to remove circle from the lexicon of language, as it pertains to ever seeing one... since, by default, a circle is absolutely 'round',,, and therefore has never been seen.
- Or, are you using it within the premise of right & wrong? If so, then each situation must be absolutely defined by you, before we could even talk about such things? Just in case... that means what you consider to be 'absolute' must have zero room for wiggle. Now for me, I think that is absolutely impossible... but situations are easily made into absolutes. Example: If a drug is known to kill a patient, and therefore has been banned, then in no way could it be viewed morally 'right' for a nurse/doctor to give it to a patient, no matter how much they thought the time they did it may be different.
2. Your moral principles, the moral authority for those principles, and how you acquired those principles.
- wonderfully simple good man, and mostly based on consensual concepts. Ex: Do you think an external source of morality is required before you push my child into a dung filled ditch? (please answer yes or no, first) You see, I don't think so...I think it has a lot to do with me not liking the idea... I wouldn't want you to push my child into the dung filled ditch, and I'm sure you wouldn't want me to push your child into the dung filled ditch ...... same goes for many other moral things... don't you think.... like, I don't steal because I sure as hell don't want folk to steal from me.... what else is required past this simple principle? nothing really.
And lets not even get started on the killing stuff. Think about it... does this make sense to you... an alternate world were killing in good, and living is bad.
act 1.... two folk meet for the first time.... kill each other. the end. Makes no sense, does it? But, when you discuss certain parts of 'morality' that is exactly what you are implying is it not?
3. Your intellectual principles, the grounding authority for those principles, and how you acquired those principles.
- could you please clarify what this mean via examples and the such? thanks
Can I ask who the Author of this blog ... I've had to check the legitimacy of the challenge first... This site may only be fishing...
But what the heck... bring it on...
1. I don't personally believe there are absolutes... I only maintain that there are apparent absolutes... I came up to that conclusion based from what I've experienced thru my senses...
2. I choose to benefit people I find important thru my actions to me or those that I've share certain relationships with... that is the point it is a personal choice... I was influenced by my Christian parents in the basic idea of loving your fellow men... but I find that you can love your fellow men without any need of an external authority...
3. Well, human intellect for me is simply the by product of the human evolution whose sole purpose is to preserve the genes to the next generation... the human mind's characteristic property to understand the world stems largely from the need to preserve life... if human intelligence does not reflect reality... then the human species would have gone extinct ages ago...
Wow. Just... wow. Stan, did you hire those guys to come over here and give a pitch-perfect recitation of the atheist creed?
And crossing my fingers did not help. The very first poster simply could not resist a parting shot "it's clear you have never been a real atheist". Like you lost your credentials or something. Like they actually know who you are, who you were and could say that with any degree of accuracy whatever.
As for basing your system of subjective morals on your feelings of kindness, there are two things I would say. First, feelings come and go and no person I know has much control over them. That's a foundation of sand.
The second thing, C S Lewis pointed out decades ago:
“Kindness consents very readily to the removal of its object – we have all met people whose kindness to animals is constantly leading them to kill animals lest they should suffer. Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering.”
But then, from the statements I have read here, being a few decades old would automatically disqualify this from being true or even pertinent to the reader's own experience. Age, apparently, removes these qualities.
Or is it only our own culture that says if a thing is old, it must be superseded? I suspect that is part of the cornerstone of Evolutionism - that not only do things change (even non-biological things with no DNA), but the latest must be the best.
I'm not even sure what sort of response would be reasonable to a "challenge" like the one on offer.
To number 1: There appear to be absolutes in terms of mathematical principles that underlie certain physical laws within the universe but we can't prove that they are absolute. There is no reason to think that anything else should operate with absolutes but that is not possible to "prove" as we simply don't have sufficient evidence to look at all possible scenarios. Why would anybody suggest that there should be?
To number 2: What "evidence" is supposed to be offered? Why is evidence required to even discuss morality? There is absolutely no "evidence" of morality being a divine thing and there is no "evidence" that it isn't. At the end of the day, it seems easier to see morality being something that has "evolved" within us and is what has led us to being what we are than that some unidentifiable supreme entity (that doesn't appear to follow the same morality itself) has somehow given it to us.
To number 3: I wouldn't even know how to approach this. My intellectual principles are that I don't make any definitive claim without definitive evidence. Hence, my principal position that I do not make any definitive claims about anything. For all of these reasons, I could never be a theist.
1. The only absolutes are logical absolutes. I obtained this by observing that
a) intuitive "absolutes" have a terrible track record (they are often shown to be wrong by empirical evidence), and
b) noting that no combination of evidence raises empirical "absolutes" to 100 per cent certainty (just write down Bayes' theorem and it's obvious).
2. The meta-ethics I subscribe to is called pluralistic moral reductionism. As far as I can tell (it has been some time since i took philosophy) it is Carnapian reductionism/linguistic frameworks applied to meta-ethics. The ethical theory to which I subscribe is basically desire utilitarianism.
3. Bayes' theorem, essentially. Not sure what is meant by "grounding authority". I would say, for example, that all science tells us is which hypothesis, among those currently under consideration, is most probably given the available evidence.
1. It depends on what "absolutes" you're referring to and what you mean by them. I believe there are absolute facts or truths about nature and reality, and we use various methods to try and figure out what these facts or truths are. I figure if these things weren't absolute to some degree, then it would be pointless to try and discover it, and things would be inconsistent to the point that we can't discover things about nature.
I also believe that some things are subjective and not absolute, like morality. That doesn't mean everyone should be able to get away with anything of course, but it does explain why morality seems to change over time and across different peoples.
2. I think my moral principles are hard to pinpoint. I guess it could be best explained with the golden rule, but even that doesn't cover it exactly.
I have no "moral authority," as in there's no person or source where I search for my morals. I guess the closest thing to a "moral authority" that I have is the society I live in.
I acquired them from living in society, like I believe almost everyone has.
3. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "intellectual principles."
I wonder how many times Steven Satak will post before he lets fly with an insult or arrogant statement?
Approximately zero. Seriously, your first post is arrogant and condescending. Get over yourself.
@Wesley Thai: Actually, it was an honest question. Well, alright, open speculation. Note I did not take any bets and my fingers WERE crossed. It was never an issue of "if" but rather, "when". Thank you for ending the suspense.
Thank you also for finding my first post arrogant and condescending. Recognition of talent is important. You will be pleased to hear that I have, in fact, gotten over myself (it wasn't difficult).
Your statement:
"I also believe that some things are subjective and not absolute, like morality."
reminds me of something CS Lewis wrote concerning that very thing. He thought that reason had to be absolute, and if reason was an absolute, so was morality.
"That doesn't mean everyone should be able to get away with anything of course, but it does explain why morality seems to change over time and across different peoples."
Lewis also pointed out that, far from changing over time and across different peoples, it was quite interesting how similar - nay, almost identical the moral precepts were found to be, from one civilization to another down through the centuries.
"you will be removed, as all trolls ultimately are"
What about Steven Satak?
Well... what about me?
If Stan judges my comments to be trollish, he'll tell me to pop off. And he should.
But then we'd be talking about me. As I don't have an atheist worldview, it seems more appropriate for us to continue reading about other worldviews - preferably atheist.
Maybe I'm just an irritating distraction? I'm not the fellow taking up a false position and talking in circles to spin people up. Some of the things up there really do inspire cogent comments on my part. If they're irritating, what can I say? I apologize.
As to these questions I am a little confused. Are you asking from a personal perspective or academic perspective of philosophical argument. Because really that is too different answers.
1. Your position on absolutes, and how you acquired that position (e.g. the evidence)
Atheist: Nothing is Absolute
Christian: Well that is an absolute statement, and you just contradicted yourself.
Atheist: Ah, you got me, God must really exist.
Really I heard this sunday school apolgetics last month. (no really I did not joking)
as to what you mean by absolutes I am not to sure, cause the question is somewhat vague, but generally when i get this type of question, its not about proving god exist, but playing semantics with gotcha questions.
2. Your moral principles, the moral authority for those principles, and how you acquired those principles.
Since this question is framed from a personal perspective I will answer it as such.
My morals come from many walks of life: My parents, Common Sense, philosophy, interacting with others, life lessons, law, culture, society and even Yes Religion. Even man-made religions can be good tools for teaching people morality.
3. Your intellectual principles, the grounding authority for those principles, and how you acquired those principles.
My intellectual principles come from the great men of history and science. The ones that brought us philosophy, geology, astrophysics, Mathematics, and biology. Each one building upon each other.
And if the next question is where did those men get their intellectual principles, then your answer is their predecessors.
Huh.
Atheist: Nothing is Absolute
Christian: Well that is an absolute statement, and you just contradicted yourself.
Atheist: Ah, you got me, God must really exist.
You... actually heard someone say this? I attended Sunday School when I was younger. Don't ever recall them addressing atheists. Atheists stayed home.
Okay, maybe that was a metaphor/insult you read someplace?
Just because the atheist made a self-contradicting statement doesn't prove that God exists. That's a non sequitur. It does suggest the atheist might want to adjust his stance on Absolutes. And maybe stop jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
Honestly, why would an atheist that? Unless they were being a smart-ass - which, come to think of it, is how a lot of atheists do deal with a situation like that. Momentarily at a loss, they respond with sarcasm - "Yeah? Well, I guess that means you must be a real smart guy, huh?"
actually I still go to church with the wife and the pastor knows I am not a believer.
And about a month ago and a half ago, he briefly talked about relativism, new age, in one of his sermons.
I have heard the Absolute argument on mulitple times, at church, on youtube, with other christian collegues.
But I was being sartirical in just the first question.
The german Duden describes the rabulist as someone who discusses way is "picky, stingy, subtle and dogmatic, and at the same time often distorts the true circumstance, and with an endless accumulation of new arguments". The raburistic serves to have always reason, independent if the own position is correct, and to satisfy the ego. This is obtained with sophisms, fallacies and other rhetorical contrivances as the introduction of red herings to the discussion, semantic displacements, etc. The borders of the deceit, the confusion and the lie changes with fluency.
If atheists have no "moral authorities", that is, in other words, moral anarchism, moral relativism, moral nihilism. The only authority is the own, "i'm my own god".
If there neither have "intellectual authorities", that is intellectual anarchism, intellectual relativism, intellectual nihilism. The only authority is my own mind. That is narcistic neoindividualism, individualist anarchism.
According to Max Stirner, the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire, without regard for God, state, or morality. To Stirner, rights were spooks in the mind. Stirner's philosophy was re-discovered and promoted by philosophical anarchist and LGBT activist John Henry Mackay.
This is a list of biases that atheists commit again and again, and that one can see here:
Illusion of asymmetric insight
Illusory superiority
Confirmation bias
Self-serving bias
Bias blind spot
Internet atheism, the thrill is gone:
http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/internet-atheism-and-skepticism-thrill.html
John Fitzgerald,
Your very first conclusion is contrary to observable fact: Atheists reject, positively and without either contrary evidence or argument, theist arguments and material evidence. The rejection is a positive position. You make your assertion without providing either deductive disciplined argument or material empirical evidence, yourself.
Your next conclusion goes contrary to Atheist contentions here on this blog: Atheists claim all sorts of moral principles from consequentialism, relativism, Materialism, Scientism, Kantianism to all sorts of other moral/truth theories, many created out of thin air. Further, Atheism was the moral light of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Che & Fidel, etc. To claim that evolution has driven modern morality is a noncredible leap of the faithful, one which ignores obvious data to the contrary.
Your attempt to justify evolutionary morality (evo devo) is a Just So Story which cannot be falsified, and so cannot ever be justified with actual evidence; thus it is a blind belief, religiously held - and is in no manner an empirical, material belief.
These claims, and your dismissal of theists with merely sarcasm places you and your theories in the non-rational category.
Should you come up with actual material evidence or grounded premises for your conclusions, you will be back on rational ground, and presenting something of value for discussion.
I'm sorry Stan but I have no idea what you are referencing with regard to what I said. Atheism is not necessarily a positive rejection of gods, that is known as "strong atheism" but most atheists (a-theism - meaning without belief in gods) simply do not recognize that there is any evidence for the existence of gods and simply do not believe that there are any in existence. Yes, there are many moral positions held by people who are atheists, but they are not massively different in terms of what they end up at. Morals are how society holds together. Whether or not you agree with the theory that morality makes sense through evolution is again irrelevant. None of it matters, unless you believe that there is a deity who "deserves" or "requires" appreciation for providing it. At no point was I being sarcastic, so I really don't know where you are getting that from. You appear to have gone off on a rant of some type having read something into what I said that was never there. I never attempted to justify anything, simply presented the concept that it is reasonable to observe morality through evolution. I am not sure what sort of material evidence you expect to see on that, since I am not suggesting that it is something that happened. There is also no material evidence, nor logical basis for presuming that morality did or even could come from a higher being. At the end of the day, we have some level of societal morality and it doesn't matter where it came from unless there is a need to give credit to some being or other. The simple fact that atheists do not believe in any such being makes that direction irrelevant.
If "societal morality is the result of evolution", we have to think that morality is always changing or transforming in time. Morality depends from historical moment. It's very interesting to know what Karl Popper says on "The Poverty of Historicism".
John Fitzgerald said,
”I'm sorry Stan but I have no idea what you are referencing with regard to what I said. Atheism is not necessarily a positive rejection of gods, that is known as "strong atheism" but most atheists (a-theism - meaning without belief in gods) simply do not recognize that there is any evidence for the existence of gods and simply do not believe that there are any in existence.
There are plenty of non-refuted theist arguments, and there is the physical evidence which no one has refuted either (they always refuse to even address it). Your position seems to be stated directly from the holy book of Atheist Fallacy. Anyone who has looked at this issue seriously knows that your claim is not true.
”Yes, there are many moral positions held by people who are atheists, but they are not massively different in terms of what they end up at.”
The morals of Mao, Lenin, Che, Stalin are “not massively different”???
You seem not to have given this much thought at all, short of boiler-plate, bumper-sticker sorts of "philosophy".
”Morals are how society holds together.”
Well, my word. Would you have instructed the Kulaks of this, as they were being exterminated, along with millions of others?
”Whether or not you agree with the theory that morality makes sense through evolution is again irrelevant. None of it matters, unless you believe that there is a deity who "deserves" or "requires" appreciation for providing it.”
That is absurd. What you say you believe is maximally naïve, and leads to your demise at the hands of Nietzsche’s Will To Power players who will eat you alive, because their choice of morality is : None.
Even Dawkins admits that he cannot actually fault Hitler, using Atheist morals (there is no such thing).
You seem to have bought the cant of the Atheist Holy Book without any analytical processing.
(continued)
(from above)
”At no point was I being sarcastic, so I really don't know where you are getting that from. You appear to have gone off on a rant of some type having read something into what I said that was never there. I never attempted to justify anything, simply presented the concept that it is reasonable to observe morality through evolution. I am not sure what sort of material evidence you expect to see on that, since I am not suggesting that it is something that happened.”
And this is maximally disingenuous. You have suggested that evolution is the antidote to theism. You did it again, just above in this comment of yours. And now you deny it.
”There is also no material evidence, nor logical basis for presuming that morality did or even could come from a higher being.”
Your Philosophical Materialism has “no material evidence nor logical basis” for presuming that it could possibly know the source of morality, or presuming that it could detect a non-physical being.
You have Poisoned the Well with a false philosophy: Philosophical Materialism, by which you make declarations using Philosophical Materialism which it cannot possibly support.
Philosophical Materialism cannot even support its own premise, which is that because the material existence is all there is, there is no existence which cannot be detected materially. This is internally non-coherent, self-referencing, and is a conclusion without either premises, valid logic, or material evidence for its support. Philosophical Materialism is demonstrably irrational.
”At the end of the day, we have some level of societal morality and it doesn't matter where it came from unless there is a need to give credit to some being or other. The simple fact that atheists do not believe in any such being makes that direction irrelevant. “
Your acceptance of whatever “level of societal morality” is dealt out, self-assigns to you a dangerousness which you, yourself, do not seem to comprehend. If you are ignorant of the massively murderous and ethics-free Atheist societies of the 20th century, then you should alleviate that ignorance with historical education, because the danger is to you as well as society. If, on the other hand, you know about the several hundred million murders and tortures, but just don’t care about genocide – a common Atheist feature – then you, yourself are the danger.
It is not necessary to argue FOR a deity in order to demonstrate the internal non-coherence and irrationality of Atheism. Atheism is a conclusion which is unsupported and unsupportable using disciplined, deductive logical argumentation, as well as physical, empirical, scientific evidence to prove its position.
Back to your original claim: Atheism is the positive rejection of theist claims, a rejection conclusion which has no premises, no evidence either logically or physically to provide the materialist certainty which Atheists require. If an "Atheist" claims there is no evidence, then he is ignorant of that evidence which exists, untouched, or he is making false statements.
Stan, you certainly seem to like arguing points that I am not making. Please do let me know what positive statements I am making. It might help if you actually presented the "material evidence" that exists to support the existence of a deity. I am perfectly happy to accept that I am either not aware of it or have disregarded it and will happily discuss that with you.
Again, you state that I have made "declarations" with reference to Material Philosophy. I have done no such thing, I have made declarations of nothing (other than that I do not make declarations - lol).
You appear to be struggling hard to prove some level of something but have not done a good job of presenting what it is that you think or believe. I have no strong beliefs. I simply have never seen (or have disregarded) any evidence that would indicate to me that any god is extant. If you are aware of evidence that I am unaware of, it would certainly be a positive approach for you to share it.
You do seem to like to say that atheism is the positive rejection of theist claims. Again, I know of very few atheists who make any such positive rejections. Personally, I tried to believe in a god for a long time but simply never could. It has nothing to do with anything other than that nothing ever "clicked" for me. Nothing about gods has ever made any sense to me. I have read the Bible, I have read the Quran and I have referenced other religious texts. I did not find anything in them to make any sense at all to me. They are too vague and too open to interpretation (as evidenced by the plethora of different interpretations that exist in the world today). I simply don't see belief as a choice - it is either something that you have or something that you don't have.
With science, I don't need to "believe" anything. I see that there are many positive branches that emerge from scientific study of many things (including evolution). I don't feel the need to believe in it, I simply accept that it appears to make sense as it feeds through to other disciplines in a positive manner. If the theory was shown to be incorrect, that would not affect my worldview in any way, I would simply observe what positive outcomes emerged from wherever the science went after that point.
I don't see any reason to need to understand what caused the start of the universe, what caused the start of life or whether there is a "purpose" to life. I live my life with the philosophy of leaving the world a better place than it was before I arrived (by however little that might be). How I have arrived at that "moral" base is fairly irrelevant to me. Perhaps a deity implanted it in me but also implanted the inability to believe in it? I don't know and I don't really care.
I have attempted to respond to your "challenge" in the most honest manner that I can. The fact that you appear to want to use what I didn't say to build some vague philosophical stance of your own (without clearly stating what you are trying to express) is your own agenda and has nothing to do with me.
Oh, sorry Stan, I missed responding to your point about Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Yes, there are evil people who take advantage of their power to do awful things to others. Some have done it in the name of a god and others have done it for their own ends. It doesn't make any particular philosophy any more or less "good". I am a supporter of the concept of non-violent non-compliance. I know that there will be people who try to use their own power for evil ends. At the end of the day, if enough people simply do not comply and actively work to remove those in danger from the situation, the person seeking to do the damage will be left impotent. The existence of people who do not subscribe to a general "moral compass" has no bearing on the origination of morality but simply shows that there are exceptions to everything and that we need to be able to respond to threats in a way that supports the "common good".
”Stan, you certainly seem to like arguing points that I am not making. Please do let me know what positive statements I am making. It might help if you actually presented the "material evidence" that exists to support the existence of a deity. I am perfectly happy to accept that I am either not aware of it or have disregarded it and will happily discuss that with you.”
Very well then. There is remnant evidence of the miracle at Lourdes France, in the form of a spring of water that many people saw arise from the rocks at the base of the cliff, when the girl experiencing the miracle revealed it in a grotto previously without a spring. The spring is still running, giving all Atheists a chance to apply their empirical powers to refuting the observations of the crowd. Empirical refutation would require falsifiable experimental data, both replicable and replicated, which shows conclusively that the spring could not have been “miraculous” as has been claimed without refutation for roughly 150 years.
” Again, you state that I have made "declarations" with reference to Material Philosophy. I have done no such thing, I have made declarations of nothing (other than that I do not make declarations - lol).
You most certainly have and did. After a series of declarations, some of which are universal statements, you made this assertion: ” There is also no material evidence, nor logical basis for presuming that morality did or even could come from a higher being.” This is false. Material evidence of a deity exists. And logic exists in any text on the subject which includes Aquinas, Des Cartes, Locke, and many others, including links in the right hand column of this blog if you chose to read them.
” You appear to be struggling hard to prove some level of something but have not done a good job of presenting what it is that you think or believe. I have no strong beliefs. I simply have never seen (or have disregarded) any evidence that would indicate to me that any god is extant. If you are aware of evidence that I am unaware of, it would certainly be a positive approach for you to share it.”
You might not have noticed that this blog is about the analysis of Atheism, and is even named such. Atheism and its claim to logic and evidence is the subject. You are slip sliding out from under your previous universal declarations as you apparently now realize that you cannot defend them.
” I simply don't see belief as a choice - it is either something that you have or something that you don't have.”
And that is your belief, another universal statement based on your opinion. The actual fact of beliefs is that there are justified beliefs, and it has been shown that everyone, including Atheists have justified beliefs. There are also unjustified beliefs, and Atheists common engage in those.
You appear to have the unjustified belief in science (scientism) which ignores the limitations of science under the Inductive Fallacy, the resulting Deductive Fallacy, and the Popperian falsification demarcation of the boundaries of empirical hegemony. Science produces only factoids, which are replicated results which have not produced contrary results, yet which can never produce a truth due to their contingency on future experiments and more developed technology.
But this is your slipperiest declaration yet:
(continued)
(from above)
” With science, I don't need to "believe" anything. I see that there are many positive branches that emerge from scientific study of many things (including evolution). I don't feel the need to believe in it, I simply accept that it appears to make sense as it feeds through to other disciplines in a positive manner. If the theory was shown to be incorrect, that would not affect my worldview in any way, I would simply observe what positive outcomes emerged from wherever the science went after that point.”
You now are declaring a lack of belief in anything whatsoever, it appears. That way you cannot be expected to defend a position, because you have none. You assert that you are merely an observer who makes no differentiating judgments, has no opinions, makes no assertions. So you are merely a black hole for information, apparently.
Yet you have made assertions as to what an Atheist is and does, which amounts to approximately nothing, in your estimation. That has left you with no opinions, no principles, no morals… other than what the culture does. This is the very definition of the Atheist VOID, the rejection of all absolutes, including absolute intellectual and moral principles, and declaring instead your own version of those, which includes, apparently the relativistic, hedonistic, culture which has metastasized in the western world which you accept as the result of evolution. Or rather, not accept: you observe: you apparently accept no position on anything.
” I live my life with the philosophy of leaving the world a better place than it was before I arrived (by however little that might be). How I have arrived at that "moral" base is fairly irrelevant to me.”
So apparently you believe in a moral creed the source of which you have no idea. You have no idea of why it is valid, under what moral principle it operates, or whether you know what a “better world” actually means. The relativism is obvious: you get to decide, and whatever you decide will be “moral”, because you decide it under your “moral base”.
(continued)
(from above)
” The fact that you appear to want to use what I didn't say to build some vague philosophical stance of your own (without clearly stating what you are trying to express) is your own agenda and has nothing to do with me.”
Actually, your response was a complete non-response, and your subsequent assertions made to spicoiter were outrageously ignorant of actual Atheist belief and behavior – which indicated to me that you got all your Atheism philosophy from a single on-line source purporting to have knowledge of what all Atheists believe. While it is common for Atheists to arrive here declaring that their personal Atheism is the only one that exists, your declarations seemed particularly ripe for contest.
And your denial of responsibility for having any opinions (except those you slip in, of course) seems way out of line with common variety Atheists, who have lots of opinions and lots of beliefs which they are not shy about wielding. So that’s the reason for addressing your non-opinions: you are transparently slipperier than most Atheists.
” I am a supporter of the concept of non-violent non-compliance. I know that there will be people who try to use their own power for evil ends. At the end of the day, if enough people simply do not comply and actively work to remove those in danger from the situation, the person seeking to do the damage will be left impotent.”
The concept of impotence of tyrants in the face of non-compliance is empirically, demonstrably false. It was absurd to the Atheists mentioned above, those who killed millions of “non-compliants”. Your sincerity is touching but in practice it is effective only in democracies, never in tyrannies. The Atheists mentioned ran tyrannies, not democracies.
” The existence of people who do not subscribe to a general "moral compass" has no bearing on the origination of morality but simply shows that there are exceptions to everything and that we need to be able to respond to threats in a way that supports the "common good".”
You are the one who keeps bringing up the “origin of morality”, when all that was asked for originally was for your personal moral principles, the moral authority for them, and how you acquired them. So your attacks on religious morality is outside the original issue, yet you persist in it. You claim to have no opinions (apparently), yet you keep stating your opinions as fact, as your above compound sentence clearly demonstrates. Your denial of the supremely amoral reigns of terror by the Atheists mentioned as “exceptions” actually says a lot about your inability to accept the roots of amorality under Atheist hegemony, where the brutality is historically massively unconscionable. And that places your declaration of the amorphous concept of “common good” under suspicion.
BTW, if you refute the Lourdes' miracle, you will become quite famous, and you can write books and become wealthy, a la the New Atheists. There is quite a material benefit in doing what has never been done. So git 'er done!
Okay, here
1. Your position on absolutes, and how you acquired that position (e.g. the evidence)
I’m not sure what your vague question means by my “position on absolutes”. But I would take a position that anything dependent on anyone’s state of mind cannot be absolute, by definition.
Frex, young-earth creationists take it on faith our planet is 6,000-10,000 years old. Scientists follow multiple lines of physical evidence to conclude that our planet is 4.54 × 10^9 years old. In reality, earth has an age it actually is, an absolutely true age, independent of what anybody thinks. Objective reality determines absolute truth.
2. Your moral principles, the moral authority for those principles, and how you acquired those principles.
Lately I’ve been exploring ethical systems more advanced than authoritarian morality, reading about meta-ethics and objective morality grounded entirely in reason. Like desirism, which has overarching moral principles like “something is morally good if it fulfills more and greater desires than are thwarted, among all desires”, since desire is the source of all moral value. I acquired that from Luke Muelhauser’s book “What Is Morality?”.
3. Your intellectual principles, the grounding authority for those principles, and how you acquired those principles.
I’ve never tried to list them before, though they’d include open-mindedness, skepticism, intellectual honesty, and so forth. Among them would be Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Twelve Virtues of Rationality, acquired at that link. I didn’t adopt them because of anything so unintellectual as adherence to authority, but because they make good sense.
Post a Comment