It is very common to come away from a conversation with an Atheist scratching one’s head and wondering, “Why doesn’t he understand what I’m saying?” , or, “have I completely lost my ability to communicate?”. It seems to reflect deeply into our own view of reality that such a creature as we have just encountered can exist and find his way through a world too rational for him to comprehend.
I recently commented elsewhere on a pertinent article that I found, written by an Atheist concerning the ethics of Atheism. The article is both clearly written and is a fair and definitive statement of how Atheists think about transcendentals such as ethics. And how they think in general. After spending considerable energy degrading Christianity, the author finally gets to “the Atheist Foundation of Ethics”, which he calls, “Consequentialist” ethics. Here is an excerpt that will help show the thought process:
"An objective ethic is a consequentialist ethic that has an ultimate goal that is objectively measurable. It then becomes an objective question whether a particular recommended means will in fact lead to that goal, whether another means might be more effective. The statement "If you want X then you ought to do Y" becomes a statement about cause-and-effect relationships that is objectively true or false, and can be investigated by scientific procedures.There is more in the article; by all means read the whole thing if you are inclined. But this snippet is representative and indicative. The relationship is this, that the end determines the means. The first consideration is the goal (a common procedure), followed by the tactics needed to achieve that goal (another common procedure). But the author calls this an ethic. Ordinarily one might consider this to be a project management technique, to define a goal, then to set up tactics to achieve it. But not an ethic. An ethic would be a defined basis for judging which goal is right and which goal is wrong. So the term "consequentialist" apparently means that the consequence outweighs the tactics, not that the consequence has any moral value. The ethic then is without moral value.
What about the choice of your ultimate goal, your ultimate value that you are pursuing? Can we say that some goal is "better" than others, and deserves to be adopted by everyone? I think there is one that we can predict will be widely popular, because it is favored by natural selection. But there is no logical or cosmic necessity that it be adopted by everyone.
There is a built-in "default" goal of biological life, genetic reproductive success, also called "inclusive fitness" by biologists."
http://www.rationalatheist.com/Articles/atheist_ethics.html
The Atheist assumption here is that (a) there is no absolute right or wrong; (b) the goal is neither right nor wrong; (c) any means that successfully progress efficiently toward the achievement of the goal are acceptable.
Aside from this ethic encompassing the fundamentals of totalitarianism, it serves to illuminate the entire thought process used by Atheists in general. We can see clearly that the proposed ethic states that the conclusion is the imperative, and that the supporting elements (premises) are secondary and are to be selected for their ability to support the conclusion. This is classical definition of rationalization(1), the opposition to rationality.
If one is habituated to the defect of rationalization, the inverted procedure becomes transparent to him. It seems natural to believe a conclusion and then seek out the arguments that support it (with total disregard to the logic of the arguments). And it seems natural to reject and deny any arguments that do not support the conclusion (again with total disregard to the logic of the arguments).
In fact denialism is pathological in the rationale of Atheism. It is really the only defense against first principles based, transcendent logic. Such absolutist logic can only be denied, not disproved, and this is just what Nietzsche did in his support of Athesim. But most Atheists don't delve that deeply into the philosophy of their own beliefs, because there is no need to examine a personal truth construct for validity if one actually believes it.
The inversion in logic is transparent to the rationalization-afflicted, if they refuse to consider the use of first principle based, absolute, transcendent logic. In fact the inversion goes to the extent of inverting the meanings of the fallacies in order to support their conclusions.
This logical inversion is fatal to any conversation with an Atheist which tries to hinge on first principle based logic. Denial in the face of clear logic is the Atheist’s approach to argumentation. This is then turned into rebuttal in kind: tu Quoque, and followed with another denial that it has been done. If the non-Atheist quits in the frustration of arguing in a non-rational environment, the Atheist declares victory.
But there is more to the story than how the inversion happens. There is the why. Why is there a necessity for rationalization and denial of fallacy in the worldview of Atheism? It is necessary because the conclusion is more important to the atheist than the process that is used to derive it. In other words, the truth-finding process is not deemed necessary when the truth of the conclusion is pre-defined. Atheists have created their own truth. They must defend it at all cost. They cannot admit to fallacies because to do so would threaten the validity of their own personal truth construct.
Loss of the atheist’s truth construct can be a serious, even traumatic, event. It means that he must be exposed to external moral authority outside his own ethical story; it means that there becomes necessity for intellectual discipline, which is required when one seeks truth rather than inventing it; it means that it becomes necessary to value humility over elitism.
The loss of these aspects of the Atheist’s self-image is too devastating for many to consider. And so for some of them it becomes necessary to argue one’s viewpoint incessantly just to keep justifying it over and over. Why else would a person “without a belief” argue it so persistently and passionately? Only the need for self-justification could answer that drive.
I have previously outlined the several causes that seem to lead to Atheism. The need to preserve the worldview-cocoon and safety from external moral authority is strong. But the loss of truth-finding ability is exacerbated by the artificial truth-manufacturing that is needed to support the cocoon.
And it is their truth manufacturing that makes the Atheists impossible to understand for those of us who seek the truth by rejecting conclusions that are not based on fallacy-free premises. The logic systems are too different to allow communication to flow between parties with the transfer of meaning unencumbered by inversion.
Even as an Atheist myself for 40 years, I found it difficult to see the logic behind much of what other Atheists held to be true. But I finally decided to actually seek truth, rather than pack delusions around a preconception, no matter how valued the preconception.
Sometimes I try to communicate with one. But it is always the same, rebuttal by denial of the obvious, inability to connect on a rational basis. Empirically speaking, it’s a proven waste of time.
Notes:
(1)Rationalization is used here in the sense as follows:
"to find reasons to justify or explain (one's actions)"
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006
© HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
and
"To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Updated in 2003.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
17 comments:
So, how do you seek truth? What are the pertinent truths and sources of ethics?
Very well said, this is an excellent blog post and conveys very well what I have experienced in my dealings with Atheists. I sent this article to an atheist friend who as expected did just what you mention near the end of the article, denial of the obvious and the logical fallacy of "appeal to ridicule".
Every atheist I've talked with dismisses evidence that disagrees with their worldview based on one logical fallacy or another, never have I actually been given any serious rebuttle to evidence against an atheistic view.
Loved reading this post!
I wouldn't have understood this post two years ago, but I do now.
Stan-- You have educated me-- thank-you.
OK, I think I see where the confusion is. The essay is descriptive, and you're interpreting it as prescriptive. Most atheists would like it if there were a universal moral code that everyone could agree to as a self-evident truth. But no such moral code has ever been identified. The closest we can come is to recognize that people want to live in a society where they're happy and where their friends/relatives/"people like them" are likewise happy.
Maybe a concrete example will help: One of the hot issues that's been in the news for the past couple thousand years is who has the right to govern the city of Jerusalem. God (speaking through his human agents) gave exclusive rights to the property to several different groups of people and they've been fighting about it ever since. Is there some "objective ethic" that will lead us to a solution? If two people have different solutions, how can we tell which one of them is "objectively right" and which is "objectively wrong"? Some of the sharpest theologians on the planet have been working on the Jerusalem problem for ages, and I have to wonder why they don't have an answer yet.
Atheists would say that the problem is rooted in subjective values, and that it won't end until the people involved get tired of fighting and the survivors (if any) work out some kind of compromise that leaves everyone unhappy. Atheists don't think this is the optimal solution; they think it's what's inevitably going to happen.
As to rationalization: That's a human failing; not one that's unique to atheists. You don't have to look very hard to find theists who worship a God who mysteriously hates exactly the same people that they hate.
So I think it's a fallacy to say that atheists "want safety from external moral authority". If that was what they wanted, then they could just rely on the old reliable, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" trope. But as atheists, they have to at least consider the possibility that a moral question has two sides to it and that the other side might be more defensible than they think.
The article is both clearly written and is a fair and definitive statement of how Atheists think about transcendentals such as ethics. And how they think in general.
...[His ethic] serves to illuminate the entire thought process used by Atheists in general.
You get off track right at the beginning. Anyone who says they have identified how atheists think in general is not being intellectually honest or is grossly mistaken. Atheists hold that we do not have sufficient evidence for belief in a god. Period. You seem to enjoy expounding on what is going through all of our heads. We are devastated, traumatized, unable to admit to fallacies, elitist, pathological, and clearly unable to fathom the atheistic brilliance of Nietzsche (natch). Sorry, but upon further analysis, I think we have to go with simple intellectual dishonesty.
We can see clearly that the proposed ethic states that the conclusion is the imperative, and that the supporting elements (premises) are secondary and are to be selected for their ability to support the conclusion. This is classical definition of rationalization(1), the opposition to rationality
Merely calling the supporting elements premises is a neat trick, but a neat trick does not entail a good analogy. To rationalize is to provide reasons for some conclusion that are not the actual reasons. To figure out how to get from here to there is not rationalizing. Since much of the rest of your argument is based on this "inversion" you severely weaken your postion. If you say, for example, that you would like to increase church membership, and you devise a plan, are you rationalizing? No, of course not. You may wonder whether the end is a "good" and whether the means you choose are "good" or at least neutral. But you are not rationalizing. If you say that the reason you want to increase church membership is because you love God, but secretly you just want more cash flow, then you are rationalizing.
Ginx, Good to see you back here, how did your move south go?
You asked, ”So, how do you seek truth?
We all develop preferences, some of which develop into prejudices. Since it is difficult to see our own prejudices, I used the Cartesian method of rejecting everything that I thought I knew, everything that I thought was true, or Truth.
Questions are all that are left after such a ruthless purge. Is there any basic source for valid thought? In fact, what is thought? How is rational thought accomplished: is there a rigorous process? If so, what is the foundation under the process? What is an absolute: how is it defined? Could there exist any absolutes, even one? What are the consequences of having no absolutes? What are the consequences of having no absolute basis for rationality? What are the characteristics of evidence that give it validity? Is there an evidence theory, especially one within logic?
The questions seemed endless. So I started to study, starting with textbooks in logic, then critical thinking, then philosophy, then philosophy of science, then philosophy of the mind, and on and on. The inquiry never ends. (And the book budget is scary). For myself, there was no guide, no process to follow. I developed a mountain of notes that buried my desk and table. It was not until I discovered the First Principles of logic that I was able to start rebuilding, one step at a time.
This type of self-education (all education is self-education at bottom) is far different from government schooling or university job training. It is purely self-directed inquiry, but is one which depends upon self-imposed intellectual humility in the face of oncoming results. Results should always be questioned, of course, but after a comfortable number of confirmations, the results should always trump prior prejudice, if the process is valid. That’s why the process has to be understood first, well before any answers are sought.
”What are the pertinent truths…”
Start with the First Principles. I didn’t know about them, and I had to cast about aimlessly until I found them. (upper right hand column of this blog).
”….and sources of ethics?”
Ethics are either natural, Consequentialist, or revealed. For example, a natural “Right” (objective) which can be easily defended is the right to use one’s own intellect. There are others, but this is likely to be one that Atheists might agree with.
Most ethics are Consequentialist at their base, being selected for their presumed beneficial consequences – usually not for the proponent so much as for “humanity in general”, with a general righteousness conferred upon the proponent as a result of holding righteous ethics. Other possible ethics are rejected because the consequences are not compatible with the proponent’s worldview. This is a feature of “virtue ethics”, which again is based on consequences. The consequences always confer justification upon any type of tactic to produce the desired consequence. In the limit, if one eschews tactics which are then not taken in pursuit of a desired consequence, that is declared unethical, regardless of the tactic. (Alinsky)
For example, Jonathan Haight listed five main categories of ethics; Massimo Pigliucci rejected three of the categories, and accepted only the two that were congenial to him.
Character traits tend to suffer under Consequentialism and Virtue Ethics, because self-discipline and self-development is devalued in favor of “social justice”, compassion, and egalitarianism of outcomes.
Revealed ethics are usually rejected by those who want to create their own.
Chaos Engineer said,
Most atheists would like it if there were a universal moral code that everyone could agree to as a self-evident truth.”
I doubt this seriously, because a great many Atheists are chronically rebellious at heart. They even fight with each other over minutiae such as whether to tolerate the Other, or even each other.
”…concrete example… govern the city of Jerusalem ... God (speaking through his human agents) gave exclusive rights to the property to several different groups of people ”
This is indeed an intractable issue. It represents human corruption of theological issues which are not necessary or sufficient for theology to exist in the first place. E.g. theology does not stand or fall based on who owns Jerusalem. However, if one set of theists is determined to annihilate the other sets of theists as well as Atheists, the issue becomes a practical, political issue, possibly one of warfare theory, not one of theology. Fallacious ecclesiaticism and corrupted human institutions do not defeat originating theism.
”Atheists don't think this is the optimal solution; they think it's what's inevitably going to happen.”
I suspect that this is true, also.
”As to rationalization: That's a human failing; not one that's unique to atheists.”
That is a Tu Quoque response, and does not falsify that the rationalization which is endemic to the Atheist worldview and philosophy, is in fact, a tactic that is virtually institutionalized.
”But as atheists, they have to at least consider the possibility that a moral question has two sides to it and that the other side might be more defensible than they think.”
If every issue has two valid but contradictory sides, it is a logical failure. Atheists like to claim logic and rationality and evidence, yet consistently fail their own principles.
Chris said,
"You get off track right at the beginning. Anyone who says they have identified how atheists think in general is not being intellectually honest or is grossly mistaken. Atheists hold that we do not have sufficient evidence for belief in a god. Period."
No, actually Atheists don't say that at all; they claim that there is no deity. Period. Insufficient evidence is the refuge of agnosticism, not Atheism.
”Merely calling the supporting elements premises is a neat trick, but a neat trick does not entail a good analogy. To rationalize is to provide reasons for some conclusion that are not the actual reasons.”
First off it is not an analogy, it is representative of the presented argument. Second, rationalization includes cherry picking only reasons which place the conclusion in a valid light, and those reasons might be valid – but by ignoring the other non-valid subpremises or axioms, the conclusion might be seen as valid when it is actually not valid. But this is nitpicking; the point is that the conclusion is decreed first, and then supported in whatever fashion leads to success for the prechosen conclusion.
” To figure out how to get from here to there is not rationalizing. Since much of the rest of your argument is based on this "inversion" you severely weaken your postion. If you say, for example, that you would like to increase church membership, and you devise a plan, are you rationalizing? No, of course not. You may wonder whether the end is a "good" and whether the means you choose are "good" or at least neutral. But you are not rationalizing. If you say that the reason you want to increase church membership is because you love God, but secretly you just want more cash flow, then you are rationalizing.”
I suspect that you did not read the post carefully. Here are the first two sentences of the Consequentialist position:
” "An objective ethic is a consequentialist ethic that has an ultimate goal that is objectively measurable. It then becomes an objective question whether a particular recommended means will in fact lead to that goal, whether another means might be more effective.”
Two things are quite clear here. First, the objective is selected. Period. It is not screened for any moral or ethical qualities. It is merely selected. Then the issue becomes purely and exclusively one of finding tactics to achieve the pre-selected objective/conclusion effectively. This is rationalization in action. Choose a conclusion, then support it however it is possible to do so.
This is not a project management issue, it is an ethical statement: the ethic is Consequentialism. And because Atheists subscribe to no counsel other than their own (claiming no priests or gurus - despite frequent references to Dawkins et.al.), Atheists clearly create their own ethics and worldviews. But are they able to build their ethics and worldviews based on some absolute or objective principles? No, because they reject those things out of hand. So, many if not all Atheists build an ethic that is compatible with their own proclivities, one that matches their behaviors and hopes for the world, one which they automatically fit into completely, and one which confers righteousness upon them due to their ability to “be ethical” within their own fabricated constraints. This is hardly arguable; it is the logical consequence of a non-absolutist worldview. (But I am certain that it will be argued anyway.)
Stan Said,
"And because Atheists subscribe to no counsel other than their own (claiming no priests or gurus - despite frequent references to Dawkins et.al.)"[...]
Whom do most theists count as their counsel? In all fairness, most would frequently reference their own theological equivalent to Dawkings, would they not?
"Atheists clearly create their own ethics and worldviews. But are they able to build their ethics and worldviews based on some absolute or objective principles?"
What absolute or objective principals to theists build their ethics upon? How are these different from the ethics that atheists (mostly) hold true themselves?
I've found that nearly all people, theists and atheists alike, hold nearly the same ethics and moralities to be a part of their own worldview, however for wildly different reasons. I've often found it difficult to understand the rationality behind most theists reasons for excepting a given ethical code; for most, it is simply not a question, it is given via a doctrine that is simply accepted without question.
If an atheist were to arrive at the same ethical code as a theist, and were to do so via (what they believe to be) objective or absolute principals, how is this any different from a theist accepting ethical code from their doctrine without questioning it?
Dcdustin said,
”Whom do most theists count as their counsel? In all fairness, most would frequently reference their own theological equivalent to Dawkings, would they not?”
and,
”What absolute or objective principals to theists build their ethics upon? How are these different from the ethics that atheists (mostly) hold true themselves?”
Theists do not claim not to have leadership or not to have non-objective morals: that is the Atheist claim. In fact most Atheists adhere to Judeo-Christian morals, having co-opted them while at the same time excoriating Christianity and Christians. Very few “act as if there were no deity” as some claim, because to do so would mean to operate in a manner that is far outside the (remaining) cultural behaviors. And many Christians also act outside of their moral constraints; that is not the point here. The point here is how Atheists think and how they arrive at their conclusions.
”I've often found it difficult to understand the rationality behind most theists reasons for excepting a given ethical code; for most, it is simply not a question, it is given via a doctrine that is simply accepted without question.”
This is true. It is a problem for only those who wish to make up their own code; and again many of those who roll their own ethic integrate Judeo-Christianity into their personal fabrications as a means of convenience, and not having to face the consequences of a truly Atheist, non-absolute/relativist and therefore non-rational, code (or rather non-code). However, Judeo-Christianity contains elements that are not acceptable to many Atheists, such as humility in the face of truth, and acceptance of a coherent, powerful, creating entity for the universe. These things are not non-coherent, in fact their converse is non-coherent. But these are things that make the ethic external, consistent and powerful, rather than a human-created rule-set custom-made by and for each individual and modifiable without notice.
”If an atheist were to arrive at the same ethical code as a theist, and were to do so via (what they believe to be) objective or absolute principals, how is this any different from a theist accepting ethical code from their doctrine without questioning it?”
Are you suggesting a specific set of objective/absolute principles which are acceptable to Atheist(s)? That would be unique, and I would like to see them please. I have never come across an Atheist (“there is no god”) who accepts any objective truth, much less objective moral sets. Yes, that would be a breakthrough.
As for the difference, I think I answered that in the preceding paragraph. If not, I will try again.
This is indeed an intractable issue. It represents human corruption of theological issues which are not necessary or sufficient for theology to exist in the first place.
Is there an objective way of telling which moral beliefs are objectively true, and which ones have fallen victim to "human corruption"?
If there's no way of doing this, can we agree that theology is worse than useless* when it comes to resolving property disputes? Are there any moral questions where theology isn't worse than useless?
(*Worse than useless: Secular thinking leads to arguments like, "I've got ancestral ties to this tract of land. I understand that you also have ancestral ties, and that the property has been stolen back and forth so many times that it's hard to say who has the strongest claim to it. Maybe we can compromise, or get a neutral third party to adjudicate." Theological thinking can lead to arguments like, "I understand that you have ancestral ties to the land, but my religious leader says that God says that your ties don't matter. Why are you rebelling against the clearly-stated Will of God?")
That is a Tu Quoque response,
I don't think so, but maybe I wasn't expressing myself clearly.
A Tu Quoque response would be either, "Theists rationalize too, therefore rationalization is OK." or "You rationalize, therefore you don't any standing to criticize other people for rationalizing, therefore it's OK for those other people to rationalize."
The argument I was trying to make is, "Atheists do rationalize, but there's no reason to believe that they rationalize more often or more self-servingly than the general population. Therefore it's wrong to say that atheism encourages rationalization, or that rationalizers would be drawn to atheism."
Chaos Engineer said,
”Is there an objective way of telling which moral beliefs are objectively true, and which ones have fallen victim to "human corruption"?”
Atheists typically deny that there are any objective truths. Except for one, that is, and that one objective truth is TENS, or the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or one of its derivatives. And that is what appears to be the western policy on the middle east at the moment: allow a nuclear Iran and the continuing radicalization of Muslims; largely abandon Israel to its fate; but heavily arm both sides; be shocked, shocked at the conflagration when it happens; see who won after the dust and radioactivity settle. The fittest will be selected.
As for evaluating theologies, internal coherence is what I used.
” If there's no way of doing this, can we agree that theology is worse than useless* when it comes to resolving property disputes? Are there any moral questions where theology isn't worse than useless?”
Your presumption is that all theologies are non-coherent and illogical. I doubt that you have carefully and objectively done the evaluation procedure for that.
” (*Worse than useless: Secular thinking leads to arguments like, "I've got ancestral ties to this tract of land. I understand that you also have ancestral ties, and that the property has been stolen back and forth so many times that it's hard to say who has the strongest claim to it. Maybe we can compromise, or get a neutral third party to adjudicate."
Your solution is a western one, based on Judeo-Christian common law possibly. I think that a more historical secular solution would be to force the natural selection procedure in one’s own favor, using Consequentialism as the guiding philosophy/ethic.
” Theological thinking can lead to arguments like, "I understand that you have ancestral ties to the land, but my religious leader says that God says that your ties don't matter. Why are you rebelling against the clearly-stated Will of God?")
This could just as well have been stated as follows:
Secular thinking can lead to arguments like, "I understand that you have ancestral ties to the land, but my Dear Leader says that the Good Of the People says that your ties don't matter. Why are you rebelling against the clearly-stated Good of the People and Dear Leader?")
To argue that the fallacious thinking is not a function of Atheism is not correct. It is especially incorrect to attribute it exclusively to “religion” which is a catch-all directed toward a defamation by association. There is nothing inherent in the concept of a necessary and sufficient, coherent first cause of the universe that is irrational or non-coherent. Ecclesiasticism is what is added on to theism; much if not all of it is of human origin.
”Tu Quoque”… (and) … “The argument I was trying to make is,’Atheists do rationalize, but there's no reason to believe that they rationalize more often or more self-servingly than the general population. Therefore it's wrong to say that atheism encourages rationalization, or that rationalizers would be drawn to atheism.’ "
My assertion is more straightforward than that. My assertion is that Atheists rationalize. The Atheist position is necessarily a rationalization. Moreover it is self-contradictory, if the Atheists maintains a necessary Philosophical Materialist stance, because insisting that all knowledge must be material is contradictory to the claim of knowledge that a deity does not exist. Plus, that position is maintained without any material evidence to support it.
Let’ s say I enter a debate with the assertion that “there is a god”. My responsibility at that point is the “burden of proof”, to support my assertion with appropriate evidence. The next party has the “burden of rebuttal” which includes an assertion to the contrary, “there is no god”, along with appropriate evidence to support that assertion. For the Atheist/Materialist, the only appropriate evidence is material: empirical experimental data, replicated and non-falsified. Otherwise the Atheist/Materialist is not dealing with “knowledge” under his own set of rules.
Regardless of how I support my assertion, it is the rebuttal that is being considered here: is the rebuttal a legitimate case, or does it vary in its use of its own principles?
It is clear that Atheists cannot provide the material evidence that is needed under their own rules to materially prove their assertion that there is no deity. So the cases that they bring to the fore are not material evidence, they are dodges of material evidence, and are rationalizations provided in an attempt to justify the belief that “there is no deity”.
That is why I say that Atheists rationalize. They really have no choice, when they attempt to defend their faith.
And I call Atheism a faith because it is a god-theory which has no material support, just as with theologies.
Secular thinking can lead to arguments like, "I understand that you have ancestral ties to the land, but my Dear Leader says that the Good Of the People says that your ties don't matter. Why are you rebelling against the clearly-stated Good of the People and Dear Leader?")
But doesn't Dear Leader have a system of laws and courts set up to resolve property disputes? Once the process is complete, there will be an objective answer to the question, "Who does Dear Leader recognize as the rightful owner of the property?" The Loyal Opposition might think the decision was unfair, but there won't be any debate over what the decision was.
So the question stands: Is there a way to find the objective answer to the question, "Who does God recognize as the rightful owner of the property?" If not, is there an objective way to find out God's answer to any moral question?
If there isn't one, then I don't think that you can say that atheists "want safety from external moral authority".
I mean, suppose you're the sort of person who wants safety from external moral authority. Someone is inevitably going to ask the question, "Why on earth did you do that? Sheesh! What were you thinking?" An self-serving atheist would be in the uncomfortable position of having to make up a plausible-sounding excuse. A self-serving theist could just say, "God told me to. I don't know why; God doesn't owe you an explanation. Or me either, of course, but mostly you."
Chaos Engineer said,
”But doesn't Dear Leader have a system of laws and courts set up to resolve property disputes?”
Most Dear Leaders are totalitarian dictators, who dictate the answer to their own benefit (Consequentialism in action). But you are correct, the final action is objectively obvious to even the casual observer.
”So the question stands: Is there a way to find the objective answer to the question, "Who does God recognize as the rightful owner of the property?" If not, is there an objective way to find out God's answer to any moral question?”
Since you apparently mean material answer when you refer to “objective”, the answer of course is no, there is no specific direction given in specific moral squabbles. Does that imply that there is no direction given us concerning the development of our individual character traits? No again. If the entire population were to focus on their own character development rather than making demands of others, would things work out? I don’t know, but it would come closer than we can come now. And secular (Atheist) humanism – although not wide spread – makes some of the most far reaching demands of the “other”.
”If there isn't one, then I don't think that you can say that atheists "want safety from external moral authority".
This does not follow for the reasons given above. The claim that specific direction not forthcoming from a deity on every issue warrants any subsequent premise in support of Atheism needs better support. Free agency is a known and testable characteristic of human intellectual capacity. Free agency is not predictable from any characteristic of mass/energy or space/time, and cannot be explained in terms of the physical laws of the universe. The force of individual motivation and determination is not one of the four forces of physics. Free will is an effect, so what is the cause? There is no coherent materialist explanation. However, there is no non-coherence in the concept of cognition and intellect as a transcendent function, one that works outside the four forces and physical laws that demonstrate how the universe works.
Free agency discriminates between good and evil; even Atheists do it. Character traits that lead to strength and wisdom cannot develop in the absence of the refinement of the fire of moral choices made by free agents. There is no reason to believe that a deity wants anything more from us than our own personal character development, and the benefits which that brings to the self and the world. In fact, dictating outcomes is the opposite of requiring us to make the choices, stumbling as we might while we learn.
This is the moral authority that many Atheists shun, in fact denigrating personal character development (Freedom From Religion Foundation vs Cherry Creek School District), and favoring “social justice” which levels all outcomes while requiring no character development at all. This is a focus of humanism, btw.
”A self-serving theist could just say, "God told me to. I don't know why; God doesn't owe you an explanation. Or me either, of course, but mostly you."
Do you encounter this a lot? I have not. But I have explained my thoughts, above.
The move sucked something out of me. I'm guessing 2-3 years of the end of my life.
Then I guess my next question is... how does one know whether Revealed ethics are truth?
I ask for two reasons:
1. I think the definition is a little vague in my head, so I'm curious what constitutes a revelation versus either egotism or mental illness?
2. What measures might one take to combat the problem of low fidelity transmission of said Revealed ethics? Using a Christian example, how do we sort out Jesus from Paul? Moreover, can one ever tell if another truly had a revelation? Short of parlor tricks masquerading as miracles, is there some method for testing this knowledge, or is it a matter of faith?
Ginx said,
”Then I guess my next question is... how does one know whether Revealed ethics are truth?”
We are diving off of the precipice of Atheism into the turmoil of ecclesiasticism here. I will venture some thoughts, which are not to be taken as truth, but should be analyzed just as anything else would be.
First, biblically speaking revelations stopped 2k years ago, being replaced with personal experiences of the deity. So biblically, any subsequent claims are false. I personally doubt seriously that anyone has an experience that amounts to a revelation. Epiphany, perhaps.
Unfortunately there are a great many faux revelations to deal with. My approach has been to use the presupposition of coherence. This presupposition is certainly challengeable and deniable under materialism, but not under raw logic. If the universe is coherent and rational, then any potential revelation would come from a coherent and rational entity, and would very likely (even necessarily) be coherent and rational also.
For example the concept of omnibenevolence is not coherent with the concept of justice; however, limited benevolence is coherent with justice. [note 1]
Another example, “God hates you because you do [ X ]”. This is not coherent with the “red print” of the New Testament. Taken by itself, uncorrupted by human ecclesiasticism, the red print is internally consistent and coherent.
False doctrines frequently are non-coherent, but frequently are not tested by adherents. Which is why (one suspects) that revelation was abandoned in favor of personal relationships.
”Using a Christian example, how do we sort out Jesus from Paul?”
I am not a theologist; however here is my take: Paul’s letters addressed specific problems that existed in specific churches, and were not intended as general laws, although he did try to explain Christ’s theism, notably in his letter to the Romans. Jesus spoke in metaphors that pointed to a deeper, more universal set of values, as was documented mostly second-hand but well within social memory of the events.
However, as noted above, the age of revelation was supplanted by the current age of individual relationship. Biblically, revelation ceased some 400 years B.C., with the exception of John’s Book of Revelations.
Note 1.
This is an interesting topic. Omnibenevolence actually becomes a subset of “justice” if the justice is inverted from the concept of individual justice (personal responsibility) to the concept of “social justice”, which is the top down leveling of outcomes with no concept of personal responsibility involved. Under social justice, omnibenevolence from every individual as an agent/subject of the state is a requirement. Personal responsibility is eliminated and along with it, the idea of beneficial character traits and their development within the individual. Non-conformity (refusal to submit) would be criminal. Lack of individuating personal character traits would be encouraged.
Post a Comment