what's more relativistic than the moral lawgiver who can bend the very laws on whim?

josephchoi wrote:what's more relativistic than the moral lawgiver who can bend the very laws on whim?

One for the memescape I'd reckon!

InfernalTank wrote:http://triablogue.blogspot.fr/2012/07/funeral-for-atheism.html

love to know a good response to this

If you'd like a reply to his particular moral philosophy, you'd probably have to bring it here. I don't fancy wading through it if it's in that same condescending tone though. Views that lean heavily on created or creaturely natures are typically closer to natural law or concurrentism than they are divine command theory, but I'd have to have a look at his details before I could say more.

His arguments are true, but the implications are actually more devastating for his side.

The atheist's life is indeed like this:
"It’s like a doctor telling a man he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer. He has 2 weeks to live. Having got that out of the way, let’s get back to what he plans to do with the rest of his life."

The theist's/christian's life is indeed like this:
It’s like a doctor telling a man he has stage 4 pancreatic cancer. He will die, but not really, cause he's actually going to life forever after his death*. So let’s start planning with what he plans to do with the rest of his (eternal) life.

*Of course the doctor says that because he is a lying nutjob.

josephchoi wrote:what's more relativistic than the moral lawgiver who can bend the very laws on whim?

A moral lawgiver who travels at speeds very close to the speed of light?

That might explain how a thousand years can seem like a single day to the Lord.

KeenIdiot wrote:That might explain how a thousand years can seem like a single day to the Lord.

'shrooms can do that to you.

I'm confused!

I'm With Stupid wrote:But specifically in the area of funerals, it would seem far more problematic for me that people who claim to believe that their family members are going "to a better place" would be so distraught about the fact. I think the fact that someone no longer exists and you'll never see them again is worth crying about far more than someone being granted entry into the greatest place ever, and you not seeing them for a while. And yet very few Christians at funerals act in a way that suggests they have faith that the latter is what's going to happen. Far more seem to act in a way remarkably similar to atheists who know they'll never see their dead friend/family member again.

Absolutely,
And that 'secure and certain hope' phrasing always jarred with me. 'Secure and certain' is not really compatible with 'hoping'.

The natural response to loss is grief and that is a universal regardless of belief. So the fact that Christians behave at funerals the same as atheists is not in the least bit surprising. Even if they genuinely believe their loved one is going to a better place and that they shall be reunited with them at some point in the future that does not automatically negate the immediate and natural feeling of loss. No one is less human or less capable of experiencing grief just because they have a belief system. For all humans regardless of anything else are emotional beings and death is the most emotional experience of all

"Funeral for atheism"? Whereas memorial services for logic and reason are held in churches, temples and mosques every day...

quas wrote:His arguments are true, but the implications are actually more devastating for his side.

I don't think his arguments are very good. I think he's confused practical reasons generally with moral reasons particulary, that he has the explanatory priority of epistemic and moral norms backwards, and that even in characterising the atheistic worldview as somehow shorn of all independent requirements of practical reason he doesn't manage to keep the commitments consistent over the course of his post.

As a moral argument for God, I think it needs a lot of work.

triabloguer wrote:Absent objective moral norms, there’s nothing you're supposed believe or disbelieve.

What? Is there something you are supposed to believe or disbelieve if there are objective moral norms?

InfernalTank wrote:http://triablogue.blogspot.fr/2012/07/funeral-for-atheism.html

love to know a good response to this

I'm an atheist and I completely agree with him.

Blogger4Jesus wrote:If there is no objective morality, then why are they arguing for anything? It’s not as if you’re supposed to be an atheist. Absent objective moral norms, there’s nothing you're supposed believe or disbelieve.

Likewise, atheists not only admit, but insist on the fact that evolution is blind. It has no prevision or purpose. Brains weren’t made to think. Yet they still act as if their brains were made to think.

Likewise, they admit that what we value has no intrinsic value. Evolution has programmed us to project value on certain things. But that’s an illusion.

We value love. We value our parents, kids, spouse, and friends. Yet there’s nothing objectively right or good about loving friends and family. That’s just brain chemistry. The indifferent effect of a thoughtless process conditioning us to feel that way.

Pull its string and the doll cries. It doesn’t cry because there’s something worth crying about.

Atheists cry when a loved one dies. Yet they can retrace the process. They can see the pull-string. They can see evolution tugging their string. They don’t cry because the death of their loved one actually means anything. They cry because blind evolution pulled their string. A doll’s prerecorded cry at the demise of another doll.

They can see evolution take the doll apart. They can see evolution operating on themselves. They dissect themselves. Peel back the layers. Cloth. Metal. Plastic. A pile of parts. The more you look the less you find.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Just because reality is pointless and unfair, does that mean we should believe in Christianity?

I'm interested in looking at the world for what it is, if I'm lead to that conclusion, so what? If he doesn't trust me not to kill people because I'm a moral relativist, so what? That's his problem. Maybe he should just shoot himself in the face, take the fast track to heaven so he doesn't have to live on a planet with horrible moral relativists like myself.

When the religious have the guts to put their money where their supposed "objective truth" is, I'll listen. Until then they should just accept that we live in a pluralistic world and they need to share the planet with everyone else.

So we evolve for ages, developing brains that emote, feel, hate, love and empathize. During the course of our primitive lives, we form bonds, make plans, and naturally come to care about a good many things. This happens long before we have the capacity to think it through, or to ask whether it "means something more".

Then we invent religion and create gods innumerable to salve our pain and fear. We surround these gods with angels, heroes, and a heavenly realm complete with a very human throne room.

Then we begin to understand our world a little better, and the habitations of the gods commence the process of rapid shrinkage.

But instead of accepting this condition, and returning to our natural state of caring, fearing, learning; and of seeking a means by which to craft purpose for ourselves--because purpose is a keenly felt need--we defend our heavenly inhabitants, our nearly homeless gods, by insisting that they--invented long after our emotions developed--nevertheless hold the key to meaning and are the necessary "grounding" to our reason for caring about anything at all.

And why? Because we have now defined--arbitrarily due to belief in gods--purpose and meaning as "permanent purpose and meaning arbitrarily erected by an Absolute Authority for the benefit of humans who live forever."

It's a trap for the unsuspecting, and a trick of the apologist. The believer defend gods as "necessary for the absolute grounding in an eternal and absolute authority that I need to believe is really there."

I care because I care. It's a feeling I'm stuck with. I can learn of its source anthropologically, but I need no "reason" to care that reaches beyond myself, and it does not have to be "grounded" at all, in anything, especially something that flawed primitives invented for my inconvenience. This is my starting point.

Once when Mick (remember Mick?) was going on about same sex marriage inevitably leading to bestiality I asked him if he really need some mouldering old book to keep him from fucking dogs. The same idea applies here. I don't really want to be around people whose only reason for not raping and murdering people (or dogs) is their belief in some SkyDaddyish retribution. Absolute moralists give me the heebie-jeebies.

Did u guys see the response from Steve on his blog?

wakawakawaka wrote:Did u guys see the response from Steve on his blog?

http://triablogue.blogspot.fr/2014/09/s ... lanks.html



I am reminded of another Steve....

Good luck with that, Shrunk.

Shrunk wrote:

wakawakawaka wrote:Did u guys see the response from Steve on his blog?

http://triablogue.blogspot.fr/2014/09/s ... lanks.html



I am reminded of another Steve....

Oh goody, more straw!

Goodness gracious, I’ve never seen such a prodigious misuse of straw! Old MacDonald would be furious!

I doubt Woo has a promising future in stand-up comedy.

And I reckon this guy’s got an excellent future in stand-up comedy! He’s already “nailed” his Christian satire routine…

This is a problem with atheists. For instance, some atheists get very irate when Christians point out that atheism leads to moral relativism or nihilism.

...like it did when those nihilistic atheists hijacked commercial airplanes and flew them into skyscrapers because they thought it would guarantee them a place in an eternal paradise. Oh, wait….

i) To begin with, I'm not Muslim, much less a Muslim terrorist. So how's that the least bit relevant to my own position?
ii) How does that irrelevant comparison disprove my contention that "some atheists get very irate when Christians point out that atheism leads to moral relativism or nihilism"? It's a decoy rather than a refutation.

i) So what? The fact of the matter is that, so far as this debate is concerned, he is on the same side as those Muslim terrorists.

ii) It’s very relevant (see above). Some atheists get very irate; okay, so what? Why wouldn’t they get irate? The idea that atheism leads to moral relativism and nihilism is as fallacious as it is offensive, and those Muslim terrorists demonstrate that devout belief is every bit as capable – if not more so – of compelling people to commit atrocities as are atheism, moral relativism OR nihilism.

Yet other atheists candidly admit that atheism leads to moral relativism or even moral nihilism. But having made that admission, they think the debate should proceed as if that didn’t mark a turning point in the debate.

And some Christians candidly admit that believing in Jesus means that you should bomb abortion clinics and murder homosexuals. What’s his point here?

i) If he doesn't believe in objective morality, what do these counterexamples prove?


ii) He offers no argument to show how Christian theology obligates Christians to bomb abortion clinics or murder homosexuals.

iii) Incidentally, what goes on inside an abortion clinic during office hours is far worse than bombing an empty abortion clinic after hours. So let's keep our moral priorities in check.

i)They prove that the so-called “objective morality” of believers is every bit as subjective as anything any non-believer could come up with.

ii)Because it’s not my job. You want religious justifications for extremist acts? Then talk to religious extremists! The Westboro Baptist Church might be a place to start (amongst many others). Or he could go here and have a gander at some of the vehemently anti-gay rhetoric that comes straight out of his own “holy” book.

iii)…and the cognitive dissonance begins. So bombing clinics “after hours” is okay is it? I’m sure the FBI would be very interested to know that. What if someone happens to be working back that day? What if an employee ducks back into the clinic because they forgot something when they left for home? What about some unsuspecting passer-by who just happens to be walking a little too close to the building when the bomb goes off? And what about the landlord who just so happens to devote a considerable portion of his time and money to helping the poor? Gee, this “objective morality” business gets pretty perplexing pretty quickly!

If there is no objective morality, then why are they arguing for anything?

Oh gee, I don’t know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we live in a world of cause-and-effect along with other people and living creatures?

Why should I care about other people apart from using them to service my own needs and desires?

Well now he knows how narcissistic psychopaths feel! I hope I never run into this guy in a dark alley! First he suggests that it’s okay to bomb abortion clinics “after hours”, and now this.

“No man is an island”; I know that phrase doesn’t come from his so-called holy book, but it’s probably a good idea (for the sake of all concerned!) for him to have a think about it anyway…

Likewise, atheists not only admit, but insist on the fact that evolution is blind. It has no prevision or purpose. Brains weren’t made to think. Yet they still act as if their brains were made to think.

He fundamentally misunderstands the concept of “purpose”; it is something which derives from mechanism, rather than preceding it. Brains weren’t made to do anything, they evolved to fulfil various survival functions in response to dynamic circumstances.

To say brains evolved to "fulfill" various survival "functions" is a goal-oriented description. But methodological naturalism bans teleological explanations in science.

No it’s not. It’s an adaptation-oriented description. Complexes of self-replicating molecules (I.e. organisms) which developed features that would eventually lead to brains were better adapted to their environments and thus more likely to successfully self-replicate, thereby passing their brain-like features on to future generations. Simply put, natural selection gives the illusion of brain evolution moving towards a particular goal.

Likewise, they admit that what we value has no intrinsic value. Evolution has programmed us to project value on certain things. But that’s an illusion.

Define “intrinsic”. Not having “intrinsic” value is not the same as having no value at all. We value things for practical reasons, i.e. because they are conducive towards survival, reproduction, social harmony, a sense of security, and/or pleasurable feeling.

Is homosexual behavior conducive to survival and reproduction? And what about serial killers who get a "pleasurable feeling" from wonton murder?

By “behaviour” I assume he means “sexual activity”, because there are in fact many homosexual couples who are both willing and - thanks to modern technology – able to have children of their own. No, homosexual sex is not conducive to reproduction, but then neither is any instance of heterosexual sex involving the use of any contraception technology or practice. It is however (I assume, not being gay myself) conducive to pleasurable feeling, social harmony, and a sense of security which comes from companionship and intimacy with another human being. Perhaps the author should try it sometime!

Re serial killers: the question was why we value things, *not* whether it is right or wrong to value certain things. Perhaps the author could enlighten us as to why his “loving” God has seen it fit create serial killers who derive pleasure from wonton murder? Those poor wontons!

We value love. We value our parents, kids, spouse, and friends. Yet there’s nothing objectively right or good about loving friends and family. That’s just brain chemistry. The indifferent effect of a thoughtless process conditioning us to feel that way.

See above. Again the author is putting the purpose cart before the mechanism horse. Similarly he is accusing rationalists of believing in a “thoughtless process” when in fact this process gives rise to thought as an emergent phenomenon.

i) To assert that thought is an emergent phenomenon begs the question. There are eminent secular philosophers of mind who deny that consciousness is reducible to brain chemistry. Indeed, there are secular philosophers of mind who dismiss consciousness as folk psychology.

ii) Oh, and he's the one who's got his own analogy backwards. A thoughtless process is the blind horse pulling the lost cart of brain chemistry.

i)How does it beg the question?? The evidence that thought arises from neurological activity is overwhelming. Those “eminent” philosophers (I assume he means people like Chalmers?) are pulling assertions out of their arses. I must conclude that he doesn’t know what “begging the question” means, otherwise he wouldn’t be asserting that humankind and the universe were created by a God for a particular purpose now, would he.

ii)I’d say he’s never heard of a non-sequitur either…

The author is effectively admitting that he is scared of deconstructing his own thinking process because he is under the misapprehension that it will necessarily invalidate his thoughts and emotions.

Suppose I am "scared" of doing that. Isn't my fear merely the effect of physical determinism? Why blame brain chemistry? Can I help what my brain is telling me to feel?

Well at least he is admitting that he’s motivated by fear, that’s a start. His fear is not an effect of “physical determinism” (which I never mentioned), rather it is a product of his own religious baggage. No one is “blaming” brain chemistry for anything. Yes you can in fact influence what your brain tells you, but in order to do that you have to understand and accept how the brain works first.

Even if this process weren’t “thoughtless” (as he misinterprets it)...

According to naturalistic evolution, the process is a blind, undirected process. That's not a "misrepresentation." That's textbook Darwinism.

No, that’s a straw man. It is a causal, selective, and adaptation-driven process in which complexity builds upon itself.

…how does he propose that we explain the essential underlying “thoughtfulness” of that process…

Because it was planned and implemented by a mind (i.e. God).

Not only is this a baseless assertion, it doesn’t even answer my question! What I’m asking is how does he explain the origin and functioning of the mind of his god?

...let alone conclude that said thoughtfulness has “intrinsic” value?

My argument wasn't that "thoughtfulness" has intrinsic value, but things like love.

I would have thought that thoughtfulness went hand-in-hand with love. So is he saying that God’s thoughtfulness has no intrinsic value?

Atheists cry when a loved one dies. Yet they can retrace the process. They can see the pull-string. They can see evolution tugging their string. They don’t cry because the death of their loved one actually means anything. They cry because blind evolution pulled their string. A doll’s prerecorded cry at the demise of another doll.

I wonder if the author gets any satisfaction out of films. I mean after all, he can rationally retrace the process by which the films are constructed and the characters developed…

Watching a film involves the willing suspension of belief. Whether or not you think Godzilla is real makes a different in disaster preparedness.

The emotional effects are real whether you are consciously aware that the story and characters are fictional or not. If you can just switch them off by reminding yourself that it’s not real, then the movie makers haven’t done their job properly.

They can see evolution take the doll apart. They can see evolution operating on themselves. They dissect themselves. Peel back the layers. Cloth. Metal. Plastic. A pile of parts. The more you look the less you find.

Yep, he’s scared of looking too closely. He’s effectively arguing that ignorance is bliss.

Actually, that's how all the atheists are reacting.

????? The guy might not understand movies, but he sure has a knack for projection (boom-tish!)