Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I understand where you are getting at. Let me ask you a question; do you believe rape (for example) is wrong because God says it is wrong? Or do you believe rape is wrong, and God just so happens to say it is wrong as well. If you say rape is only wrong because God says it is wrong, that would mean in theory if God were to say rape is okay, it would be okay to go around raping inspite of what people might say right? Or worse yet a person might become convinced God says it is okay to do something wrong and feel he is doing God's work by doing it. However if you say rape is wrong and God just so happens to agree, th at would take away from the claim that God is what makes morals objective.
So is rape wrong only because God says it is wrong?

This is the classic Euthyphro's dilemma. You do know that it is a false dilemma fallacy, don't you? There is in fact a 3rd alternative to: things are moral because God decrees them as such or they are moral in and of themselves. Are you familiar with divine simplicity? If not, I strongly suggest that you look it up.

Byblos,

Kenny is having a difficult time comprehending OM, and you want him to look at divine simplicity?

It isn't that I don't comprehend Objective Morality; I just don't agree with the way some of the people are useing it, and I am trying to see things from their point of view.

Ken

What Byblos is saying is that rape is neither wrong because God so declared it nor has God so declared it because it is wrong. The error in your thinking is that you are divorcing the terms "right" and "wrong" from the definition of "God," such that you predicate goodness or evil to God and His acts. It's a perfectly understandable error. Everything in our experience works just that way. I myself am not Goodness, nor am I Evil (taken as a noun (or substantive, if you really care)), and the same is true with regard to my acts. And yours. And everyone else's. So we are inclined to apply the same reasoning to God.

But that's where things fail. You can't apply that kind of reasoning to God, not because He is somehow "above" morality, but because God just is Goodness. Thus, rape is wrong because it does not coincide with His nature, with what He is. There is no standard that God looks at to decide if something is right or wrong; nor is there some standard that we look at outside of God to decide if He is good or evil. To use what is only an analogy, "the metre has been internationally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/ 299 792 458 of a second" (link). Strictly speaking, we don't anymore get out a ruler and say, "Light has traveled a meter." Rather, we decide what a meter is relative to how far light travels in a particular amount of time. Or to use another example (less technical and just based on experience), have you ever picked up a pair of socks and tried to decide if they were black or navy blue and couldn't do so--maybe depending on the lighting they would look one color and then another? If so, you've probably solved that by holding the socks up to a black suit or pair of paints, and immediately to color becomes clear.

In a similar way, we measure actions by what God is, we compare them to what He is, so to speak, and thereby we can say whether or not something is right and wrong. Morality is objective in a very strict sense, then. It is not objective in the loose sense that it is based on what someone has declared, nor even on what God has created. It is, rather, based on what God is, and since God is what He is by absolutely necessity and could be no other way, then morality is absolutely objective. It makes no more sense to speak of the possibility of God declaring something good evil than it does to speak of four sided triangles.

All of this is explained very neatly by an idea called divine simplicity. There are threads on the topic if you are interested. If you want to wait a month, I'm actually writing a layman's guide to the doctrine, which I'm happy to say I'm making quick progress on.

Jac3510 wrote:What Byblos is saying is that rape is neither wrong because God so declared it nor has God so declared it because it is wrong. The error in your thinking is that you are divorcing the terms "right" and "wrong" from the definition of "God," such that you predicate goodness or evil to God and His acts. It's a perfectly understandable error. Everything in our experience works just that way. I myself am not Goodness, nor am I Evil (taken as a noun (or substantive, if you really care)), and the same is true with regard to my acts. And yours. And everyone else's. So we are inclined to apply the same reasoning to God.

But that's where things fail. You can't apply that kind of reasoning to God, not because He is somehow "above" morality, but because God just is Goodness. Thus, rape is wrong because it does not coincide with His nature, with what He is. There is no standard that God looks at to decide if something is right or wrong; nor is there some standard that we look at outside of God to decide if He is good or evil. To use what is only an analogy, "the metre has been internationally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/ 299 792 458 of a second" (link). Strictly speaking, we don't anymore get out a ruler and say, "Light has traveled a meter." Rather, we decide what a meter is relative to how far light travels in a particular amount of time. Or to use another example (less technical and just based on experience), have you ever picked up a pair of socks and tried to decide if they were black or navy blue and couldn't do so--maybe depending on the lighting they would look one color and then another? If so, you've probably solved that by holding the socks up to a black suit or pair of paints, and immediately to color becomes clear.

In a similar way, we measure actions by what God is, we compare them to what He is, so to speak, and thereby we can say whether or not something is right and wrong. Morality is objective in a very strict sense, then. It is not objective in the loose sense that it is based on what someone has declared, nor even on what God has created. It is, rather, based on what God is, and since God is what He is by absolutely necessity and could be no other way, then morality is absolutely objective. It makes no more sense to speak of the possibility of God declaring something good evil than it does to speak of four sided triangles.

All of this is explained very neatly by an idea called divine simplicity. There are threads on the topic if you are interested. If you want to wait a month, I'm actually writing a layman's guide to the doctrine, which I'm happy to say I'm making quick progress on.

So if I am understanding you correctly, you say that your God is the ultimate good, and when the Christian uses his God as his source for objective morality, he is using the ultimate good and the Atheist or someone of another religion who doesn’t recognize the existence of your God, doesn’t have this option; thus he is unable to have an adequate source for objective morality. Is that your point?

Ken

I think you are on the right page. Let me offer one bit of clarification and you tell me. First, we'd have to flesh out what we mean by "ultimate good." I'm not talking about God being an example of goodness for us to follow. I'm saying that Good is God. You don't take this thing called "good" and predicate it to God. To do that would just be to say, "God is God." In fact, when we talk about good, we're really talking about God, even if we don't know it.

That "even if we don't know it" is the important part. The problem with atheism isn't that atheists don't have and don't believe in OM. They do. It's that they cannot rationally justify their belief in OM. They can't give it an ontological foundation. To use another crude illustration, suppose you and I are drinking from the same stream of water. I say ask where the water comes from, and you pull out a map and show me that there is a local reservoir that this stream flows from. Now suppose for whatever reason I don't believe you. So you ask me where I think the stream comes from, and at the end of that conversation, it's apparent that I just don't know. Wherever it comes from, I just don't believe it comes from a reservoir!

Now, supposing you were right, does the fact that I don't know the origin (or even deny it's existence) of the water mean that I am going to die of thirst? That I can't drink from it?

Of course not. It's the same way with OM. You believe in it. You rely on it. You assume it. And lots of atheists even insist on it. The problem is that you don't have a rational justification for it. What you are doing, without realizing it, is "borrowing" from a theistic worldview for this particular part of your belief system.

So shy of introducing some other ideas that atheists are very uncomfortable with (i.e., Platonism), the problem is that those who deny God (and His simplicity) they have no ontological foundation for their belief in OM. OM can only be coherently understood in a theistic worldview--and then, just any sort of theism is not enough. Islamic theism, for instance, doesn't work, and nor does the theism of Hinduism (which is more pantheistic), and nor, for that matter, is the theism of much modern evangelicalism. You have to have the theism of the sort that understands that Good is what God is; that God is His essence (of these, Islam is the closest, but it gets off track for theological, not philosophical, reasons). That's the divine simplicity that Byblos was talking about before.

edit:

LIGHTBULB!: Maybe this would help (you or anybody else). Let's assume one horn of Euthyphro. Suppose things are good or bad because they adhere to some standard, some property, called "Good." Now, the ONLY way in ANY worldview that morality can be objective is if this property, this standard, has real, extra-mental existence. (That's what "objective" means.) What Byblos is saying is that the reason Euthyphro doesn't apply to God is that God is not a thing like you and me that has to appeal to that real standard. That standard is God. Just "picture" that property--Good--and call it by its proper name: God. Just like it would make no sense to say, "We call something good because it measures up to the standard of Goodness; and the standard of Goodness says it is good because it sees that it is good" (if that's not obvious why that's silly, it is because it sets up an infinite regress), in precisely the same way it makes no sense to say "God says it is good because He sees that it is good."

So the real problem here isn't the question of whether God exists. It is whether or not Goodness really exists or if it is just a human (subjective) construct. If it really exists, then we note that Goodness is what Christians call God; so the question becomes, are they right in that? Is Goodness identical with the God of Scripture? But by that point, we've moved well beyond the OM debate. The very admission of OM is the admission of God's existence. Now we just have to continue on down the road of finding out what it is that we can know about this God.

Of course, you can just deny OM, which is what most atheists end up doing. Then you would just be like me saying the reservoir doesn't exist. You'll still go on and live as if it does exist--you'll still believe in it and rely on it.You'll still enjoy the benefits of it, because it is just as much a part of reality as gravity. You'll just be wrong (and intellectually dishonest, insofar as you are living as if something is true that you have declared that you believe is not the case!).

I regularly recommend people read this paper when having this conversation. It's well written, easy to follow, and introduces these concepts rather well. It also has the added benefit for you (an atheist) of giving you a better argument than that absolutely asinine, embarrassing attempt at an argument that Richard Dawkins attempted to use in his God Delusion. What Dawkins didn't know what that his argument is nothing but a rather poor rip off of an actually good--indeed, strong, in my estimation--argument against theism. Obviously, I think the argument can be met, but I appreciate it because I think it effectively rules out much of the silliness many Christians try to use when they talk about God's nature.

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:Just as animals are affected by gravity, do you feel animals follow an objective morality? Wild animals that run in packs do have a moral code they live by; maybe not to the extent of humans, but still a code none the less. Do you believe such wild animals have an objective morality?

Ken

Animals may seem to act in moral ways at times but I doubt they follow a moral code, I think humans just read into their behaviours and anthropomorphise their actions when infact they are just behaving according to their instinct.

Until we can communicate with animals this would be unknown, it's like asking if a tree is moral or is held to a standard or trying to explain the force of gravity to an ant.

Edit
I have been thinking about how OM exists for all creation just as gravity does and I believe you are right with your question that if gravity effects all creation then OM must also, but I think where it is different is that an animal is not accountable for it actions because it acts out of instinct with no awareness of OM just as it doesn't understand gravity but acts out of instinct to avoid falling to its death, so yes OM does exist but they cannot be held accountable to it.

So would you say Objective morality exists for the Athiest, but we just see it as subjective morality?

K

Well as a Christian I believe God wrote his law onto the hearts of all men, but that doesn't mean you have to follow it. People's hearts are hard and want to follow what they feel is right rather than what is right.
So yes OM does exist for atheists but they don't recognize the source.
From a philosophical stand point however atheism is not able to account for OM in a deterministic world.

Jac3510 wrote:I think you are on the right page. Let me offer one bit of clarification and you tell me. First, we'd have to flesh out what we mean by "ultimate good." I'm not talking about God being an example of goodness for us to follow. I'm saying that Good is God. You don't take this thing called "good" and predicate it to God. To do that would just be to say, "God is God." In fact, when we talk about good, we're really talking about God, even if we don't know it.

That "even if we don't know it" is the important part. The problem with atheism isn't that atheists don't have and don't believe in OM. They do. It's that they cannot rationally justify their belief in OM. They can't give it an ontological foundation. To use another crude illustration, suppose you and I are drinking from the same stream of water. I say ask where the water comes from, and you pull out a map and show me that there is a local reservoir that this stream flows from. Now suppose for whatever reason I don't believe you. So you ask me where I think the stream comes from, and at the end of that conversation, it's apparent that I just don't know. Wherever it comes from, I just don't believe it comes from a reservoir!

Now, supposing you were right, does the fact that I don't know the origin (or even deny it's existence) of the water mean that I am going to die of thirst? That I can't drink from it?

Of course not. It's the same way with OM. You believe in it. You rely on it. You assume it. And lots of atheists even insist on it. The problem is that you don't have a rational justification for it. What you are doing, without realizing it, is "borrowing" from a theistic worldview for this particular part of your belief system.

So shy of introducing some other ideas that atheists are very uncomfortable with (i.e., Platonism), the problem is that those who deny God (and His simplicity) they have no ontological foundation for their belief in OM. OM can only be coherently understood in a theistic worldview--and then, just any sort of theism is not enough. Islamic theism, for instance, doesn't work, and nor does the theism of Hinduism (which is more pantheistic), and nor, for that matter, is the theism of much modern evangelicalism. You have to have the theism of the sort that understands that Good is what God is; that God is His essence (of these, Islam is the closest, but it gets off track for theological, not philosophical, reasons). That's the divine simplicity that Byblos was talking about before.

edit:

LIGHTBULB!: Maybe this would help (you or anybody else). Let's assume one horn of Euthyphro. Suppose things are good or bad because they adhere to some standard, some property, called "Good." Now, the ONLY way in ANY worldview that morality can be objective is if this property, this standard, has real, extra-mental existence. (That's what "objective" means.) What Byblos is saying is that the reason Euthyphro doesn't apply to God is that God is not a thing like you and me that has to appeal to that real standard. That standard is God. Just "picture" that property--Good--and call it by its proper name: God. Just like it would make no sense to say, "We call something good because it measures up to the standard of Goodness; and the standard of Goodness says it is good because it sees that it is good" (if that's not obvious why that's silly, it is because it sets up an infinite regress), in precisely the same way it makes no sense to say "God says it is good because He sees that it is good."

So the real problem here isn't the question of whether God exists. It is whether or not Goodness really exists or if it is just a human (subjective) construct. If it really exists, then we note that Goodness is what Christians call God; so the question becomes, are they right in that? Is Goodness identical with the God of Scripture? But by that point, we've moved well beyond the OM debate. The very admission of OM is the admission of God's existence. Now we just have to continue on down the road of finding out what it is that we can know about this God.

Of course, you can just deny OM, which is what most atheists end up doing. Then you would just be like me saying the reservoir doesn't exist. You'll still go on and live as if it does exist--you'll still believe in it and rely on it.You'll still enjoy the benefits of it, because it is just as much a part of reality as gravity. You'll just be wrong (and intellectually dishonest, insofar as you are living as if something is true that you have declared that you believe is not the case!).

I regularly recommend people read this paper when having this conversation. It's well written, easy to follow, and introduces these concepts rather well. It also has the added benefit for you (an atheist) of giving you a better argument than that absolutely asinine, embarrassing attempt at an argument that Richard Dawkins attempted to use in his God Delusion. What Dawkins didn't know what that his argument is nothing but a rather poor rip off of an actually good--indeed, strong, in my estimation--argument against theism. Obviously, I think the argument can be met, but I appreciate it because I think it effectively rules out much of the silliness many Christians try to use when they talk about God's nature.

Thanks for your perspective. It seems that only Christians would define Objective Morality as you just did; but you mentioned there are Atheists who believe it exists as well! Now of course an atheist is going to have a totally different concept as Christians, but what about of other religions? Do you know of other religions who recognize the existence of OM and do they define it as Christians do except they define their God as "good" instead of yours?

Ken

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:Just as animals are affected by gravity, do you feel animals follow an objective morality? Wild animals that run in packs do have a moral code they live by; maybe not to the extent of humans, but still a code none the less. Do you believe such wild animals have an objective morality?

Ken

Animals may seem to act in moral ways at times but I doubt they follow a moral code, I think humans just read into their behaviours and anthropomorphise their actions when infact they are just behaving according to their instinct.

Until we can communicate with animals this would be unknown, it's like asking if a tree is moral or is held to a standard or trying to explain the force of gravity to an ant.

Edit
I have been thinking about how OM exists for all creation just as gravity does and I believe you are right with your question that if gravity effects all creation then OM must also, but I think where it is different is that an animal is not accountable for it actions because it acts out of instinct with no awareness of OM just as it doesn't understand gravity but acts out of instinct to avoid falling to its death, so yes OM does exist but they cannot be held accountable to it.

So would you say Objective morality exists for the Athiest, but we just see it as subjective morality?

K

Well as a Christian I believe God wrote his law onto the hearts of all men, but that doesn't mean you have to follow it. People's hearts are hard and want to follow what they feel is right rather than what is right.
So yes OM does exist for atheists but they don't recognize the source.
From a philosophical stand point however atheism is not able to account for OM in a deterministic world.

Do you believe it is possible for Subjective morality to exist if Objective morality did not?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:Just as animals are affected by gravity, do you feel animals follow an objective morality? Wild animals that run in packs do have a moral code they live by; maybe not to the extent of humans, but still a code none the less. Do you believe such wild animals have an objective morality?

Ken

Animals may seem to act in moral ways at times but I doubt they follow a moral code, I think humans just read into their behaviours and anthropomorphise their actions when infact they are just behaving according to their instinct.

Until we can communicate with animals this would be unknown, it's like asking if a tree is moral or is held to a standard or trying to explain the force of gravity to an ant.

Edit
I have been thinking about how OM exists for all creation just as gravity does and I believe you are right with your question that if gravity effects all creation then OM must also, but I think where it is different is that an animal is not accountable for it actions because it acts out of instinct with no awareness of OM just as it doesn't understand gravity but acts out of instinct to avoid falling to its death, so yes OM does exist but they cannot be held accountable to it.

So would you say Objective morality exists for the Athiest, but we just see it as subjective morality?

K

Well as a Christian I believe God wrote his law onto the hearts of all men, but that doesn't mean you have to follow it. People's hearts are hard and want to follow what they feel is right rather than what is right.
So yes OM does exist for atheists but they don't recognize the source.
From a philosophical stand point however atheism is not able to account for OM in a deterministic world.

Do you believe it is possible for Subjective morality to exist if Objective morality did not?

Ken

I would say no, if there is no ultimate standard then intelligent beings would have no concept of what is right or wrong and because OM exists it necessarily implies a law giver.

Kenny wrote:Thanks for your perspective. It seems that only Christians would define Objective Morality as you just did; but you mentioned there are Atheists who believe it exists as well! Now of course an atheist is going to have a totally different concept as Christians, but what about of other religions? Do you know of other religions who recognize the existence of OM and do they define it as Christians do except they define their God as "good" instead of yours?

Ken

I would argue that everyone believes in OM, even those who claim they don't. This is part of the moral argument that God exists, which can be stated as:

1. If OM exists, God exists;
2. OM exists;
3. Therefore, God exists.

At bottom, (1) is what we are discussing. Atheists who affirm (2) have to find a way to argue against (1), which I just don't think is possible. Because so many atheist (including a great many professional atheist philosophers) agree on (1), they end up denying (2). I find, however, that they don't really mean it, and when the chips are down, they end up falling back on OM.

Please note that my argument to you has been about the rational, ontological foundation of OM, not about its existence. I am telling you how Christians can ground OM (that is, why they can affirm (1)).

Anyway, notice that the argument as stated does not terminate in the CHRISTIAN God. It just terminates in a very specific understanding of God that any religion is free to employ so long as that view of God comports with its theological statements about God. It so happens that the theological statements about God in most world religions do not allow for God proved by the moral argument and that the Christian God is so allowed. But, that is not to say that only Christians can use this. There were, in fact, some rather prominent Jewish philosophers who have used the argument (Maimonides comes to mind), and the internal logic governing (1) is very, very close to what several Islamic philosophers argued (I THINK Avicenna and his followers is who I'm thinking of, but I have to go back and check again; I could be wrong about that). There is, in fact, a religion called the Druze that is an offshoot of Islam that would be very comfortable with what I've said above. I can also conceive of some Deists affirming all this as well.

The point is that what I've put forward is a matter of philosophy, not theology. Theologians are free to accept or reject this argument based on their own theological commitments. But the basic reasoning getting to the God of OM has nothing much to do with what any Scripture actually says. It's far more rooted in pure reason.

Daniel
I would say no, if there is no ultimate standard then intelligent beings would have no concept of what is right or wrong and because OM exists it necessarily implies a law giver.

Ken
So would you agree Objective Morality as you define it is strictly a Theistic concept?

K

Double post

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote:Thanks for your perspective. It seems that only Christians would define Objective Morality as you just did; but you mentioned there are Atheists who believe it exists as well! Now of course an atheist is going to have a totally different concept as Christians, but what about of other religions? Do you know of other religions who recognize the existence of OM and do they define it as Christians do except they define their God as "good" instead of yours?

Ken

I would argue that everyone believes in OM, even those who claim they don't. This is part of the moral argument that God exists, which can be stated as:

1. If OM exists, God exists;
2. OM exists;
3. Therefore, God exists.

At bottom, (1) is what we are discussing. Atheists who affirm (2) have to find a way to argue against (1), which I just don't think is possible. Because so many atheist (including a great many professional atheist philosophers) agree on (1), they end up denying (2). I find, however, that they don't really mean it, and when the chips are down, they end up falling back on OM.

Please note that my argument to you has been about the rational, ontological foundation of OM, not about its existence. I am telling you how Christians can ground OM (that is, why they can affirm (1)).

Anyway, notice that the argument as stated does not terminate in the CHRISTIAN God. It just terminates in a very specific understanding of God that any religion is free to employ so long as that view of God comports with its theological statements about God. It so happens that the theological statements about God in most world religions do not allow for God proved by the moral argument and that the Christian God is so allowed. But, that is not to say that only Christians can use this. There were, in fact, some rather prominent Jewish philosophers who have used the argument (Maimonides comes to mind), and the internal logic governing (1) is very, very close to what several Islamic philosophers argued (I THINK Avicenna and his followers is who I'm thinking of, but I have to go back and check again; I could be wrong about that). There is, in fact, a religion called the Druze that is an offshoot of Islam that would be very comfortable with what I've said above. I can also conceive of some Deists affirming all this as well.

The point is that what I've put forward is a matter of philosophy, not theology. Theologians are free to accept or reject this argument based on their own theological commitments. But the basic reasoning getting to the God of OM has nothing much to do with what any Scripture actually says. It's far more rooted in pure reason.

On a person al level, aside from myself; I’ve never heard of an atheist who actually believes OM exists; all that I’ve spoken to claim that morality is subjective. The only reason I believe it exists is because my definition of OM and its source is much different than the definition you guys use.

But getting back to the original question (back on pg 3 from 3/28/14 10:00am) That RickD and I were discussing; the problem Christians have with discussing Objective morality with Atheists is that they are speaking 2 different languages; the Christian definition of OM requires the existence of something bigger than human, and the Atheist definition does not. Would you agree?

Ken

Kenny wrote:On a person al level, aside from myself; I’ve never heard of an atheist who actually believes OM exists; all that I’ve spoken to claim that morality is subjective.

I certainly would concede that the dominant view among atheists is that morality is subjective, but that's hardly surprising. In the first place, some of them have seen the reasoning and recognize that without God, morality cannot be objective; and second, the general view in the West these days is that morality is subjective, and that regardless of your theological persuasions. As far, though, as finding atheists who are moral realists (which is the term philosophers use when talking about this in a very precise way), I would point you to the works of Michael Martin as well as Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. Beyond that, I would say that pretty much every atheist who claims that morality is subjective is, again, deceiving themselves. It isn't too difficult to show that a great many arguments for subjective morality are in fact moral in nature, and any moral argument necessarily presupposes objective morality. That's why philosophers prefer the term "moral realism"; it's opposite is not so much "subjective morality" (although the term is fine as far as it goes) but rather "moral anti-realism." In other words, the two views are not really that morality is either objective or subjective; rather, the two views are that morality really exists or it does not. Atheism entails moral anti-realism.

The only reason I believe it exists is because my definition of OM and its source is much different than the definition you guys use.

But getting back to the original question (back on pg 3 from 3/28/14 10:00am) That RickD and I were discussing; the problem Christians have with discussing Objective morality with Atheists is that they are speaking 2 different languages; the Christian definition of OM requires the existence of something bigger than human, and the Atheist definition does not. Would you agree?

Well I actually have a little different take on this than some people.

Following the standard debate, perhaps we could agree here. Definitions are important, and if you are using the term differently than we are, then fine. The real question is just whether or not your definitions are sufficient to account for the moral intuitions you posit your definitions to account for. Rick and others would just press you and argue they aren't.

But more fundamentally, I don't think that this is really a matter of definition at all. It's actually a matter of nature. The question is, what is morality?, which really just reduces to, does morality exist?. The atheistic position is really nothing more than a denial of morality by its embrace of moral anti-realism. It then claims the term "morality" and applies it to its own views and attempts to set itself up as a serious intellectual competitor.

If atheists want to be consistent, they need to just drop all pretenses of morality all together. They just need to say that all language about "right" and "wrong" is really theistic in its assumptions and that such language is therefore at best an accomodation and at worst deceptive. They ought to speak rather in terms of social preference or incompatibility with social or individually established and enforceable norms. They need to quit saying that racism, slavery, bigotry, and murder are wrong, objectively or otherwise. They need to start saying that they don't approve of such things and that they hope society will disapprove of them, too. When asked why they would have such hopes, they need to take pains not to use the word "ought," because "ought" implies some sort of obligation that cannot be justified unless one appeals to moral realism. They need to keep it strictly personal: "Because I happen to prefer a world in which people act that way." They can get sophisticated if they like and appeal to some sort of utilitarian and ultimately economic argument (so long as they never become prescriptive in their language; they must always stay descriptive), but the underlying issue can never change--it is a matter of personal preference and absolutely nothing more.

But put that way, I hope you see clearly that this is not a matter of definitions at all. This is a matter of atheists wanting something they cannot justify. They rightly say that morality exists, but they try to soften the impliations of morality by putting this or that "but" on it and ultimately committing what is sometimes called "the taxi-cab fallacy," that is, the idea of not taking your ideas to their logical conclusion. For instance, suppose an atheist says, "I believe morality is objective in the sense that I personally think the Golden Rule is sufficient to establish it; anyone can objectively determine right from wrong based on that standard." The theist may well respond, "Fine, morality is objective in that manner. Now I ask, though, do you think people ought to actually follow the Golden Rule as their standard of morality?"

If the atheist says, "Yes," then he has to justify that view by appealing to something other than the Golden Rule. And if he says, "No," then the Christian may well respond, "Then it's not that morality is objective after all. It's that morality doesn't even exist! All your 'objective morality' means is really nothing more than 'this act is in accordance with this rule or it is not'. But you aren't saying anything about any kind of morality after all, objective or otherwise."

A subtle distinction, perhaps, but important.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I decided to just spend a few minutes thinking of things Atheists often say and claim, which I don't believe Atheism can actually support.

Atheism is kind of funny. We all naturally tend to believe certain things like being able to know truth, morality--some things really are bad like perhaps the crusades, "we" exist and are responsible for our decisions--even our thinking ability, justice ought to be served and the like. Because of this, I doubt there is an Atheist alive who is not an inconsistent Atheist. For to believe in many of these things, such beliefs have a basis in Theistic foundations that an Atheist must unwittingly borrow from.

So let me get started with some. I know I'm writing to the choir here, but I'm happy for an Atheist or two to try and defend against my statements if moderators allow.

• Atheists often say they accept what can be seen, smelt, touched, heard or tasted (i.e., accept truth about the world via physical senses). Yet, they fail to justify how that truth can be known without embracing fideism.
• Atheists often say that God would be morally wrong to allow pain and suffering in the world if He is all-powerful and all-benevolent (or say "send people to hell"). Yet, the reality of concepts are not physically sensed--including objective moral concepts that some things really are wrong while other things really are bad regardless of what anyone thinks. Such wreaks of Theism.
• Atheists often claim to be free thinkers, while embracing that we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are (Determinism).
• Atheists often claim moral superiority in doing "good" for goodness sake rather than God's sake, yet what is the superior morality of which they speak and how is it they stand above the physical processes that constructed them to be "morally superior"?
• Atheists often adhere to Physicalism, yet then believe what we sense of the world is true of the world. Yet Science, particularly physics, forces us to conclude that the world contains colourless particles and waves. Colour is therefore an illusion, a mental abstraction of the physical world that in fact nowhere exists in the physical world. A tinge of inconsistency here perhaps?
• Atheism is built upon the hypocrisy of beliefs it pretends to have, but ultimately cannot sustain.

Feel free to add your own.

Hello I’m new here. I would like to reply. My replies are in bold
• Atheists often say they accept what can be seen, smelt, touched, heard or tasted (i.e., accept truth about the world via physical senses). Yet, they fail to justify how that truth can be known without embracing fideism.
That truth can be known using 1 or more of my 5 senses.

Thanks Kenny. You haven't resolved my complaint, but rather verified it via circular reasoning.

That is, the truth of what is seen, smelt, touches, heard or tastes is justified through seeing, smelling, touching, hearing or tasting is circular and as such taken on faith (fideism) rather than logic or reason.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Atheists often say that God would be morally wrong to allow pain and suffering in the world if He is all-powerful and all-benevolent (or say "send people to hell"). Yet, the reality of concepts are not physically sensed--including objective moral concepts that some things really are wrong while other things really are bad regardless of what anyone thinks. Such wreaks of Theism.

You see it as theism, I just see it as common sense.

See what as theism/common sense?

Point to me in the physical/material world where morality exists?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Atheists often claim to be free thinkers, while embracing that we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are (Determinism).

Can you prove we are anything other than?

You are my proof, because you're a complete fool.

(updated edit: that insult was used to try make a point when Kenny responded about how mean "I" was being or uncalled for. But, if I'm determined, then it was not "I". Kenny avoided responding. I felt the need to do a post-edit here as I know it was insulting, purposefully so, so please anyone reading don't take the insult to heart.)

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Atheists often adhere to Physicalism, yet then believe what we sense of the world is true of the world. Yet Science, particularly physics, forces us to conclude that the world contains colourless particles and waves. Colour is therefore an illusion, a mental abstraction of the physical world that in fact nowhere exists in the physical world. A tinge of inconsistency here perhaps?

If those silly scientists don’t know what they are talking about when they dismiss the existence of your God, why would you assume they would know what they are talking about when they say Colour is therefore an illusion?

There is nothing wrong with the science, but rather your unjustified physicalist assumptions of the world that you appear to hold to.

Kenny wrote:Daniel
I would say no, if there is no ultimate standard then intelligent beings would have no concept of what is right or wrong and because OM exists it necessarily implies a law giver.

Ken
So would you agree Objective Morality as you define it is strictly a Theistic concept?

K

Objective morality holds theistic implications, most definetely.

I think Jac explained that quite well in the second post above this one.