A less selfish Pascal's wager

[Jac3510]

I can agree with pretty much everything you said, although it deeply saddens me to think that there are Christian philosophy profs out there who think that atheists cannot be moral. I can understand grad students thinking that. They're just students, still learning and studying. But a prof? With a PhD? That would imply that they have actually read the material that expressly refutes such nonsense. I can't imagine ever meeting that.

Then again, I met a prof with a PhD in theology who claimed that he had read every work by a particular author regarding an issue I was defending with which he disagreed. When I asked him about a very simple factual point (specifically, why the word "repentance" is never used in John's gospel) he disagreed and told me that I was wrong, and that it was used extensively. Here, he is just just factually wrong. How could such a man have read so many works, including his Bible, and still make such an elementary mistake? Either he lied about having read the material or he dismissed the arguments he read without considering them. Both are truly sad.

So perhaps there are Christian philosophy profs who hold to that view, but it is frankly difficult for me to believe that 1) they have read the first word on ethics (there are, as you know many different fields of philosophy in which one may specialize) and 2) that they've considered the arguments by the standard bearers in Christian philosophy (Moreland, Craig, Plantinga, Rea, etc.). Maybe I'm wrong, but I will be completely honest and say it is extremely difficult for me to fathom.

Anyway, I understand your position taken in your last sentence. In some ways I might agree, but in others still not, which is probably the only place we might part company here. On the assumption that philosophical knowledge is true knowledge, then the philosophical community sets the standards of philosophical argument. Certainly, the community is deeply fragmented. But here we can simply divide them into subsets, in which the particular subset I'm speaking of is Christian philosophers. That's not to say that popular arguments are meaningless and don't need to be dealt with, which as I have admitted before my initial post could be taken to mean. It just means that those popular arguments are better quickly dismissed on the merits and backed up with Christian scholarship (when speaking to Christians) and then moving on to explain what the real argument actually is.

Thank you for helping refine my point. It's always good to be kept honest.

[philosoraptor]

Unfortunately, nothing surprises me, even coming from someone with a PhD.  I had the the former chair of the English department for my basic composition classes as an undergrad, and he had difficulty spelling four letter words.  He also thought that the abbreviation for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was PITA.  

I also once had a teacher tell me anarchy and socialism were the same thing.  When I pointed out that they certainly were not, she told me I was flat out wrong.  Um, okay?

Hard to fathom, yes.  Because I think we'd all like to imagine that someone who's a tool or an idiot won't end up with a PhD and expert status.  Unfortunately, that's not always the case.

[Kylyssa]

Kylyssa, this is obviously a deeply emotional issue for you. I am sorry for your experiences and I can understand how they would color your take on things. For what it is worth, I do understand your position, and I promise you that this is no more purely intellectual with me than it is purely emotional with you. Let's just leave it here and trust that both of us want, at least on some level, the same thing as far as this issue goes.

If these things didn't happen or even stopped happening I wouldn't bother blogging or writing or giving a damn about atheism or religion.  If we could be allowed the same rights and protections as everyone else and people stopped doing jackass, horrible things due to their religion it would be a non-issue.  

The Atheist Centre of India has saved and made better hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of lives since it started back in the 1940s.  But you know what?  It would have been a lot better if religion hadn't endangered those people in the first place.  If people weren't burning widows to death for religious reasons, I doubt it would have become a tradition.

If people were not throwing kids out for not following their parents' faith in the way their parents want, no one would have to save the kids thrown out because they wouldn't be thrown out in the first place.    

Read the Bible as if it were just a book for once and carefully analyze how the main character behaves.

[i_am_i]

Just to jump in with this.

I am not convinced that morality is in any way objective.

What we call morality is basically nothing more than the applied results of human beings figuring out how to live together and thrive individually and as a community. The rest of so-called morality is just a lot of bigoted religious or politically driven crap. In my opinion.

[KebertX]

That's a fair example, Kerbert, but let me respond to a couple of things.

but I still think something is wrong with your argument that morality can be objective without a god.

Is this a typo? I think it is, but I want to confirm. You know that I am arguing that morality CANNOT be objective without God, correct? And technically, that isn't even what I'm arguing. Actually, I'm saying that there is no foundation for objective morality without God. Frankly, I think that morals are objective. I think that every atheist knows that some things are really right and some things are really wrong, objectively speaking. I just don't think that they have a foundation for their objective morality. They claim their morality is subjective, but they behave as if they are objective. That's the rub.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you and I are drinking from a fountain, and suppose you tell me that the water comes from a reservoir down the road. Suppose I say that the reservoir does not exist. Now, does the fact that I am denying the origin of the water mean that I can't drink the water or know that it is there or that I cannot benefit from it? Of course not! The same is true with reality. Atheist have all the benefits of objective morality because morality really is objective. They don't have to have the right belief to start experiencing reality itself -- to say that they did would be to argue that epistemology determines ontology, which it doesn't.

As to your counter example, let me use that to further clarify my position. It is very easy to have a foundation of objective morality without God. I could posit an invisible morality dispensing machine on the planet X120 in the Galaxy R538 in sector QueihIehhh&927y29 of the third universe on our left, and could then argue that all of us are psychologically connected to that machine, and that is the source of our morality. Thus, what it dispenses is right and wrong, making morality objective.

Fine. The point is that there must be something over and above the human experience in which to ground objective morality. I'm sure you would agree that my suggestion is rather silly. Philosophically, morality only comes from a sentient being. It doesn't take too much work to show that a being whose very nature is the root of morality would correspond to what we call God. In any case, all this is rather trivial, because what we should be able to agree on is that if there is nothing beyond the human experience, then there is nothing objective in which to ground morality. It is nothing more than a human construct and, as such, moral statements have no meaning whatsoever beyond personal opinion. In order to predicate real rightness and real wrongness to the essence of actions and attitudes themselves, we must have a sentient moral being over and above human beings in which to ground that meaning. I'm not, then, arguing that we can't agree on what is "right" and what is "wrong" for whatever our own personal reasons, be they religious or sociological. I'm arguing that the words "right" and "wrong" have no intrinsic, objective meaning if there is no God.

I am sorry, that WAS A TYPO. I entirely meant to say CANNOT.  That was a mess up.  Sorry.  Ignore it, please.

Even your final argument is not necessarily true. As social animals, it follows that it is likely to have evolved our imperative not to harm one another as a necessity of surviving in groups. No social creature could survive long in a group without this trait, so I think it stands to reason that an imperative to not harm one another is an inevitable eventuality in the Human Species. I don't have a lot of time to elaborate right now, but I'd argue that species-wide inevitability of morality constitutes  an objective standard of morality.

[Jac3510]

I am sorry, that WAS A TYPO. I entirely meant to say CANNOT.  That was a mess up.  Sorry.  Ignore it, please.

Even your final argument is not necessarily true. As social animals, it follows that it is likely to have evolved our imperative not to harm one another as a necessity of surviving in groups. No social creature could survive long in a group without this trait, so I think it stands to reason that an imperative to not harm one another is an inevitable eventuality in the Human Species. I don't have a lot of time to elaborate right now, but I'd argue that species-wide inevitability of morality constitutes  an objective standard of morality.

Ok, that's fine. I thought it was, I just wanted to be sure!

[i_am_i]

Jac3510, what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

[Jac3510]

Jac3510, what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

The ontology of morality - what would it mean for it to be objective or subjective. Most atheists agree that their position requires morality to be completely subjective, but some still try to find an objective basis for it. I'm just pressing the point as to why its not possible.

[notself]

Jac3510, what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

The ontology of morality - what would it mean for it to be objective or subjective. Most atheists agree that their position requires morality to be completely subjective, but some still try to find an objective basis for it. I'm just pressing the point as to why its not possible.

Please provide a list of objective moral statements.  Perhaps it will clear things up.

[Jac3510]

Please provide a list of objective moral statements.  Perhaps it will clear things up.

Any moral statement is objective.

Murder is wrong.
Rape is wrong.
Helping little old ladies cross the street is a good thing.
Obama did the right thing when he ordered the SEALs to take out the pirates last year.
We ought to be honest.
We shouldn't be unkind.

All of these statements are objective. They aren't objective because anyone agrees or disagrees. Even if every person in the world agreed, that wouldn't make them objective. They aren't objective because they are true. I could just as well add, "Human sacrifice is a good thing." That is an objective moral statement as well. It is just wrong in that it misrepresents reality just as much as the statement "Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the United States" is wrong in that it misrepresents reality. That's the point I am making. The question is do moral statements themselves speak of reality itself, or do they merely speak of personal opinion. Does the statement "murder is wrong" refer to murder itself, or does the statement just refer to me and really just means, "I do not like murder." The latter is true on atheism. The former may only be true if God exists.

[notself]

If I understand you, your objection to murder is objective if one believes in a god and the immorality of this same act is subjective if one doesn't believe in a god.

[joeactor]

Any moral statement is objective.

Murder is wrong.
Rape is wrong.
Helping little old ladies cross the street is a good thing.
Obama did the right thing when he ordered the SEALs to take out the pirates last year.
We ought to be honest.
We shouldn't be unkind.

Ok, now I'm confused.

Are you saying these statements are always true?  Or always right?  Or they are objective?

Let's see:
"Murder is wrong."
... except when God tells you to do it.
... except in self defense.
... except when sanctioned by the state.

Are you going to be "honest" when being interrogated by the enemy?  Or when talking to a shady, dishonest person?  Or do you sometimes withhold the truth for the greater good?

And what about that "little old lady"?  What if she's got a bomb strapped to her and there's a busload of nuns and orphans on the other side of the street... Still want to help her cross?

I'm pretty sure that the pirates don't think Obama did the "right" thing.

[Jac3510]

If I understand you, your objection to murder is objective if one believes in a god and the immorality of this same act is subjective if one doesn't believe in a god.

Correct.

Ok, now I'm confused.

Are you saying these statements are always true?  Or always right?  Or they are objective?

Let's see:
"Murder is wrong."
... except when God tells you to do it.
... except in self defense.
... except when sanctioned by the state.

Are you going to be "honest" when being interrogated by the enemy?  Or when talking to a shady, dishonest person?  Or do you sometimes withhold the truth for the greater good?

And what about that "little old lady"?  What if she's got a bomb strapped to her and there's a busload of nuns and orphans on the other side of the street... Still want to help her cross?

I'm pretty sure that the pirates don't think Obama did the "right" thing.

I am not arguing that any of those statements are absolutely true as I'm not arguing for absolute morality. I'm arguing for the necessarily theistic basis of objectivity in morality. I reject deontological ethics for some of the reasons you mention here. Whether or not a particular course of action is right or wrong in any given case is a matter of discussion and points to the need for the virtues. My point is that the question of whether or not something is right or wrong in any given situation is objectively meaningless if God does not exist.

[Tank]

If I understand you, your objection to murder is objective if one believes in a god and the immorality of this same act is subjective if one doesn't believe in a god.

Correct.

Might be unintentionally nit-picking here but having at one time spent 8 years writing, editing and proof reading technical catalogue copy some things just stick out like a sore thumb.

You agreed with notself's statement in which they referred to 'a' as in 'any of a number of' gods, not a 'specific' God. Now, going from what I understand your position to be there can only be one god. So are you saying the act of believing in 'a' or 'any' god would make one's view of murder objective or something else that I have missed?

[Jac3510]

If I understand you, your objection to murder is objective if one believes in a god and the immorality of this same act is subjective if one doesn't believe in a god.

Correct.

Might be unintentionally nit-picking here but having at one time spent 8 years writing, editing and proof reading technical catalogue copy some things just stick out like a sore thumb.

You agreed with notself's statement in which they referred to 'a' as in 'any of a number of' gods, not a 'specific' God. Now, going from what I understand your position to be there can only be one god. So are you saying the act of believing in 'a' or 'any' god would make one's view of murder objective or something else that I have missed?

No, you are correct. Belief in 'a' god doesn't do anything. It has to be God. I didn't want to come across like a grammar Nazi given the rest of the sentence (not that you are; your point is perfectly valid). I was just trying to take the general meaning. However, precision is of the utmost importance in these kinds of discussions.

Since precision is important, let me refine your statement just a bit. It is not belief in God that makes one's view of murder objective. I assume you agree that murder is wrong. I am convinced that your belief here is objectively correct. Murder really is wrong, and you recognize, in my view anyway, that objective fact, even if you deny God's existence. My point is strictly and totally ontological, which may make it appear trivial, but it is of the utmost importance. I am saying that if god doesn't exist, then whatever your or I think about morality is subjective, regardless of how we may try to argue otherwise. It's all just a matter of opinion, no matter how strongly we hold to those opinions or how much we all agree with them. The statement "murder is wrong" is no more or less true than "vanilla ice cream is good." They have precisely the same truth value. If God does exist--whether we believe in Him or not is not the issue--then moral statements do have truth value that purely subjective statements such as "vanilla ice cream is good" do not.

This is important, because I don't want anyone to interpret me as saying that atheists cannot know right from wrong, cannot be moral, or have a subjective view of morality. You don't. I believe your view is OBJECTIVE, just as mine is. But that is because I believe that morality itself is objective. The only reason we can have a real discussion about what really is right and wrong is that morality really is objective, because if it wasn't, then saying something is right and wrong is objectively meaningless. It seems to me that atheists argue that morality is subjective because it is forced on them. The argument would go like this:

1. If there is no God, morality must be subjective
2. There is no God
3. Therefore, morality is subjective

The argument is valid. (1) is true. The problem is with (2). At this point, we start moving away from the argument I've been making and start moving on to an actual moral argument for God's existence, but indulge me just for a moment here, because it illustrates well the point I am trying to make in this thread. Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that God does, in fact, exist. Then (2) above is false and the conclusion is wrong. Morality does turn out to be objective. Does the fact that a person holds to a view of morality that does not properly represent reality mean that said person cannot interact with reality as reality actually is? Of course not! Your mental representation of reality is just that -- a mental representation. It doesn't determine the nature of reality itself.

So my point is that morality can only be objective if God exists, and that if God does not exist, it must be subjective. I am saying absolutely nothing more than that. I am not speaking about the belief in God with reference to the objectivity or subjectivity of morality, because my personal belief in God has no bearing on the actual ontology of reality itself.

Does that make my point a bit clearer? I understand why this has to be stated so many different ways as the point has been so very deeply abused in the past. I am just as concerned with being clear on what I am not saying as being clear on what I am.