The blog Thomisic Bent has been doing a series lately on why it was perfectly okay for God to command the Israelites to slaughter entire ethnic groups in the Old Testament, even down to the women and children. I’ve felt obliged to comment on all of them, because toward the end of my time as a Christian I began to realize just how heinous these stories are. Could you imagine God commanding something like the shootings in New Town, CT? As crazy as it sounds, what the OT suggests is even more horrific.
Thomistic Bent’s latest post, “Holiness and the Justice of God,” continues his rationale for accepting some of the Bible’s most blasphemous claims about God. Here’s an an excerpt:
As long as we compare ourselves to each other, we can convince ourselves that we’re not so dirty, and it’s really the other guy who needs a bath. But when we truly see how holy God is, we suddenly know how dirty we are…
God is patient, but will eventually demand a separation. In God’s terms, this is Hell, which is a separation from God, away from His good graces, a place where we can have what we want, to be left alone.
So we all deserve separation from God. But what if God were to select some, clean them up, and give them another chance? If He takes some of the filthy rags and cleans it up, He is not bound to take all the filthy rags.
So is part of the answer with God’s actions with the Canaanites. If God acted the way He does in the rest of the Bible, then we can conclude that He likely gave them plenty of notices about what He expected, and plenty of chances to change. The Canaanites refused, so He ordered all of them separated from Him into Hell.
Meanwhile, we sit around and compare one of them with the other and with ourselves, and say some of them are not so bad, for it seems to us that they did not do much wrong. We feel this way because we are comparing the Canaanites to ourselves, comparing one filthy rag with another. But if we, or the Canaanites, were to realize how holy God is, we would all, along with Isaiah and Peter, beg God to cast us away, for we are all deserving of separation. Only by God’s infinite mercy do any of us have a chance to change our ways.
Using this kind of logic, I could make the same case about dogs. When you compare one dog to another, there’s little difference. But when you compare a dog to a human, it’s suddenly quite clear that dogs are filthy, stupid, and completely uncivilized. That’s why we are well within our rights to wipe out all dogs. It’s what they deserve for not being as clean, intelligent, and civilized as we humans. In fact, the dogs would completely agree with us, if they could ever come to understand just how much better than them we really are. If we decide to spare any dogs, it only shows how merciful we are.
Does that really make sense? Or is it more rational for the higher being to accept the lower being for what it is? What’s even worse, when we think about this in terms of God, is that he supposedly created us to be exactly the way we are. If he’s all powerful, he could have given us the same level of perfection that Jesus had so that we would be able to live more perfectly and be more pleasing to him. Instead, he purposely handicapped us, and then decided to reject us because of the same handicap. He wants us to hate ourselves, merely for the “crime” of being what he created us to be. What kind of monster would operate in such a way?
The problem with people like the writer of Thomistic Bent is that they unquestioningly accept whatever the Bible tells them without really thinking about its implications. And I should know — I used to operate the same way. If you dig back far enough into this blog, you’ll see what I mean. But the problem with that position is that God himself has not told the writer of Thomistic Bent that all these things actually happened, or that he would have approved of them even if they had. No, these stories were passed down from generation to generation before being written down by mere men. We don’t have the original copies. And all the copies we have are divergent in certain areas. And God didn’t hand us a list of which books were authentic — that was decided by groups of men. At every step along the process, the books of the Bible have mankind’s fingerprints all over them… why in the world would we still assume that they contain the actual words of God, especially when they contain such disgusting barbarism and attribute it to him? Not to mention this type of vengeful God was typical for ancient Canaan.
Look, guys like the writer of Thomistic Bent mean well. They think they’re performing a public service by warning us about the scary sky-monster that they worship. They believe that the Christian god is very real, and their definitions of goodness, morality, justice, and mercy have been contaminated to the point that they can read everything about God in the Bible and not see it as contradicting those qualities. It’s a sad and dangerous state to be in. It’s religious fundamentalism. And while we look at the perpetrators of events like 9/11 as warped and backward, they were merely the fundamentalists of a different religion. If Christians believe that it was just for God to command the slaughter of an entire nation of people, down to the very last infant, then we can only hope they never begin to believe that he commands something similar for today.
I wish people like this would realize that even if the Christian God is real, he created us with the ability to question and reason. Even some passages in the Bible talk about the value of questioning things. If they could only apply those questions to the Bible — a collection of books that they agree were written by men, many ages ago — then maybe they would begin to see the problems in the Bible for what they are. If there really is a God, and he really does possess the qualities of goodness, morality, justice, and mercy, then such an honest, objective search for truth could only be pleasing to him, even if it leads someone away from religion altogether.
Finding Truth 
Just another thought,
People I think also tend to shut down, or disengage in a conversation, if they feel their deeply held convictions are mistreated or made light of.
I think if the goal is to encourage understanding, progression and connection between people – then labelling people with deeply held faiths as just “idiots” could trigger an unhelpful polarisation.
If the goal is to cause conflict then labelling and generalising is probably an effective tool I would think. But if what we want to gain real insight into what other people actually believe, and not merely a stereotype, then those people need to be respected and be allowed to have a voice in the same way as everyone else.
Also in my experience, belittling a persons beliefs can risk this person to shut off entirely, which then means other people miss out on a valuable opportunity to understand a believer better and gain an more accurate perspective of who they are.
This just increases misunderstanding, which is where assumptions and misrepresentation step in. There is already enough misunderstanding in the world I think. It’s more productive if a believer is allowed to represent themselves, without being treated like a inferior human being because of their beliefs.
Then people can consider what believers actually believe in their own words, instead of believers possibly disengaging through being put down and paid out, only to have straw men and misinformation being put in their place
The more diversity of people I think actually enriches a dialogue. It’s only through diversity that ideas can considered and refined.
Plus, to understand another person from a completely different position is quite rare for human beings, and therefore quite valuable to take away. This is a privilege, it is to also understanding another aspect of the humanity we all share.
Also, as I mentioned, I think many believers share their convictions on Nates blog out of compassion and care, not spite. I think this is the case however strange or invalid their beliefs might appear to others.
Also, it does make sense I suppose, that if you truly believed others were in danger of eternal damnation the most compassionate thing to do would be to share with them the truth: what you believed would save them.
Finally, because I think some genuine believers don’t make a distinction between what they believe and who they are, to pay out or put down their beliefs is actually essentially putting them down.
That’s what I think anyway.
LikeLike
So to conclude,
You can’t compare ideas against each other and gain understanding without diversity. You can’t get true diversity without respectfully allowing people to accurately represent their beliefs, free of deprecation.
LikeLike
Howie and Ryan (portal001) — I really enjoyed the comments you both made on morality. Thanks for sharing them! And Howie, thanks for seconding my comment about Hell; I’m really glad it resonated. 🙂
Ark,
I’m glad you asked this, because I’ve been thinking about it the last couple of days. First of all, I think the points that Ryan made in response to you are very good and well thought out. I think he’s right.
The Christians that come on this blog feel passionately about their beliefs, just as we do. I know that it’s sometimes hard to understand why people believe the things they do, but that’s exactly how they feel about us as well. None of us ultimately knows what’s beyond this life. We’re all talking about things we believe, not things we know, regardless of how convinced of them we are.
I’ve always really appreciated the respect you’ve shown me and my journey out of religion. And I’ve also appreciated the disgust you’ve shown toward my Christian friends and family that shut out my wife and me just because we held a different opinion than they did. But if we follow your advice and stifle comments from the Christians that visit this site, wouldn’t we be guilty of the same behavior?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of yours. And you’ve perfected a nice blend of sarcasm and satire when you talk about religion that I really enjoy. But I think when you jump into personal attacks, it’s taking things too far. And frankly, it minimizes the impact of the very good points you often make. I don’t have a problem with speaking directly — I think it’s sometimes necessary. But please don’t assume that the Christians that visit here secretly believe their religion is bogus. That’s just as wrong as the Christians that think we atheists secretly believe in God. The guys that visit here are sincere, and kudos to them for not isolating themselves in an echo chamber where they never hear different points of view. These guys have sought us out for discussion — I don’t think we should do anything to discourage that.
Anyway, I’m glad you’re here — this place wouldn’t be the same without you. But I would appreciate it if you’d refrain from some of the personal statements that you sometimes employ.
Thanks Ark 🙂
LikeLike
I just kind of think that you need diversity in order to compare ideas and refine understanding.
Ark, I do find parts of your posts really funny, and I appreciate the humour. btw are you writing a book atm? You seem to be working on some short stories based on the posts on your blog 🙂
LikeLike
Nate.
While I recognize your desire to remain civil and do respect your right to call the tune on your own blog I feel a point is being missed.
The Christians have had 2000 years plus to state their case, and for the most part non-believers were often afraid to even utter a squeak of dissent. Look at your own case.
To utilize a more direct example.
If you found that Ray Comfort was going to teach RE at your kids school you would be down at the headmasters office toot sweet…I sincerely hope you would, at any rate.
Now , imagine you heard that Unklee was going to take the class. Would you be just as concerned, or would you say. “Aw, heck, I know, unklee, he’s an okay sort of bloke, even for an Australian.”
Now you would rightly get upset if your kids came home and stated as ‘fact’ that T-Rex actually did run around with Neanderthal man, because the ‘…teacher told us it was true, daddy.”
But shouldn’t you be just as upset if your kid came home and said ” We learned that baby Jesus’ mummy was a virgin and he is really God.”
Doesn’t it bother you, especially after all you and your family have been through that you had a President who actually believed the world was created in 7 days? That this mentality is still out there. That such twits walk among us? That one such might one day conscript your kid and send him to war because he believes the Muslims are infidels?
But because we were all brought up to be good mannered and tolerant, liberal religious folk must be given a pseudo ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card simply because they claim they don’t believe in a hell of fire and brimstone and the OT is only for those silly Jews, because OUR god is a really nice fellow. ( Who walked on water, raised himself from the dead, turned water into wine etc etc)
Given the opportunity, would you think the likes of unklee and Humblesmith would vote For or Against having Christianity taught in state schools?
And what would you vote, Nate?
On a lighter note…there is a video on this post that should make you howl with laughter. Scroll down the page a bit.
http://attaleuntold.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/atheists-are-dumb/
peace.
LikeLike
@ Portal001
”Ark, I do find parts of your posts really funny, and I appreciate the humour. btw are you writing a book atm? You seem to be working on some short stories based on the posts on your blog ”
I don’t have a book, but my friend, DSP does. I display a widget for him on my blog.
If you want to see it , and read a few reviews or even order a copy,here is the link to his publisher.
http://www.pkaboo.net/almostdead.html
It is very funny apparently.
LikeLike
Hi Ark,
Yes, it definitely bothers me that those mindsets are still out there. And I would not be okay if religion came into my kids’ classrooms, because they view their teachers as an authority. I want my kids to learn what different people believe, but that’s different than being told those beliefs are facts. So I think we’re in agreement there.
But in a setting like the one on this blog, there is no authority figure. It’s just a bunch of us talking about what we think, and I think everyone should be treated respectfully in that kind of forum. That doesn’t mean we have to pay homage to everyone’s ideas — we should definitely call stuff out when we see a problem with it. But as individuals, we all come from different backgrounds and have different experiences, so it’s only natural that we’ll have different opinions. So I think we should be able to take someone’s word for it when they say they believe something, and I think they deserve at least a little respect for having the guts to say what they think, even if it’s unpopular.
And yeah, that video was hilarious, by the way! I love Lewis Black…
LikeLike
The awarding of respect as a matter of course is a difficult one, especially when it comes to religion and there is an inherent belief that it should be respected merely because it IS religion.
While the liberal theist may well feel they are due the same respect as an a- theist their bronze age mythological views influence large parts of our society. More so in your own country, and because of the millennia of inculcation that persists even today,by continually paying lip service we are allowing these people to influence our way of lives.
Arguments pertaining to religious tolerance are, in a way, similar to those fput forward by gun lobbyists.
I applaud your desire to encourage dialogue – certainly a lot better than halfwits such as Humblesmith, who is anything but. Yet your posts have a habit of sounding placating at times, which I find extraordinary considering, and it opens the door for liberals to gently and subtly steer the discussion to a point where they often seem to take control. Or at least their viewpoint is on an equal footing.
If you read the 2nd Nazareth post on unklee’s blog you would see quite clearly that when it was time to put up, the argument for a Nazareth fell flat on its face and became circular.
Sorry, this is just me. It pains me to the point of my teeth hurting sometimes, reading the diatribe in defense of this deity and all its nonsense.
There are other more practical issues as well of course. That religious bodies do not pay tax, that infant genital mutilation is allowed on religious grounds, to name two.
I truly feel that they must put up ( deliver on these ‘promises’ or push off. There is no place for their nonsense in today’s society.
Love and understanding has never come from the bible or any other ‘holy’ book.
You host a fine Blog, Nate.
Thanks for allowing me to be part of it.
LikeLike
Nate. Re: the thrust of my argument.
And this is why….
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/north-carolina-legislators-want-to-abolish-freedom-of-religion/
LikeLike
G’day Howie. I don’t think you have asked too many questions, although it may be a little difficult to answer them all in the confines of a blog comment space. But I appreciate the conversation.
I actually said “I think ethics don’t depend on God to be true, same as logic and maths.” which isn’t quite the same. Without God I don’t think there’d be anything, ever. But now God has created a universe in which morally aware creatures live, those ethics can exist and be true because they are true in themselves, not just because God said so.
You are right, I was inexact – strictly it isn’t necessarily true. But it seems to be statistically true. Most atheists I have talked with are naturalists.
I believe there can, and are, but naturalists can’t think that by definition, wouldn’t you say? In your view, what could possibly make an objective moral truth exist?
No, we are agreed there. There are no “rock solid” proofs out side of maths and logic, not even in science. But I think the evidence makes God way more probable than not.
All I meant was most naturalists I have talked about this to cannot explain where objective ethics come from, and most believe ethics are relative and cultural. But their behaviour and beliefs on other matters shows they are still ethical people. So I was suggesting they have a belief about ethics that their naturalism/atheism cannot adequately explain, and “adding God to the mix” can resolve this dilemma.
No, I am offering my opinion. And my opinion is that there are a number of deep dilemmas about naturalism that most people cannot really resolve, and so they tend to keep on with their naturalism despite that. This is not a surprising or nasty comment, after all, most atheists think the same about christians – it’s part of having a different viewpoint.
That is very interesting. I went in the opposite direction. I too decided there was no way that there could be objective morality without God, so that became one of a group of reasons why I committed myself to belief in God. I certainly cannot prove anything like that to you. All I can do is what we are doing here, discuss courteously and ask you to explain how a naturalistic universe can produce genuine objectively true ethics. I would also ask the same about genuine free will and the idea that human beings have value in themselves (the “sanctity of human life”). I have never yet seen a satisfactory (to me) naturalist explanation for these things – see Atheism and freewill – the elephant in the room?. If naturalism can’t explain them, then I can only suggest reconsidering a worldview that can. There are several.
Well those are my answers, as short as I can make them. I’m enjoying the conversation, but wonder whether we should find another venue rather than filling up Nate’s blog? Best wishes.
LikeLike
Hey Uncle E,
I get the feeling that Nate doesn’t mind our discussion at all. I think he hasn’t joined in because he has had this exchange about morality with you at least twice before.
I can’t figure out why you keep going back to discussing naturalism when the discussion is about atheism. Just because most of the atheists you have talked with are naturalists doesn’t mean they all are. I don’t claim to be a naturalist, and you admit to not being able to show me why atheism necessitates naturalism. I see it as a possibility and may even lean toward it depending on the day of the week, but I do not know whether it is true or not. Perhaps Nate is a naturalist, but actually he is the one who introduced me to the word possibilian which I thought described my views very well.
I believe that I see your reasoning now, and your reasoning really isn’t about morality specifically, it is actually about everything. You could substitute in the word bananas for the word morality and your argument looks the same. You just like to focus on morality because humans have made morality a central focus in discussions about God for many centuries, and because people feel so strongly about it. Much stronger than bananas. I am getting this from your statement: “Without God I don’t think there’d be anything, ever”. Your belief really boils down to this: the fact that anything at all exists is proof that God exists.
You said this in a previous comment on this page: “Logic could arguably exist without a God, so perhaps ethics could too.” So it seems you did actually agree to what I wrote – the words aren’t exactly the same, but my wording seems pretty close. I will take your current response then as golden and go back to realizing that we don’t even agree on that. I’m really not judging you for this, but trying to figure out where we agree and disagree is looking to be a bit harder here than I thought.
I only have one question for you in this response to you, and I hope you can answer it: what is it that made the God that you believe in exist?
LikeLike
Ark,
“I don’t have a book, but my friend, DSP does. I display a widget for him on my blog.
If you want to see it , and read a few reviews or even order a copy,here is the link to his publisher.”
I’ll have a look, thanks
LikeLike
Hi Howie,
No, Nate’s a tolerant guy. I just meant that blog comments are not always the best place for long and involved discussions.
Most atheists are naturalists, and naturalism is a more precise term (some atheists define atheism differently to others). Those that are not, I ask to justify why they believe in something other than naturalism, and what exactly is it? If you are a “possibilian”, I’ll ask you about both alternatives. Specifically, what do you see as (1) the naturalistic explanation of objective ethics and (2) the atheistic but non-naturalistic explanation?
The second half of that statement is true, but the first isn’t. It doesn’t all boil down to that. I think there are many reasons to believe God exists. Why is there something rather than nothing? is one of them. But why is there morality? is another. My argument for that was outlined in 8 steps a while back, and I still don’t think I have seen an adequate reason to reject it or an alternative explanation for morality.
I’ll admit to not being precise sometimes, in the attempt to be brief, but I think all my statements there are strictly consistent:
(a) Ethics could arguably exist without God.
(b) I personally think nothing can exist without God.
Hence my preferred statement is the one I gave:
(c) “I think ethics don’t depend on God to be true, same as logic and maths.”
I think you agree with (a) & (c) but not (b).
God is often said to be a necessary being, “outside” of time and space, never not existing, never beginning, not needing any reason for his existence. This is a reasonable definition for an all-powerful God. (Whether such a God exists is another question of course, but that is part of his definition.)
The physical universe and everything in it cannot be necessary (i.e. couldn’t not exist and couldn’t not be otherwise) because it had a start (there is some argument about this, but I think the statement can be successfully defended) and it could have been different. So it needs a cause. That is why I use arguments about things in the universe, and the universe itself, and ask where they came from, because explanations are hard to find without God.
LikeLike
Hi Uncle E,
That is a possible answer for what makes objective moral truths exist as well. I don’t know how else to make this any clearer – it is a belief just as yours!
I personally believe you have a double standard here and are being very unfair and inconsistent by allowing yourself to not give adequate justification for the existence of something, but requiring other people to provide justification for their belief in the existence of other things.
Objective moral truths can simply exist just like your God can simply exist. The fact that we feel so strongly about morality, and also the fact that doing things which are agreed by many to be “immoral” tend to very often lead to very bad results can also be 2 more very valid reasons for someone to believe that morality is objective. I see no reason one must believe in a god to make that conclusion of belief in morality.
By the way, since you are so incredibly focussed on naturalism you may want to google “richard carrier moral ontology”. He details on his old blog how there can be objective moral truths under naturalism. But this is an aside – what I said above is what I think summarizes my stance as well as I can state it.
LikeLike
Hi Howie,
I’m sorry you feel I am being unfair and inconsistent. I try to be honest and open-minded, and to present my views clearly, but I don’t suppose I always succeed. But it isn’t a matter of allowing or not allowing, it is simply a matter of testing two (or more) hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 is that there is a God who is eternal, etc, etc, and has set up the universe in a certain way. Hypothesis 2 is that there is no God or gods, and the universe has come about in certain ways. All I am doing is exploring how what we know or observe or feel about the universe better fits one hypothesis or the other. Since part of #1 is that God is eternal and necessary, then explaining his origin isn’t meaningful, whereas it is meaningful to ask for the origin of a non-eternal contingent universe in #2.
May I suggest that your feeling that I have taken an unfair advantage (if that is a fair summary of what you have said) may in fact be a reflection of the fact that #1 has some advantages over #2 as a hypothesis?
Yes, it is possible. But I am still waiting to see an explanation of how that comes to be the case, and how we could know, if atheism is true. I would still be interested to hear your views on this.
Yes, it is. A belief (philosophically) is whatever we hold in our minds. I have never used words like proof. That is why we are discussing, because we each need to evaluate the evidence and decide.
Does your latest comment indicate that you are feeling frustrated with this conversation? Would you prefer to call it a day here? If so, thanks for the opportunity to explore these issues.
LikeLike
The billions of followers of the Great Ro-ACH maintain that humans have no morality whatsoever, and that dogs are infinitely superior.
LikeLike
Hey Uncle E,
I think at this point I don’t get the feeling that you are going to see my points no matter how I word it. The suggestion you make is so way off the mark, and from that it is clear to me that we are not connecting at all. I was simply trying to use several different words to try and explain how you were falling into the fallacy of special pleading. This seems so incredibly obvious to me, and I honestly thought I was so clear about it that you would at least somewhat understand, but I see not an ounce of recognition of this in your response. Perhaps you feel the same about me, and I think agreeing to disagree is all we can do at this point.
And I was also waiting for your proof that it is illogical for an atheist to believe that moral truths exist – that never came, and at one point you even seemed to admit there is not one, but maybe you didn’t really mean that also. I think maybe we got off to a bad start. Maybe it will work better if we try again at a later time. Chances seem to be high that this topic will come up again. 🙂
Thanks,
Howie
LikeLike
I’m sorry you feel this way, but it happens all the time in these discussions. One person’s clear points and killer arguments are small cheese to another person.
I explained why I didn’t think that was so. I guess we disagree, which is a pity, but hardly unexpected.
I have consistently said there are no “proofs” in these matters, just arguments and evidence and assessments of most likely conclusions. But I did offer a reasoned argument, my 8 steps back a few comments now. So I have offered my side for discussion. But I have asked you several times for your explanation of how ethics can actually occur in a naturalistic or atheistic universe, and you haven’t done so. I’m not complaining about that, just pointing it out.
I don’t feel we got off to a bad start. I don’t have any bad feelings about the discussion, you, or your part in the discussion. I admire your methodical and courteous approach and I have appreciated the opportunity to discuss. I think you may have had higher expectations than I do. When I started discussing with atheists on the internet about 7-8 years ago, I thought I had brilliant arguments (sarcasm!!!) but soon learnt to have lower expectations. Now I am happy to find out what others think, point out where I disagree and answer questions about what I believe. Hopefully we all learn that way.
So thanks and best wishes.
LikeLike
Wow Uncle E, we finally found something we agree on! 😉 Yes, everything you said regarding my expectations is spot on – I would put it simply as I do need to chill out sometimes. Happens not just in my web interactions by the way. I’m cool with your advice. Thanks.
But yeah, I really am wondering whether our discussion had broken down to us just needing to agree to disagree. I have to admit that your insistence on talking about naturalism here is very odd to me as well given what we’ve said, but I suppose it’s just your way of saying that you still haven’t bought into my point that atheism doesn’t necessitate naturalism. I’ll just accept that then. There is one point though that I think you were missing that I tried to rephrase in a bunch of ways in different comments. I was trying to answer your question about explanation of how ethics could occur in a world without gods, but you didn’t see it as an answer. I’ll try maybe a little more, but I’m thinking at some point pretty soon here I’ll run out of ways to re-phrase.
Here it is: an atheist could believe that objective moral truths are “necessary” truths, “outside” of time and space, never not existing, never beginning, not needing any reason for their existence. This is what you said about God. Is there something that shows that objective moral truths cannot just be necessary truths in this way?
LikeLike
It is good, isn’t it? 🙂
Like I said, the first part of any discussion, and sometimes the only practical thing, is to better understand each other. I think that has happened, even though we couldn’t agree on much.
I understand that, and agree with you – in theory at any rate. But I said before that:
(i) You haven’t clearly identified if that is your view. You seemed to be saying that it might be, in which case I am left with discussing your various possible beliefs, of which naturalism is one, and non-naturalism is another. I have tried to discuss both.
(2) If that is your position, my question is what are you actually postulating? What could there be beyond the natural world if there is no God? (I understand there are theoretical answers, but I’m asking what you actually think.)
Again, I understand this, and can see that it is a theoretical possibility. But my question is the same. How can you explain this? How could an ethic be objectively true in such a universe?
We can say that mathematics is objectively true because we can prove the theorems. We can say that the gravitational constant is truly a particular value because we can test it. But what does it mean to say that ethics are objectively true, and how did the universe get to be that way? And, more importantly, how can we know that is the case?
I understand that you are saying that if God could be eternal, then so could ethics. But we wouldn’t accept the proposition that “If God could be eternal, so could the fly on my wall”. Analogies can’t be used unless they are apt. So I can argue that God, but his very nature, has always been there and is the ultimate reality, but I don’t see how you can argue that an abstract concept like ethics have always been there, especially before any universe was there. If you want to argue that, I guess we could discuss it, but I don’t see how that can be an explanation.
And even if you could argue that, the existence of ethics isn’t my main point – how we could know ethics are true is my main point. (Epistemology more than ontology, as I have said before.)
Let me say how it seems to me (this is only a hypothesis and I am asking you questions to try to verify or falsify it). It seems like you want ethics to be objectively true, and you want the universe to be something more than a mechanistic, determined place, which physicalism, and to some degree naturalism, seems to lead to, but you don’t want or believe that God could exist to provide the basis for those beliefs. So you hold onto those beliefs without having a really clear explanation for them. Hence your replies contain ideas like being a possibilian, and questions like why couldn’t it be possible that ….?.
I think many atheists do the same thing (and yet criticise christians for having faith!). So I am trying to verify if there is any more substantial explanation than what I have seen so far. I have not seen it from you or others, and I think it is probably very difficult to find a practically satisfactory one. Those are some of the reasons why I am a theist.
So that’s where I’m coming from. I am not trying to be unpleasant, just following the discussion though to its logical conclusion as far as I can. Hope that’s OK. Thanks.
LikeLike
Again you have said so much that I think we could have many long useful side discussions about elsewhere. But I was trying to stay very focussed to avoid confusion that always gets caused in discussions like these. I am not criticizing you here for having faith. I have already described to you what foundational beliefs are, and all of those require some level of faith. I could say so much more on this, but definitely best to discuss that another time.
You keep asking what I actually think, and I already said I am agnostic about these things because I see good points to all sides of the discussion. I think moral nihilists have some very good points about how our deep feelings about morality have come about naturally. I think Richard Carrier has some very good points about objective morality although his may not a “necessary” truth kind of belief. I think Shelly Kagan, Stephen Law and Erik Wielenberg have some very good points about objective morality being “necessary” truths.
There is no more substantial thing I am saying here except that one who does not believe in gods could possibly hold to the belief that objective moral truths are “necessary truths”. To say this is illogical would be incorrect. Did you explain what it is that shows they cannot be necessary truths and I just missed it? (if you are unclear about the definition of “necessary” go back to my previous description which is the same as yours). This is important and the main point of discussion so it would be very good if you reply to this. Is your answer only that they are abstract concepts therefore they cannot be “necessary”? If it is then maybe we have to just disagree because I’m not sure what it is that causes me to conclude this. We definitely have to agree to disagree on this one: “So I can argue that God, by his very nature, has always been there and is the ultimate reality, but I don’t see how you can argue that an abstract concept like ethics have always been there, especially before any universe was there.” First, I definitely still see special pleading here. Second, I personally believe it could be very reasonably argued that the opposite is the better conclusion, because it claims so much less. To claim there are hidden conscious entities that somehow want to interact with us but seem to not want to show themselves when we apply rigorous objective methods and peer review is very problematic to me. You must understand that I am not saying this proves they do not exist, but for me it causes a huge epistemological problem to come up with excuses for why they would want to do this and then jump to the conclusion that people are not being reasonable or injecting their biases by not coming to the conclusion that these kind of beings exist.
I believe the epistemology question is another good one, but not part of the main point. Again my main point was focussed on what I said in the last paragraph. I actually believe I answered this one as well in my previous comments. I gave 2 valid reasons for concluding that there are objective moral truths.
Discussing our preferences here are not very helpful in these discussions. We could talk about them but those change all the time. I think it would be honest to say that I want there to be a God who represents all good most of the time, and there are times where I don’t care too much about that. I can’t remember a time where I wanted there _not_ to be one, but I can’t promise you that is true either. I could also say that I do not want the God as described in a lot of places in the Bible to exist, because he doesn’t seem to be a God who is all good, but if he exists I most definitely want to know that he does so I could make the proper decisions that result from that. Again a very long and different discussion on that one. I know you think I misinterpret and see the Bible in the wrong way. The main point is that for myself I try very hard to eliminate the preferences in my search for truth. I understand that you don’t believe I am doing that and you certainly have a right to believe that. I could hypothesize that you are doing those kinds of things as well, and I may have done that (I can’t remember). I think I have tried to leave them out of the discussion, and I think it is fair to ask you to try and leave things like this out of the discussion as well because it doesn’t help me find truth. When I try to understand other people’s beliefs I try many different techniques to try and avoid biases. One of them is to think about how I would explain those beliefs with a straight face to my kids. My kids love asking lots of questions which I am very happy about. I don’t know how to go to my kids with a straight face and say “I know that if you do not believe in God then you cannot believe in objective moral truths because a very cool Australian told me that I was letting my preferences about them get in the way of my conclusions”. Another drawback to bringing these things up is that it causes these very long paragraphs like this one that don’t help others at all, it is just annoying. I read so many internet discussions that go off on these long side tangents about preferences and biases which some people certainly do need reminders about, but whenever I read them I always think “please, please just focus on the main point guys”. You and I and Nate, and most others on this blog are very aware of these things and don’t need these reminders. But yes, I would agree that there are some that do.
You sucked me into the side topics again. 😉 I feel like Al Pachino in Godfather 3 (just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in).
LikeLike
It is happening to both of us I think. But I think we can maybe start to head for the exits. I will try not to provoke you again (I promise!).
What I have tried to do is see if you have reasonable arguments for the various viewpoints. That exercise might lead to being able to reject some and favour others. But I’ll cease and desist! 🙂
I don’t think I have ever said that it is impossible. I have simply said I haven’t seen a reasonable explanation of it – and asked if you had one.
Actually, I think that is a very reasonable statement about a few parts of the Bible. But christians believe that God is as revealed in Jesus, and any impression different to that must be a misunderstanding.
There, I’ve been very disciplined and avoided the side tracks (mostly). 🙂 Perhaps we can let the matter rest for now, do you think? I really appreciate the way you have conducted this discussion, and the thought you have put into it. I have found it most interesting. Thank you.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s cool Uncle E. This stuff does drain me because when I think about and discuss these kinds of things my brain goes all in and I have a hard time turning it off, so letting the matter rest for now will be much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to explain your views. It doesn’t bother me that we disagree, and I appreciate your time as well.
LikeLike