Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

A Fool's Game

Entry 1695, on 2015-01-11 at 22:50:06 (Rating 4, Religion)

I sometimes get comments on my blog (thanks to those who comment) from people who try to defend their religion against my attacks. That's fair enough and I have to admit that it's not always obvious how false some of the points these people make are until I do some extra research.

One philosophical point which is interesting is that a higher power (and by default I guess most people mean the Christian god) is needed to impose morality on us, and that because most people know what is right and wrong that there must be a higher power who has created these rules. But of course there are other ways that the rules could have arisen and I have listed these in previous discussions.

In this blog post I want to show that, even if you assume some sort of supernatural entity exists, that you still can't rely on that entity (god, whatever) as a source of morality.

I recently listened to a podcast (you may have noticed that a large fraction of my blog posts start this way) from the excellent "Point of Inquiry" series which took the form of an interview with Ronald Lindsay who has just published a book titled "The Necessity of Secularism: Why God Can't Tell Us What to Do" which made this point.

So let's have a look at some of the arguments he made regarding why, even if a god did exist (and all indications are that he doesn't), he could never be a source of morality...

First, there is Plato's classic logical argument (I've seen this many times before and never heard a good response to it). In Plato's dialog, Socrates asks if something is good (or moral) because a god says it is, or does god say it is moral because it has some intrinsic good?

For example, if we are told not to tell lies, does that mean because God tells us not to lie then it is automatically bad, or is it because lying is bad so God tells us not to do it? Either way the god figure is unnecessary or inconsistent. Here's why...

If god approves of something because it's good then there must be some other independent standard apart from the god which makes it good, so who cares what god thinks? We don't need him because the independent standard tells us what is good and bad anyway.

But if there is no other source of morality apart from the god then how do we know that god is good? What he tells us could be bad and we would never know. The god could really be a deceptive demon, or an alien visitor with bad intentions, or purely imaginary and have no inherent qualifications for specifying moral standards at all.

There are also practical reasons why gods are not good sources of morality. How do we know what god really thinks? Different religions (even ones with the same god) have different rules.

For example, Muslims reserve Friday for prayer, Jews Saturday, and Christians Sunday. Jewish and Islamic rules include not eating pork but for Christians it's OK. The Catholic version of god says contraception is evil, bust most of the rest don't.

What practical way is there to tell which is right and which is wrong? Not only are there many conflicting texts, but each text can be interpreted many ways.

Also, why was revelation only communicated to certain prophets? Why did God choose these privileged individuals? Was it a good idea to reveal the secrets of the universe to some desert nomads in the Middle East? What was God thinking when he did that?

How would we know who has received a genuine revelation and who just has some psychiatric problem? People who claim to be prophets today are generally said to be insane or dishonest but we believe Jesus and Moses were genuine. Why? And Mohammed was confused about his first revelation until his wife convinced him it was true.

Finally, why did God's interaction with humans stop? Christians say it ended two thousand years ago. Muslims say it didn't, because God talked to Muhammad 1500 years ago. Mormons say Joseph Smith had revelations just 180 years ago.

Smith was told having multiple wives is OK, but when his wife had a revelation that for women having multiple husbands is also OK that was rejected. Why? It's completely arbitrary. Mormons think their president can continue to have revelations and more recently they have changed their minds about polygamy and allowing black priests. Does that mean the original revelation was wrong?

Obviously what's right and wrong cannot come from religion. It really is a fool's game relying on religious texts. So where does morality come from? There is a common morality which isn't a top down phenomenon, it is a practical solution which has evolved to allow humans to live together in peace. The Golden Rule is just common sense (and pre-dates the Bible by the way).

Poor old God. It seems like the more you think about it the more useless he gets!

Comment 1 (4257) by richard on 2015-01-16 at 06:43:52:

Owen, I sincerely applaud you for commenting on these tough philosophical issues, you have obviously given it some thought. I am sure you know it will produce a response, not because I am trying to defend 'religion' (I am not interested in defending that specifically). I am interested though in defending reality. We could be talking about a difference of opinion on any other topic, perhaps a scientific one, and the basis of 'defence' would be the same, being merely our respective belief about what reality looks like. Sorry too for the long reply, but you said a lot, and hard topics need a lot of clarity.

Your arguments about the 'source' of morality are fascinating, but all are logically flawed in some way if trying to make an argument for no higher source. Doesn't mean you must be wrong of course, just that these arguments don't cut it at all.

Firstly, I think we both must and do agree that 'morality' MUST actually have 'a source'. It simply cannot be an 'inherent' feature of a purely physical universe. Mere collections of atoms have absolutely no moral capability.

Also, we must agree on what morality actually is: I suggest that all morality refers to an 'assessment of certain actions, (or inaction), i.e. behaviours, that are performed by one human being that impact ONLY other human beings'. You may quickly say no - what about 'cruelty' to animals or to the environment which we also agree is 'bad'. Note however that it is ONLY humans that have the ability to discuss, postulate and articulate the morality of said actions. Only humans are impacted AND 'complain' about such cruelty. As above, your chair, or the planet (as merely a collection of atoms) sure doesn't complain or 'care' about ANY behaviour at all we might inflict on it. No, until such time that we can ask an animal, all morality issues are human being only issues.

What this also shows clearly is that morality can ONLY ever be sourced by intelligent minds capable of communication. That means either your view (humans only have evolved to invent a moral law, or humans and another source - God, or quote 'a deceptive demon' or an 'alien visitor' etc...

Ok, with that settled, let's look at your arguments now...

Platos first argument fails very simply in it's arbitrary and flawed definition of God, portrayed as some kind of a 'God' whose morality we MUST obey, yet turns out he too actually gets it from an independent standard that even He 'must obey'? Given that any objective morality MUST come from a mind or minds (as clarified above), then clearly Platos God isn't really God at all, the other higher source with the power and authority to define that morality IS thus God, by definition. Plato has invented and inserted a replacement lesser God to manufacture his flawed notion.

Platos second form is similar. If God really IS the source, then we mere humans would never 'truly' know if what we think is good, really IS. Even if I said 'Fair enough, happy to accept that'. So... what? How does that help you assert that no God is the source of said morality exactly? It doesn't at all. In fact though, again this line of thinking is flawed. IF God really IS God AND the source of good and bad, then what we think is good REALLY IS good by definition, and it is therefore completely nonsensical to suggest it could be different in some way for us to cleverly ponder 'not knowing about it' or being tricked in some way by a deceptive God. Again, Plato is just using rather elementary mind / logic tricks to make his flawed argument.

The rest of your arguments are all based upon the fact that humans have indeed invented lots of other different false gods with different 'rules'. Again so what?! I agree with you entirely that gods and religions are not a good source of morality. This line of reasoning however does absolutely nothing at all to support a conclusion that ALL of them must be wrong. A one 'true' God can still exist and would still be a perfectly good source of morality IF he exists. Mans other inventions are red herrings in every way possible, including in the question of the source of morality. Sorry.

One has to weigh this along with the other alternative you assert: Man (a collection of mere atoms according to your view) has 'somehow' evolved a moral code to help us achieve the 'purpose' of living in peace (more precisely, encourage human flourishing, in the strict evolutionary sense).

The really big problem there is that once again, and unfortunately for you, reality clearly begs to differ! Note btw that you are already 'borrowing' from Christian morality when assigning an objectively 'good' moral assessment to living in peace. How is that justifiable? As a mere collection of atoms, there is nothing arbitrarily moral about 'peace'?! As Evolution is your only viable source of moral truth, it takes only a moments honest reflection to realise that an evolved morality based on reproducing your own genes above others would (must!) look completely different to what reality actually looks like.

Again though I commend your enthusiasm and understand your desire to remove God from morality, which philosophers have been trying to do without success for thousands of years. you are at least not alone. Cheers.

Comment 2 (4258) by OJB on 2015-01-16 at 09:52:21:

You say "Mere collections of atoms have absolutely no moral capability." Why not? Is it because you have defined morality as something imposed on us by a higher power? If you have then you are really just begging the question.

Ah yes, we have to agree on what morality actually is. Here is the core of the issue. It's all about definitions. How often does that happen? Frustrating, isn't it?

I don't agree that only humans have the ability to participate in morality. There is clear evidence that other species exhibit behaviour which by any reasonable definition (there's that definition thing again) could be said to involve moral actions.

You try to refute Plato's argument with a rather big IF. You say IF there is a god and IF he is good then... OK, but you are begging the question big time there!

So every god is false except yours huh? Can't you see how arrogant and just plain ignorant that is? Every religion says exactly the same thing and each one has absolutely no greater authority to claim the truth. That was my point.

I have borrowed nothing from Christian morality. There is nothing in the Bible which wasn't already being discussed by the Greeks and others. Wow, does Christian arrogance (and ignorance - a dangerous combination) have no limits!

I listen to a lot of fairly serious philosophy podcasts (many are not specifically atheist or skeptical). Absolutely none of the participants think a god is required for morality to exist. Maybe you should get out of your little dream world based on primitive, bronze age beliefs and see what the real experts are saying some time.

Of course, many fundamentalist nutters think the same way, so at least you are not alone!

Comment 3 (4260) by richard on 2015-01-17 at 11:43:28:

So many missed points....

if your truth claim is that a collection of atoms does have moral capability, then it's your job to explain how. I explained why I believe they cannot, saying it IS something only intelligence can define, and gave pretty obvious reasoning. Feel free to critique that, rather than simply saying 'why not', which you might think is a powerful argument, I do not.

Well if you are frustrated due to definitions, that's easily solved. define morality. I did.

The fact that other animals exhibit behaviour that suggests morality is rather obvious. but they demonstrate no obvious means of understanding that morality. When you said 'by any reasonable definition their actions could be said to involve moral actions', who is setting those definitions, and who is suggesting? certainly not the animals. When those animals display actions like eating their own young or others, we humans do not suggest any immorality at all. That it because it is simply not relevant to them. Once again, I thought I had made that pretty clear, but obviously not.

Platos entire argument itself involves a critique of Gods involvement in morality that is pretty meaningless if God doesn't exist don't you think? We weren't actually discussing whether God exists, Plato is discussing whether IF he does, could he be a source for morality, and I explained why his argument fails IF he does. The fact that if he doesn't, he can't account for morality, is something I already grasp. It is hard to have a reasoned discussion if you can't get this pretty basic logic.

Well of course it's your opinion that Christianity has no greater authority to claim exclusivity, obviously that is a different debatable topic, but labelling me as arrogant and ignorant is an ad hominem that doesn't answer the question of its truth at a all. Another waste of time and space.

Obviously, whether the Greeks were discussing the Golden Rule (the only moral rule you quoted) before is irrelevant, if those morals are listed in Christian texts, then they are Christian morals. Perhaps ALSO Greek and 'others', but no less Christian morals. I made no error.

Last paragraphs - wow powerful logic. Absolutely none believe God is necessary for morality eh, perhaps you need to listen to a few more philosophers. either way, if the arguments you get from them are of the calibre of the ones offered in this post, then I'd be wanting better from them. I have offered a perfectly sound critique of their logic, and you have not responded to any of them, with anything at all substantive. feel free to have another go... Cheers.

Comment 4 (4261) by OJB on 2015-01-17 at 13:35:35:

I think I saw your attempted points but seeing how weak they are and rejecting them is not the same as missing them.

Moral capability involves self awareness, intelligence to a certain degree, and empathy. We don't entirely understand how these work but there is no good reason to think they involve anything other than the normal functioning of a brain which is a collection of atoms. You can invoke a supernatural element if you wish but since there is zero evidence supporting it and no reason to require it why would we?

Anyone can define morality but no one can define it in such a way that everyone agrees with the defintion. That is the problem. The critical thing is not to define it in such a way that your worldview is a prerequisite.

The people I was thinking of who are defining moral actions in non-humans are animal behaviour experts, biologists, and that sort of person. The sort of person who reports their research in Nature, which I keep up with. Who would you suggest?

Your argument involved a lot more than just whether god exists or not though. Go back and have a look at what you said. You basically stated the conclusion in the initial premise.

In fact criticising a person or group for having an arrogant attitude is entirely reasonable. I didn't actually say that because you are arrogant and ignorant you are wrong - that would have been a fallacy.

By saying I borrowed Christian morals you seemed to be implying that they were specifically Christian. If they are morals shared with other cultures then why would you think I got them from Christianity? Surely they could have just as easily been from one of the other sources (and were).

I was just saying that I listen to a lot of general podcasts about philosophy (I can provide sources) which are not specifically atheistic or even skeptical. I have never heard one single philosopher suggest a god was necessary for anything, including morality. No doubt I could get any view on anything if I was selective about what I listened to (as you no doubt know) but if there was a significant movement within modern philosophy which took god seriously I think I would have heard from its advocates by now.

Remember that by choosing the worldview you have, and by participating in the rituals and accepting the attitudes required of that worldview, your experience is probably very limited compared with mine because I have no pre-existing view (apart from following the best evidence).

Comment 5 (4262) by richard on 2015-01-18 at 00:02:22:

Thanks for the clarifying comments. When I was defining morality, it was not meant in such a way as to require my world view. I was merely making the distinction between inanimate objects (collections of atoms like chairs, planets etc), and intelligent agents, to demonstrate that intelligence was a fundamental requirement, which you appear to have agreed to.

Whether a supernatural element to brain function is again a separate debate we aren't concerning ourselves with here.

Surely we can all agree on what morality actually is? What we (as in humanity) can't agree on is what exactly is moral, I.e. morally good actions (and or bad)?

Sorry, what?! Ok, it seems we agree after all that morality is a human issue, unless the animal behaviour experts you refer to that publish in Nature are not actually human after all, So, what exactly s the basis for your original disagreement with my claim that morality is a human only issue. Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough that by the term 'morality' I mean its definition, comprehension, discussion etc, not simply moral looking actions. Surely that was made clear though in my second reply?

Merely stating a truth claim like I believe my religion is true (which by default makes the others not true) is not arrogant, and labelling it as such clearly fails because it commits the very same crime. You are making a bold truth claim: I am arrogant. Your response to any charge I might choose to make that your particular truth claim was just as arrogant, would undoubtedly be, but it would not be arrogant if it was the truth. lol The difference with my truth claim is that it stands to reason by the very contradictory nature of the religions that only one can be right. Or, the other possibility, (and your own truth claim) that none of the religions are right is therefore EITHER precisely as arrogant as mine, or (in truth) neither is arrogant, simply a difference of belief, which is btw why I'd never stoop to calling you arrogant. It is both untrue and a discussion stopper, and often btw the action of someone running out of actual arguments for their case.

But, importantly I DO take your specific point about the ad-hominem fallacy. :) I just have to wonder why arrogance was mentioned tho? it did appear to be a distracting technique rather than providing any helpful info.

Obviously, in response to my request for a better quality of argument from your broad philosophy experience, your response is simply to claim a broader philosophy experience. Brilliant. Apart from simply assuming my lower level of philosophical experience, even if it were true it would be irrelevant, to the voracity of any argument made. No matter how much experience someone has, If they can't provide decent evidence for their bold (but hey not arrogant) claims, then they shouldn't be taken seriously. Cheers.

Comment 6 (4263) by richard on 2015-01-18 at 00:07:51:

Oh yeah btw, regarding Platos argument, I am sorry, you will have to point out the question begging more clearly. There seem to be just as many IF statements in his argument as you described it anyway. Don't see how that's any different?

Comment 7 (4264) by OJB on 2015-01-18 at 17:28:21:

No, we can't agree on what morality is. Your definition always seems to be "top down", that is something imposed by a higher power, mine is "bottom up", something that arises from processes within the population involved. The end result might be similar but it's hard to see how the process could be much different.

So by "morality" you mean the philosophical discussion of morality? How strange. By "bird" do you mean ornithology? I'm sorry but nothing is very clear in any of your replies. I really struggle with your reasoning process sometimes.

I think having a belief system which is just one of many almost identical systems and making the claim that you are right and everyone else is wrong despite not having the slightest piece of evidence is arrogant (and ignorant). And so is assuming that my moral standards come from your belief system.

Also, I would say that my view that there is insufficient evidence for any religion being true is the correct default position and actually isn't arrogant at all.

So we agree about the ad hominem thing. Excellent! Arrogance was mentioned because it is an attitude which seems to be discouraged by the idealised teachings of Christianity yet is extremely common in the Christian community. Maybe I should have mentioned hypocrisy instead!

If I source my views from a broad and unbiased range of philosophical sources and you get yours from a narrow and restricted one I would have thought that would make my conclusion more credible. I also would like to know why, given the broad range of opinions I have heard, none of them take the need for a god to define morality seriously.

You said "IF God really IS God AND the source of good and bad, then what we think is good REALLY IS good by definition, and it is therefore completely nonsensical to suggest it could be different". If god is god and if he is the source of good and bad and if what we think is good is good then we can't suggest it could be different. Yeah sure, but that's a lot of "ifs".

Also, you seem to be missing the point of Plato's argument. If a god exists and tells us what is good and bad how do we know that is true? Maybe god isn't good. You seem to be defining your god's opinion as being automatically good but without an external system for comparison how can we know?

Comment 8 (4265) by richard on 2015-01-19 at 13:27:22:

I am not sure where we are disagreeing actually, and am sorry you struggle. I am not insisting on anything top down at this stage, you have merely assumed that too early. I am insisting that intelligence is involved though , both to define and discuss morality, the word thus being acceptable both as noun or verb. Surely this is obvious from my previous post which offered the various source possibilities? And you eventually conceded (only when pressed) that intelligence was a requirement.

The other belief systems are anything but 'almost identical', as even a quick intelligent and honest investigation will show. They have completely different ideas about the nature of the universe, and its creator, which are mutually exclusive, I.e. they both cannot be right at the same time, or they are all wrong. I have always tried to make this admission clear, so it's a bit dishonest of you to suggest otherwise, to be honest.

And glad you conceded with my exact point that you don't believe your own philosophical view of the world is arrogant, because you believe the evidence points to it. shame you can't see that the same applies to those that believe there is sufficient evidence for their belief. We might be wrong, but are no more or less arrogant than yourself.

You seem to be missing the obvious point I am making - what the definition of the word GOD actually means: the all powerful, personal, creator of all things, that therefore has the ability to define what morality looks like simply by way of His character. It IS therefore completely rational to suppose that IF he exists, then we will have no quarrel with what is good or bad, and as I already admitted, we will have know way to know otherwise, which is a completely pointless criticism. Cheers.

Comment 9 (4266) by OJB on 2015-01-19 at 16:10:25:

I think the dictionary definition of morality is fine: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. The difference between us is that I claim this "good and bad" is purely the group opinion of the population involved, but you (I think) claim that it comes from a higher source.

I have no trouble at all (pressed or not) saying that some sort of intelligence is involved but intelligence is another difficult concept to define. The group I mentioned above is intelligent but is a similar group of other animals, such as dolphins?

In fact various religious beliefs are almost identical. They all claim that there is some higher power which is mysterious and hidden in some way. They claim that knowledge of this higher entity gives a person some benefit, such as eternal life, revelation of truth, etc. They have holy books of extremely doubtful origin. They have dogma and often rely on a significant faith component.

You being part of one of these systems probably can't see that you are exactly the same as everyone else. From the outside there is no significant difference between Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. There is absolutely no reason to think one has greater credibility than any other so the default position should be that they are all wrong.

I believe that there is no evidence pointing to any religion being true therefore at this point we assume they are all false. I make no claims to following a belief system with greater truth than any other, I just reject them all. How is that arrogant?

You define god as being intrinsically good but what right do you have to make that definition without some guidance as to what good is? I think you are still missing Plato's point here.

Comment 10 (4267) by OJB on 2015-01-19 at 16:12:23:

And I still don't know how you explain the lack of serious consideration given by philosophers to moral systems derived from a god. I can give you a list of the philosophy podcasts I listen to if you want, most of them are not biased in any way towards atheism.

Comment 11 (4268) by richard on 2015-01-20 at 00:31:00:

it is very difficult to have a rational conversation with you as you keep moving the goal posts or introducing new things, I tried to make it very clear that while it is true that my belief is morality requires a higher source, but that is in no way relevant to the specific point I was making at the time, which was only the requirement for some kind of intelligence. so it is pointless you mentioning your issue with that, in this context.

Similarly you may have trouble defining intelligence, (could make a joke there but will resist, lol), but again, that isn't really relevant either. That enough intelligence to both comprehend the concept of morality, and to communicate moral concepts, makes humans the ONLY species known to participate in moral discussions, is all the definition of intelligence that is required in this specific debate. I do not know how anyone can refute that without evidence of moral discussions from other species. Produce that evidence, or let it go and accept the point, rather than bringing up Dolphins, which is getting just a bit silly.

You are mistaken, in your generic assessment of religions. Just because some general features of religions may be the same does not make them 'almost identical'. Using that bad logic, a model T Ford is almost identical to an E type jag, because they have four wheels and a motor and headlights.

Again, you are mistaken, forgetting that I did Not say you were arrogant, or even that your belief was. I merely reminded you that it has the same level of 'arrogance' as my own. in an earlier post I stated clearly that neither position was arrogant. Again, you need to let it go.

And finally, guess what, you are again mistaken, sorry. I did NOT define God as being intrinsically good, rather what is good is defined intrinsically as God (or by God). That is a very different logical concept. God being 'intrinsically good' is another way of stating Platos first form argument, which I have already said is nonsense and dealt with it quite simply. To remind you, he illegitimately redefines the term God by supposing God can somehow be positioned under some higher authority (that actually defines good and bad), when he has no right to make that move. Anyone can choose not to believe in God, but they cannot change the definition of the term to suit their own disbelief / purpose.

I am very happy to give serious consideration to ANY of the reasons why any of your favourite philosophers claim no higher authority is required for morality. just because I have discredited all the reasons you gave in this post, of course does not mean that there may not exists better arguments elsewhere. I hope there are in fact, for your sake, because I hope you are not simply following these or anyone else's believes, simply because they are apparently experts. that is blind faith, and a huge mistake that I find it hard to believe you would fall for. As I have already said, bring on some real evidence to discuss. Cheers.

Comment 12 (4269) by OJB on 2015-01-20 at 10:37:10:

Right, I'll try to briefly answer some of your points then maybe make a single, specific observation which is relevant and we can debate that without going off on tangents.

I agree that humans are the only species known to discuss morality but that doesn't mean they are the only species known to exhibit moral behaviour. My point was that morality might be more common and more sourced from more natural processes than you might think.

Unfortunately (for you) the differences between religions aren't as straightforward as those between different models of cars. From the outside they all look almost identical. I can't think of a single attribute of any religion which makes it obviously superior in any way to any other religion.

Well I think religious people saying their particular brand of belief is right and everyone else is wrong is arrogant. I also think claiming that someone else's moral standards are derived from your religion is arrogant. Saying that no religion has enough evidence to make truth claims therefore assuming they are all false is not arrogant.

So a god tells us what is good. How do we know he's right without an external source of comparison? People can't change the definition of god? Really? It happens all the time!

You have discredited nothing. You have totally failed to make any case against Plato's argument at all, because there is no case against it.

Right, so that's all that out of the way. Here's the point I would like you to answer: why have I coma across so much total rejection of a need for god, so many arguments against one, but not a single good argument for one. This is from many sources with no bias for or against religion. Is it possible that because you live with a religious worldview you are totally deluded and have no greater overview of the real state of thinking on this matter?

Comment 13 (4270) by richard on 2015-01-21 at 00:19:02:

Ok, thank you for acknowledging that morality is human only, as fas as evidence shows to date. Key point was there is no evidence at all that suggests anything different. Given that there is nothing 'moral' about ANY behaviour we might observe an animal might do, until we can confirm they are aware of the morality of their alternative choices, and can be shown to be free to choose otherwise, then your point is therefore pure speculation. Glad we got that sorted.

I will accept your say so as an outsider, that religions look almost identical to you. I suggest however that being 'outside' is not the main problem, but moreso that outsiders have more often done only the briefest of investigations in the topic. In all spheres of investigation, the non researched or casual observers tend to see only the similarities. All galaxies look pretty similar to me. As more research done, (more resolution is gained if you like), then more understanding is also gained, and we see that it is plainly obvious they are not similar at all. My point simply was to remind you that this is the case with cars (and galaxies), and religions.

Hmm, Don't I recall a recent post where you chose Budhism over the others, Though I grant that was under 'duress' I.e. if you had to choose one, you won't have labelled the difference obvious. Nevertheless, this clearly demonstrates some level of understanding of 'differences' as opposed to being quote: 'almost identical'.

Sorry, once again I wasn't clear enough. OK, people can and do change their definition of God, 'all the time'. So, if you wish to redefine God as something other than the definition used in most theistic religions, you are welcome to, but then you no longer can use Platos argument, against those theistic religions, that have a different definition of God than the one Plato himself understood when he used the term. Again that's an obvious straw man fallacy.

Sounds pretty convincing. 'You haven't made a case because (insert imo) there is no case against it'. We will therefore have to leave it with that irrefutable logic. (yawn).

Yes - Right, to your question, or more correctly, my answer, which is: wait for it... I have no idea!! Why, because without clarification, and justification, it is impossible to know the answer. No one can know... whether the 'so many arguments against one have any real merit', (haven't seen any so far) or what the justification is for concluding the 'arguments for God have no merit', (clearly there are lots who think they do have merit), or what the quality is of the 'real state of thinking' on this matter. Put simply, I suggest (once again) you have appeared to rely on merely the 'state of thinking', rather than giving any sound justifications for that state of thinking.

Comment 14 (4271) by richard on 2015-01-21 at 00:34:11:

My apologies for some grammatical errors in typing these on the iPad. Couple of corrections in the previous post, that I missed before hitting Add... 1: "...that was under duress, I.e 'if you had to choose one'. And, I grant that you won't have labelled the differences obvious". 2: "... then you can no longer use Platos argument against those theistic religions that have a different definition of God, the (same) one Plato himself understood when he used the term.
Sorry for the confusion. Cheers.

Comment 15 (4272) by OJB on 2015-01-21 at 09:09:17:

I'm trying not to get off track again, but I didn't acknowledge morality is human only because there is very good evidence it isn't. What I said is that humans are the only species which discuss it in a complex way because as far as we know we are the only species with complex language.

And all galaxies are pretty similar. The variations generally relate to quantitative features (mainly mass) rather than any inherent qualitative differences. Same with religion: all the same apart from a few minor features.

I did say that I thought Buddhism might have been a better choice than many others but that was if I really had to make a choice. Since then I have changed my mind a bit (see Have a Beer, Buddha from 2014-12-20). Also, many people say that Buddhism isn't really a religion.

The problem is there are two dictionary definitions for god, one defining him as the source of all morality and another just describing him as an ultimate supernatural power. I think you can see the problem there, right?

I quoted Plato's argument and you had no case against it. Also no one else has one. It seems like quite a good argument then, wouldn't you say?

Right, to get to the real question then... So you have no idea why god is not widely considered to be an explanation for morality by philosophers? Does this not worry you? When you find your worldview contradicts the majority of experts in almost every field don't you think it's time to examine that worldview? Do you think there is a chance that the whole thing is just one big delusion? Honestly now...

Comment 16 (4273) by richard on 2015-01-22 at 00:44:03:

You have a clever way of taking what I have already said in previous posts, and claiming it as your own. Your insight into human moral discussion, due to complex language was first mentioned by me way back. I also said why this is important, because it shows that morality can ONLY, express itself via intelligence. This leads to an easier investigation of possible causes and their expected effects, while assuming each cause being analysed. Results show reality aligns with theistic view

Yes, let's try to stick to topic, being 'godless morality' and Plato. As usual, you merely say I made no case against Plato, but have made no explanation as to why my clear and simple explanation of its failing (go right back and review) isn't sound. Your last attempt at that appeared to ask how could we know whether Gods version of good really was good, as if that actually has any bearing on whether He could still be the source. I answered that back in my earliest responses. It is a red herring. So what if we can't tell?

Suggesting God is somehow limited by the fact that humans have written two or more different definitions for Him in dictionaries is also a fallacy of course. Whatever God actually may be like (including non-existent) is obviously not 'determined' by the text in any dictionary, or in fact book, and yes that includes the Bible.

So, your 'real' question is actually nothing of the sort, merely a distraction from original topic, which wasn't me! However I will clarify... Of course God IS widely considered as an explanation for morality by many philosophers, but actually you asked why YOU haven't come across them, nor a good argument for that view. On that particular query, I have no idea. my assumption though is that you haven't read widely enough nor considered the arguments carefully enough. The fact that you still think Platos argument has serious merit is good evidence for that assumption, quite frankly, at least until someone can explain it better.

Comment 17 (4274) by OJB on 2015-01-22 at 10:10:15:

If I have changed an opinion to one you support then surely that is OK because it shows I am open to new ideas. I do have to say though that I am unaware of doing that. I have been quite consistent: morality can arise in many ways but the discussion of morality requires complex language. Can I make this any more plain?

Can I ask you to state (or restate) your exact objection to Plato in as short and simple way as possible. Maybe I missed something amongst all the other issues.

We were talking about definitions of god (not sure why). I was just pointing out that there are many ways to interpret the word (and therefore the idea as well).

Plato's objection to god being the origin of morality is a philosophical one so I would have thought that philosophers' opinions of the topic in general (whether god is necessary for morality) is a bit more than just a distraction.

So you think god is "of course" widely accepted by philosophers and it is my fault that I have not heard this opinion much. Let's get past the assumptions and look at the facts. I found this interesting survey of philosophers' opinions on various topics. Note that regarding God the result was: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%. So only a quarter think a god (in any form) exists for any reason (not just being necessary for morality). Clearly the necessity of god is not as widespread as you think.

I'll ask you again: is there any chance your worldview is just one big delusion?

Comment 18 (4275) by OJB on 2015-01-22 at 11:15:43:

You might also want to check their opinions on moral judgment. Interesting.

Comment 19 (4276) by OJB on 2015-01-22 at 11:18:52:

Do you think maybe you spend too much time listening to "philosophers" with a particular agenda like William Lane Craig?

Comment 20 (4277) by OJB on 2015-01-22 at 11:54:13:

In my efforts to examine the argument opposing mine I uncovered this list of theistic philosophers. I have got to say I am underwhelmed! The list is short, many of the links don't work, and many don't seem to lead to relevant material. Note that it is supposedly up to date according to the modification date.

I'm not familiar with any of these apart from William Lane Craig, of course, but I've already commented on how ridiculous his alleged logic is and how out of touch he is with the so-called science he uses in his arguments. He may not be representative of the rest, but I suspect he is.

I've got to say it: god has no credibility!

Comment 21 (4278) by richard on 2015-01-23 at 01:36:18:

Thanks. I don't think I said you changed your opinions at all, just that you state the very observations I made earlier, (like moral discussion requiring intelligence, which couldn't be plainer to me either btw), as if this info was new to me. I went to great pains to point that out in my very first post. Still was just a passing observation, or admittedly frustration. Letting it go though... :)

Ok: will try re Plato. He proposes two possible scenarios for 'God sourced (objective) morality'. 1: God is 'our source' and good is apparently good ONLY because He says so. OR 2: God is our source, but actually only passes us a message about what He recognises is already inherently good. Is that a fair rendering?

What may be confusing for some folk, is that in your post you switched the order of these when explaining them, so I responded to them in the reverse order too. Let's now deal with them in the above order so there is no confusion.

Option One: Platos complaint (and yours) is that God (really a trickster or deceptive demon) could be tricking us and good could actually be bad and we'd never know.

Response. Happy to accept we will never know. So what?! God is still the source, and nothing else changes even if good was really bad, when we simply can't ever know otherwise. My question, do you having a sneaking suspicion that all you know of as good, is really bad? I thought not, so no complaint can be made at this. God can still be the viable source after all.

Option Two: The complaint I believe is that IF God is merely passing on a message regarding inherent goodness then really He is not the source of morality after all.

Response: Again totally agree, but Plato has used a logic trick here and a meaningless interpretation of this God who is 'our source'. Given we have agreed that morality involves 'laws' which are contracts only between two intelligent communicating parties, then the defining of those laws MUST also be an intelligence. Nothing in Platos argument suggests he is supposing otherwise btw. If the god (small g) in Platos argument gets the laws from 'somewhere else' then He is not 'God' in the std definition, but merely another subject of the real God (big G), who IS the one who was powerful enough to define these laws. Once again the real God (big G) IS still a perfectly viable source of morality, and Platos 'god', is merely an illegitimate addiction, sent to confuse us.

The only reason we were talking about definitions of God, was because you brought it up, trying to suggest it is a problem the we have multiple definitions for the word God. I agree with you that it is a problem that this is the case, but wrt this question, it is a red herring. Plato very obviously is supposing God to be a powerful enough source / authority to determine morality, so any definition of God as a white rabbit, or some other thing, is clearly no use in this discussion.

Let's stick to that for now. some random list of names has no real use, or explanatory power. I too only recognised WLC in the quick look but I don't actually listen to Him very often at all by the way, as I find his style a bit annoying at times. just a personal preference thing.

I just don't see any substantive issues coming from Platos argument here.

Comment 22 (4279) by OJB on 2015-01-23 at 09:30:24:

Option 1: In this situation god is the source of something which he calls morality, but is it really morality or just some arbitrary opinion of the god? You seem to be defining it such that anything god says is automatically moral. If that is the case then god is the source of morality by definition. I don't find that a particularly persuasive argument!

Option 2: We never agreed that morality is a set of laws between two parties. I have always said that morality is an emergent property of the thinking processes of a social species. Again you define god as being the originator of morality.

So this is really begging the question, and I don't think many people would consider that valid. Effectively you're saying that God is the source of morality because you have defined God as being something which is the source of morality. Forgive me if I'm not totally convinced by your logic!

I see you have conveniently ignored my other point (about your opinion being contrary to the majority of experts) but let's just leave that until we get Plato sorted out!

Comment 23 (4280) by richard on 2015-01-24 at 09:40:17:

Ok, your problem is becoming clearer... As we have found frequently, we often hit the problem of definitions. Logic requires that any specific argument MUST use terms that are predefined and agreed beforehand or the argument itself is meaningless. Plato uses the terms God and Morality in his argument, and without sufficient clarification of what Plato had in mind for both we are wasting our time. Like a mathematical equation, at least one of them MUST be fixed for any sensible discussion. Plato is either using an arbitrary definition of morality to examine the nature of God, or he is using an arbitrary definition of God to examine morality. Hope you agree that you simply cannot logically vassalage over both in the same premise. This is what you and Plato are doing, in both forms of the argument.

So there is no begging the question crime in abitrarily defining God according to his std definion as the source of everything, when considering the nature of morality, just as there is no crime in arbitrarily defing the term morality if discussing the nature of a God or no God according to morality as defined. You just cannot try to sneakily do both at once.

To illustrate, you must bear in mind that it would be equally 'begging the question', to presuppose that God could NOT be the source of morality, when the question is 'what is morality'?

To further illustrate, you said 'God is the source of something he calls morality, but is it really morality, or just some arbitrary opinion of the God'? You may as well make the charge: 'You say God is the source of a tree, but is it really a tree, or just some arbitrary design of God'?

huh?! You are trying to question Gods definition on one side (as the source of everything) while also questioning the definition of morality on the other side of the logic equation. Impossible to do rationally.

The debate has always been, given what we know about objective morality, which everyone knows exists, could something we predefine (and by that all mean is understand) as God, be the source. Nothing in Platos arguments in either form prevents that, in either form, once the above problem is sorted. There is no question that Plato knew what he was meaning when he used the term God.

In your response Option 2, you making a distinction between our two definions, that is invalid. IF I was to grant you that morality is an emergent property of the thinking process of a social species, then please explain how my definion (a set of laws between two parties) fails. what IS the alternative description of the emergent process you had in mind. Please provide examples of where morality is NOT according to my definion, a set of laws between two parties.

Yes, happy to deal to your other distraction when appropriate. :)

Comment 24 (4281) by richard on 2015-01-24 at 11:25:41:

Darn auto-correct! Of course I was trying to type the word vacillate. lol. This is also why Plato isn't examining the question of Gods existence with these arguments. He is trying to refute only the question of whether IF (we arbitrarily agree that) God Exists, could he be a possible source of morality, and I have explained why that particular refutation fails, using the accepted definition of God. BTW Even if it succeeded then the question would still remain over God existence, but would then dwell on both the accepted definitiion of the God who may still exist, and other possible sources of objective morality that make sense. Unfortunately for atheists, all available explanations for both of these, such as emergent property for morality, produces only temporary, or subjective morality, which goes against observed reality. Similarly any idea of a lesser God, or no God for that matter, but I agree that's a different topic, makes no philosophical sense either.

Comment 25 (4282) by OJB on 2015-01-24 at 13:24:35:

Oh good. So you have identified my problem. Thank you so much! :) Have you identified the problem almost every philosopher and scientist has as well? Excellent. You'll go down in history as the greatest theologian/philosopher ever! [sarcasm ends here]

Yes, any argument must be well defined, I agree with that. Maybe that's why I have brought up the subject of definitions so many times in this discussion.

So you think Plato is using an arbitrary definition of morality and/or god. Maybe. Maybe all definitions of these nebulous concepts are arbitrary in the end. Maybe that's why this discussion still hasn't been resolved after thousands of years. [no, I'm not just talking about our debate although sometimes that seems like it's taken thousands of years, I was talking about the debate in general]

You seem to think that your arbitrary definition is "standard" but every other definition isn't. You define the concepts of god and morality in such a way that the only conclusion is that god is the source of morality. That is begging the question. Actually that reminds me of the ontological proof of god... ridiculously flawed!

You say everyone knows objective reality exists. Why do you persist in believing something which is completely untrue? I have shown how morality can be subjective. I have stated that I don't believe in objective morality. I have shown stats that most philosophers don't believe it. Why do you persist with this fiction? [that was a rhetorical question, because we all know why]

And then you insist on this definition of god being the source of everything. Again many people don't use that as a definition of god at all. You have just arbitrarily chosen a definition to support your argument. I don't even know what it means. I just wrote this sentence. Was god the source of that?

If you look at your premises you can see how flawed your whole argument is. I guess that explains why so few philosophers take the idea seriously.

Comment 26 (4283) by OJB on 2015-01-24 at 13:29:16:

Re comment 24...

Yes, I agree we are pre-supposing a god exists here, although we aren't totally sure what kind of god it is, there are so many. Let's just stick to whether god can be the source of morality at this stage.

Again you mention your false premise that objective morality exists and you think that is widely accepted. Based on the stats I showed you would you please admit at this stage that you are wrong: most philosophers don't believe in objective reality and most don't believe in god. If you disagree please show me the evidence.

Comment 27 (4284) by Richard on 2015-01-25 at 02:06:09:

Ok, sorry, didn't mean that to come out as patronising as it has. You have indeed brought up definitions, but this thread suggests you like to keep them 'nebulous' to avoid being pinned down. See comment 26. Surely it is obvious that when discussing IF God can be a source of morality, it is required that we define God as an entity capable of sourcing it?! if we can't do that, there is no debate even possible! Wrt Platos argument however, no such confusion existed then or now. End of story.

Objective morality: Being widely accepted does not mean by necessity 'the majority opinion' happy to accept your stats, but in fact when you consider the number of theists in the world for whom it pretty much comes with the package, a claim that it is not widely accepted is hard to justify.

Also happy to agree that most 'philosophers' don't believe in God. Therefore logic demands they simply cannot believe in objective morality. So what?! Also, subjective morality can and does exist, That is, IF you mean different parties choose to make different laws, that other groups may choose not to live by. Showing some examples of morality being applied subjectively, does not remove the possibility that morality is still objective. It is up to each of us to decide whether rape can be recognised as objectively bad (as I believe) or whether all can say about it is that some people just don't like it, but actually it isn't really 'bad' at all ( as you believe). We have had this debate before though, so no need to go over old ground.

Anyway I have stated why I think Platos argument fails in its task of refuting God as a 'possible' source of morality, and also why complaining about the differing rules of lots of different religions, has nothing to do with doing that either. I'll leave you with the last word.

Comment 28 (4285) by OJB on 2015-01-25 at 11:21:14:

Of course I want solid definitions that everyone can agree on but in the case of god I don't think that will ever happen. Why? because god only exists as a concept, not as anything real, and everyone's ideas will vary. We are discussing whether god can be the source of morality so I would have thought that we should be defining god in some way neutral to the outcome of that debate.

A very large majority of philosophers reject the idea of objective morality, so we can eliminate the idea of it being widespread amongst experts. Regarding religious people, I doubt very much whether they have given it much thought. They just believe whatever crap they are told by their parents and leaders while putting no original thought into it at all. I don't think they could even be said to have an opinion in most cases.

So you agree that most philosophers don't believe in god and don't believe in objective morality. I would have thought that since these experts reject your worldview you might start wondering why. Or are you going to be just like the climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, and flat Earthers and just ignore it?

Yet again your objections make no sense and you have clearly started with the conclusion you want to reach (that the Christian god exists), given too much credit to weak arguments which agree with you, and ignored strong ones against you. Yes, just like all the other deniers...

Comment 29 (4286) by richard on 2015-01-26 at 12:26:33:

OK - I didn't want to steal your last word, but that last post simply demands it (probably as you hoped). No you are wrong again - I am defining God 'in some way neutral to the outcome of that debate'. We should a) be defining God in the way Plato defined it, in order to rationally analyse whether his claim made and/or makes sense, and b) defining it in a way such that he IS capable of sourcing morality. Defining him so that he couldn't do that is clearly and totally biased towards your desired outcome - whereas defining him such that he 'could possibly' do it, is clearly the ONLY way to allow a neutral debate of whether he DID do it to occur. So I'll ask again - how else did you want to define God exactly for a debate to occur, other than some being with sufficient power and authority? That btw is both the std description of God for almost all theists today, AND the one that you have no reason to doubt Plato had in mind as well. In short - you are the one just not making sense.

Also just had to clarify, I didn't mean to say (as you suggested) that I am happy to agree that most philosophers don't believe in objective morality. Yes - I am happy to agree that most philosophers don't believe in God, Just as given the demographics, most people in any profession don't. However, I made it clear that they are then forced (by simple logic) to reject objective morality, whether it is ALSO their belief or not. Actually, I suspect that deep down, most philosophers including you, cannot escape your underlying deep intuition that you cannot truly imagine a world in which rape or torturing babies for fun is ever considered moral. When pressed, any philosopher appearing in a photo in an orange suit with an ISIS knife to his throat, will for some reason complain that the ISIS actions are wrong - when in fact what they MUST admit is that there is no such thing as 'truly wrong', the truth is that they are simply part of a social group that currently THINK it's wrong. That is precisely what someone has to do in order to 'not believe in objective morality'. When pressed, I think every single one of us, knows the truth, but still vigorously refuses to admit it when defending their theological conviction, about atheism.

This short movie, (Cruel Logic), illustrates this point quite well, though I do admit the script and direction isn't always brilliant.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi833226009

Finally, which strong arguments against me exactly am I ignoring (wrt this thread). I can't see any argument I have ignored - and am still asking for a strong one?

Comment 30 (4287) by OJB on 2015-01-26 at 22:06:37:

Well how did Plato define god? I believe he used the phrase "the gods" which clearly shows a very different interpretation than yours. In the end it doesn't matter because I think the greater point is that morality cannot be sourced from any higher external source, god or anything else.

If I was to define a god it would be an entity with powers beyond anything explained by current science or anything foreseeable in the future which has great control over the universe and is either unique or very unusual.

If you go back to that link you will see that not only do most not believe in a god but also most do not believe in objective morality. You might want to have a look through the whole list - it's quite interesting.

Rape and torturing babies is considered moral in some cases, including in your holy book, encouraged by your god, so don't give me that crap about everyone believing in objective morality because it's entirely dependent on the circumstances. I can't think of any when I personally would agree with either of those actions but clearly many (mostly religious) people can.

I think if anyone really thinks about it they will have to believe that morality is subjective. Let's look at slavery as an example. That was often considered moral in the past (usually as a result of the teaching of your holy book) yet few would consider it moral today. All standards change. Morality is subjective.

Wow, creepy movie. What's your point?

You're waiting for a strong argument just like the climate change deniers are waiting for irrefutable evidence. Well 100% proof never happens, but when the majority of experts are against you, when your current views are clearly shaped by your irrational superstitious belief system, and when the clear trends in modern thought are trending in the opposite direction to yours, you really should start on a course of of self-examination.

Comment 31 (4288) by OJB on 2015-01-27 at 09:28:51:

For example, would you care to comment on the morality of this? ...

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2

Comment 32 (4289) by OJB on 2015-01-27 at 09:48:27:

There's an interesting web site here which attempts to justify the evil your god has encouraged in the past. Basically they just say "that's what god wanted, get over it". Sort of makes you think that god's morals change at a whim. Maybe even his morals are just subjective.

Come on, you have no case at all. Admit defeat!

Comment 33 (4290) by OJB on 2015-01-27 at 09:52:19:

Here's an example of an excuse for the evil in Deuteronomy 22: 25-29...

Allegation: God punishes one form of rape but condones another.

Answer: The obvious rape of the woman in the first case referred to here is followed by a Divinely pronounced death sentence. This is Divine justice. Every sin - not just the ones we think are sufficiently serious - deserves death.

My comment: Your fake god and your ridiculous belief system should be challenged at every opportunity. Belief in this ridiculous nonsense has caused more harm in the world than anything else in human history. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for believing in such evil.

Comment 34 (4291) by richard on 2015-01-27 at 16:39:54:

Wow - lots more stuff here to deal with. With reference to the discussion about morality, Platos use of the Gods, in accordance with his culture, makes precious little difference to the concept. 'The Gods', become a collective that is functionally equivalent to a single God in terms of determining objective morality (herein OM). I am not inserting objective here merely to be petulant, but simply because it is illogical to discuss a god or gods as a 'source' of any kind of subjective morality.

Your personal definition of God is what I would think is fairly similar to most people (again just wrt this discussion). Thanks.

"Most in the list don't believe in God or OM". OK - You made that claim earlier - hence my response about why they say no OM, and more importantly asking 'do they really?'.

This is the second post in which you have made the mistake of claiming that because humans have changed our minds about the moral status of a thing like slavery, then that means morality itself is subjective. This is a flawed understanding of the terms. I don't intend to go through that again. If you couldn't grasp it the first time that probably won't change now.

For all its flaws, the movie demonstrates the point that when push came to (rather awful) shove, the professor didn't act in a way at all consistent with his academic belief on subjective morality. I suggest that is probably a common thing among people with this belief.

Before I have to comment on all those various examples of a few specific rules to a specific people group for a specific time and purpose, some basic principles generally accepted within morality are:

1: Yes - Lots of actions can be considered both moral or immoral depending on the circumstances. A man is seen destroying a lawnmower with a hammer. Or seen sneaking around the back of a property. Moral or immoral? Depends completely on other factors doesn't it. Prison time, as a form of involuntary detainment, is generally considered moral, as are other forms of 'state approved punishment' whereas the same actions performed without governing authority would be immoral. The key factor is the involvement of governing authority. Simple concept really.
2: Actions accepted as objectively Immoral (given no additional factors) can sometimes be 'more moral' than other alternative actions, when one of them MUST occur. Was it immoral for example for Germans to lie and hide a family of Jews from the Gestapo, when that family would be slaughtered if 'the truth' was provided?

I have no doubt a website (the link doesn't work for me?) can be found with arguments (some of which may or may not be flawed) that helps your attempt to claim the immorality of God. Of course crying foul about Gods 'immorality' is something that is ONLY possible IF objective morality exists. If morality is really subjective, then there is really no 'evil' to complain about - so this is a completely suicidal argument you are falling for, sand thus it really needs no further discussion.

However, RE Comment 33 though - Deut 22:25-29 - Fairly straightforward surely?

v25 - Man rapes another mans wife - punishable by death given the seriousness of the offence. Of course one might say that's harsh, but that is not really relevant when the 'man' knew the punishment and has chosen it himself. Ideally, the punishment should never have to be applied. Can't blame God if it has to be applied - that's totally the mans choice.
v26 - Do nothing to the wife - she is absolutely the innocent victim. Sounds good to me, and hopefully you?
v27 - They cannot determine whether she cried for help, no one there to hear or rescue her. BTW - If she did not cry out (for help! ;-), then she was actually a willing participant in adultery, a different crime for which the punishment is ALSO known to ALL involved in advance. See Deut 22:23-24
v28-29 - Note that Man has still committed a serious crime, only his 'punishment' is far less severe. Note - they are found, i.e. are within the city - it is not however entirely clear whether she actually cried out or not. Lets be fair and assume so - I understand that many will find the womans lot rather harsh, but this must be interpreted in the light of our own secular, and modern culture around marriage. There culture was indeed different regarding marriage and choosing a partner for specific other reasons related to their unique 'destiny'. You might not acknowledge that (fair enough) but the point was they all understood (for you - believed) that clearly at the time, (and still believe it). Hence the man will more than likely have truly loved her as his wife, and she him. Both are happy, as opposed to the alternative outcome for the woman, which would possibly have been outcast. Note that isn't encouraged by 'law', but may have happened anyway. But again - if morality is subjective as you claim, then you have no grounds for complaining in the first place!

This tired old notion that it is religious belief has caused more harm in history than anything else is simply nonsense, and has been disproved many times. See "Encyclopedia of Wars," authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod for the most recent comprehensive work on this question.

Then try balancing it up with all the good in history, that would not have happened without religious belief, including many of the biggest advances in modern science, the number of universities (inluding Otago), hospitals, aid organisations etc that were founded by people of faith, and your argument becomes even more ridiculous.

So, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for believing in such nonsense, when it is so easy to refute. ;-)

Comment 35 (4292) by OJB on 2015-01-28 at 09:10:10:

Yeah OK, sorry about that. I did introduce a whole lot of new stuff there. I'll try to avoid all of those new areas except to say you're wrong about them all!

I totally disagree that it's wrong to talk about a god's morality as being subjective. In the end it is just the god's opinion, and judging by holy texts, traditions, revelations, etc, the god or gods change their mind all the time.

You keep using rape as an example of something that is always morally bad, probably because of the emotional element which is impossible to argue against. Well I basically agree but clearly your god doesn't because there are times when he actively encourages it. The same applies for torturing and killing babies. Not only does your god encourage it in others but he does it himself on several occasions.

So if your own god at some times thinks rape and torturing babies is OK does that make it an objective moral principle ot not? Clearly it doesn't because there is no objective morality, it's all a matter of opinion.

I'm sorry, but I have to make just one off-topic reply...

I'm not sure where you got this idea about the Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod book from. They just listed all the wars, the claim that only 7% involved religion comes form a Christian web site with no credibility. Also, I was thinking of problems beyond just war.

The fact that many of the early advances in science, establishment of universities, etc were done by religious people shouldn't be a surprise. In the past just about everyone was religious. if you weren't you were rejected from society, killed or tortured by the ones who were. So that doesn't really support your case, does it.

Comment 36 (4293) by OJB on 2015-01-28 at 09:15:05:

One other thing, let's move on from trying to shame each other, that was just a bit of rhetorical posturing for dramatic effect!

I would say though that being involved in a belief system which has burned witches, tortured its opponents, started many crusades, participated in wars against other religions, stifled progress for hundreds of years, spread ignorance, caused disease and suffering, and brainwashed children (plus a lot more I probably haven't listed here) is more shameful than interpreting the Bible a different way than what you do.

Comment 37 (4294) by richard on 2015-01-28 at 12:16:50:

Ha - fair enough (for you to say it) ;-)

Aaah - good point (in that it obviously needs clarification). The word subjective demands context - i.e. WHO is the subject defining the 'object'?. Even if I grant that God might even 'change his mind', (and I don't agree that's obvious at all), morality would still be 'objective' from our human point of view - the identity of the subject is NOT US but God. Thus the 'objects' the moral actions are not 'subject' to OUR human opinion. That is objective morality.

You are merely concluding that God has 'changed his mind' because he appears to have choose an action at some point you think is immoral, but as has already been clarified - there may well be other morally sufficient reasons for doing so, which we don't have access to. As parents we have done this to our own children all the time. I agree that's somewhat an assumption, but in this case it is fair to make that from the evidence we do have, which is that we KNOW we do not have access to the future, that God has.

Just to be precise - Show me where God 'encourages torturing' babies. I disagree that God has ever 'encouraged' any (on the face of it) immoral action. There where a few occasions where he has allowed or demanded them, but that is not the same implication you are trying to suggest at all.

Totally agree re the shaming thing - hence my obvious use of the ;-) to clarify it was a merely humourous attempt at mirroring (highlighting) your remark, which I noticed had no such clarifying implication?

Oh dear not again - a) Ignored my reminder that this is suicidal unless morality is in fact objective, and b) actually the belief system didn't do any of those things. People did them and used the belief to justify it. Whether the belief system does justify those things is a different question, easily resolved by reasonable unbiased analysis. Otherwise we'd have to apply the same question to the atrocities committed by athiests, wouldn't we - what would that tell us? Oh and 'stifled progress'?! That's a completely laughable notion - go back to the history books please!

Thus I think we might be done (again)... ;-) Cheers, Rich.

Comment 38 (4295) by OJB on 2015-01-28 at 16:57:44:

I have no idea what you are talking about. If a moral standard is based on the opinion of a single entity then that is subjective. It really doesn't matter if the entity is a human or a god. For something to be objective it needs to be an inherent attribute of the laws of nature. I can't see how moral statements ever can be (Google "Non-cognitivism").

So god has changed his mind but there might be good reasons for him doing that which we don't know about. Wow, that's the most pathetic argument I have ever heard, even from a believer. You can justify any evil action and any absurdity that way!

So you say your god hasn't "encouraged" any immoral actions but he has "allowed" and "demanded" them. I would have said demanded is a step beyond encouraged. If the Bible is true he's an evil monster, just admit it!

I have made it clear I think, on balance, Christianity is the most destructive force to have ever infected the human mind, so anyone who follows it as seriously as you do deserves some shame, however we aren't discussing that point right now.

I'm not sure what you think is suicidal without objective morality. Are you saying I can't make moral judgements based on my personal, subjective morality, because I believe I can (and do).

The belief system is contained within the individuals who are affected by it so of course it's the believers doing the bad things, as a result of their interpretation of the belief system. The problem is that some belief systems make violent, immoral (according to my standards) interpretations very easy. When the god described by the belief system kills millions on a whim it sort of makes that easier for the followers to do as well. Do you not agree?

Comment 39 (4296) by richard on 2015-01-29 at 18:14:52:

Aaah - arbitrary definitions again, based purely on your materialist world view to avoid the problem. Unfortunately, it only puts the problem one step back - what makes the laws of nature the final standard?

Never said God changed his mind. And I agree that is an easy rhetorical road to take when postulating against God - however, as I said it is exactly what we do (at least in the minds of our children) all the time. They absolutely think we have committed some great crime in injecting a sharp needle into their body. We however have information (truth) they do not. Nothing pathetic about that notion at all.

I think you have made it clear only in your own mind. Real historians know otherwise.

Yes you can make any subjective moral judgement you like, but they are of course being made against a 'standard' that is meaningful only to you, and no one else need take any notice.

Actually I do agree with it put that way. That it makes it easier to get it wrong however does not justify it - not by a long shot. A fair reading of the text makes this abundantly clear, as acknowledged by the vast majority of biblical scholars.

That is also precisely why I fail to comprehend how you deny that it is therefore obvious it is the athiest 'belief system' that has by far caused the worst harm in the world. Hands down obvious!

At the end of the day though - all that has nothing to do with determining the truth of either belief system.

Comment 40 (4297) by OJB on 2015-01-29 at 20:24:56:

The laws of nature are something which are absolute and control the way real physical processes operate. Why these laws exist and why anything (including a god if there was one) exist at all instead of nothing is the ultimate question for which we may never know the answer.

Well clearly your god has changed his mind many times. He says things are morally wrong but does them himself. I mean, his whole philosophy changed between the OT (eye for an eye) and NT (turn the other cheek). No wonder his followers are so confused!

OK, as I said, I'm not going to pursue the Evil Christianity thing right now.

I make a subjective judgement but compare it with what other people - especially those I respect and admire - think. If I find my moral standards being compromised in comparison with others then I need to reconsider them. It's a consensus (or emergent phenomenon as I have been saying all along) sort of thing.

Your god has clearly killed millions of innocents on a whim. That is, if you believe the ridiculous, childish fairy tales in the Bible. I'm thinking of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Flood, and Exodus here, amongst others. He's an evil monster.

I dont recall any atrocities being caused through atheism. You must be thinking of something else.

Comment 41 (4298) by Richard on 2015-01-30 at 08:21:58:

Actually, it isn't 'we may never know', If your view is true we will never know, and if my view we will both know soon enough. And of course I agree that from our perspective the 'laws of nature' are absolute, but it is interesting when confronted with the overwhelming improbability of those laws as an argument for design, that atheists introduce multi-verses in which the laws change, so that this particular set becomes 'more probable'. Thus, perhaps they are not so 'absolute' as you claim?! OK - so we agree the laws of nature ARE absolute from our perspective, but not necessarily so from a perspective external to our universe.

This is precisely the same deal with the laws of morality. Because they come from a mind external to our universe, they are just as objective to us as the natural laws are, that also come from the same source. Unlike natural laws however, because they are the realm of mind rather than the physical, we are able to tinker with them with much more freedom, in order to fool ourselves, giving us the illusion of subjectivity, until we slow down and think more honestly about it, then we acknowledge that immorality must always be that, and could never be moral.

As that movie pointed out, consensus (statistical norms) says absolutely nothing about morality itself.

Sorry, but you need some perspective. Firstly, you (or I) are not in a position to make a moral judgement about people's 'innocence' when referring to early biblical events. While you may not agree, there is no evidence that God takes innocent lives. Obviously I am with you - I too agree that is a very tough concept when considering for example babies, but again, the fact that we lack the proper perspective to judge this is significant, and plausible even if it can be perceived as a copout. Secondly, what gives you any idea that God has some kind of moral obligations towards what is (according to biblical belief) His creation / property. You may believe he is a moral monster, but the sad fact for you (and I) is, even if that were true, (which has been well refuted in any books), we still have no basis at all for complaint. Clearly humanity has every chance to choose behave in a moral way, and avoid whateve ugliness and consequence that we ourselves create, but we choose not to. Whose fault is that?

Do some reading on that last question...please. Oh I know that old copout: Atheism is a non belief, so we can't attribute any evils to it. Whatever. Ideas have consequences, whatever they are. If you wish to lay blame on one set of ideas (Christianity) for evil, then you simply cannot exempt another idea from the same analysis. End of story. Let's move on...

Comment 42 (4299) by OJB on 2015-01-30 at 09:10:01:

I was talking about the ultimate question: why anything exists. If we accept reality then that is a difficult question. If we believe in your fantasy it is at least as bad. If your god exists, why does he exist? Why is there anything instead of nothing? You're no better off than anyone else.

You can claim anything you like but the fact is there is no absolute morality. Tell me any moral law and I will find exceptions, including those directly attributable to your god. That is different from physical law - there are no exceptions to those.

I think morality is about consensus. Morality is just an agreed set of values within a particular population at a particular time. As a population's priorities change so do its moral standards. This is what we see happening in the real world and is hard to deny I would have thought. Look at the history of slavery as an example.

God killed everyone in the Flood. Are you suggesting that every single person on the planet, including babies were all guilty of some imagined crime? So you agree there is a good case to say your god is an evil monster but we shouldn't do anything about it. Wow, what a sick worldview you have.

Well you're wrong about atheism of course. You're just quoting the same old illogical nonsense that most Christians use. There are no atrocities I can think of that were performed because of the dictates or philosophy of atheism. But yes, let's move on.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.