Eminem
E. All of you obviously failed or didn't bother to read the long essay I posted to C Elegans on why I consider atheism to be morally bankrupt. Not once since I posted my reply has anyone quoted a single line of the text or raised a logical inconsistency in my argument. Fable wanted me to discuss beastiality and Bhaalsim even though this has nothing to do with the original subject.
Frankly, I wonder why he (and the rest of you) focus on these picadalloes instead attempting to provide an anti-thesis on why YOU believe atheism to have any moral value.
The silence thus far has only strengthened my conviction.
T. I have looked at you essay and accept the challenge – I would have done so before but I am a new-comer to this discusion.
E. atheism lends itself to a morally bankrupt worldview.
T. This is what I will dispute. In fact I will argue that for morality to be even cogent it must be separated from super-natural beings no matter how power-full.
E. I also do not deny that atheists can construct moral systems or codify ethical rules and regulations. I understand that Immanuel Kant and J.S. Mill were two such philosophers who created moral systems which could judge good or evil without reference to God. This fact is not surprising, however, if human beings - whether atheists or not - have indeed been made in God's image (Genesis 1:27), and have the capacity for moral awareness.
T. What they were doing was explaining what the basis of morality is in their opinion.
So for example utilitarianism explains what it is for an action to be morally good – namely if it maximises utility. (for the record I am not a utilitarianist)
E. On the other hand, although many atheists do believe in the existence of an objective morality, I believe that doing so is inconsistent with the materialistic naturalism usually embraced by atheists. For instance, why not be a nihilist or an amoralist instead of a moral objectivist?
T. I do not see the inconsistency. If to do something good is to maximise where utility were is the conflict with naturalism?
E. More problematic for the atheist, however, is the significant lack of accounting for intrinsic human dignity, human rights, moral obligation, and moral responsibility, which must first be in place before we can even talk about the relevance of morality.
T. I believe you are wrong here. ‘intrinsic human dignity, human rights, moral obligation, and moral responsibility’ follows from morality not the other way round.
E. What most atheists who hold to an objective morality tend to do is confuse epistemology (knowing) with ontology (being) on this issue. They say something to this effect: "Certainly we can know that it is wrong to rape or murder without appealing to God.
T Explain to me were atheists run into confusion between epistemology and ontology.
E. [atheists] can say that rape or murder is wrong because it violates universal human rights, is an affront to human dignity, and destroys the social fabric."
T. We would not say something like that. Different atheists would give different answers depending on whether we thought kant or mill or someone else right.
E. But the question for the atheist still remains: What is the foundation for universal human rights or human dignity? How did we come to be this way? What accounts for humans' being moral or having worth and moral obligations when they are the result of the same impersonal forces that produced rats and hyenas?
T. For a utilitarianist everything will be explained by their theory although they of course don’t believe in absolute human rights. The basis in this case is the utility maxim. (there are of course serious problems with utilitarianism)
E. The decisive issue with which the atheist must deal is this: Which worldview best accounts for intrinsic human dignity, morality and equal rights - a naturalistic, atheistic one in which human beings are ultimately no different from mosquitoes and mice, or a theistic one in which human beings have been made in the image of pure, just, and loving God and have been granted worth and moral responsibility?
T. In my view humans ARE fundamentally different from mosquitoes. I shall come to why a morality divorced from god gives a far superior worldview.
E. If I had to wager on this question alone, I would (and have) side with theism. Theism has a lot less explaining to do in this regard than atheism.
T. It seems that you think that atheism has ontological and epistemological problems beyond that a theist have. Many have indeed argued that moral realism faces ontological and epistemological problems and perhaps that is true although equally many have argued that these problems can be solved. I won’t go into the details of those arguments here but I don’t think I have to. You presumably hold that the problems facing your own position can be overcome. Therefore you must present problems that face the ethical realist that don’t face your own position – this I don’t think you can do.
E. Consider this famous passage from Isaiah 44:18
"No one stops to think, no one has the knowledge or understanding to say, "Half of it [an idol of wood] I used for fuel; I even baked bread over its coals, I roasted meat and I ate. Shall I bow down to a block of wood?"
T. The question is rather: ‘why should we bow down to anything – no matter how powerful.’ Should the weak bow down to the strong? So what if god created us – that should give him obligations for our wellbeing - not the right to be WORSHIPED. Even is some scientists told me they had created me from dust – should I worship them?! – hardly.
T. But why is a morality based on or with a foundation in god not even cogent? The reason is that if we want to know if a person did something morally good we must look at his/her INTENTION. If I save a child JUST to impress a girl standing by the lake watching then I can’t be said to be morally good in that situation – I should save the child because it is the right thing to do.
Similarly if I save the child because god told me to then I am saving the child for the wrong reason and thus not being moral.
This is a very long post and from your other posts I understand that you are busy with other stuff apart from posting on Gamebanshee (good for you
) so I wont be impatient for a reply although I do look forward to it.
Tom
_____________________________
If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.
He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.
In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.
He would not be a jealous God--a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.
He would not boast.
He would keep private Hs admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.
He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.
There would not be any hell--except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.
There would not be any heaven--the kind described in the world's Bibles.
He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
- Mark Twain's Notebook