Debunking the Moral Argument - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 5)

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Why, is he a creationist too?

Just a humorist of the fictional variety, we Creationists are real people.

 

[gaara4158]

I find your inability to be morally consistent with a godless worldview to be logically incoherent, and existententially convenient. And who cares about all that logical consistency business!

Recognition of the limitations of human rationality does not an inconsistency make, but nice try.

 

[Uber Genius]

It's a little more complicated than "intuition." It's not special pleading to refuse moral intuition the "objective" status of scientific facts.

This is not "fake it till you make it" forum.

The author gives us a textbook example of special pleading. He rejects intuition that leads us to the theologically neutral statement, " Objective morals exist." Many atheists agree with that statement and defend moral platonism.

AntiCitizenX is unaware of the basic tenets of modernism which suggest that the only thing we can prove, in the way AntiCitizenX demands we prove, is that "I exist."

You seem equally unaware of this epistemic mistake and try and substitute "read in" your own make-believe definitions for technical terms used in epistemology. That is faking it.

There are good arguments for morals being subjective. AntiCitizenX was too lazy to study them and present them.

Please engage the argument rather than faking it.

e.g. "pragmatic empirical rationalism (aka science) as a method to make reasonable conclusions."

What is the weight of "loving one's neighbor?"
What is the gravitational force of one unit of "Justice?"
Is "defending the weak," appear during the inflationary period of the big bang or later?
What sort of scientific empirical experiment do you propose?

We quickly see how foolish scientism is.

It assumes that the only knowledge one can gain about our universe is scientific knowledge. But that statement is self-refuting!

What scientific experiments were performed to demonstrate the fact that the only knowledge we can gain about our world is through scientific empirical rationalism?

Opps.

That is as coherent as a square circle or a married bachelor.

Had you considered the comments and carefully studied them you would have avoided these simple mistakes.

Faking it is not something you can do post high school.

However, I am not unsympathetic when it comes to scientistic ignorance. It is everywhere in so-called, "New Atheist," circles.

Terms to look up:

verificationism
logical positivism
scientism

Also the ramifications of scientism just delete what you can say you "Know," by eliminating all knowledge statements that are not testable. So if we apply your method and Anti(Knowledge)CitizenX's as well, we just end up not being able to say we know things like:

Historical events
archeology
forensic science
current events
law enforcement
paleontology
evolutionary biology
art
music
math (yep that is presupposed by science not proved)
logic (yep that is presupposed by science not proved)
philosophy including the philosophy of science
the fact that I exist is not known through experiment or empiricism
external world exists (you are a brain trapped in a vat)

So who is doing the experiment, and why think there is an external world are questions that eliminate science.

Your little method seem to destroy all knowledge. It doesn't even allow us to rationally say that experiments on the physical world chemical or physics knowledge is true.

Congrats. Not the outcome you thought you were heading for when you responded.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is not "fake it till you make it" forum.

The author gives us a textbook example of special pleading. He rejects intuition that leads us to the theologically neutral statement, " Objective morals exist."

He is unaware of the basic tenets of modernism which suggest that the only thing we can prove, in the way AntiCitizenX demands we prove, is that "I exist."

You seem equally unaware of this epistemic mistake and try and substitute "read in" your own make believe definitions for technical terms used in epistemology. This is faking it.

There are good arguments for morals being subjective. AntiCitizenX was too lazy to study them and present them.

Please engage the argument rather than faking it.

e.g. "pragmatic empirical rationalism (aka science) as a method to make reasonable conclusions."

What is the weight of "loving one's neighbor?"
What is the gravitational force of one unit of "Justice?"
Is "defending the weak," appear during the inflationary period of the big bang or later?

We quickly see how foolish scientism is.

It assumes that the only knowledge one can gain about our universe is scientific knowledge. But this is self-refuting!

What scientific experiments were performed to demonstrate the fact that the only knowledge we can gain is through scientific empirical rationalism?

Opps.

That is as coherent as a square circle or a married bachelor.

Had you considered the comments and studied you would have avoided these simple mistakes.

Faking it is not something you can do post high-school.

Yes, morals are objectively derived.

Get over it.

 

[Uber Genius]

Yes, morals are objectively derived.

Get over it.

Did you misunderstand the context of my claims.

Your comment is nonsensical.

I am claiming morals are Objective. And you are telling me "Yes, get over it."

????

Looking for cogency on this thread. I must admit to being a little disappointed.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you misunderstand the context of my claims.

Your comment is nonsensical.

I am claiming morals are Objective. And you are telling me "Yes, get over it."

????

Looking for cogency on this thread. I must admit to being a little disappointed.

Maybe you didn't watch any of the videos I posted?

Morals are objectively derived. What's your point?

 

[Uber Genius]

Maybe you didn't watch any of the videos I posted?

Morals are objectively derived. What's your point?

Did you read the title of this thread? Or read my opening post?

Here we see an attempt to undermine the moral argument for the existence of God.

you are supposed to

wwwaaatttccchhh
ttthhheee
vvviiidddeeeooo.

Then engage the claims while discovering the trick employed by the wouldbe atheist. If you are an atheist you would pay close attention so as to not use fallacious reasoning.

So how forums work is an author creates content that are described in their Title and elucidated the idea in their original post (this is why people are constantly referring to OP in their replies because they want to respond to the context of the thread).

It seems that I have opened a whole new world out here for you. Namely, how to reply to threads IN CONTEXT. Best wishes.

 

[Uber Genius]

Again you saddle atheists with a solipsistic nihilism without justification. I find your inability to ground morality outside of the say-so of some divine being disturbing.

Solipsistic nihilism is a function of skepticism that anyone other than you exist. This is nonsensical the way you use it.

The incoherence is not that an atheist isn't able to be moral. Of course they are. The incoherence is that since morality is acting in accordance with an objective standard of Good. Where would one get a standard of Good if God doesn't exist.

If God doesn't exist then whence comes the good, a vote?

Good and evil would be illusory.

Being advanced animals it is hard to see on atheism and evolution why we have any obligations at all.

 

[Uber Genius]

Whole point was to discuss the video and its method. Can we narrow the content to whether this is a fallacious argument or not?

 

[gaara4158]

The author gives us a textbook example of special pleading. He rejects intuition that leads us to the theologically neutral statement, " Objective morals exist." Many atheists agree with that statement and defend moral platonism.

If the statement "objective morals exist" is theologically neutral, then the conclusion of the moral argument does not follow from premise 2. We don't need to examine any more of ACX's video, you've defeated the moral argument for God's existence all by yourself. You've sunk your own ship to kill the captain. Well done.

AntiCitizenX is unaware of the basic tenets of modernism which suggest that the only thing we can prove, in the way AntiCitizenX demands we prove, is that "I exist."

You seem equally unaware of this epistemic mistake and try and substitute "read in" your own make-believe definitions for technical terms used in epistemology. That is faking it.

There are good arguments for morals being subjective. AntiCitizenX was too lazy to study them and present them.

Please engage the argument rather than faking it.

No, you are just unaware of how he fleshes out his epistemology elsewhere in his catalog. Because this isn't one of his epistemology videos, he doesn't delve into the subject very deeply and therefore for some reason you assume his solution to the problem of hard solipsism is "intuition." I'll say it again, but it's a little more complicated than that. Even if his epistemology was built on intuition, unless you're prepared to argue that what "feels" right is the same as what "is" right, you must agree that intuition isn't sufficient means to discover whatever objective morality may exist anyway. What an odd angle you're taking.

e.g. "pragmatic empirical rationalism (aka science) as a method to make reasonable conclusions."

What is the weight of "loving one's neighbor?"
What is the gravitational force of one unit of "Justice?"
Is "defending the weak," appear during the inflationary period of the big bang or later?
What sort of scientific empirical experiment do you propose?

We quickly see how foolish scientism is.

Science is not scientism, so I don't know why you brought that up. Science as an epistemology doesn't need to be all-encompassing, and intuition is a useful tool for creating hypotheses or "starting points" for certain beliefs, but you have no business calling such things "objective values" if they are not the kinds of things that can be measured by any conceivable objective unit, e.g. morality, love, and justice.

It assumes that the only knowledge one can gain about our universe is scientific knowledge. But that statement is self-refuting!

What scientific experiments were performed to demonstrate the fact that the only knowledge we can gain about our world is through scientific empirical rationalism?

Opps.

First of all, you just labeled it an assumption, and assumptions aren't things proven by any means in the first place so I don't know what your complaint is. Assumptions aren't knowledge claims, they're starting points, and sometimes they're even axiomatic. Secondly, what you and theists all over the internet tend to gloss over in review of scientific thinking is what I've highlighted in bold. About our universe. Facts about what sort of knowledge is possible for us aren't facts about our universe, they're facts about ourselves. We don't use science to determine that. We use a priori logic. If/Then statements. If scientific methodology is reliable, Then it can be used to create useful predictive models of reality.

Faking it is not something you can do post high school.

I see you don't believe in conmen. Guess that explains how you've fallen for Craig.

 

[gaara4158]

Solipsistic nihilism is a function of skepticism that anyone other than you exist. This is nonsensical the way you use it.

The incoherence is not that an atheist isn't able to be moral. Of course they are. The incoherence is that since morality is acting in accordance with an objective standard of Good. Where would one get a standard of Good if God doesn't exist.

If God doesn't exist then whence comes the good, a vote?

Good and evil would be illusory.

Being advanced animals it is hard to see on atheism and evolution why we have any obligations at all.

These are problems for nihilists and people playing psychopath's advocate, and God is of no help here. Why is God the standard of good? Is God good because good is defined as whatever God is, or is God good because he is adhering to some standard outside of himself? Theists will often answer, "It's God's nature to be good." That doesn't answer the question at all. Why is God's nature good? Is it by definition, or is it by adherence to a standard outside of itself? If it is by definition, why is good worth striving for? If it is in adherence to an outside standard, how is God relevant?

 

[HitchSlap]

Where would one get a standard of Good if God doesn't exist.

Right, because morals are the one thing humans can't conceive of on their own.

lol

If God doesn't exist then whence comes the good, a vote?

Exactly, just like if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Hmmmm???

Good and evil would be illusory.

So would theft and murder, I suppose then.

Being advanced animals it is hard to see on atheism and evolution why we have any obligations at all.

Religions were tailormade for people like you. If you can't figure out how to be good without god, by all means, stay faithful.

Let me know when you're ready to set aside your petty presuppositions and discuss morality like adults. I'll wait.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, this thread seems to have gone downhill pretty quickly.

I would challenge the atheists present to define precisely what they mean by 'morality,' because at the end of the day, they are usually discussing something very different than what theists mean by the term. You cannot reduce moral values to a matter of pragmatism and consequentialism without losing what was initially meant by the word 'morality,' and I think most atheists would agree that their ontology cannot support the type of morality that most theists insist upon. (Unfortunately, this does actually mean that from a theistic perspective, such atheists will in certain circumstances come across as morally deficient. Consequentialism has some significant drawbacks.)

Re: the video in the opening post, it was obviously horrible, but what specific absurd trick are you thinking of, Uber? I saw a great deal of assuming the truth of his own ideas about subjectivity without arguing for any of it, which was particularly egregious when talking about cultural consensus (the fact that slavery was once normal doesn't mean that there hasn't been a shared core understanding of what morality is throughout all human history), and denying the theist the use of consequentialism was certainly absurd in the extreme--if you can get from consequentialism to natural law and then to God, you have an argument. Most theists will not want to, but if a theist wishes to challenge the coherency of consequentialism without a theistic foundation, they're well within their rights to try.

 

[gaara4158]

Well, this thread seems to have gone downhill pretty quickly.

I would challenge the atheists present to define precisely what they mean by 'morality,' because at the end of the day, they are usually discussing something very different than what theists mean by the term.

Alright, I’ll bite. Morality, as I understand it, is a code of conduct established by a society according to the consensus of its inhabitants. Generally the consensus is driven by mutual interests of said inhabitants, and there are several theories as to what constitutes the ideal moral system. The “perfect moral theory” hasn’t been settled as far as I know, so to claim that something has been stripped from morality by an atheist’s definition is premature, is it not?

 

[Silmarien]

Alright, I’ll bite. Morality, as I understand it, is a code of conduct established by a society according to the consensus of its inhabitants. Generally the consensus is driven by mutual interests of said inhabitants, and there are several theories as to what constitutes the ideal moral system. The “perfect moral theory” hasn’t been settled as far as I know, so to claim that something has been stripped from morality by an atheist’s definition is premature, is it not?

Premature, no. Consequentialism is a fairly recent approach to ethics, and it does have holes that traditional metaethical theories do not. It also fails to get around the problem of defining what are good and bad consequences and thus descends into subjective nonsense unless supported by an actual theory of objective value.

But my point was more to the fact that consequentialists ignore or downplay the personal aspects of morality that were so important in the past. The Wicca code sums it up pretty well: "An it harm none, do what ye will." What it means for an individual to live a good life is relegated to the realm of the subjective, and more traditional people are going to see this as deficient at best, and wicked and potentially damming at worse.

This distinction doesn't need to be drawn along the line of theism vs. atheism, but it often is.

 

[gaara4158]

Premature, no. Consequentialism is a fairly recent approach to ethics, and it does have holes that traditional metaethical theories do not. It also fails to get around the problem of defining what are good and bad consequences and thus descends into subjective nonsense unless supported by an actual theory of objective value.

But my point was more to the fact that consequentialists ignore or downplay the personal aspects of morality that were so important in the past. The Wicca code sums it up pretty well: "An it harm none, do what ye will." What it means for an individual to live a good life is relegated to the realm of the subjective, and more traditional people are going to see this as deficient at best, and wicked and potentially damming at worse.

This distinction doesn't need to be drawn along the line of theism vs. atheism, but it often is.

The thing is, we need to face the possibility that our traditional sense of morality really is subjective and absurd. We can not dismiss this purely on the grounds that if true, we live in a world that makes us uncomfortable. I’ve seen some interesting attempts to ground morality objectively, but so far I haven’t seen anything sufficiently convincing. I have, however, seen some very convincing arguments outlining why behaving morally leads to a more subjectively fulfilling life than not, and that is reason enough for me to find moral guidelines important even if they’re not objective.

 

[HitchSlap]

Prove that He is absent and I'll concede.

Well, here you have it folks. His faith rests on something we can’t prove to not exist.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Well, here you have it folks. His faith rests on something we can’t prove to not exist.

Of course you mean your faith, per my previous response #49.

 

[HitchSlap]

Of course you mean your faith, per my previous response #49.

Pssst... in case you missed it, I don’t have a faith.

Kind of tough to wrap your head around it, but you seem smart enough. It’ll click sooner or later.

 

[Silmarien]

The thing is, we need to face the possibility that our traditional sense of morality really is subjective and absurd. We can not dismiss this purely on the grounds that if true, we live in a world that makes us uncomfortable. I’ve seen some interesting attempts to ground morality objectively, but so far I haven’t seen anything sufficiently convincing. I have, however, seen some very convincing arguments outlining why behaving morally leads to a more subjectively fulfilling life than not, and that is reason enough for me to find moral guidelines important even if they’re not objective.

Eh, I honestly see no reason to face the possibility that the traditional sense of morality is subjective, because a psychologically based virtue ethics can get you quite far. As for absurdity... the whole tradition of Christian existentialism deals with that issue, so it really is not the case that one side is dismissing problems associated with human subjectivity. They just have a different answer to said problems.

This is really the underlying issue, though. You can say that we have to accept the possibility that morality is subjective and absurd, but we simultaneously have to accept the possibility that it is objective and actually deeply important existentially. For the theistic moral realist in particular, to deny moral realism because it fails to meet a specific standard of proof is in a certain sense an act of rebellion. What is lost for the subjectivist is the possibility of moral growth, since there is nothing to grow towards--no up, no down, just a never-ending circle of whatever you wish at any given time. And the consequentialist doesn't do much better.

I've been on pretty much every side of the issue as far morality goes (aside from divine command and deontology, and probably not utilitarianism either), and I do think that subjectivism has a very negative impact on the way we view moral character at all. Even just from a secular perspective in which moral reasoning is an aspect of human existence, this is a problem, but from any religious viewpoint, that problem becomes far, far more serious.