Saturday, February 9, 2013
Good Without God?
Review:
Good Without God: What a Billion Nonrelgious People Do Believe
Greg M. Epstein
Harper, 2010
239 pp; pb
Is it possible to be an atheist and still be a good person? Greg Epstein certainly thinks so. Mr. Epstein is the Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and his book is an attempt to explain how it is possible for someone to be an atheist and yet uphold human values at the same time. He is intelligent, widely read, and displays, if we may say so, a "pastoral" regard for his fellow human beings. Mr. Epstein himself clearly practices what he preaches.
Mr. Epstein makes it clear at the outset that he is an atheist and accepts evolution as an established fact. He also accepts the logical implication of this: evolution is an unguided process, and therefore "true nobility for us lies in being honest about being able to discern no purpose given to human beings by the Big Bang . . . The only purposes we've ever been able to understand are the purposes we have created and chosen" (p. 9). Moreover there are no objective moral standards: "Our morality is based on human needs and social contracts, and these things are not perfectly, eternally objective" (p. 35). He then follows this train of thought to its logical conclusion: "And if no morality is timeless and eternal, then we will never be able to fool ourselves into thinking that there is one set of easy and obvious answers to questions about euthanasia, abortion, capital punishment, or other such issues." (p. 36).
What Mr. Epstein offers in its stead as an ethical system is a form of Utilitarianism. He does struggle a bit in Chapter 3 trying to define "the good," saying that "happiness" is an inadequate standard. He finally settles on "the dignity of mutual concern and connection" and "self-fulfillment through service to humanity's highest ideals" as "more than enough reason to be good without God" (p. 103).
In a sense what Mr. Epstein has done is to provide a rational justification for the way most people make ethical decisions. They absorb certain values through their culture, largely through their parents and teachers, they live within a given legal system, and they try to earn and maintain the goodwill of their fellows. In short, they try to operate on the basis of enlightened self-interest. They realize that no man is an island, and that no one can achieve happiness as an individual unless he works cooperatively with the broader society.
Mr. Epstein is certainly to be admired for his passionate commitment to human values and ideals. Yet we are afraid that his enterprise is fraught with difficulties. He tells us at one point that Humanists "are committed to treating each other as having inherent worth and dignity" (p. 34 – this is actually a quote from the Humanist Manifesto – III – cf. p. 224). But if we are the products of a blind, purposeless process of evolution, what "inherent worth and dignity" do we possess? Human beings are just one of millions of species that inhabit the planet. Mr. Epstein tries to answer the question, but we think unconvincingly. If our morality is "based on human needs and social contracts," we can assign worth and dignity to other human beings, but they do not possess these qualities inherently. Qualitatively we are not different from dogs or trees. In and of ourselves we are mere accidents of nature.
Moreover, if there is no objective moral code, it is hard to see how there can be "human rights." Mr. Epstein cites Alan Dershowitz in support of the idea that human rights evolve from human experience – that an egregious wrong gives rise to the notion of an opposing right.
But absent an objective moral code there is nothing in the reality of things that says we have a "right" to anything. Either there is a real difference between right and wrong or there is not. And if there is not, why shouldn't a person harm someone else, if he thinks that by so doing he can advance his own self-interest? People lie, cheat and steal all the time. Even "enlightened self-interest" is still self-interest. Doesn't it come down to a shrewd calculation of what we can get away with? And in the struggle for survival doesn't might, in the final analysis, make right? What if Germany had won World War II? What might the moral lesson then have been?
Mr. Epstein cites, as one of his reasons for rejecting the Divine Command Theory of morality, the inability of religious leaders to agree as to what the Deity has commanded. Yet might this not apply with equal force to Humanism? In the last chapter of his book Mr. Epstein describes how difficult it is for Humanists to reach a consensus or even to organize effectively, comparing it to herding cats. He tells us that he and his fellow Humanists "value the messy, painstaking process of bringing a group of individuals to an evolving, overlapping consensus" (p. 222), and assures us that there no "one set of easy and obvious answers" (p. 36). In other words, Humanism has done no better at providing answers than has traditional religion.
We fear, then, that Mr. Epstein has led us into the Great Dismal Swamp of moral confusion. The reader is probably less certain about morality after reading his book than he was before. There is, however, a way out of the swamp. It is the light of God's Word.
Related blog posts:
A Scientific Basis for Morality?
Letter to a Unitarian Minister
The Case for Moral Absolutes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If our morality is "based on human needs and social contracts," we can assign worth and dignity to other human beings, but they do not possess these qualities inherently. Qualitatively we are not different from dogs or trees. In and of ourselves we are mere accidents of nature.
ReplyDeleteDoes Epstein say this?
Really?
Mr. Epstein cites Alan Dershowitz in support of the idea that human rights evolve from human experience – that an egregious wrong gives rise to the notion of an opposing right.
But absent an objective moral code there is nothing in the reality of things that says we have a "right" to anything
Linguistic slight of hand.
Shame on you.
Mr. Epstein cites, as one of his reasons for rejecting the Divine Command Theory of morality, the inability of religious leaders to agree as to what the Deity has commanded. Yet might this not apply with equal force to Humanism?
Tu Quoque. A classic example.
In other words, Humanism has done no better at providing answers than has traditional religion.
We fear, then, that Mr. Epstein has led us into the Great Dismal Swamp of moral confusion.
Oops.
We fear, then, that Mr. Epstein has led us into the Great Dismal Swamp of moral confusion.In other words, Humanism has done no better at providing answers than has traditional religion.
See what I did there?
There is, however, a way out of the swamp. It is the light of God's Word.
Yeah...um..."traditional religion" bit. Remember?
No, Epstein did not say that. What we are trying to do here is examine the implications of an atheistic worldview, and I take Mr. Epstein as a more benevolent example of an atheist who really does want to uphold some form of human values -- as opposed to Nietzsche, Lenin, or Rand. I think that both Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris would take positions similar to Epstein, although Epstein comes across as a little more "human" and compassionate than Harris.
ReplyDeleteThe central difficulty they all face, however, lies right at the center of the cultural divide in our time, especially when it comes to an issue like abortion. If there is no God, and we are the products of a blind, purposeless natural process, then what is the basis of human rights? Epstein, and Dershowitz, argue that it is the result of a kind of human consensus that we arrive at through experience. But that amounts to little more than Social Darwinism with a human face. Where does it leave minorities, the poor and the downtrodden, and other social outcasts?
Here is a real life example of where this thinking leads. In the days leading up to the American Civil War the U.S. Supreme Court handed down another one of its ill-conceived landmark decisions, this one dealing with slavery, the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the majority, stated that blacks could not become U.S. Citizens and that they were "so far inferior, that they had no rights which a white man was bound to respect." Now do you see why Martin Luther King, Jr., writing over a hundred years later, could say "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."
So who determines whether or not a black American has any rights? The Supreme Court? Or God?
What we are trying to do here is examine the implications of an atheistic worldview...
DeleteNot possible.
Such a thing does not exist. Look it up.
How many times do I have to explain it to you?
Ninth Commandment, remember?
If there is no God, and we are the products of a blind, purposeless natural process, then what is the basis of human rights?
Yet we have human rights...therefore Thor, right?
(...facepalm...)
No, it won't work. It's been done. It's flawed thinking.
In the days leading up to the American Civil War the U.S. Supreme Court... was not controlled by atheists.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney... was not an atheist, right? (Actually, I have no idea. I'm just guessing.)
Now do you see why Martin Luther King, Jr., writing over a hundred years later, could say "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."
The Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK could say the same thing. As could any good ol' boy with a pouch of baccy and a shotgun.
(shrug)
So who determines whether or not a black American has any rights? The Supreme Court? Or God?
Spot the inbuilt assumption.
So who determines whether or not a black American has any rights? The Supreme Court? Or Thor?
So who determines whether or not a black American has any rights? The Supreme Court? Or The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I did finally get a chance to watch the video by Qualia Soup about what atheism is, and realize that in his mind atheism is the result of a generally skeptical approach to knowledge. The burden of proof is on those who hold to any particular belief, and he simply doesn't believe in anything that can't be proven. There disbelief in one thing doesn't necessarily imply disbelief in anything else. And since he hasn't stated what he does believe in, it is hard to charge him with being a materialist, a nihilist, or anything else that is often associated with atheism.
DeleteNevertheless, he does have a "default position," which he hasn't spelled out, and since he appealed to science as the standard of truth, I think it is reasonable to suppose that he holds to something like naturalistic materialism. And whether he is willing to admit it or not, that has moral, social and political implications, and everyone from Karl Marx to Friedrich Nietzsche to John Dewey to Ayn Rand has wrestled with those implications. What is common to all of them is skepticism about moral absolutes, and this, in turn, undermines the concept of human rights.
It may be that "Qualia Soup" simply hasn't wrestled with the broader questions. But I would challenge him, on the basis of whatever he thinks is demonstrably true, to develop a theory of morality, of government, and of law. I think that part of the problem here is that people who work in the sciences can afford to take a skeptical attitude because they are only looking at the narrow question of whether or not a given hypothesis can be proven true. But for the rest of us, who are forced to make decisions about life, especially for those in government, business or the military, or who are simply trying to raise families, we have to have some basis for answering basic moral and ethical questions, and this inevitably involves some sort of worldview. Simply saying "I don't know, because it can't be proven," doesn't solve the problem at hand. We must proceed on the basis of what we think is the ultimate nature of the universe and our place therein.
I have previously mentioned the Dred Scott decision. It eventually resulted in the Civil War. Since today happens to be Abraham Lincoln's birthday, it is worth remembering that at the end of that terrible conflict, in his Second Inaugural Address, he concluded by saying, "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."
The burden of proof is on those who hold to any particular belief...
DeleteYes. Thank you. Finally.
There disbelief in one thing doesn't necessarily imply disbelief in anything else.
Sweet heavens to Betsy! We are on a roll.
Nevertheless, he does have a "default position," which he hasn't spelled out, and since he appealed to science as the standard of truth, I think it is reasonable to suppose...
Oh crap.
(sigh)
I think it is reasonable to suppose that he holds to something like naturalistic materialism. And whether he is willing to admit it or not, that has moral, social and political implications...
Bob? Bob?? Where the...?
What is common to all of them is skepticism about moral absolutes, and this, in turn, undermines the concept of human rights.
(...facepalm...)
For a minute there, you were doing so well. Then all your old thinking just took over by sheer force of habit and you had to create a strawman out of thin air.
It may be that "Qualia Soup" simply hasn't wrestled with the broader questions.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe. Maybe not. Yet it's got nothing to do with atheism.
But I would challenge him, on the basis of whatever he thinks is demonstrably true, to develop a theory of morality, of government, and of law.
Yes but...it's got nothing to do with his (or anybody else's) atheism.
Someone can have a marvelous, brilliant theory of morality that just, goshdarnit, says it all and will usher in a new dawn of humanity.
Nothing to do with atheism.
On the other hand, one can tear the wings off of flies for a living and chortle maniacally all the while.
Nothing to do with atheism.
Again, I implore you to do the right thing and not bear false witness.
Find out what atheists say.
Use primary sources. Represent them as fairly and as honestly as you would have them represent your own views.
All I am asking you to do it to go to any mainstream atheist website and find out for yourself.
I'm glad you decided to watch Qualiasoup's video. There are more by him out there. They are all very good and easy to watch. He's part of a broader community of atheists on youtube that carefully and openly discuss atheism. You want to discuss atheism? You should check them out and keep more up to date.
It is perfectly true, however, that there is no one, specific atheist worldview, apart from the assertion that there is no God.
No, it isn't. Can you see that now? Qualiasoup (for example) doesn't say that there is no god. I (for example) don't say that. Bloody Dawkins doesn't even say that!!!
Further, there's no worldview (nor multiple worldviews).
There logically can't be.
Remember our original question? Let's go back to it because I think it's important and I want to be fair about it.
So how would an atheist establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation?
Now imagine you have to represent Qualiasoup's viewpoint (or Dawkins' or mine or whatever) as he looks at this question.
Speak for him.
Represent him fairly.
Look at the wording.
I'll give you a hint...
The wording is not "How would Qualiasoup establish....".
Nope.
The wording is " How would an atheist..."
So...based upon your new-found knowledge on atheists and strict adherence to the Ninth Commandment...what do you think the answer is?
(...crosses fingers...)
So, would you consider Epstein to be a "mainstream atheist"? Or how about Sam Harris? Both tried to establish non-religious bases for ethics and morality, and I have reviewed both of their works. (For the review of Harris' book, see the link for A Scientific Basis for Morality above). Or we could discuss your view of morality. What is it? How do you determine right from wrong?
ReplyDeleteSo, would you consider...
ReplyDeleteBob, I'm happy to consider anything you like but would you mind not blanking me like that?
Given that I've done you the courtesy of not just glossing over your previous question would you mind returning the gesture?
If we are going to get anywhere, then we need to talk to each other like adults. I've gone the extra mile to provide videos and a rational methodology and to clear up your misconceptions on definitions, all with the overall aim of getting you to see the simple answer to your own question.
So...would you mind? Please?
To answer my own question, if you insist, the only possible way I know of for an atheist to establish the basis an an inalienable right, or an obligation of duty, would be something along the lines of Kant's Categorical Imperative, and I'm not even sure that Kant was an atheist. Aside from that, there are no moral absolutes, and if there are no moral absolutes, there are no "inalienable rights" or any binding obligations and duties. Rights and duties are all relative and if they exist at all, they exist by the will of the majority. And some atheists, most notably Nietzsche, wouldn't be willing to concede even that.
ReplyDeleteAs for Qualia Soup, I think he tried to dodge the question by pretending it is a simple matter of considering individual propositions: "Does the biblical God exist"? "Is there a single intelligent Being who is the creator of the universe"? He answers both questions in the negative, and assumes he is done with the matter. But Nietzsche dared to take the argument to its logical conclusion, and in that sense I think he displayed more intellectual integrity than Qualia Soup.
To answer my own question, if you insist, the only possible way I know of for an atheist to establish the basis an an inalienable right...
ReplyDeleteNope.
It's about "an atheist". That's all you or I or anyone else has to work with.
Nothing more.
How would "an atheist" establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation.
...would be something along the lines of Kant's Categorical Imperative, and I'm not even sure that Kant was an atheist.
How do you know that "an atheist" has even heard of Kant?
Kant is not mentioned at all. You must assume that Kant has nothing to do with it.
And some atheists, most notably Nietzsche, wouldn't be willing to concede even that.
Nietzche? Again?
(shrug)
Perhaps some other time. Focus now on our "an atheist".
As for Qualia Soup...
Perhaps some other time.
Now imagine you have to represent Qualiasoup's viewpoint (or Dawkins' or mine or whatever) as he looks at this question.
Speak for him.
Represent him fairly.
Look at the wording.
I'll give you a hint...
The wording that Qualiasoup is looking at is not "How would Qualiasoup establish....".
Nope.
The wording is " How would an atheist..."
Let me make this really, really, REALLY clear.
The question is not "How would Cedric/Dawkins/Kant/Qualiasoup/Nietzche..."
The wording is only "How would an atheist etc."
So...based upon your new-found knowledge on atheists and strict adherence to the Ninth Commandment...what do you think the answer is?
(...crosses fingers...)
Rather than keep chasing each other around the barn, let's remember that the original blog post is a review of Greg Epstein's book. Do I really care what Qualia Soup thinks about morality? Not really. But I am interested in interacting with Epstein's book, or any other author you can think of who specifically addressed the question, "How would an atheist establish a basis for morality"?
ReplyDeleteI did notice that Qualia Soup quoted William Graham Sumner, who was a Social Darwinist (and an Episcoplian clergyman who apparently couldn't detect the contradiction between the teachings of Jesus and cutthroat capitalism).
I mention all of these things because of the tremendous social and cultural changes that have taken place in the Western World in the past century and a half, and secularization certainly has something to do with it. Ideas have consequences, and in the end they affect common ordinary people in very profound ways, even though they may never have heard of Kant or Nietzsche.
You are blanking me again.
ReplyDeleteIt's your own question from a previous thread form only a few days ago.
Your own words.
But I am interested in interacting with Epstein's book, or any other author you can think of who specifically addressed the question, "How would an atheist establish a basis for morality"?
You can answer the question yourself. Very easily.
You don't have to do any reading and you don't have to rely on any one author.
I mention all of these things because of the tremendous social and cultural changes that have taken place in the Western World in the past century and a half, and secularization certainly has something to do with it.
Perhaps we can talk about secularization another time.
"An atheist" , remember?
Ideas have consequences...
Great. Wonderful. No doubt.
"An atheist"? Hello?
...even though they may never have heard of Kant or Nietzsche.
Most people haven't. It's a sure-fire way to bore most people.
Atheists included. Me included.
So how would an atheist establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation?
Any chance at all? Please? There's no "chasing" to be done. Honest.
There's no heavy reading needed. None at all.
It's really, really easy.
What do you say?
Ninth Commandment and all that? Yes? No? Please?
(...time passes...)
ReplyDelete(...looks at watch...)
Hmm, well that's a shame. There was a moment there where I really thought you were trying to do the right thing.
Silly me.
If you don't take your own words seriously, then you have to be prepared for others to treat them the same way.
With you, the Ninth Commandment appears only an optional extra.
To be perfectly honest the discussion had gotten to the point at which I was no longer sure who was asking whom which question. Would you care to refresh my memory?
ReplyDeleteSeriously? This is not some kind of dodge or something?
ReplyDeleteOk.
I shall take you at your word.
Let's begin again.
(Very heavily edited version for the sake of brevity)
You stated on January 28, 2013 at 7:59 AM...So how would an atheist establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation?
First, you have to understand what is an atheist.
It's incredibly simple and there's no great mystery to it.
Yet after all this time, you don't know what an atheist is.
If you are going to communicate with atheists or discuss atheism in any way then you need to have a clear and honest understanding of what is an atheist.
I let religious people define themselves and quote them verbatim.
You should do the same thing.
Ninth Commandment, remember?
Watch the video I provided. Go to any mainstream atheist website and find out for yourself.
Then come back and give the working definition you've found and we can go on from there.
Insert communication fail here.
This is a direct appeal to your personal integrity and sense of honesty.
If you want to discuss atheism then...discuss atheism.
I am confident that you will do the right thing and not bear false witness.
The burden of proof is on those who hold to any particular belief...
Yes. Thank you. Finally.
There disbelief in one thing doesn't necessarily imply disbelief in anything else.
Sweet heavens to Betsy! We are on a roll.
Insert communication fail here.
Again, I implore you to do the right thing and not bear false witness.
Find out what atheists say.
Use primary sources. Represent them as fairly and as honestly as you would have them represent your own views.
All I am asking you to do it to go to any mainstream atheist website and find out for yourself.
You want to discuss atheism? You should check them out and keep more up to date.
It is perfectly true, however, that there is no one, specific atheist worldview, apart from the assertion that there is no God.
Remember our original question? Let's go back to it because I think it's important and I want to be fair about it.
"So how would an atheist establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation?"
If we are going to get anywhere, then we need to talk to each other like adults. I've gone the extra mile to provide videos and a rational methodology and to clear up your misconceptions on definitions, all with the overall aim of getting you to see the simple answer to your own question.
So...would you mind? Please?
Insert yet another communication fail here.
Nope.
It's about "an atheist". That's all you or I or anyone else has to work with.
Nothing more.
How would "an atheist" establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation?
Let me make this really, really, REALLY clear.
The question is not "How would Cedric/Dawkins/Kant/Qualiasoup/Nietzche..."
The wording is only "How would an atheist etc."
So...based upon your new-found knowledge on atheists and strict adherence to the Ninth Commandment...what do you think the answer is?
(...crosses fingers...)
Insert yet another communication fail here.
You can answer the question yourself. Very easily.
You don't have to do any reading and you don't have to rely on any one author.
Insert yet another communication fail here.
So how would an atheist establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation?
Any chance at all? Please? There's no "chasing" to be done. Honest.
There's no heavy reading needed. None at all.
It's really, really easy.
What do you say?
Ninth Commandment and all that? Yes? No? Please?
Ah, so the original question is my question, and you want me to answer it!
ReplyDeleteThe problem is this (and it is a very real problem for those of us who live in the US): The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is a moral defense of the American Revolution, and it draws heavily from such British thinkers as John Locke and William Blackstone. It is sometimes known as the "Whig theory of government."
It will be observed that the argument contains an implied premise and a conclusion arrived at through logical deduction. The premise is: God exists. The conclusions are: "all men are created equal" and they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
Now if the premise is false (God exists), what happens to the conclusions? Are we still "equal," and do we possess "unalienable rights"? What makes us equal? What makes our rights "unalienable"?
So the question is, how is it possible for an atheist, for any atheist, to establish a basis for universal human rights? In asking the question I am well aware of the fact that many, if not most, atheists do not wish to be pinned down to a formal ideology or comprehensive worldview -- Epstein himself said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. And yet they must still face the question (at least if they are Americans and live under our current form of government) if Jefferson's premise is false, are the conclusions still true? It is hard to see how they could be, and if not, then what? Who exactly determines what rights we have?
Different atheist have come up with different answers, none of them satisfactory as far as I am concerned. Both Sam Harris and Greg Epstein resort to a form of Utilitarianism, but it could be argued that that leads us to Ayn Rand's social philosophy.
Since this comment chain is attached to a review of Epstein's book, do you agree with him or disagree? If you disagree, where do you think he went wrong? What would you offer in its place? How would an atheist, any atheist, on whatever principles he may choose to adopt, establish a basis for human rights that are "unalienable"?
Ah, so the original question is my question, and you want me to answer it!
ReplyDeleteYes, if only for you to see that it's a malformed question.
I'm not trying to frustrate you nor ignore the question nor be unfair. I'm perfectly serious about this conversation which is why I have taken so much time and effort on it. If we can make a breakthrough here then it can set a new and better standard in future exchanges. Work with me on this.
In asking the question I am well aware of the fact that many, if not most, atheists do not wish to be pinned down to a formal ideology or comprehensive worldview...
No.
Again you have missed it. It all goes back to understanding what is an atheist. Once you understand that, then all else follows neatly into place.
I'm not kidding. It's at the very heart of it all. It's painfully simple.
And yet they must still face the question (at least if they are Americans and live under our current form of government) if Jefferson's premise is false, are the conclusions still true?
Sure.
It is hard to see how they could be, and if not, then what? Who exactly determines what rights we have?
Good questions.
Different atheist have come up with different answers...
Yes they have. That's very true. Can you see why? Please?
Both Sam Harris and Greg Epstein resort to a form of Utilitarianism...
Assuming they do, this tells us only about Harris and Epstein. It does not inform us about our "an atheist", right?
Since this comment chain is attached to a review of Epstein's book, do you agree with him or disagree?
Can't make an informed comment. I don't know anything about Epstein. Never even heard of him until you reviewed him.
If you disagree, where do you think he went wrong? What would you offer in its place?
Whatever I would offer would come from "me" alone and the way "I" alone view things. It would, however, tell you nothing about our "an atheist".
How would an atheist, any atheist, on whatever principles he may choose to adopt...
Aha! Do you see what you did there? You felt the need to insert something new. Good.
Lets' quickly remember the original question....
"So how would an atheist establish a basis for an "unalienable right," or for a duty or obligation?"
Do you see it now? You changed the question for a reason. There was a need. Again, it all goes back to the definition of what is an atheist.
Your original question is malformed. I'm going to give you another malformed question with the same basic in-built flaw to illustrate the problem. Ready?
"How would an atheist, any atheist, choose to adopt principles?"
(...crosses fingers...)
I would still like to know, how would an atheist, any atheist, on any principles he might devise whatsoever, establish a basis for universal human rights? As anyone to your knowledge done such a thing? Can you guide me to this fountain of wisdom, that I might drink therefrom and be satisfied?
ReplyDeleteWould you not agree that most modern Western atheists, for all their diversity among themselves, would agree on this much: evolution is a proven fact, there is no "Intelligent Design" in nature, and the Divine Command Theory of morality is to be rejected?
I would still like to know, how would an atheist, any atheist, on any principles he might devise whatsoever, establish a basis for universal human rights?
ReplyDeleteOnce you figure out what an atheist is, the answer is self-evident. It's a very, very easy answer.
So far, you haven't been able to get there successfully.
Would you not agree that most modern Western atheists, for all their diversity among themselves, would agree on this much: evolution is a proven fact, there is no "Intelligent Design" in nature, and the Divine Command Theory of morality is to be rejected?
Grr.
Bob, you are not getting this. I don't know how to make this any easier for you to understand. I don't see why you insist on making the same mistake again and again and again and again and again.
Whatever atheists may or may not agree on (no matter what it is) has nothing to do with their atheism.
Suppose I met an atheist and that atheist told me that they accepted the theory of evolution as a proven fact because they were an atheist. You know what I would do?
I'd call them an idiot to their face.
Surprised? You shouldn't be.
Think about it.
1) I'm an atheist.
2) I accept the theory of evolution.
3) Give me credit and assume that I don't consider myself to be an idiot.
So why do you suppose that I would call that person an idiot?
"So how would an atheist establish a basis of xyz..."
"Would an atheist accept xyz...."
"Would an atheist say that there is no xyz..."
"Would an atheist reject xyz?"
It's the same basic mistake built into all the questions. It all hinges on understanding what an atheist is.
For goodness sakes, Bob. Can you honestly not see it or are you just messing with me?
Most modern atheists of which I am aware do not say that they believe in the Theory of Evolution because they are atheists. Rather they say that they are atheists because they believe in the Theory of Evolution. The assertion is that Darwin's theory of natural selection disproves Paley's argument from design. The usual way of putting it is that there is no scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of God. The "God hypothesis" is unnecessary. But what is implied in the argument is a worldview of naturalistic materialism. What is real is what can be proven through use of the empirical method. What the empirical method can discern is physical reality. Everything in nature appears to have a natural cause. Therefore there is no evidence for the existence of God. Am I not right in thinking that this is far and away the most common argument for disbelief in God today?
ReplyDeleteCan you name me a single atheist anywhere in the world who believes in the Divine Command Theory of morality?
Most modern atheists of which I am aware do not say that they believe in the Theory of Evolution because they are atheists.
ReplyDeleteYou can see why it would be a silly position to have, right?
Rather they say that they are atheists because they believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Maybe most modern atheists would agree. It's not important. Even those who do not are still atheists.
The usual way of putting it is that there is no scientifically verifiable evidence for the existence of God.
No Bob. It's nothing to do with your brandname. You need to expand beyond your narrow cultural confines.
Again, look at the definition of what is an atheist.
But what is implied in the argument is a worldview of naturalistic materialism.
Do you see what you have done?
Suddenly, we are now taking about "naturalistic materialism".
Suddenly (and most frustratingly) we are not talking about atheism.
If you want to talk about atheism then...you have to focus on atheism. You keep on wanting to go off onto something else. It's something that you do all the time.
Can you name me a single atheist anywhere in the world who believes in the Divine Command Theory of morality?
Is it possible for an atheist to accept the Divine Command Theory thingy or is it a contradiction in terms?
Again, and again, and AGAIN it goes back to the definition of what is an atheist.
You need to nut this one out, once and for all. Otherwise you are doomed to run around in circles forever as others point you in the direction of primary sources to find out what an atheist is.
Use primary sources. Represent them as fairly and as honestly as you would have them represent your own views.
All I am asking you to do it to go to any mainstream atheist website and find out for yourself.
You want to discuss atheism? Then discuss atheism.
It's easy. There's no great mystery to it.
" . . .atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it." (Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist, p. xvi).
ReplyDeleteAh! What do we have here? A worldview ("this world is all we have") and an ethical theory based upon it ("our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it"). The problem, however, is that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise.Neither Nietzsche nor Rand would accept the idea that we have a "duty to one another." I believe that the proper way of phrasing it would be: "It is to my own personal advantage to make the very most and best of it."
Shame on you.
ReplyDeleteAfter all the effort I've put into this conversation, you just don't give a damn.
I asked you to get a working defintion of what is an atheist.
I asked you to go to any mainstream atheist website
I asked you to use primary sources.
I asked you to represent them as fairly and as honestly as you would have them represent your own views.
I asked you to converse like an adult.
I reminded you of your Ninth Commandment.
I shouldn't have bothered.
Shame on you.
You don't consider Christopher Hitchens (or Greg Epstein or Sam Harris) to be primary sources?
ReplyDeleteIs there some special code word that I'm supposed to type in to get you to be honest and argue in good faith for a change?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you hope to gain from this nonsense?
You continuously try to misrepresent me even when I ask you not to. You misrepresent others. You blank when it suits you. You seem bent on playing "gotcha" games all by yourself.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm trying to treat you like an adult.
I did my level best to appeal to your better nature. I did everything except draw out a diagram on a blackboard for you and this is the way you treat me.
Read what I have written for a change rather than just repeatedly ignore it. Take good advice when it's given. Otherwise you will just go around endlessly in circles.