My new book Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Will Hurt Everyone is now available as an e-book by clicking on the link. The paperback is coming soon. Here is the writeup from the back cover:
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt?
Using sound reasoning and evidence—not religion—award-winning author Frank Turek shows that everyone will be hurt including children, the nation, and even homosexuals themselves. Turek provides concise answers to objections about equal rights, discrimination, and being born a certain way, and he exposes the real reason gay activists are trying to impose same-sex marriage on the country without a single vote from the people.Turek’s message is direct but respectful. It is correct, not politically correct. And it is a message that we must not ignore.
Cool. Got it.
I would say, “I’m eager to read it,” but….well, I’m not. And on top of that, I have a strong feeling that another fringe-society attempt to redefine the evils of the world and direct them towards a single incoherent political group (“the gay agenda?” What planet am I on?) wouldn’t change my mind.
As if this hasn’t been addressed ad nauseum here, but I’ll throw it out anyway. Tim, how exactly do you know what the true evils are? It sounds like you’re referring to some objective concept here, is that right? Are we not just matter in motion? Isn’t every human decision or behavior just the result of random and undirected natural, chemical, etc. processes? If so, I’m having a hard time understanding how you could possibly correctly differentiate between the truly evil things and the truly good things. In fact, the word ‘evil’ doesn’t even make sense to me in such a scheme – in terms of being a word that is supposed to be describing some real, yet abstract thing in the realm we refer to as morality. It’s just a word to describe some natural process… something like osmosis for example.
As if this hasn’t been addressed ad nauseum here, but I’ll throw it out anyway. Tim, how exactly do you know what the true evils are? It sounds like you’re referring to some objective concept here, is that right?
Nice try, but I used the word “evil” rather sarcastically….again, nice try though.
“As if this hasn’t been addressed ad nauseum here”
It has, and you lot lost the argument over and over again. You’ve got a book that condones slavery and rape – how does this give YOU the moral highground. Furthermore, it puts homosexuality at about the same level of sin as having a tattoo. So where’s Frank’s book on forbidding marriage between people with tattoos?
Why not do a book on explaining to Catholic priests why paedophilia is wrong? Surely that would be more useful to the world? Seriously, with the world in serious trouble right now, is stopping loving couples confirming their union really the most important issue going on? I say good luck to such people.
I’d be interested if there’s any arguments in this book that:
a) Didn’t used to be used to argue against interracial marriage, or
b) Couldn’t also be used against, say divorcees remarrying or people over the age of 55 getting married.
c) Couldn’t also be used to argue against secular marriages.
Tim D.,
Granted that you used the word “evils” sarcastically in the instance above, by using the term “redefining” evils, I infer (along with Bryan, I suppose) that you recognize that there is such a thing as “an evil.”
If this is the case, Bryan’s point still stands, doesn’t it?
Granted that you used the word “evils” sarcastically in the instance above, by using the term “redefining” evils, I infer (along with Bryan, I suppose) that you recognize that there is such a thing as “an evil.”
If this is the case, Bryan’s point still stands, doesn’t it?
Did I stutter, or something? I don’t believe in objective “evil,” as I have posted many many many times in other topics….the phrase “evil” in this context was used satirically. End of story. Let me know if I need to repeat this again, please.
Please repeat it again, Tim. By the way, I think you did stutter in this last post – (e.g. “many many many”)
Just kidding, of course.
Have you by chance read J. Budziszewski’s book What We Can’t Not Know?
No, I haven’t, but I do know his methodology is severely flawed. Anybody who can say this and mean it is either being a smartass or is just honestly ignorant of the positions surrounding non-Christian belief systems:
Presuppositionalists, he held, are right to assert that the ultimate premises of Christian and anti–Christian systems of thought are utterly at odds. On the other hand, evidentialists are right to assert that between Christian and anti–Christian systems of thought there is always a point of contact. The reason for this point of contact, he argued, is that nonbelievers cannot bring themselves to be completely consistent with their own presuppositions, and this inconsistency is a result of common grace. Thus, illogically, men have in their accepted worldviews various amounts of that which is ours. But, illogical though it may be, it is there and we can appeal to it.”
The tired “they secretly have Christian values, they just don’t know it” argument. You know, the one where you basically claim certain aspects of humanity and try to trademark them under “Christianity” and then, when anybody exercises those traits, you say they’re being Christian and they just don’t know it. One of the most “intellectually dishonest” arguments that’s out there right now.
I also resent the idea of “Christian” and “Anti-Christian” ideologies listed as the only two alternatives, as though there were no other choice. Everything always seems to be “with us or against us” with Christians, thus this hilariously false dichotomy.
Tim D.,
I follow you, but it’s not a false dichotomy. The world works this way. It’s a self-evident principle of logic. Things are either ‘A’ or ‘non-A’.
So, a worldview, for example, is either Christian or it is not Christian. (You can substitute any worldview in for “Christian”.)
Also, where’s the quote from? Is it about Budziszewski or something else?
I follow you, but it’s not a false dichotomy. The world works this way. It’s a self-evident principle of logic. Things are either ‘A’ or ‘non-A’.
“Non-A” is an entirely different concept than “Anti-A.” You can not be a part of something without being “anti;” it is possible to be non-Christian without being Anti-Christian.
As for the quote, it was taken from an article written about him.
You could have a group of chess players who meet weekly. They might chat about the weather, but mainly they just play chess. You could describe it, accurately but not informatively, as ‘non-Christian’, in that it is secular. However, it would be nonsense to describe it as ‘Anti-Christian’. This may sound a silly example, but it applies equally to the term ‘secular society’, which I’ve seen many times to be taken as meaning ‘anti-religious’ and ‘anti-Christian’ in particular.
Tim D. and Andrew,
Point taken about “Anti-Christian”. I’m not sure if the intent of the quote was to mean anti as in “against” or anti as in “non”. I took it to mean “non”; perhaps I am wrong about that.
I think your quote came not from an article about Budziszewski himself, but rather from an article on wikipedia quoting Budziszewski, who was talking about Francis Schaeffer. (After I posted the question, it occurred to me to just Google the whole quote.)
The tired “they secretly have Christian values, they just don’t know it” argument. You know, the one where you basically claim certain aspects of humanity and try to trademark them under “Christianity” and then, when anybody exercises those traits, you say they’re being Christian and they just don’t know it. One of the most “intellectually dishonest” arguments that’s out there right now.
I would say not that they secretly have “Christian” values, but I think it totally coheres to reality that people have values, whether or not they want to admit them in intellectual debate. Where there is a value, there must be a grounding for that value. (In that quote, this is where Schaeffer argues that nonbelievers cannot bring themselves to be completely consistent with their own presuppositions.)
I find it disingenuous and intellectually dishonest when someone claims that they do not find anything inherently wrong in torturing babies for fun or something of that sort (even in things far more trivial than that, in fact.)
On another note, I hope we haven’t gone too far astray of the original topic of this blog posting.
I would say not that they secretly have “Christian” values, but I think it totally coheres to reality that people have values, whether or not they want to admit them in intellectual debate.
Who ever said that people don’t have values? You seem to be implying that someone here (perhaps myself?) has denied this. All I have ever denied is the possibility that there is some objective way to ground these values; they are always based on something that is taken as a given, i.e. “happiness is good” or “God can be trusted.” Those things simply cannot be proven, so it is a choice we make to take them on faith value.
I find it disingenuous and intellectually dishonest when someone claims that they do not find anything inherently wrong in torturing babies for fun or something of that sort (even in things far more trivial than that, in fact.)
I assume that you mean to imply I said such a thing — that I see nothing inherently wrong with torturing babies for fun. If that’s the case, then I’m afraid you’ve completely missed the entire point of the morality discussion; it’s not that “I don’t find anything inherently wrong with it,” it’s that there is simply no objective way to enforce the idea that it is “wrong” objectively. You cannot make a case for it. You can make a case for the consequences that such an act brings (which I can and have), and based on a supposed worldview (such as mine, or yours), it is easy to draw that conclusion. But that does not make it objectively so, for in order to be truly objective it must be true regardless of what given we draw upon in order to reach that conclusion. And that is, of course, impossible.
Think of it like this; each time you make a statement, what you are really saying is, “I think that [statement] is true.” Because it was you who said it, it is implied (and generally understood) that this is your opinion. Hence such terms as, “professional opinion,” or “medical opinion,” etc. The opinions might be accurate, and they might reflect something that is empirically verifiable….but they are still opinions. They aren’t true because we hold them, they are true because they reflect a commonly-detectable external reality. That is as far as we, as human beings, are capable of examining the concepts of “truth” and “reality.” If we cannot accept these things as factual, then there is no reason to accept anything — much less a religious faith — as factual.
They aren’t true because we hold them, they are true because they reflect a commonly-detectable external reality.
This seems to be the same argument in favor of objective morality. Our moral intuitions tell us certain things are evil because they reflect a commonly-detectable external reality. (I do not mean scientifically detectable, mind you.)
they are always based on something that is taken as a given, i.e. “happiness is good” or “God can be trusted.” Those things simply cannot be proven, so it is a choice we make to take them on faith value.
What you seem to be saying here is that the notion of goodness and morality must be grounded in something. I agree. I think it makes more sense to ground goodness in the nature of a supreme being than to ground it in evolution or naturalism, which I do not believe have the philosophical basis for grounding an “ought.”
I assume that you mean to imply I said such a thing
I did not mean to imply anything about you specifically in my post. I have had a few different conversations in which people have denied that it is inherently (a word which implies objectivity) wrong to kill a baby for fun. While such a notion might save their intellectual argument, I believe they are being intellectually dishonest about their real moral intuitions.
This seems to be the same argument in favor of objective morality. Our moral intuitions tell us certain things are evil because they reflect a commonly-detectable external reality. (I do not mean scientifically detectable, mind you.)
And thus we differ; you can insist that OM is commonly detectable all you want, but until you define in what sense, it means nothing. “Feelings” don’t solve the problem here.
For the record, I do mean scientifically.
What you seem to be saying here is that the notion of goodness and morality must be grounded in something. I agree. I think it makes more sense to ground goodness in the nature of a supreme being than to ground it in evolution or naturalism, which I do not believe have the philosophical basis for grounding an “ought.”
I am saying that, in order for OM to exist, there would have to be some way to ground it externally. The difference between you and I is this:
ME: There has to be an external source for OM to exist; since there is no detectable external source, OM does not exist.
YOU: There has to be an external source for OM to exist; I feel like OM exists, so I now need an external source to justify its existence. Hey, God, you busy?
I did not mean to imply anything about you specifically in my post. I have had a few different conversations in which people have denied that it is inherently (a word which implies objectivity) wrong to kill a baby for fun. While such a notion might save their intellectual argument, I believe they are being intellectually dishonest about their real moral intuitions.
Well, if you’re not arguing with something that I’ve said or a point that I’ve made, I don’t see the point in bringing it up at all. I’m not going to argue someone else’s point.
Tim D.,
For the record, I do mean scientifically.
So, do you think that the only things we can know with certainty are things which are scientifically detectable or mathemtatically verifiable?
Well, if you’re not arguing with something that I’ve said or a point that I’ve made, I don’t see the point in bringing it up at all. I’m not going to argue someone else’s point.
Fair enough. So, do you think anything is inherently (a word which implies objectivity) morally wrong?
they are always based on something that is taken as a given, i.e. “happiness is good” or “God can be trusted.” Those things simply cannot be proven, so it is a choice we make to take them on faith value.
If what you have said above is true, and nothing is inherently morally right or morally wrong, doesn’t that nullify the notion of morality altogether? Wouldn’t this “choice we make on faith value” be as meaningless as the theist’s “faith” in God?
ME: There has to be an external source for OM to exist; since there is no detectable external source, OM does not exist.
Depends on what you mean by detectable. See my first question above.
“doesn’t that nullify the notion of morality altogether? ”
As explained before, we have a system of money even though we know cash only has the value society agrees on. Money doesn’t have an ‘objective’ value outside of ourselves. However, that doesn’t mean there’s no point in having money, or that the notion of a financial system is nullified.
So, do you think that the only things we can know with certainty are things which are scientifically detectable or mathemtatically verifiable?
It’s not quite as simple as you’d like to think it is, but basically yes; although, if you have some other way of knowing things for certain in a testable, repeatable or otherwise easily-demonstrable manner, then by all means let me know. Without the scientific method, all we have to go on are assertions and feelings, which are not exactly compelling evidence (as you have so clearly demonstrated).
Fair enough. So, do you think anything is inherently (a word which implies objectivity) morally wrong?
That’s an unclear question; if by that you mean, “is there anything to which I am opposed,” then yes, there is. There are many things to which I am opposed, all of which stem from my base value-belief that the sum long-term happiness of the world’s people is important. If by that you mean, do I believe this base belief transcends my being and somehow becomes objective? No, I do not.
You’re probably waiting in the wings to (once again) fire off that age-old retort as soon as I finish posting this: “Well then, what’s the point of having a moral objection if there’s no objective way to hold anybody to it?” To which I will say, “No morality is objective. Not even the ones supposedly offered by God in the Bible. In order for any morality to be objective, there must be an external standard that enforces its “truthfulness.” There is no such standard; I am free to act how I please, in whatever appalling manner I choose….except that I have my personal morality, which I have explained to you at length in this very post and many others, to give me many good reasons not to behave in such a manner. In order for morality to be objectively true, it must enforce itself, as the rules of logic and physics do. Morality does not enforce itself; therefore, it cannot be objectively “true.”
The bottom line is that there is no objective basis on which to base any form of morality. It is all ultimately rooted in personal beliefs; you believe your God’s morality is objectively true, but why? Because you believe that God is inherently good? Why? Because He just is?
That’s not compelling enough. In order for the “it just is” argument to work — as it does with, say, 2 + 2 = 4 —there must be a way to demonstrate it. I could take the same amount “2,” call it by any other name, and add it to itself and always come up with the amount we call “4,” every single time, without exception. How is your OM verifiable in this sense? How is it objectively true?
So either your morality is true for a reason (in which case that reason must be dependent upon another reason, which we can follow all the way back to your base value-belief, which you accept for no reason other than because you choose to), or it is “just true for no reason.” We know it cannot be the latter; so for what reason is it true?
Keep in mind, if we have a reason for every decision we make, and we try to track down the nature of that reason by asking, “why?”, we will have to come to a dead-end sooner or later (a “just because” statement), or else the search will go on forever in a logical loophole. So it makes sense that everyone has a base belief-value off of which to base their most basic decisions (such as “it is good to do God’s will,” or “pain instills suffering and so suffering is good,” or “the long-term sum happiness of humanity is more important”). The point being that there is no reason to support any of these things. We only accept them because we have to; for without a given, reason cannot function.
So now, in light of this, I’d like to hear your attempt to explain to me why your base value-belief (that God is good) is somehow an “objectively better” belief than mine. Why should I, for no real reason, choose to enforce your belief instead of doing the same for my own? Why should I not obey what my conscience tells me, and instead obey yours?
If what you have said above is true, and nothing is inherently morally right or morally wrong, doesn’t that nullify the notion of morality altogether? Wouldn’t this “choice we make on faith value” be as meaningless as the theist’s “faith” in God?
Not at all; it simply removes the possibility for objectivity. Again, though, it’s irrelevant to the argument even if it does — your argument here is from consequence. “But wouldn’t that get rid of morality?” Even if it did (which it doesn’t — it merely personalizes it instead of objectifying it), that wouldn’t negate the argument.
But yes, it’s still entirely possible to have moral objections to or feelings towards certain behaviors or ideas, even if we acknowledge that there is no central “truth” against which we can verify these ideas. Is it really so hard for you to understand that it’s okay to have an opinion, even if it’s not handed down to you from a Creator?
Is it really so hard for you to understand that it’s okay to have an opinion, even if it’s not handed down to you from a Creator?
I understand this. You are, then, equating morality with opinion?
I understand this. You are, then, equating morality with opinion?
Clearly you do not; morality is based on values that are determined by opinions. So while opinions have to do with morals, they are not one and the same.
Tim,
Could you clarify your stance on the difference between values and opinions for me?
Justin, how many times has this all been explained to you?
And anyway, what are YOU equating morality with? Magic. You’re basically saying that morality is magic. For you it’s like something out of a Harry Potter book. Worse, the magician in question – your god – is less moral than I am! He likes slavery, is homophobic, commits genocide…
Meanwhile, look in the prisons in America. It’s full of religious people. Barely any atheists at all. And that’s based on ENTRY figures. In other words, the religion (or lack of it) that people give when they ENTER prison. So claiming that all the atheists convert when they get incarcerated simply will not wash.
Tim,
Could you clarify your stance on the difference between values and opinions for me?
For your sake let’s try this again.
Values — things you “value”
Opinions — things you “think” or “feel” or “believe”
Why do you value the things that you value? This question always leads to more values, which lead to more questions. All of which, if chased in a circle for only so long, will ultimately lead back to a basic assumption about the world — something for which there is no real reason to believe, other than that we want it to be so. For example; that God is good. This is an assumption; it’s what people would like to believe. And the people who believe it will not consider any alternative, because they want so badly to believe that God is good that they will simply “have faith.” Which is the centerpoint of the whole religion; faith.
So in a very, very basic sense (which seems to be the one of which you are most fond), there isn’t much of a difference between a “value” and an “opinion” except that opinions are not defended as fiercely. Both can function whether or not they are supported by facts, although both function more effectively to whatever end when supported by facts. Of course, “values” are more a product of desire, whereas opinion is more of a product of feeling or understanding.
Really, I hate that word “values.” It’s been hijacked by the political right wing and nutjob Christians to mean “Christian beliefs,” which isn’t the case (of course).
P.S. What we are seeing here is a study in what I call “Straw Hunting,” where the Evangelical in question asks a ton of overall-irrelevant questions in an attempt to follow my reasoning backward through a conversation that has, in effect, already taken place, in an attempt to find something “contradictory” to “slap” me with.
Just for the record~
Not trying to slap you with anything or trick you. I just didn’t understand what you meant by values versus opinions.
I’m going to attempt to summarize what you just said. Correct me where I’m wrong.
Opinions are what your “believe.”
Values are basically the same thing, but strongly held.
You are the one who said that morality is based on values that are determined by opinions. So while opinions have to do with morals, they are not one and the same.
I still don’t get it. You claim that morality is based on strongly held opinions that are determined by opinions.
How does this equate to your statement that morals and opinions are not one and the same in your worldview?
Andrew,
I do not claim to know all of the moral laws. I do think that the explanation with the most explanatory power for grounding morality is God.
Can’t commment on “religious people” in jail. Have never seen the numbers (where did you see them?) and could be easily explained that some of them are “religious” only in name. Of course, the Christian doctrine of man’s fallen nature also explains it to some extent.
your god – is less moral than I am!
I’m not sure that your system for grounding morality allows for you to judge whether you are more moral than God.
“Have never seen the numbers (where did you see them?) and could be easily explained that some of them are “religious” only in name.”
The ‘no true Scotsman’ argument.
“I’m not sure that your system for grounding morality allows for you to judge whether you are more moral than God.”
Well tell me if God is homophobic. I’m not. Has God committed genocide? I haven’t. Other things I’ve never done: got a bunch of bears to attack children, ordered a man to kill his son, created viruses designed to kill innocent people. etc.
“I do think that the explanation with the most explanatory power for grounding morality is God.”
You’re welcome to that opinion. Likewise you’re welcome to believe in supernatural explanations for anything else you want. But if everyone took that attitude then we’d still believe that eclipses were caused by dragons attempting to swallow the sun.
I still don’t get it. You claim that morality is based on strongly held opinions that are determined by opinions.
How does this equate to your statement that morals and opinions are not one and the same in your worldview?
Well, for one, opinions are generally arbitrary beliefs that are not too heavily enforced, and often represent that there is more than one valid perspective on a situation (such as political opinions, or preferences). When we get higher on the ladder to things like morality, we generally approach an area where (we believe) that there are fewer “correct” options; for example, most people are opposed to murder on some ground of “morality.” This is nowhere near as arbitrary as someone who, say, likes vanilla ice cream, or likes Bad Religion.
It’s pretty obvious to me that there are different levels of “opinions” in that sense….
I’m not sure that your system for grounding morality allows for you to judge whether you are more moral than God.
I’m pretty sure it does. Remember, not everybody believes that God exists and is some kind of Magical External Moral Authority(tm).
Calling something ‘just an opinion’, is misleading. An opinion can be based on evidence, it can be deeply held, it can be on a matter of life and death. None of this makes it ‘objectively true’. But that doesn’t mean it’s ‘just an opinion’ in a sense that it isn’t important or thought through.
I could say that it’s my opinion that if you walk across that bridge then it will collapse and you will die. That doesn’t mean that this opinion is similar to – or has the same weight as – my favourite brand of ice cream.
And still there’s no explanation for how your deity believing something makes it any more ‘objective’. If a tyrant God believed that torturing innocent people was ok, would that make it so?
This is nowhere near as arbitrary as someone who, say, likes vanilla ice cream, or likes Bad Religion.
How is it not ‘as arbitrary’? If it is not arbitrary, is it objective in some way? If so, how?
“If it is not arbitrary, is it objective in some way? If so, how?”
We’ve been through this many, many times. It’s a false dichotomy you’re offering – either opinions are objective or they’re arbitrary. And it’s already been said here by others that they can only be objective if there’s a God. Well a God is not necessary to say that an opinion based on truth is better than one based on lies. That an opinion formed from expertise and study of a subject is better than one chosen at random. That an opinion with internal coherence is better than one that self-contradicts.
And as Tim has pointed out, morality is not arbitrary unless you go back, and go back, and get back to the starting ‘choice’ from where the values originate, and then declare that choice arbitrary. Fair enough, but you’ve made the same choice yourself. If it’s arbitrary for one, it’s arbitrary for all, with or without a God. Even if that choice is to accept God and reject Satan, it’s still a choice you’re making. Unless it’s purely a choice made to avoid hell, in which case it’s not a value or moral choice at all.
So Justin. How do you judge your God to be good? Are you making a judgement based on your own criteria, in which case where did that criteria come from? Or does that criteria come from God himself, in which case it’s a circular argument.
How is it not ‘as arbitrary’? If it is not arbitrary, is it objective in some way? If so, how?
It is not arbitrary (to me) because it is more important (to me). Do you not feel the same way? Or do you mean to tell me that you need a God to tell you that murder and rape are more important subjects than favorite bands, or favorite ice cream flavors? That you can’t arrive at this conclusion on your own?
P.S. See what’s happening here? You have an idea (that rape and murder are less than or as important as favorite ice cream flavors or favorite bands), and I have an idea (that they are more important), and we’re using reasoning to try and explain to each other why our viewpoints are more reasonable. Why is this important? Because we’re both relying on reasoning to prove our case. We’re not relying on a God to tell us what is right; we’re trying to present reasons to one another that the other will respect and acknowledge.
Tim,
I understand that “murder is wrong” is a more strongly held opinion than ice cream flavors. The crux of the issue is this: Is “murder is wrong” just an opinion? (No matter how strongly held.)
What I’m trying to get at is the grounding point of morality. If the grounding point is personal opinion, even strongly held opinion, then I think you have to say that morality does not exist in any meaningful way. Ultimately, if “murdering people at will is good” is my strongly held opinion, no one can say that I’m wrong, just that they disagree.
A reasonable action, if this were true, would be to immediately release most of the prisoners in our jails. (You may deny that legislation is a matter of morality; we can discuss that too.)
I think earlier you pointed to the need for a beginning point- you called it a “just because.” I do not think a “just because” is an adequate grounding for the basic moral convictions we see in humanity. I think that, given the nature of an ought and that there are some moral convictions that seem to be universal this points to a moral law giver.
The argument runs from our common experience to God, not the other way around. (I hope I’ve explained that.ok.That is, I can know that murder is wrong without God “telling me.” (I hope I’ve explained that.ok.)
This is where I think the intellectual dishonesty we talked about earlier comes into play. Sometimes in order to save an intellectual argument, people want to deny that they feel any moral obligations, which doesn’t seem to be very honest, especially when juxtaposed with the way they react to being “wronged.”
Andrew,
What sort of opinion based on an empirical / verifiable truth can apply to morality? I understand your bridge analogy, but I don’t think that it carries through to the realm of morality.
So Justin. How do you judge your God to be good? Are you making a judgement based on your own criteria, in which case where did that criteria come from? Or does that criteria come from God himself, in which case it’s a circular argument.
This is a false dilemma known as Euthyphro’s dilemma. You have given two options. The third option is that an objective standard exists However, the standard is not external to God, but internal. Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. It is a question of the ontological nature of God.
Ultimately, we have agreed (I think) that we find most of the same things to be repugnant (torture, murder, etc.). I think this is good evidence that we all have a basic moral intuitions about the nature of goodness. No one has to tell us what is good, we know intuitively.
I am not an expert in philosophy, so I hope this satisfies you at least as much as Tim D’s “just because” explanation. If the Christian response to Euthyphro’s dilemma intrigues you, I would suggest trying to read up on it in a short article here, as I can provide no further explanation:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236
“Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good.”
Justin, you are very conspicuously not answering the question. You’re asserting that he is perfectly good, but you’ve no way of explaining what that even means. How do you know he’s good? Are you using his own standard or yours? What does ‘good’ even mean in this context?
Until you answer this you’ve no right to question where OUR morality comes from. You can’t even explain where YOURS comes from.
Is “murder is wrong” just an opinion? (No matter how strongly held.)
And what if it is? By your reasoning, does that make you feel any less strongly that we should support laws against murder?
It seems to me that you support the existence of OM more than you actually support the morality itself; insofar as, if OM does not exist, you see no reason to enforce any morality. Which, in turn, you cite as a reason why my subjective morality is “just an opinion, nothing more.” Which leads me to believe that you don’t actually see a value to life at all — you just trust that there is one because someone (a man who wrote a book claiming to speak for God) told you.
What I’m trying to get at is the grounding point of morality. If the grounding point is personal opinion, even strongly held opinion, then I think you have to say that morality does not exist in any meaningful way.
That’s ridiculous. Morals are useful to society, whether or not they are objective.
Ultimately, if “murdering people at will is good” is my strongly held opinion, no one can say that I’m wrong, just that they disagree.
It doesn’t matter if there is some magical “objective truth” out there; if you can support your claim with enough reasoning, you will be able to convince people that your case is the most effective. That definitely works better than bludgeoning them with God, trying to claim that your morality is “objective” and should therefore be obeyed….when, in fact, if it were objective, it would be impossible to disobey.
A reasonable action, if this were true, would be to immediately release most of the prisoners in our jails. (You may deny that legislation is a matter of morality; we can discuss that too.)
(1) Of course I will deny that; laws and morals are two different animals.
(2) Again, it’s ridiculous to say that just because we don’t think God made morals, that we automatically have to defecate upon the laws we already have. That’s just a false dichotomy you keep setting up (I’m seeing a lot of those recently….); that either God made morality, or morality is worthless. That is, of course, simply not the case.
I think earlier you pointed to the need for a beginning point- you called it a “just because.” I do not think a “just because” is an adequate grounding for the basic moral convictions we see in humanity. I think that, given the nature of an ought and that there are some moral convictions that seem to be universal this points to a moral law giver.
Well, that’s how the brain works. That’s how logic works; there needs to be a given. Humans utilize reason, so there is a given at the base of this reasoning — and what is a given? A “just because.”
The argument runs from our common experience to God, not the other way around. (I hope I’ve explained that.ok.That is, I can know that murder is wrong without God “telling me.” (I hope I’ve explained that.ok.)
That cannot be true; if you can know that murder is “wrong” without God, then God does not need to exist for OM to exist. Which kind of paradoxes your case….I thought you said God had to exist or else morals couldn’t exist?
This is where I think the intellectual dishonesty we talked about earlier comes into play. Sometimes in order to save an intellectual argument, people want to deny that they feel any moral obligations, which doesn’t seem to be very honest, especially when juxtaposed with the way they react to being “wronged.”
I never said I don’t feel moral obligations 0_0
(1) However, they are not to some God; they are to myself and the person/people I might hurt with my actions, based on my own beliefs. Your claim that “God jumped in and gave me these beliefs” is far more outrageous than the idea that they are based on a logical given that I have, for whatever reason, chosen to accept.
(2) As I have said multiple times….it is necessary, in such an argument, to consider hypothetical perspectives that we know to exist, such as those of the perceived “sociopath.” Or do you mean to deny that such perspectives truly exist, and claim that even sociopaths feel “moral obligations” but just choose to ignore them? If so, (a) that’s quite a grand assumption, given that you’re not inside these folks’ heads, and (b) it’s your job to make that case, not mine.
Again, it is not hard to imagine a society (that has actually existed, if any historical records are to be believed) in which things like sex with young children, or spousal abuse, or slavery, or killing “witches,” are all condoned. All of these things have happened before in societies that have become very powerful, often as a result of these practices. How do you explain that? They just “weren’t good?” What does that mean?
This is a false dilemma known as Euthyphro’s dilemma. You have given two options. The third option is that an objective standard exists However, the standard is not external to God, but internal. Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. It is a question of the ontological nature of God.
That doesn’t answer the question.
Q: “How is God good?”
A: “He is; that’s his character!”
Q: “…um, okay, but how is that so?”
A: “He just is, that’s what he is! It’s a given that he is, that we accept on faith!”
*later on*
A: “There’s no such thing as a given in morality! There’s no beginning point that we take on faith; our values are objective!”
Q: “Prove it.”
A: “They just are, that’s a given!”
So which is it?
I think this is good evidence that we all have a basic moral intuitions about the nature of goodness. No one has to tell us what is good, we know intuitively.
Yes, but you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that a fair portion of all societies are sociopathic in some way; have you seen American crime reports from the last few years? I suppose you would just ignore this fraction of the population when making your case that “we all know deep down what’s right or wrong?”
I believe you to the extent that I think a lot of us believe we know right from wrong. But I don’t think that’s true; I don’t think most of us really do know. Because it’s impossible to know what is truly “right” and “wrong” in an objective sense; we can only make the best (and by that I mean “most informed”) decision possible using our own instincts and knowledge.
BTW, I still think it’s odd that you use human instinct as evidence to support an outside influence. It really just goes back to the failed complexity argument — humans survived, evolved, and came to rely on societies as the basis for survival, and so of course we have human instincts that lead us towards more social behaviors. Part of social behavior is compromise — I won’t kill you if you won’t kill me, let’s support that, shall we?
P.S. A good example of OM not being real; you believe that in order for one to “value” life, there must be some objective “value” that is inherent to life, for us to hold in the first place. This is not true; something does not have to be “valuable” in an objective sense in order for us to value it; it is our state of being that gives this object value; because value is subjective by its nature. To claim that life is inherently valuable in an objective sense is a bit like saying “Bad Religion is a preferable band, in an objective sense” (although quite a bit more serious). Something cannot be “valuable” in and of itself; it only has what value we ascribe to it.
Hi TIm,
Again, it is not hard to imagine a society (that has actually existed, if any historical records are to be believed) in which things like sex with young children, or spousal abuse, or slavery, or killing “witches,” are all condoned. All of these things have happened before in societies that have become very powerful, often as a result of these practices. How do you explain that? They just “weren’t good?” What does that mean?
If objective morals do exist, people do not have to obey them. The fact that an “ought” exists does not mean that everyone will behave in accordance with the ought. You seem to argue that since there are sociopaths, it proves that there are no “oughts.”
What I would like you to explain is that if people did these things and thought them “good”, why should we condemn them or throw someone in jail because our idea of “good” differs from theirs?
That cannot be true; if you can know that murder is “wrong” without God, then God does not need to exist for OM to exist.
I think you’ve missed my point all along that I think that certain moral intuitions are felt across humanity. People have the intuition that torturing babies for fun (or whatever) is wrong. I have never claimed that they need to have read the Bible to believe this.
laws and morals are two different animals.
Most laws I can think of are ultimately tied to morality. (Remember, the “good” of society is a moral concept.) Do you think the two are unrelated?
Andrew,
How do you know he’s good? Are you using his own standard or yours? What does ‘good’ even mean in this context?
The answer to your question has to do with the categories of epistemology (how we know) and ontology (how things are), but I’m afraid that I personally can’t give you a more fully-orbed explanation that would be satisfactory to you. That’s not to say that it can’t be done. Did you read the article I linked to? I think it gives an answer to your question.
I can’t really access articles at work. But I’m asking YOU quite a simple question, which is basically the same question that you are asking us. If you can’t answer it yourself, in your own words, then you can’t expect us to.
If objective morals do exist, people do not have to obey them. The fact that an “ought” exists does not mean that everyone will behave in accordance with the ought. You seem to argue that since there are sociopaths, it proves that there are no “oughts.”
So you admit, then, that an objective “ought” is essentially meaningless. It binds noone, and it has no purpose. It is simply a suggestion.
What I would like you to explain is that if people did these things and thought them “good”, why should we condemn them or throw someone in jail because our idea of “good” differs from theirs?
You can condemn it on reasonable grounds; but there is no “objective source” that allows you to do this. Even if you condemn someone and claim that they are “less good” than you and that that is the only problem, that doesn’t make it so; for they could do the same to you in return, and it would mean exactly the same thing. It’s not good because “it’s objectively good;” it’s good because we value it to be so. That’s why personal responsibility and morality is so important — because there is no way to enforce the idea of objective morality. We can say it exists, and we can wave it in the face of people whose fundamental ideologies drastically differ from our own, but that no more compels them or changes their ideas than it would change yours or mine if such folks were to make the same claim to us. Don’t you see? The claim that “this is good and this is bad” is based on a personal ideology. Such ideas are only valuable to those who value them; to you, God might be “good,” but there are people out there who disagree with that conclusion and the opinions/values that lead into it. There is simply no way that you can fundamentally, objectively prove a moral case, because morals are based on personal experience/preference/opinions/experiences. There is no magic phrase you can utter that will make a sociopath “realize” that he/she is a sociopath. If laws of objective morality existed, this would not be the case; like logical and mathematical laws, moral laws would be “provable” in a mathematical sense.
If you say, “Morals aren’t mathematical laws!” then I say, “they’re not really laws, then.” This is a mathematical universe; if it is not mathematical, then it cannot, by definition, be a law; it becomes an opinion, or a thought, or a whim, or a value.
I think you’ve missed my point all along that I think that certain moral intuitions are felt across humanity. People have the intuition that torturing babies for fun (or whatever) is wrong. I have never claimed that they need to have read the Bible to believe this.
And what I’m saying is, yes, a large number of people agree with this. All humans are, to some extent, reasonable creatures; however, some people function with different givens. This has the potential to drastically change the systems that affects our values. There are innate desires in humanity — such as social tendencies that we have probably evolved across time, out of habit, because we have come to rely on other humans to survive (thus necessitating a society and, as a result, a set of laws to govern individual preferences, should such preferences intercede and cause conflict). I am not denying that there are basic intuitions that many (though not all) folks share. I am denying that this fact somehow “transcends” the conscious mind and becomes supernatural; we are the same species, so it is natural that we should have some common instincts that coincide with our survival patterns. Humans are social animals, so by and large we evolve social tendencies. However, the reason people mature with such tendencies as “murder and stealing are wrong” is somewhat of a combination of three things:
(1) Environment;
(2) Genetics;
(3) Personal belief
3 being somewhat derivative of 2.
For example….take a child (we’ll call this one “Child A”) and a family (“Family A”) and place them together. The family is a drug-abusing, sexually-promiscuous stereotype of the “immoral” family foundation. In spite of other figures outside of his/her life trying to “positively influence” the child, he/she matures in this environment and becomes a drug-using, sexually-promiscuous young adult. These “positive influences” wonder “where they went wrong,” and settle that it must have been the family environment.
However….take another child (“Child B”) and place him/her in the same environment, same situation, same “positive/negative” influences; this child matures in the same environment, and chooses not to use drugs or be sexually promiscuous, in spite of the environment. Complete paradox, apparently; the same exact conditions produce a completely different result.
Likewise, a similar thing occurs in large-scale examples of “Child A” and “Child B” being inserted into a “positive” family environment (“Family B”); Child A might still become a delinquent, whereas Child B will still be a productive member of society, in spite of (or perhaps because, in the case of the latter) his/her influences.
So we have literally thousands upon thousands of possible scientific explanations for this strange phenomenon, almost all of which revolve around DNA — yes, environment is a huge factor in social development, but if the core being of the person is “corrupt” or “asocial” or “sick” whatever word we want to assign it, then the person simply will not function in a way that you would consider “moral.” It is unclear if this is because their DNA essentially “pre-determines” their behavior, or if their innate personality (the core of which is determined by DNA) is simply too strong to be affected by environmental conditions. Ultimately, it is very hard to classify someone’s innate “willpower” in an objective sense; if someone “will not” change for whatever reason, it is difficult to determine whether this person “cannot” change (because they have decided they will not, and they have no desire to think otherwise), or if it is theoretically possible for them to change….but even in the case of the latter, it usually appears that they will not, even if it is technically possible.
The main consensus thus far is that humans do have shared tendencies….although these tendencies can be nurtured or condemned early in the child’s life, according to the preference of his/her caretakers. In a particularly Christian environment, for example, a child may simply never develop the ability to think critically about God, and thus accepts yours or a similar worldview from an early stage. It becomes so ingrained into his/her consciousness that it essentially becomes their values. On the other hand, a child may grow up in the same environment and come to think so critically of God that he/she develops a lack of belief/faith in God and turns away from Christianity. The same phenomenon appears in atheist or other non-christian families; a child may follow in the footsteps of his/her parents, or go another way entirely. It is not possible to say with 100% (or even close to 100%) certainty why this is; there are no “certain values” that are always or never created/lost in this process; it is always different, and the result is always different.
So yes, among large groups of people (smaller societies, even), there tend to be shared group ideals. But this is in large part due to the nurturing that each child’s caretakers do; although there are certain tendencies that transcend even this, resulting in the occasional “outcast” or “rebel” against that particular society, such as an atheist in a Christian group or vice-versa.
In light of all this, it seems quite trivial to to try and make the case that you are making, that we all have the same basic beliefs due to our natural being. How can you say this for sure, knowing that religion, science, politics, families, and communities have such a massive influence in personal and social development? We have very little idea what people would truly be like, were we to remove all of the “progressions” that we have made in the aforementioned areas — were we to return to the sole, basic state of human being, without any interfering “pre-existing” doctrines such as religion; were we to remove all prior knowledge from each generation, and see what that generation does solely of its own accord, devoid of any influence from an outside party that guarantees things such as “right” and “wrong.” If we allowed humans to truly reach their own conclusions, we might see something closer to this truth you claim to know….but as the world stands now, such a “truth” is essentially impossible to access.
Most laws I can think of are ultimately tied to morality. (Remember, the “good” of society is a moral concept.) Do you think the two are unrelated?
No, the “good” of society is a social concept; it does not deal with “right” and “wrong,” it deals with desire — we all want to live, and we all need the help of others to live longer (such as the sick needing the well, or the impaired needing the senses of those who are not impaired….or a shoemaker requiring the services of a farmer to get food, or vice-versa), and so we set down a society that acknowledges the things we all want. This society is no different; the idea that we should have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is based on this kind of ideology, that we all want to live and so if we (a) want to live, and (b) need the services of others to live, then it only makes sense to respect the rights of others so that these things may be guaranteed — so that the system may function.
I read the article, and before I comment on it I want to point this out:
Hebrews 6:18
“It is impossible for God to lie.”
^Cited by the article.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 / 1 Kings 22:23 / Ezekiel 14:9
“God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive.”
Doesn’t that make “God can’t lie” into kind of an empty promise? Like, “I won’t destroy the world again….with water.”
Gee, thanks for that.
And Andrew, you’re not missing much. The basic claim as I understand it is that God is the standard for “good,” just because it’s His nature to do only Good. So He is then both the standard for good and the carrier-out of good — the common response to any criticism of this idea being, “well, that may be impossible, but God can just do that, because He’s God.” Which sounds all good and well to one who already believes in God — it’s the perfect logical pretzel, necessary only if we assume God’s existence in the first place — but it only works as a bludgeon if all parties involved acknowledge it. And it can only be acknowledged if one believes in God as a moral authority.
Basically….if God can just do anything because he’s God, then why even define Him? If He is everything and everyone and everywhere and every when, then there is no use defining Him. He is a paradox.
P.S.
Basically, it’s an issue of trust. Do you trust that God is inherently good?
So it does nothing to resolve the question at hand: why should I trust that God is good?
No-one can even explain to me what it MEANS that ‘God is good’. How do you know? How would you be able to tell if he was NOT good? By his actions? It’s a circular argument. And people like Justin are unwilling even to ATTEMPT to explain it. Their own question to us – what is good – is one they can’t even answer themselves. The difference is that you and I aren’t attempting to tie morality in with a book so demonstrably immoral – genocide, slavery, infanticide, even God attacking children with bears! No wonder prisons are so full of Christians and so empty of atheists. And no wonder the Christians here are so sore about it. And no wonder there’s a need for a clan of apologists.
Tim,
Long post! I can’t read it all now; just want to say ‘wow.’
Andrew,
No-one can even explain to me what it MEANS that ‘God is good’. How do you know? How would you be able to tell if he was NOT good? By his actions? It’s a circular argument. And people like Justin are unwilling even to ATTEMPT to explain it.
Didn’t know that you couldn’t access articles at work. It’s really not a long article at all if you can (or care to) access it at home. I linked to it because I could not restate it for you to make it any clearer without just copying and pasting the whole thing. It is an attempt to explain, though.
No wonder prisons are so full of Christians and so empty of atheists
I’m not sure what the Christians in prison argument you’ve put forth suggests, other than that people break moral laws. I think we agree on that. (I hope you haven’t taken my argument for objective morality to mean that I think that it is impossible for Christians to break moral laws or that Christians are somehow “better people.” I certainly do not hold that view.)
Why do we throw people in prison in the first place? Because they’ve done something “wrong.” By whose standards though, and why are those standards the ones being used?
And no wonder the Christians here are so sore about it.
If I have come across as being “sore,” I sincerely apologize. I’m not sore at anyone. I enjoy our dialogue.
My point is that you seem incapable of answering the question of what you mean by ‘God is good’, in your own words.
“By whose standards though, and why are those standards the ones being used?”
Not religious ones, or we’d be stoning adulterers and allowing slavery, or having shariah law. Laws are there to preserve the peace.
Even if laws exist to preserve peace, that still implies that preserving the peace is for the good for society, which is a moral judgment.
Even if laws exist to preserve peace, that still implies that preserving the peace is for the good for society, which is a moral judgment.
Wrong again~
What’s “good” for society is derived entirely from what the people think is good; these laws don’t just blink into existence, you know. People conceive them, and they’re put into practice. Anyway, society exists based on principles of common desire and compromise (which I have already outlined at length), and so it’s only natural that what is “good” for society will follow. I mean, would you create a society and then not want to maintain it? What would be the point, if you didn’t want to maintain it?
Any time a set of rules is agreed upon, there is an implication that rules are necessary, in anything from games to supreme laws. So it seems silly to say that we would found a society based on such principles, and then neglect to do what we think is “good” for that society, do you not agree?
What’s ‘good for society’ is just a matter of simple self-preservation. A society that allows murder, rape and robbery will fall apart. Societies that outlaw these things are more likely to thrive. Morality doesn’t come into it.
Preservation of the species as a basis for morality doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation. Where did this ought – to seek the survival of the species- come from? If the answer is “The “ought” of a species seeking its own survival evolved from a species seeking its own survival,” it’s a circular argument.
Who mention an ought? We’re discussing instinct.
Preservation of the species as a basis for morality doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation. Where did this ought – to seek the survival of the species- come from? If the answer is “The “ought” of a species seeking its own survival evolved from a species seeking its own survival,” it’s a circular argument.
You’re one to talk about circular arguments, Mr. “God is good because He says He is”….
But in all seriousness….going back to the subject of “oughtness,” we’ve already established that an ought can be drawn from an expectation/a desire + an action. We make a society; this formulates the expectation, that we want the society to thrive. Why make a society, if we don’t want it to thrive? There is no motive to do so otherwise; so this motive is implicit in the formation of a society. So we have an expectation; now we can take any aspect or action and compare it with this expectation to see if they fit. If it furthers the expectation, it is “good” in the sense that it suits our expectation; if it does not, or if it detracts from the expectation, then it is “bad.”
As for instinct, the very presence of an instinct sets the precedent of an expectation. Therefore, any action can be compared with instinct to determine an “ought.”
“Preservation of the species as a basis for morality doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation.”
It’s why we evolved instincts that guide us to behaviour that benefits the species. In the same way that we evolved to feel pain when our body is being damaged, and evolved to be scared of heights. This doesn’t mean that we ‘ought’ not to put our hand in the fire, it means that we find it uncomfortable to do so. In the same way, we feel bad when we do things that are harmful to the species. You don’t need to talk about ‘oughts’ to explain or understand this.
You don’t even need to talk about ‘why should anyone WANT to preserve the species’. Characteristics or behaviour that preserves the species is by definition the characteristics or behaviour that will get passed on and survive down generations.
Tim D.,
We make a society; this formulates the expectation, that we want the society to thrive. Why make a society, if we don’t want it to thrive? There is no motive to do so otherwise; so this motive is implicit in the formation of a society. So we have an expectation; now we can take any aspect or action and compare it with this expectation to see if they fit. If it furthers the expectation, it is “good” in the sense that it suits our expectation; if it does not, or if it detracts from the expectation, then it is “bad.”
Does this apply to Nazi Germany? The expectation of that society was one without the “scourge” of Jews and other undesirables – therefore, elimination of the undesirables, which fit the expectation of the Nazi society, was “good”?
PS- I hate to trot out Hitler, but it’s the clearest counterexample in modern history that I can think of.
Does this apply to Nazi Germany? The expectation of that society was one without the “scourge” of Jews and other undesirables – therefore, elimination of the undesirables, which fit the expectation of the Nazi society, was “good”?
It was “good” to the Nazis, yes. That is the point I was making; there is no such thing as “objectively good” because that would mean “good without a criterium.” Something can be “good” based on a set of criteria — for instance, if your criteria is, “I want to exterminate a bunch of Jews and homosexuals and other minorities,” then you would probably consider the Nazi society to be “good,” as I’m sure a lot of Nazis did.
Naturally, the viewpoint of someone who does not share this belief will differ. Who’s to say who is “more right?” In this case, it seems that who is “objectively right” is a diversionary discussion at best; I don’t care if genocide is considered “objectively good” or by what source, I am still opposed to it and will/would act as such.
See, the very reason why we cannot have “objective good” is because anything that anyone comes up with, in a moral sense, can be argued against/for. For example:
Dude 1: “I think killing people is okay.”
Dude 2: “I don’t think so at all!”
1: “Why not?”
2: “Because it’s wrong!”
1: “I don’t believe that. I think it’s right.”
2: “But life is sacred!”
1: “I don’t believe life is sacred.”
2: “But it is!”
1: “I don’t believe you. Prove it.”
2: “God gave us life, and we should respect that!”
1: “(a) I don’t believe that’s true, and (b) even if it was, I still think killing people is okay. Why should God get to set the rules?”
2: “Because He created the universe!”
1: “So what? If I create a baby, do I get to say what it does with its life, or with other people’s lives?”
2: “That’s pro-creation, that’s different!”
1: “How so?”
2: “God created everything!”
1: “So what? How does that entitle Him to control what He creates?”
2: “He could do whatever He wants; He’s God!”
1: “So He’s only good because He’s powerful?”
See, this argument could go on forever and ever and ever, and there would never be a rational point at which we could stop either party and say, “No, you’re objectively, demonstrably wrong!” As long as the inferences are based on the information given, we have a logical progression of ideas. And since no idea is flawless, there will always be at least one “flaw” to each point made for or against God, the significance of which can be argued by either party to determine whether or not it “compensates” for the point as a whole; is the flaw enough to undermine the point altogether, or is it a “necessary evil?” This is not an objective matter — it’s a matter of opinion, a matter that can only be answered based on what is important to the individual being asked — and thus it cannot be answered objectively. Any answer received is going to be based on what is important to that person, subjectively.
The difference between this and logical or mathematical or physical “laws” is simple; logical laws are not answered based on preference or importance. Example:
Dude 1: “2 plus 2 is equal to four.”
Dude 2: “I don’t believe that; numbers are an invention of man. Without numbers, math couldn’t exist. So math can’t objectively exist!”
1: “Alright, try this:
X and X
plus
X and X
is equal to
X and X and X and X
Is that true?”
2: “I guess so. I mean, XX + XX = XXXX, yeah.”
1: “Then you see, four is just the name we give to the amount. The amount as a concept does not objectively exist, no, but the objects themselves do exist. If we add them together, we have more objects. Even if we don’t know how many, we know that we have more — we know something has changed — and so numbers are an invention of man to describe this change.”
So in the most basic sense, it is not objectively true that “2 + 2 = 4,” because “2″ and “4″ do not objectively exist….but it is true that XX + XX = XXXX, if we assume that X is a real object. So “2 + 2 = 4″ is simply the title we give to the description of an objective change in mass — a change that occurs no matter what any of us think. If a person who denies this change decides to try and make a further change, his/her final result will be different because the law stands even if it is not supported by man. If you add 2 to 2 and claim it will be 5, it will still be 4. If you take two dollars and add three to it, claiming you will have five dollars, and then you take it to the store and try to purchase five dollars’ worth of something, it will not work because you still only have 4 dollars.
Objective morality does not abide by this rule. There is no change to which we can apply this “law” you speak of. Let’s assume “homosexuality is wrong.” How can this be proven? What change in the world can we describe using this terminology? And no, I don’t mean “gay marriage caused hurricanes and wars,” I mean something in the world that changes, that this terminology describes, that justifies the phrase in its entirety. Likewise, there is no way that this law can enforce itself — there is no way that this law can, in and of itself, prevent someone from breaking it. If it can be broken, it is not a law in the scientific sense, simple as that.
If you take two dollars and add three to it, claiming you will have five dollars, and then you take it to the store and try to purchase five dollars’ worth of something, it will not work because you still only have 4 dollars.
That should say, take two dollars and add two more to it….my bad 0_0
P.S.
I guess a better version of the XX + XX = XXXX example would be to assume that person 2 denies that this is the case; that XX + XX = something other than XXXX. This can be said, and this can be argued, but it cannot be proven. In fact, it is demonstrably false; for if person 2 were to try and perform any action that would require XXXXX (or “5X”) with only XXXX (or “4X”), it would not be performable, whether or not person 2 accepts that he only has 4X.
Tim D.,
I follow your point mathematically. But I don’t think that either of us thinks morality = math.
I do think, however, that there is something objectively wrong with the Holocaust, despite what the Nazis claimed was “right.” I would say that even the Nazis knew it was wrong to exterminate those people, as they intentionally set out on a campaign to redefine Jews and others as less than human (sound familiar?) before they went about the business of genocide. This is one of the major reasons, it seems to me, that the trespassers were not acquitted at the Nuremburg trials.
Basically, I think, that’s where we differ. I do not think that it coheres with our own moral intuitions about the real world to say that right and wrong are constructions of our own making (or society’s making).
Part of the confusion, I think, comes from the fact that there is not a “list moral rules” that I can name. This, however, is not the point. The point, I believe, is determining whether or not “good” and “evil” actually exist in any objective sense or if “good” and “evil” are matters of opinion.
I do think, however, that there is something objectively wrong with the Holocaust, despite what the Nazis claimed was “right.”
I agree that it was wrong. When I say I don’t believe it is “objectively so,” what I am saying is that it was not wrong “just because,” or intrinsically, or due to its own inherent “wrongness.” I think it was wrong because of the consequences it brought, because of the total disregard for the rights of others, and because it built the foundation for a fascist, dictatorship society — an anthill, so to speak, based solely around populating and outfitting a “superior race,” and in doing so apparently established a criteria (and a faulty one at that, I might also argue) for what makes human life “valuable.” Basically, I think it was wrong for a reason….a reason that coincides with my worldview, and is therefore subjective and not objective. For if I held a different view, I would not feel the same way anymore. I am not aware of anything outside of my mind that is causing me to feel this way.
This, however, is not the point. The point, I believe, is determining whether or not “good” and “evil” actually exist in any objective sense or if “good” and “evil” are matters of opinion.
I could tell you I believe they exist, but that wouldn’t be enough to prove that they do; that would merely be an expression of an encapsulated worldview (my own), not an objective observation of the world beyond my perception. I believe there are things that can and should be identified as wrong, in accordance with my views. But that does not necessarily mean they are so. In turn, that does not mean that I am bound to act as though they aren’t condemnable.
Tim D.,
I believe there are things that can and should be identified as wrong, in accordance with my views. But that does not necessarily mean they are so. In turn, that does not mean that I am bound to act as though they aren’t condemnable
I agree that people who think that morality is subjective can and do make judgments about marol issues. What I don’t understand is what sort of force does their opinion hold if morality is subjective? Especially if one is cognizant that morality is subjective, it seems like respect for the other person’s opinion would win the day. What does one do when opinions clash? Seems to me that we do, in fact, judge some worldviews morally superior to others. (It also seems that if this is just a function of which worldvhe most adherents, then the minority can never be “right” about anything.)
Again, if there is a “superior” or “inferior” aspect to any worldview, it seems that there is a real (objective) moral good and a real (objective)moral evil.
That should say :
(It also seems that if this is just a function of which worldview has the most adherents,…
“what sort of force does their opinion hold if morality is subjective? ”
What force does their opinion hold if it’s objective? Exactly the same!
“What does one do when opinions clash? ”
Again, what difference does the objective/subjective argument make to this? Opinions clash either way.
It doesn’t hold any more weight, objectively. It is up to the person (or people) who hold the morality to make the case for it, in hopes that enough people will agree to acknowledge it or enforce it.
What does one do when opinions clash?
Debate.
Seems to me that we do, in fact, judge some worldviews morally superior to others.
True; we do.
(It also seems that if this is just a function of which worldvhe most adherents, then the minority can never be “right” about anything.)
I don’t know if I’ve said it before in this particular topic, but I’ll say it now; I’ve never made the case that the number of adherents decides whether or not something is “right” or “wrong” in any sense, much less in an objective sense. Something only has as much value to a person as that person chooses to ascribe to it; if you want other people to value your morality, it’s up to you to convince them and it’s up to them to choose whether or not to accept it based on the evidence/reasoning you offer.
Again, if there is a “superior” or “inferior” aspect to any worldview, it seems that there is a real (objective) moral good and a real (objective)moral evil.
True, if there is a truly superior or inferior aspect to any worldview. The problem is finding grounds on which to say such a thing about any particular worldview; there simply are no such grounds.
True, if there is a truly superior or inferior aspect to any worldview. The problem is finding grounds on which to say such a thing about any particular worldview; there simply are no such grounds.
My problem with this, Tim, is that it doesn’t seem to work with basic human intuitions about right and wrong. I hate beating the Holocaust horse to death, but if if there truly is no superior or inferior aspect to any worldview, then there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust. In my experience, though, I’ve never really met anyone who doesn’t gasp in shock and horror when he or she sees a picture of emaciated bodies stacked up like cord wood.
Andrew,
“What does one do when opinions clash? ”
Again, what difference does the objective/subjective argument make to this? Opinions clash either way.
I agree that opinions clash. And when they do, we naturally adjudicate between worldviews to decide which is morally superior. But what does that mean, really, if no worldview is morally superior?
(Just for example, from previous posts, you seem to think that disagreeing with same-sex marriage is a morally inferior postion to accepting same-sex marriage, but what does it matter if all positions are morally neutral?)
“But what does that mean, really, if no worldview is morally superior?”
1) For a start, I don’t see how positing a God helps you. Then you’re just arguing about whose God is right. In fact this makes the matter worse as it moves beyond any concept of ‘fairness’. If one group’s God says that they have the moral right to attack other nations, then you can’t even reason with them without blaspheming their God.
2) You don’t need a God to argue that your ‘worldview’ is more coherent than another, or less self-contradictory, or allows the most benefit for all, or contributes more to the sum of human happiness. Surely you don’t need a God to argue that a worldview based on lies is inferior to one based on truth and evidence? Or that a worldview that ends in everyone dying is inferior to one where everyone gets to live peaceful, happy lives?
3) How does positing a God create an ‘objective morality’? How do you know you are following a just God? For all you know, you could be taking your morality from a tyrant God. If you say that you KNOW he’s a just God, then you are either judging him good by his own standards, in which case it’s a circular argument (He’s good because he claims to be), or you are using your OWN criteria, in which case you don’t need him in the first place.
Andrew,
1. My point is that “fairness” doesn’t exist unless there is an absolute standard of “fairness” or “justice” by which to judge. The concepts of “fairness” or “justice” make no sense at all if they are just rafts floating on the sea of moral relativism.
2. The concept of a “peaceful, happy” life for me might be one in which I terminate all who disagree. Is my brand of peaceful, happy life just as moral as one in which we all cohabitate with no conflict?
3. Here are couple of logical sylologisms exist to defend objective moral law:
1. If moral laws exist, there is a Moral Law-Giver.
2. Moral laws exist.
3. A Moral Law-Giver exists.
————–or———————————————————-
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
A few comments on this second syllogism by William Lane Craig, which explain the premises and offer a solution to the Euthyphro dilemma :
By objective values and duties, one means values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion. A good many atheists and theists alike concur with premise (1). For given a naturalistic worldview, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and morally neutral in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions?
Premise (2) might seem more disputable, but it will probably come as a surprise to most laypeople to learn that (2) is widely accepted among philosophers. For any argument against objective morals will tend to be based on premises that are less evident than the reality of moral values themselves, as apprehended in our moral experience. Most philosophers therefore do recognize objective moral distinctions.
Nontheists will typically counter the moral argument with a dilemma: Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The first alternative makes good and evil arbitrary, whereas the second makes the good independent of God. Fortunately, the dilemma is a false one. Theists have traditionally taken a third alternative: God wills something because he is good. That is to say, what Plato called “the Good” is the moral nature of God himself. God is by nature loving, kind, impartial, and so on. He is the paradigm of goodness. Therefore, the good is not independent of God.
Moreover, God’s commandments are a necessary expression of his nature. His commands to us are therefore not arbitrary but are necessary reflections of his character. This gives us an adequate foundation for the affirmation of objective moral values and duties.
I hate beating the Holocaust horse to death
Feel free to stop at any time 0_0
but if if there truly is no superior or inferior aspect to any worldview, then there was nothing wrong with the Holocaust.
There isn’t in an objective sense. If you believe there is, all I ask is for you to provide evidence that this “rightness” exists independently of human thought. It is my firm belief that, without the human mind (or the mind of another such rational creature, hypothetically speaking), the concepts of right and wrong would not exist at all. Mathematics, logic, these things do not exist in a literal sense, either….however, they describe changes in the world (physical changes) that do exist independently of human thought. So what is it, exactly, that these words, “right and wrong,” describe in the world? What change do they refer to that exists independently of our minds?
Or do you perhaps mean to imply that there is no such change? In which case, it makes no sense to say they are “objective” in any sense; they are then no more reliable than a feeling or an intuition.
In my experience, though, I’ve never really met anyone who doesn’t gasp in shock and horror when he or she sees a picture of emaciated bodies stacked up like cord wood.
This reminds me of the argument that all people instinctively divert towards sexual intercourse, given the right motivations. It’s programmed into our DNA; it’s how we’ve survived this long. Such a reaction is standard to one who isn’t exposed to such imagery every day (which most people aren’t).
Perhaps I should be more specific….I can rationalize that murder and rape and violence and that sort of thing are generally to be avoided. These things can be explained, and so I’m not really worried about whether or not they are objectively “wrong” — even if I discovered that they weren’t, I would not feel any more inclined to carry them out, because my priorities as a social human being would drive me against such behavior at every possible turn; my decision not to engage in them is not based on the idea of their “inherent wrongness,” but rather the consequences they bring about to myself and to others. I’m more interested in things like the idea that homosexuality is (in itself) “immoral.” The sort of thing that cannot rightly be defended by straight rationality (no pun intended~); things whose consequences cannot be argued so clearly.
But what does that mean, really, if no worldview is morally superior?
It means absolutely nothing; it means there is no “outside perspective” that monitors our behaviors; it means that the only people who can decide right and wrong are people themselves; it means there is no supreme authority who can step in and make things “right.”
Basically, it means that nobody cares if you and I disagree except for the people who care that you and I disagree. It means that there isn’t an audience watching this exchange, pushing for a certain outcome. It means that we think what we think, and we enforce our beliefs….and that’s it.
(Just for example, from previous posts, you seem to think that disagreeing with same-sex marriage is a morally inferior postion to accepting same-sex marriage, but what does it matter if all positions are morally neutral?)
I can’t speak for anyone else, but let me make it clear that I do not defer to the position that it is somehow “objectively morally superior” to take one of those approaches over the other. I do not. I believe that one is “right” and one is “wrong,” but that does not make it objectively so in the truest sense (that I believe it to be so); that simply means I believe it to be so, and will behave accordingly. And no outside force will intervene with my belief to force a certain outcome, as would be the case if I were denying the laws of physics (as shown in the 2$+2$=5$ example). It means that it just is, and that even our moral beliefs do not transcend our being; our perspectives are not outside of this macrocosm of “is-ness,” but simply a part of it.
And on a side note….what does anything “mean,” really? If I were to take the statement and say, “this is objectively right….” what does that mean? What is the significance of my thinking this? Does the fact that I feel this way make it right? Or could it be that my thoughts have no significance at all, and do not affect the “real” outcome?
I sense an argument from consequence in there; that if we assume a lack of OM, that our thoughts and morals cannot transcend our being and become “significant” in an objective sense. I agree that this is basically true; but does that negate its possibility? I do not think it does.
“1. If moral laws exist, there is a Moral Law-Giver.”
Not at all. One could perhaps argue that the CONCEPT of a law-giver is a necessary requirement for humans to believe in moral laws, that people must first BELIEVE that a law-giver exists before they can treat their own values as objectively true. But even here, it is clear that the law-giver Himself doesn’t actually have to exist.
I’m sure someone’s brought up your William Lane Craig quote before. It’s odd that he claims torture is natural in the animal kingdom. Name me ONE animal outside of humankind that tortures. Rape is also far less common in animals that rear their young as couples. It has become taboo among humans because it is damaging to the species. But this is a side point, because pretty soon Craig says:
“…God wills something because he is good.”
Back to square one: this is no answer. Define good – either you are using your own criteria to judge God’s goodness, in which case you are ‘in the same boat’ as atheists in using your own values, or you are judging God by his own standards, in which case your argument is circular. I explained this last time Justin, and Craig’s explanation doesn’t address it at all. I’m edging to the conclusion that you have no answer.
So again, how do you know you’re not following a tyrant God? Is there any act that a tyrant God could perform that would give him away?
“The concept of a “peaceful, happy” life for me might be one in which I terminate all who disagree. Is my brand of peaceful, happy life just as moral as one in which we all cohabitate with no conflict?”
Well, seeing as seeing as your ‘peaceful life’ interferes with the lives of others, from a purely cold, logical, non-theistic perspective, your lifestyle obviously contradicts the dictionary definition of the word ‘moral’.
However, if one was looking at your lifestyle purely from a THEISTIC viewpoint, one could easily find a biblical justification for you being more moral, especially if ‘terminate all who disagree’ refers to slaughtering those who worship the wrong God. eg The Prophets of Baal.
So unfortunately for you, your example actually supports my point, not yours, that positing a God actually makes it HARDER not easier to resolve the issue of morality.
Well, seeing as seeing as your ‘peaceful life’ interferes with the lives of others, from a purely cold, logical, non-theistic perspective, your lifestyle obviously contradicts the dictionary definition of the word ‘moral’.
Andrew, I didn’t ask if it fit a dictionary definition (which probably includes the terminology “good” or something similar in it), I asked if there would be anything WRONG with it. The answer, if morality is relative, is no.
Craig’s explanation defeats the Euthyphro dilemma because he speaks of goodness as being part of the ontological nature of God, not a description of God. You might reject it asnot likely, but this is possible, and it is an acceptable alternative.
. Name me ONE animal outside of humankind that tortures
Have you ever seen a cat play with its prey before it kills it? There’s one animal that I can think of readily.
Cats have no awareness of the mouse’s suffering. They play with it the same way they play with a stuffed toy.
“Craig’s explanation defeats the Euthyphro dilemma because he speaks of goodness as being part of the ontological nature of God. You might reject it asnot likely”
Justin, I reject it because he doesn’t answer the question!
Unless he can explain what goodness MEANS, then he’s not saying anything at all. If goodness is just defined as what God IS, then, for the third time, it’s just a circular argument. It says nothing about His nature unless you know what GOOD means. Is there any act that would mean he wasn’t good? If not, then it’s meaningless to apply that label to him.
Someone wrote:
“I’d be interested if there’s any arguments in this book that:
a) Didn’t used to be used to argue against interracial marriage”
Oh my, this old chestnut. Name one argument against same sex marriage that COULD be used against interracial marriage, that’s the real challenge. Just think about this challenge for a moment: Those who were opposed to interracial marriage still believed that it was possible for a back and a white to actually be married. It would be a real marriage. But their problem was that they thought it was morally wrong to mix the races.
In the case of the same-sex marriage issue, people who oppose legal same sex marriage take the stance that such a union is not a genuine marriage since marriage is constituted by the union of a man and a woman.
I realise the emotive and rhetorical advantage being sought by those who want to compare the advocates of traditional marriage to bigots and racists. But your comments really need more than rhetorical strength to warrant serious consideration.
Andrew,
It occurs to me that perhaps you are right about the cat. Does this same analysis apply, though, when you talk of other evolutionary aspects of animals? On another thread (I think the one about life beginning at conception) you’ve attributed many human emotions to animals – how they defend their family and species because they value their offspring and value members of their species, etc. Could it be that this is just reading into the animal behavior? Seems to me that evolution can only explain an “is”, not an “ought.” It is descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Human morality, however, is prescriptive. (People “ought not” torture, for example.)
“Name one argument against same sex marriage that COULD be used against interracial marriage… Those who were opposed to interracial marriage still believed that it was possible for a back and a white to actually be married. It would be a real marriage.”
Glen, arguments against same-sex marriage are nearly identical to those used to condemn “inter-racial” marriage. Discrimination against both have been justified by tradition based on “natural law”, and the opponents of both types of marriage have used the Bible to justify legislated discrimination. Both have attempted to add to the Constitution words governing which types of marriage the state may sanction, yet both claim their efforts to exclude certain types of citizens from marriage are somehow “non-discriminatory”.
Legal arguments used claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral in order to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection under the laws.” Judges insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites “equally.” Sound familiar? Just like the asinine comment that gays are just as able to marry the opposite sex as anyone else.
At any rate, what do you mean by ‘it would be a real marriage’? Anything that is legally allowed as marriage is by definition ‘a real marriage’. You can go throught the ceremony of a marriage, but if you haven’t divorced your previous spouse then the second marriage isn’t legally recognised. It isn’t a ‘real marriage’. In the same way, if a black man married a white woman in Virginia 50 years ago, their marriage wouldn’t be recognised by the state. It wouldn’t be ‘a real marriage’. To quote old Virginian law:
“All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.”
The only new argument added to the mix is ‘gays can’t have kids’. And yet, as pointed out several times before, no-one suggests that women be disallowed from marriage after the menopause.
‘Could it be that this is just reading into the animal behavior? Seems to me that evolution can only explain an “is”, not an “ought.” ‘
Evolution explains why we feel the need to find an ought. With other animals it seems that instinct plays a much greater part in their behaviour, but isn’t really sufficient in explaining the very real mourning that a gorilla, for example, displays on the death of a mate or child. Our brains are undoubtedly far more complicated than other animals, we’ve developed culture, and complex emotions. These also are an offshoot of our evolutionary developement.
But Justin, I don’t really know what you mean by this ‘is/ought’ business – I’m saying we’ve evolved to feel that we OUGHT to do things. Or we feel we ought to do things based on our values.
Where do our values come from? I guess from a combination of our innate nature (evolution again), our environment or culture (the ‘zeitgeist’) and our upbringing. What is certain, as I’ve said many times, is that God is no answer as the originator of our values. Because you still need a set of values to choose God over Satan in the first place.
I just think it’s odd that anyone uses the term “redefining marriage.” If we hadn’t re-defined marriage before now, then blacks and whites would not be able to marry one another — back in the day, “marriage” was defined at first as “a union between a white man and a white woman,” and then later to “the union between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman.” Only after multiple “re-definitions” of marriage did we come to what we have now.
So if one is opposed to “re-defining marriage” in this manner, then one would have to challenge even the idea that interracial marriages are allowable, would he/she not?
I’m curious as to what kind of response this will get.
Tim, what you say here is simply incorrect. You are wrong to say that those who opposed interracial marriage defined marriage as a union between people of the same ethnicity. They did not. They acknowledged that it was possible for a black man and white woman to get married. They accepted that this would meet the definition of marriage. Their problem with these unions is not that they weren’t marriage, their problem is that they thought it was *wrong* to mix the races. See the difference?
Andrew, you don’t quite see the point here. Those who wanted to ban marriage between blacks and whites did NOT claim that this would violate the correct definition of marriage. By contrast, this is the principal claim believed by many (most?) who oppose legal same sex marriage. So the nature of the argument is fundamentally different.
Your attempted comparison fails when you say: “Judges insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites “equally.” Sound familiar?”
Yes it doesn’t but that wasn’t an argument in favour of miscegenation laws, and nor is it an argument against re-defining marriage to allow for same sex unions to be classed as marriage. Again, I understand the appeal of such comparisons – oh to be able to elevate your cause to the same moral status as opposition to racism! But the trick doesn’t work.
When I said “real marriage,” I meant that even those who thought that interracial marriage was (morally) wrong because it’s bad to mix races, they still considered that it met the definition of marriage. By contrast, those Christians who oppose legal same sex marriage believe that the law is literally incorrect when it declares two men married, because such Christians believe that marriage is a divinely ordained institution that literally excludes same-sex unions by definition.
“Those who wanted to ban marriage between blacks and whites did NOT claim that this would violate the correct definition of marriage.”
To quote old Virginian law:
“All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.”
Oh to be able to seperate (sic) your cause from same moral status as racism! But the trick doesn’t work. Unlucky.
Tim: “I’m curious as to what kind of response this will get.”
Denial, Tim. What else were you expecting?
Glen: “such Christians believe that marriage is a divinely ordained institution that literally excludes same-sex unions by definition”
Right, just like Christians 40 years ago argued that verses from the bible forbade inter-racial marriage. I’m still not seeing the difference Glen.
Andrew, well I’ve lead the horse to water but I can’t make you drink. One last time: While those Christians may have believed that inter-racial marriage was wrong, they still thought it was actual marriage. One last time, the issue here is that Christians believe that a union between a man and a man is not marriage. Those people you are talking about DID think that an interracial union could still actually be a marriage, but they also thought that such mixing was wrong.
You are getting confused, and I am not sure if it is feigned or not. Those racists laws voided such marriages – i.e. considered them nullified. They were *prohibited*, but this is not the same as saying that they were not even marriages. Interracial marriages were forbidden, but were still regarded as actual marriage.
Do you yet see the difference? If not, I give up. Either you’re just not able to make distinctions, or you’re being less than honest. Either of those scenarios makes any further attempt to explain this to you a waste of your time, and much more vitally – my time.
Tim, what you say here is simply incorrect. You are wrong to say that those who opposed interracial marriage defined marriage as a union between people of the same ethnicity. They did not. They acknowledged that it was possible for a black man and white woman to get married. They accepted that this would meet the definition of marriage. Their problem with these unions is not that they weren’t marriage, their problem is that they thought it was *wrong* to mix the races. See the difference?
It’s a technicality; they’re both laughable reasons at best, and they both rely on claims of unsupported “immorality” to get the point across. How are their ideas that mixing races is “immoral” any different than this idea that not mixing genders is immoral? The point is that then, they believed something was immoral that we do not now. The grounds on which it becomes immoral are ultimately irrelevant to my poin.
Again, I understand the appeal of such comparisons – oh to be able to elevate your cause to the same moral status as opposition to racism! But the trick doesn’t work.
It does as far as I’m concerned; the thread that separates them is too thin for my tastes.
The grounds on which it becomes immoral are ultimately irrelevant to my poin.
*point
P.S.
Perhaps I should clarify slightly….back in the day, religion made what was accepted as a sound case for racism. People used their religion as a tool to support racism and to deny interracial and black couples the right to marry. Later, this was refuted, even though no new evidence was discovered; the same passages they used to support slavery and racism are still in the Bible. Nothing has changed except the way we interpret them. Before it was believed to be “immoral” to allow blacks to marry each other or whites, and now it is not; it has been deemed that, in spite of any perceived “immorality,” the idea of loving and respecting everyone for their innate qualities takes precedence over what color their skin is. I feel that we are in the same situation now, with homosexuality.
And as for your claim that they thought it was immoral to mix races….perhaps that explains the ban on interracial marriages, but how would you explain the ban on marriages for black couples? There is no interracial quality there, no mixing of races. In fact, from a Christian perspective, he/she who is not married cannot have sexual intercourse and reproduce, and so to forbid blacks to marry would actually seem like an attempt to force them into extinction by preventing them from reproducing (because if they did, it would be a “sin”).
“Those people you are talking about DID think that an interracial union could still actually be a marriage”
The quote plainly says that such ‘marriages’ were void. If it’s void, then it isn’t a marriage. It’s a little odd that you can’t understand this simple point. To paraphrase, you can lead a horse to water, but I can’t make you think.
Also I find it amusing that you go from “Christians believe that…” when you’re talking about people who share your opinion, but switch to “Those people you are talking about…” when talking about Christians who held views now viewed by society as being objectionable. They were CHRISTIANS, using the same holy book to justify stopping one group marrying as you try to use to stop another group.
Andrew, there’s a difference between “void” and “impossible by definition.” I think your slowness to grasp the point that I have made at least three times now is intentional. So be it.
Tim – laughable, you say. OK, so racism and banning same-sex marriage have that in common, they’re both silly, according to you.
Thanks for clarifying. In that case, you’re a lot like Stalin, since I disagree with both of you.
Tim – laughable, you say. OK, so racism and banning same-sex marriage have that in common, they’re both silly, according to you.
Is this an admission on your part that they do, in fact, share an important aspect?
Thanks for clarifying. In that case, you’re a lot like Stalin, since I disagree with both of you.
Umm….alright, I guess 0_0 So we have that in common, we both disagree with you. I’m not sure I get where you’re going with this….
P.S.
Not that it’s that important, but I noticed you didn’t answer my question, either….
Andrew,
To clarify the “is/ought business” – I believe that there is a real difference between “good” and “evil.” It is not just a matter of us “dancing to our DNA”, nor is it just a matter of our upbringing or evolutionary sophistication (if such a thing exists as evolutionary sophistication.) I also reject that the difference between “good” and”evil” is simply a difference of opinion, no matter how strongly held the opinion is.
The explanatory power of evolution is limited to the descriptive. It can propose theories describing how things are and offer a possible explanation as to how things got that way. Evolution cannot, however, offer a prescription of how things ought to be.
Yet, it seems universal in human experience to me that we do have moral intuition about these”oughts.” The moral intuition of said “oughts”, in fact, is what this whole discussion of morality has been about.
Time says:
Is this an admission on your part that they do, in fact, share an important aspect?
Tim – it’s to point out that they have no actual things in common, other than the fact that you think both are wrong. When pressed for something that they have on common you end up admitting that my objection was correct (hiding behind calling it a “technicality” notwithstanding), and you resorted to saying that bans on interracial marriage on the one hand, and a male/female definition of marriage on the other are similar because “they’re both laughable reasons at best, and they both rely on claims of unsupported “immorality” to get the point across.” According to you, naturally.
So in the end they have nothing in common after all, and yet you never concede anything. never mind that your previous bluster has now been put to rest, just soldier on as though all your previous rhetoric has contributed to something.
Are you going to keep dishonestly comparing those who define marriage as a male/female union to racists? Or are you going to go fishing for some other dishonest rhetorical trick? Time will tell.
As for your question about black couples, you’ll have to supply the information please. if you are referring to the cases that I think you might be referring to, then the legal reasons were tied – not to the definition of marriage – but to property rights connected to slavery. But again, you will need to supply the info yourself. I will wait.
Oh, and Tim, I would really suggest *obtaining* info before replying. It’s somewhat off topic, I know, but check out the fact that while southern *states* didn’t recognise the validity of black marriages, in fact many southern *churches* did. As Blassingame and other scholars have noted, white *churches* in the south were primary support for black slave families.
But back to the topic – you come up with the goods. Supply the law about black unions not being recognised, and then we can look at the reasoning and see how it differs majorly from the dispute before us here about whether or not marriage is defined as a male/female union.
“Yet, it seems universal in human experience to me that we do have moral intuition about these”oughts.” The moral intuition of said “oughts”, in fact, is what this whole discussion of morality has been about.”
Right, and I’m saying that what you call ‘moral intuition’ is a feeling that has evolved, in the same way that we have evolved to have a fear of heights, snakes etc. I don’t see why you keep coming back with ‘but where’s the ought?’. The answer is that the only ought comes from the feelings that you have evolved to have.
Glenn: “there’s a difference between “void” and “impossible by definition.”
What difference is that then? They called it ‘void’ BECAUSE it was impossible by definition.
We’ve answered you question several times. You asked what arguments are shared by both groups:
1. Arguing that the bible rules against it – “Here’s a bible verse that clearly shows God wouldn’t agree with it”.
2. Arguing that the rule against it is not discriminatory as it affects everyone equally – “Everyone can still marry the person of their own race/ person of the opposite gender”.
3. Arguing that removing the law would ‘redefine marriage’, the ‘slippery slope’, which effectively boils down to “Hey, if we start letting all consenting adults who love each other to marry, what’s to stop a man marrying his 5-year-old daughter!”
Your “Void/Impossible by definition” reply is just playing semantics. It doesn’t help your cause to say people are slow if they can’t grasp the difference.
When pressed for something that they have on common you end up admitting that my objection was correct (hiding behind calling it a “technicality” notwithstanding), and you resorted to saying that bans on interracial marriage on the one hand, and a male/female definition of marriage on the other are similar because “they’re both laughable reasons at best, and they both rely on claims of unsupported “immorality” to get the point across.” According to you, naturally.
The reason I called it a laughable techicality…..think of it like this. The government recognizes straight marriage and grants tax credits and legal status to someone who is married. The government does not recognize same-sex marriages in the same way. Therefore, straight couples are receiving legal benefits that gay couples are not. This sends the message that the government is “endorsing” straight couples, while “invalidating” gay couples, saying that they cannot marry for whatever reason.
Ergo: gays are denied the legal ability to marry.
Now, going back to an age when blacks couldn’t marry one another….
The government recognized white marriages and granted tax credits and legal status to people who were married. The government did not recognize black/interracial marriages in the same way; such marriages were considered “invalid” and not recognized by the government. And since black people were slaves in the earlier cases, they had even fewer legal rights; almost none, actually. This sent the message that the government was “endorsing” white marriage, while “invalidating” black/interracial couples, saying that they cannot marry for whatever reason.
Ergo: blacks are denied the legal ability to marry.
Gays can get married. They do it quite frequently (although not as frequently as they would, I think, if it were an actual legal statement instead of a legally meaningless ceremony); the only difference is that it is not acknowledged by the government. The only difference here is the government’s definition of “marriage;” it doesn’t matter what marriage is about or what the point is (to bring two loving individuals together to produce or adopt children and raise them in a loving and nurturing manner — show me how a gay couple is not as inherently capable of this as a straight couple), the technicality of “but it’s between a man and a woman!” is said to overrun all of the other aspects of marriage. If we say that marriage is invalid solely on the grounds of the same-sex couple….then marriage is not sacred at all, for we have reduced it to a union of two separate genitals, not two human beings. By making the statement that same-sex couples are only less valid than straight couples on the grounds of their gender, one reduces it to a matter of gender. Just as, back in the day, it was reduced to a matter of race.
So in the end they have nothing in common after all, and yet you never concede anything. never mind that your previous bluster has now been put to rest, just soldier on as though all your previous rhetoric has contributed to something.
Ai yai yai….did you really expect me to concede to a point like that? Perhaps if you misunderstand some of what I say, or it seems invalid, you could point out that which seems invalid? Cut straight to the point? These vague statements don’t really work for me; I mean, they’re pretty, but I have no idea what you’re talking about exactly.
Are you going to keep dishonestly comparing those who define marriage as a male/female union to racists? Or are you going to go fishing for some other dishonest rhetorical trick? Time will tell.
Well, as for the racism: yes, I will, because I see it as a valid comparison (explained above). To say that “they allowed them to marry, they just thought it was immoral” is not very much of a stretch from, “they’re not allowed to marry because it was immoral.” And besides, the “difference” between interracial marriages and gay marriages you outlined for me still does not apply to black couples marrying during the slave era.
As for the fishing and rhetorical tricks, etc….I don’t really need to do any fishing; I have all of my ideas right here, ready to be picked at/analyzed/what-have-you to your heart’s content~
Oh, and Tim, I would really suggest *obtaining* info before replying. It’s somewhat off topic, I know, but check out the fact that while southern *states* didn’t recognise the validity of black marriages, in fact many southern *churches* did. As Blassingame and other scholars have noted, white *churches* in the south were primary support for black slave families.
I will supply information if it becomes necessary. In the meantime, it doesn’t matter; now, there are also churches that support same-sex unions, even though the government does not. With all due respect, I am not arguing as to whether or not your religious doctrine condones same-sex marriage; I could not care less. I am arguing as to why the state does not allow it. Another striking parallel with interracial/black marriages not being respected in the slavery era, this argument that “the church acknowledged it, even if the state didn’t.” If that is satisfactory grounds for you to say that black marriages were “justified” in the day, then why do we need a law to allow the government to allow straight marriages now? According to what you’ve said here, it seems that all that matters is that the church recognizes marriage, not the state. It’s very easy to trumpet that against a party whose marriage is not recognized legally, when yours is.
P.S. As for the nonsense about it not being descriminatory because everyone is still treated equal: I believe it was Brown v. Board of Education that said “separate but equal” is unconstitutional?
P.S. I just noticed that I typed this:
Well, as for the racism: yes, I will, because I see it as a valid comparison (explained above). To say that “they allowed them to marry, they just thought it was immoral” is not very much of a stretch from, “they’re not allowed to marry because it was immoral.”
Although I’m aware you’re trying the case that it’s wrong because it can’t be so by definition, it’s clear to me that this ties in to the idea that it is immoral to do so because it supposedly defies the definition of marriage.
Hey Glen, I just clicked on your link. You’re exactly one day younger than me! Not exactly relevant, just wanted to say it.
Tim, you say that same sex couples are denied the right to marry, and black couples / interracial couples were denied the right to marry. If you’re trying to establish that neither are/were able to legally marry, there’s no need. We both agree on that.
Where we differ is the basis of such discrimination. It was claimed here that the same reasons that ban same sex marriage also ban interracial / black marriage. My point has been that this is not the case. The reasoning involved in black marriage was to do with slavery and property rights, as well as beliefs about whether or not it is morally right to mix race. On the other hand, as I have noted, the reasoning involved in the same sex marriage debate is about the definition of marriage.
But you continue to demonstrate that you do not see the issue here. You say that you understand that it’s a matter of definition, but then you positively prove that you don’t realise this. You show this as follows:
Gays can get married. They do it quite frequently (although not as frequently as they would, I think, if it were an actual legal statement instead of a legally meaningless ceremony); the only difference is that it is not acknowledged by the government.
Do you see there where you actually assert that what same sex couples have is in fact marriage? That’s actually what’s in dispute. You need to come to terms with the fact that – even though you say they are mistaken – the opponents of same-sex marriage are claiming that in fact such unions ARE not marriage and that is why the state should not recognise them as marriage. This is where the debate differs from that about interracial marriage.
I have been as blunt as possible about what I have been repeatedly saying, therefore I dismiss your comments about me being “vague.” Try harder to follow.
You add:
Although I’m aware you’re trying the case that it’s wrong because it can’t be so by definition, it’s clear to me that this ties in to the idea that it is immoral to do so because it supposedly defies the definition of marriage.
I am not saying that same-sex marriage is wrong because it’s impossible by definition. Indeed, such a position would be crazy. it’s a bit like saying “having a four wheeled tricycle is immoral because it’s impossible by definition.”
On the contrary, the conservative claim is that the state should call it marriage because this would be a lie.
I understand that you do not agree with this, and you see that claim as mistaken, just like the moral claim about mixing races is incorrect. But one is a claim about morality, and another is a claim about what words mean.
I think part of the reason you’re getting mixed up is that conservative Christians DO believe that sex acts between people of the same sex are immoral acts. But try to appreciate the distinction between that belief, and the belief about whether or not same sex unions count as marriage.
Errata:
“On the contrary, the conservative claim is that the state should call it marriage”
should read:
“On the contrary, the conservative claim is that the state should not call it marriage…”
Do you see there where you actually assert that what same sex couples have is in fact marriage? That’s actually what’s in dispute. You need to come to terms with the fact that – even though you say they are mistaken – the opponents of same-sex marriage are claiming that in fact such unions ARE not marriage and that is why the state should not recognise them as marriage. This is where the debate differs from that about interracial marriage.
I am full aware of this claim….my problem is that Christians claim to have a monopoly on love unions. “Marriage” is not a strictly Christian concept; it was around before the days of the Bible, even. As such, gays who want to get married don’t always want to do it on religious grounds; some of them just want their unions to be recognized so they can obtain the legal rights that come with marriage, that make their lives easier should they choose to adopt children or enter into business together, for example. It’s a bit sarcastic and dishonest to try and make the argument that “gays marrying doesn’t fit the definition of marriage” because even if that’s the Christian definition of marriage, that has no grounds whatsoever as far as the law is concerned. Call it marriage, or call it hoop-dee-la, or call it squiggity-squoo, I don’t care; a union is a union, despite whatever nomenclatural semantics one might bring into the equation, and Christianity simply does not have the monopoly rule to decide what unions are “right” to the extent that they can force it upon others.
I understand that you do not agree with this, and you see that claim as mistaken, just like the moral claim about mixing races is incorrect. But one is a claim about morality, and another is a claim about what words mean.
Therein lies the problem: Christians are angry about same-sex marriages because not everyone adheres to the same “definition” of marriage that they do. Love unions cannot be claimed by any religion; it’s hubris to make the claim that any one can. You can take male-female sexual union and call it one thing, and you can try and define it however you please, but that doesn’t mean that a same-sex union can’t also exist. Your only argument is that they “call it marriage when it is not.” That’s a semantic argument to me; the point is not that they want to be “married” in the sense that the word itself is important; the point lies in the consequences of that union, and the circumstances it brings about. The word itself is completely and utterly irrelevant.
P.S.
And so, marriage in the sense that it is intended (in the homosexual case) is actually quite possible, despite the assertion that it is “by definition impossible.”
I agree that the argument being presented here is mere semantics. Marriages is a legal thing in the eyes of the state – it can be redefined like any other law. The limits of that law should be along the lines of adult consent, not gender or race.
I find it a bit rich also that Glen is married, and I’d guess happily so. And yet the happiness he gets from his marriage is something he seeks to deny others.
Tim: “Christians are angry about same-sex marriages because not everyone adheres to the same “definition” of marriage that they do.”
Tim, you should qualify that this refers to SOME Christians. Not all Christians can be tarred with the same bigoted brush. My mother is a Christian, but would never stand in the way of an inter-racial couple marrying, or a gay couple marrying [She differed with my father on the latter issue]. When I asked her why, she pointed out to me that Jesus instructed as to love each other, and never spoke out against homosexuality at all. “What about Saul?” I asked. “Saul never even met Jesus,” she replied.
Right, and I’m saying that what you call ‘moral intuition’ is a feeling that has evolved, in the same way that we have evolved to have a fear of heights, snakes etc
How do feelings or fears evolve?
The same way everything else evolves! Why not get a book on evolution out your local library?
Tim, you should qualify that this refers to SOME Christians. Not all Christians can be tarred with the same bigoted brush.
You’re right about that; how ironic, my mother is also Christian!
She’s actually the only reason I’m not completely opposed to Christianity as a whole; she’s kind of living proof (to me, at least) that you don’t have to be completely disconnected from reality and kindness to be a Christian.
P.S. To anyone who’s interested; I had a conversation (see: mild argument) with a woman at work today (a co-worker who also happens to be black and Evangelical) about this very issue. It went pretty much like this discussion has gone, except that when I came to the part about comparing gay marriages and interracial marriages, she brought up that interracial marriages shouldn’t be carried out because God said not to mix the races.
Any opinions on that? I’m not 100% certain of the details, but I know I’ve heard something to that effect before, on a TV preacher’s show.
The same way everything else evolves! Why not get a book on evolution out your local library?
That, my friend, is pure class~
Andrew,
Feelings and fears are emotions. So, are you saying that emotions evolve? How do scientists go about proving that? Though I’m not opposed to reading a book on the subject, if you have any insight as to this, I would appreciate it. Or if there is a book that you have read on the subject, a one or two sentence summary would be kind. (Not, of course, on the theory of evolution of species through natural selection of genes – the physical world – I’m talking about the evolution of emotions.)
I agree that the argument being presented here is mere semantics. Marriages is a legal thing in the eyes of the state – it can be redefined like any other law. The limits of that law should be along the lines of adult consent, not gender or race.
Andrew, Sorry I missed this in my last comment.
What limits would you put on the adult consent clause and, if any, why? (I’m thinking along the lines of plural marriage, age, family relation, etc?)
Tim says, “A union is a union.” Fantastic. And quibbledeeboo is quibbledeeboo.
You continue to engage in circular reasoning, by appealing to “gays who want to get married.” If the Christians are right, then what those homosexual persons want is not to get married at all. They want the state to bestow a blessing upon their union and call it marriage.
Do you now concede that the comparison to those who oppose interracial marriage is without a sound basis, or are you yet to provide some line of reasoning that will bolster this useful comparison?
Andrew, nice try with the cheap shot about my intention being to deny people happiness. Rhetorical force, logical vacuity. How’s that working for you?
“Andrew, nice try with the cheap shot about my intention being to deny people happiness.”
If the shoe fits Glenn… So how is your intention to deny people happiness working out for you?
“They want the state to bestow a blessing upon their union and call it marriage.”
And if the state did that, then they would be married BY DEFINITION.
“Or are you yet to provide some line of reasoning that will bolster this useful comparison?”
Glenn, yet again, we’ve answered this question several times:
You asked what arguments are shared by both groups
1. Arguing that the bible rules against it – “Here’s a bible verse that clearly shows God wouldn’t agree with it”.
2. Arguing that the rule against it is not discriminatory as it affects everyone equally – “Everyone can still marry the person of their own race/ person of the opposite gender”.
3. Arguing that removing the law would ‘redefine marriage’, the ’slippery slope’, which effectively boils down to “Hey, if we start letting all consenting adults who love each other to marry, what’s to stop a man marrying his 5-year-old daughter!”
Tim says, “A union is a union.” Fantastic. And quibbledeeboo is quibbledeeboo.
Well, at least we’re being mature about it~
You continue to engage in circular reasoning, by appealing to “gays who want to get married.” If the Christians are right, then what those homosexual persons want is not to get married at all. They want the state to bestow a blessing upon their union and call it marriage.
The term “gay marriage” is a lot like “flying car.” If pressed, one would argue that “cars can’t fly, so a ‘car’ is not a flying automobile by definition.” However, it is theoretically possible for a car to fly, so it is not entirely impossible. This idea that the term “gay marriage” is some kind of mind-bending oxymoron is just silly to me….it reeks of dishonesty.
Do you now concede that the comparison to those who oppose interracial marriage is without a sound basis, or are you yet to provide some line of reasoning that will bolster this useful comparison?
Nope. From what the Christians around me tell me, the Bible says not to mix races. So actually, there’s just as much of a basis in there against inter-racial marriages as there is against gay marriage. I don’t see how you can be for one and against the other, Biblically speaking.
Andrew, nice try with the cheap shot about my intention being to deny people happiness. Rhetorical force, logical vacuity. How’s that working for you?
And yet you don’t offer any counter-argument against the idea that that’s exactly what you’re doing….
Justin: “What limits would you put on the adult consent clause and, if any, why? (I’m thinking along the lines of plural marriage, age, family relation, etc?)”
What age limits would I put on adult consent? Well they’d have to be adults, obviously! As suggested by the term ‘adult consent’. No to family relations as it risks inbred children. Plural marriage would raise complications from a legal perspective – one of the legal advantages of marriage is to make transfer of property and money clearer after one partner dies. This wouldn’t help if there were more than two members. Other reasons too, but my time is limited.
“Feelings and fears are emotions. So, are you saying that emotions evolve?”
Yes. They are chemical, they can evolve just like anything else that is biological. Your brain isn’t like a room where a homunculous sits and just ‘feels sad’ when something bad happens. Chemicals are released when you feel different emotions. It’s possilbe to restrict or increase those chemicals and you’ll feel more or less of a particular emotion.
eg1, Alchol inhibits the ‘guilt’ chemicals. You feel less inhibited when you’re drunk and often feel unaccountably guilty the next morning as all those guilt chemicals flood your brain (regardless of whether or not you actually misbehaved).
eg2, There are many species whose brains will release a fear chemical if they smell lion droppings. These can be animals that have never come across a lion.
As a kind of related subject, which I include not to convince, but just because I find it fascinating, have a google about the Western Gull bird. Try: Western gull peck red stick
‘Take a good look at the face of a western gull and you will see a small, bright red dot on its beak. Chicks are born instinctually knowing to peck at this spot when hungry, which stimulates the parent to regurgitate food for them. This instinct is so strong in chicks that they will peck at rocks or sticks with dots that look similar to the “pecking spot”.’
You could say this is God making the baby birds be able to identify their mothers. But experiments suggest otherwise:
“Niko Tinbergen, a famous behaviorist, constructed a number of cardboard dummies simulating the heads of adult herring gulls. Only one of the dummies was made to look exactly like the head of a gull; all of the remaining were altered somewhat. All of the dummies had red spots painted on them, although some were put in ridiculous positions.
Tinbergen then tested the reactions of newly hatched gulls and found that all the dummies worked. The chicks would peck at the red spots on any of the dummies regardless of the position of the spot or the nature of the dummy. In fact he found that they would also peck at a small red stick that had no resemblance to a gull whatsoever.
On the other hand when Tinbergen presented to the chicks a dummy of a gull’s head that was perfect in every detail except for the lack of the red spot, THERE WAS NO REACTION.”
I’m always confused by this misconception that emotions somehow “transcend the physics of the universe;” as though, in a materialistic worldview, emotions do not exist. Where does this misconception come from?
“Where does this misconception come from?”
I think it’s an extension of the ‘God of the gaps’ argument. I find the evolution of emotions a fascinating subject. We are 21st century humans with iron-age brains. That is to say, our brains were forged over tens of thousands of years to cope with the problems of hunter-gatherers. The more we can understand this, the more we can understand why we are so poor at understanding modern problems.
Our forebears lived in small tribes over a hundred or so people. We never had to cope with numbers larger than a hundred. That’s why humans are so poor at instinctively grasping large numbers, or probabilities and issues that arise from living in cities of a million or so.
We have phobias about creatures that would have been dangerous for our ancestors, but are now not seen outside of zoos. Meanwhile we are poor at assessing modern dangers, ones we haven’t had a chance to evolve instinct fear of.
Time – do you know what a definition is?
It’s not true that by definition cars cannot fly. Othwerwise it would not be theoretically possible. The idea of a flying car makes sense, and is not at all like a square circle. So your reply simply fails.
And you said that I did not reply to the argument about my intention being to deny people happiness. That’s because it wasn’t an argument. It was merely a claim about my motives.
Is this really the limit of your ability to respond?
I’m always confused by this misconception that emotions somehow “transcend the physics of the universe;” as though, in a materialistic worldview, emotions do not exist. Where does this misconception come from?
Tim D.,
I’m not denying that emotions could be a part of a naturalistic world at all. However, if our emotions are totally controlled by chemicals, aren’t our thoughts also controlled by chemicals?
If emotions are simply by-products of chemical reactions, it doesn’t make much sense to me to hold anyone to any code of ethics whatsoever. If they cannot control their emotional state or their thoughts – they are by-products, remember, of chemical reactions in their brains – morality is a farce. We don’t throw people in jail because their skin reacts to a certain chemical in a certain way. Why do so if their brain reacts to a chemical in a certain way? There are no good or bad chemical reactions, just different ones.
Andrew,
The baby bird thing is interesting. I do not see how it would invalidate the concept of God creating that instinct (to peck at the red spot) in the baby birds, though. It seems to work just fine for the birds. Most of the time, it would be the parent of the birds who possess the red spot. Anyway, not that big of a deal, and interesting, indeed!
Taking a page from your book, I’ll throw this out not as an argument or proof, but simply some thoughts:
I think evolution uses the God of the Gaps argument. Evolutionists fill in “evolution” everywhere they accuse the theist of throwing in ‘God.” I think it is difficult to provide evidence for evolution of fears and feelings, which are non-material.
It seems also to me that evolution by natural selection is often altered in concept anytime something doesn’t fit the paradigm. Survival of the fittest is a rough, rude way to live. Sometimes evolutionists claim it’s a dog eat dog world and then they turn around and say that evolution accounts for altruism and self-sacrifice. (Then on to non-material things evolving like fears and feelings.)
I can’t personally even get over the huge leap of faith that naturalists take when they accept life erupting from non-life.
I also have massive problems believing that natural selection succeeded in creating all of the millions of new species that would have had to be created time when sexual reproduction must take place at some point in the chain for most of the myriad animals that exist. At some point, to be a distinct new species, they had to be able to mate with other animals of the same type that possessed the same mutation. Seems like an unlikely event. in all of the millions and millions of mutations that would have to take place to go from simple-celled organisms to what we have today.
Did you ever do the fruit fly experiment in high school? The one where you do some genetic mixing of fruit flies and crank out some mutants? You know what happens in that experiment? The mutants are all freaks. They are not better off, they are worse off. It always renders them incapable of flight or in some other way hindered. They would be immediate lunch for whatever predator came their way.
Time – do you know what a definition is?
I’m not sure if “Time” is, but yes, I am personally aware of the term “definition.”
It’s not true that by definition cars cannot fly. Othwerwise it would not be theoretically possible. The idea of a flying car makes sense, and is not at all like a square circle. So your reply simply fails.
Not at all; think of it used in casual speech. When we use the term “marriage” in the somewhat-archaic slang of “union” — i.e. a “marriage of ideas” — the idea that is carried over is the idea of a union, not the idea of “man and woman.” In fact, this was a non-issue until not too long ago — not because “everybody understood it was between a man and a woman,” but simply because people’s minds had never been opened to the idea before.
To say “square circle” makes no sense because being a square cancels out being a circle. You’ve yet to prove how the term “marriage” is universally acknowledged to be “between a man and a woman.” That’s the spin the Christian leaders put on it; what worldly reason can you give me to restrict that definition?
And you said that I did not reply to the argument about my intention being to deny people happiness. That’s because it wasn’t an argument. It was merely a claim about my motives.
If that’s the case, then we should probably disregard everything that’s been posted about the “homosexual movement” in that other topic, shouldn’t we? It is, after all, one giant claim about the motives of not one person, but an entire demographic of people.
I’m not denying that emotions could be a part of a naturalistic world at all. However, if our emotions are totally controlled by chemicals, aren’t our thoughts also controlled by chemicals?
Why, yes. Yes they are. Think of it like this; the way a robot receives signals from the space around it and converts it into data that can be processed and used to determine which action should be carried out and when/how, is very similar to the way we work (although we are many times more complex). Without physically interacting with the world around us in such a way — without reducing it to basic chemical reactions — it would be impossible to interact with the world using any of our five senses. Put simply, without these chemical processes, we could not function in any meaningful way.
If emotions are simply by-products of chemical reactions, it doesn’t make much sense to me to hold anyone to any code of ethics whatsoever.
I think this is only because of the skewed Christian definition of morality; the idea that, if I can’t prove it to someone, it must be useless; I have a lot of beliefs that I will defend if pressed, but I can’t confirm them to be objectively true (i.e. I like certain music). Does that mean they are meaningless? Does that mean I have no basis for my claim? No, of course not; it just means that you might not agree with my claim. Am I obligated to respect your opinion, should you disagree, in that I am obligated to acknowledge it as a valid opinion? Of course not, although in that particular case I probably would (because the result is insignificant to me). But on a matter such as, say, murder….I don’t see what the problem is here. There are reasons to say that murder should not be allowed, and a large amount of them can be concluded without inferring a religious deity.
Basically, you seem to say, “but how do we prove that people who disagree with us are wrong?” When that is not the point at all; that is only a problem if you assume that is the task you are charged with. It is not about proving anyone wrong; it is about doing what you think is right. People who disagree with you about issues of right and wrong (such as murder) will do what they will do, regardless of what you say, if they disagree strongly enough; this is no different in grand matters than in simple ones. I do not live my life bent on convincing others that their ways are “wrong” and mine are “right;” we have simply “agreed to disagree,” so to speak, and I have pledged to carry out my ideas whether or not they are reconcilable with those of the other party. They have done the same thing. The result is called conflict, and it is a natural course of events. Humans will never live in perfect harmony because we are all different and we all have opposing ideas; our ideas will clash from time to time. And so you see why it is not hard for me to hold ideas that run completely counter to yours (for example), and believe in these ideas, and yet not think you to be necessarily “wrong” for believing them; your problem here lies in the fact that you define “wrongness” in objectivity.
When you boil it down, nothing really is “right” or “wrong” outside of our brains, or the inferences we make, or the value we attribute to things and people; there is no physical component that these things describe. There is nothing except what we believe; and so there is no need for a right and wrong in that sense (please hold the Hitler references until you’ve finished reading this whole post, if you don’t mind~). The idea of “objective right and wrong” is only necessary if we pretend that it is necessary; it’s a paradox.
If you can answer this question, then you can prove me wrong: Why do we need right and wrong in an objective sense? What can right and wrong do, objectively, that right and wrong in a subjective, evolutionary sense cannot do? For those of you who plan to trot out Hitler again, let me tell you: for every Hitler there is a non-Hitler to oppose him. There will never be one single dominant course of thought at any time in human history (never has been, never will). There will always be dissent at the genetic, emotional and political levels, even if it is not widely publicized. So the wrongs and rights of humanity will always run counter to each other, whether or not they are objective — for every “wrong” humanity produces, it is mathematically possible (and likely) for it to produce a “right” as well by that same process, because the process is indiscriminate between right and wrong. Why, then, do we need objective morality? What does it accomplish that subjective morality does not? How does it make the physical world any different than subjective morality does? What does it change in the world that subjective morality does not?
I think evolution uses the God of the Gaps argument. Evolutionists fill in “evolution” everywhere they accuse the theist of throwing in ‘God.” I think it is difficult to provide evidence for evolution of fears and feelings, which are non-material.
But it’s just that — feelings and fears are not immaterial. They are directly controlled by synapses in the brain; when you feel a sensation, that is simply your brain telling you that you feel this way. You do not choose to feel this way of your own accord; something triggers that reaction in your brain, your brain processes it and determines the appropriate response, and sends you the impulse that changes or amplifies your mood. This is not my case here; this has been proven for quite some time before now, IIRC. There is no ‘magic feeling fog’ floating around in your brain, if that’s what you’re getting at. It’s for these reasons that people who feel depressed, for example, cannot simply “choose to feel better;” they are not in complete control of their own emotions. They are simply reacting to the emotions that their brain gives them. We don’t always understand what our brain is reacting to in context — because the reaction can be very complicated, or in response to something so minute and discreet that we aren’t aware of it — but it’s still there, and the chemical reaction is still taking place.
I can’t personally even get over the huge leap of faith that naturalists take when they accept life erupting from non-life.
Assuming it is such a leap to do so (which I would debate to an extent)….how is that any different than the idea that life came from nothing at all? I would think that to be even less believable; at least non-life has the capability to produce life; “nothingness” does not have such a capability. And if God exists and He created the universe, then He did it from nothing — for nothing was there, according to the Bible.
P.S.
A better example of emotions and feeligns being tied to physicality; when someone suffers from an emotional or mental disorder that causes them to have rampant, uncontrollable feelings, or when a drug causes mood swings/paranoia/terror in a person….this is a result of chemical reactions. If feelings and fears were intangible, then it would not (theoretically) be possible to influence them physically, because they would remain constant beyond the extent of physical or chemical means. But when your brain dies, your emotions and your feelings die as well, along with your memories. If these things are all tied to the functionality of the living brain….what part of us is there left to survive the death of our brains? What part of our essence is not stored there?
Some would say “the soul;” but I ask, what does this soul encompass? It has no feelings or sensations, for those reside within our brains and are left behind when we die; it is meaningless for such a soul to exist without feelings or memories; it would simply be a disembodied mass, wandering purposelessly in an ethereal state with no awareness of itself or of anything else; it would be “dead,” just as our brain would be, and so to suppose its existence would defeat its own purpose.
“Survival of the fittest is a rough, rude way to live.”
Justin, you see a contrast between ‘survival of the fittest’ and people explaining altruism through evolution. This is only because you may misunderstand the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’. The word fittest just means ‘best fit for the environment’, it doesn’t mean that the strongest or most vicious animal is always going to survive. Rabbits are a huge success story, and are gentle creatures.
It makes perfect sense that the ‘fittest’ in an environment will be a community that helps each other out. One would expect altruism to be a sucessful survival strategy for a species.
I’m not trying to convince you there’s no God, as I don’t see the concept as being mutually exclusive with evolution, or with not holding bigotted views. All the Christians I know both understand and accept evolution and manage to hold enlightened views on race and gays. I have no argument with them.