In their new book Atheists, Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer shed light on the religious, social, and political values of the atheists in our midst.
Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers
by Bruce E. Hunsberger & Bob Altemeyer
Prometheus Books (June 2006)
Ppbk., 159 pgs.
ISBN: 1591024137
If you are expecting me to launch into a diatribe about people who do not believe in God or religion, forget it. I don’t much care what anyone believes so long as they are not trying to convert or kill me for what I believe. Unfortunately, history and our present times are a testament to the way religion has proven to be the justification for slaughters of every description.
Atheists is a groundbreaking study conducted by Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, recently published by Prometheus Books and a slim, paperback volume best read by people such as psychologists, sociologists, and those interested in religious studies. Hunsberger was a professor of psychology until his death in 2003 as is his collaborator, Altemeyer, who teaches at the University of Manitoba. They had previously collaborated on Amazing Conversion: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Religion.
To my surprise, virtually no studies have been conducted to determine why people become atheists. Most of us are aware of atheists only when one of them institutes a lawsuit involving the separation of church and state. The notion that children cannot pray in school, as do lawsuits to remove “One Nation Under God” from our coinage or to remove a religious symbol from display tend to annoy a lot of people.
Religion in American life became a hot political issue when the Supreme Court permitted abortions under the penumbra of “privacy” rights. It flared up again as a right to die issue, but again the courts ruled this was a private matter to be determined by individuals, family and the advice of physicians. It drives the debate about same-sex marriage. Despite the passion of the Religious Right, these issues, for good or ill, appear to have been settled in the minds of most people.
While America’s Founding Fathers all believed that religion served a useful purpose for the maintenance of a civil, secular society, they all knew well of the evils that ensue from too much church involvement in the affairs of state. They took care to protect freedom of religion, but also to create a form of government in which religious values might inform legislation, but not be “established” as a requirement of citizenship.
For the Founding Fathers, you could be a good American even if you did not believe in God. This is a good idea considering that two out of three American adults do not go to church every week. At 32%, those Americans who do attend church still outnumber the 20% in Canada and the 14% in England. By most definitions, America remains a nation in which religion plays a role in people’s lives, even if they are not active in either church or synagogue.
As the West either loses or ignores religious faith, the Middle East, the cradle of three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is a cauldron of religious fervor, pursuing an Islamic Jihad throughout its own region and exporting it in the form of terrorist attacks worldwide. Westerners are baffled and angered by a “religion” for which war and murder is a duty.
We have far less to concern ourselves when it comes to atheists. Indeed, one trait they tend to share in common is a saintly tolerance for all lifestyles including homosexuality, though “the rise in apostasy in the United states has occurred primarily among persons with weak ties to organized religion who have been driven from their faith by the behavior of the ‘religious right,’” according to the study.
Atheists are people for whom the teachings of religion simply do not make any sense. Burning bushes, resurrection, the trinity, life after death, heaven and hell, are illogical by atheist standards. Science, however, is based on the logic of reproducible results and, not surprisingly, atheists have a great fondness for science, noting among other things that there are many more galaxies than the one in which we inhabit a tiny planet.
Almost always arriving at their rejection of religion on their own, atheists tend to keep their views to themselves. The study found that atheists are more self-aware and more resistant to conformity than others. They also tend to excel at critical thinking.
“Religion’s big enemy in losing the battle for these minds proved not to be Satan, but its own scriptures, its various teachings, and its history,” say the study’s authors.
As best as can be determined, only 3% of Americans are atheists. What matters most to them is their personal integrity. They are, almost by definition, the least authoritarian of groups you can find and the least likely to attempt to convert someone to their views.
The common perception is that Christian “fundamentalists” are growing by leaps and bounds, but those in America who identify themselves in this fashion peaked in 1987, and their numbers have since dropped to 30% of all Christians by 2004. Of any religious group, fundamentalists are those least liked by atheists.
Interestingly, American atheists are more likely to object to abuses of power by government than most people. A “Born Again” President such as George W. Bush is viewed as a danger to our constitutional system by atheists, as are members of Congress for whom religion is a determining factor in law making.
Conservative and Libertarian political values, smaller and less intrusive government, fiscal prudence, laissez faire capitalism, and individualism would seem to suit most, but not all, atheists better than some form of socialism or one-world government philosophy.
Whether we want to or not, all Americans and other Westerners find themselves locked in a life and death struggle with the newest religion on the world scene, Islam, barely 1,400 years old and a strange conglomeration of things borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity, but mostly reflecting the warring society of Arab tribes in the seventh century AD. It, too, has devolved into many sects, all convinced they possess the “true” Islam as cobbled together by the self-proclaimed prophet, Muhammad.
One can only imagine what atheists make of this insanity, but whether for God or nation, both or neither, we shall be fighting for our lives for decades to come.
Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers is available on Amazon.com.
At least if you’re going to criticize religion, use some of that science and reason that atheists profess to love so much.
Wikipedia’s list of military conflicts lists 489 wars. Only 53 of these wars – 10.8 percent – can really attributed to religion.
In actuality, evil people will use whatever excuse they can find to perpetrate their evil.
The idea that Athiests are the least authoritarian of all groups is ludicrous. With the never ending attacks on school districts, small towns and the like for simply showing images that they dislike, they prove to be one of the most authoritarian. While seeking to remove any image that offends them, they then complain of censorship when the government stops funding their anti-religious art (see crucifix in a jar of urine or the dung covered virgin Mary).
The “War Between Religion and Science” is really just athiest tripe, as the two coincided nicely within some of our geniuses like Einstein. It wasn’t until athiest scientists wanted to disprove religion that this “war” came about. In the debate between ID and evolution, neither of which are provable science, it’s the athiestic evolutionists who decry their opponents and call it “religion taking over science”. The ID proponents are generally civil. So yea, it seems pretty clear that athiests want their views shoved down our throats.
Athiests, being leftists, are also more prone to socialism than most. The ACLU, which represents a lot of athiests, tends to push a pretty socialist agenda to the table.
And contrary to the assertion that our author lazily made, while people may have made up their minds on abortion, there has been a pretty fierce battle for decades, with the pro-life forces gaining ground. It’s hardly settled in the collective mind of America. And the nation is decidedly against gay marriage, no matter how much the author insinuates to the contrary.
In short, this essay is based on a foundation of sand. Almost all the points put forward by the author are easily disproven, and are little more than “rah rah athiests” reporting.
The contention that wars tend to be the domain of people of religious conviction while “we have far less to concern ourselves when it comes to atheists” is absurd. The wars of the 20th century – histories bloodiest – were all started by atheists. Do the Nazi’s and Communist’s ring a bell? And Clauzewitz may be surprised to hear that politics has taken a back seat to religion as the primary motivator of warfare.
As far as science being the exclusive realm of non-believers is concerned, I’ll remind you that Einstein and Newton were both very religious and God fearing men.
I know this isn’t strictly on point, but I can’t resist repeating my thoughts about athiests in general —
If an atheist believes that nothing created the universe, and we cease to exist on any level once we die, then he believes, inessence, that the contents of my cat’s litter box has the same intrinsic value as he. They both exist as the result of a natural process, and will both degrade back into their base elements at some future point in time. Neither has any inherent value in its own right (i.e., a soul), though each does possess a set of different characteristics. The turd can’t talk, but the atheist can spout sh*t, and that’s really the only thing that separates them when you look at this on a cosmic level. Since the universe created itself, and man grew out of that creation, there is no role for God. If there is no God, then there is no morality independent of what man himself creates.
I’m convinced that most atheists arrive at the conclusion that there is no God by confusing the concept of God with the practice of a specific religion. If you don’t believe in the Holy Trinity, or that Jesus was the literal Son of God, then God literally doesn’t exist. If all this Messiah business and the prohibition against eating pork is a bit too much for you to swallow, then God must not exist. Or perhaps you think that Allah isn’t everything he’s cracked up to be? Then you hope to God that you’re living in the U.S.A. instead of the Middle East so you can become an atheist, instead of becoming dead.
But we’ve got to keep our eye on the prize instead of being dazzled by all the twinkling lights. In the final analysis it doesn’t make any difference if we “guessed” right about Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, the chubby little oriental guy the Dali Lama worships, or his lady friend with those waving arms and hands over there in India. God either exists or he doesn’t, regardless of whether any individual religion got the details right or wrong. The fact that science is improving our understanding of how things work on earth and throughout the universe doesn’t mean that “figuring something out” must automatically translate into “God doesn’t exist.” I know next to nothing about cars. However, if I came across a disassembled one and, with some trial and error, was able to piece it together so as to understand the fundamental relationships of its constituent parts, it wouldn’t deny the existence of General Motors. So I figured it out? And even though I still don’t know what that little piece over there really does, I can start the thing and make it run. I can even make predictions about its operation and functioning that are proven true, like an empty gas tank mean ‘it won’t go no mo.’ We call this knowledge. The fact that I understand something doesn’t make me its creator. It just makes me wiser
Posts 2 and 3 about sum it up.
As a non-authoritarian ideology, atheism has affected our country far more than religion in the past century. A country that began with the 10 commandments posted outside courthouses and Chaplain-led prayer before congressional sessions has now become a country where government employees cannot wear a crucifix around their neck unless it is hidden underneath a shirt and where children are forbidden to pray in school or use the name of God in their graduation speech. It’s also been this same non-authoritarian group that has led the PC charge so that if I say in a public forum that I don’t believe in affirmative action, I’m literally risking life and limb. Atheism today is every bit as much a political powerhouse as the Catholic church was in the middle ages, and every bit as ruthless and dogmatic.
And as far as science, atheists are so obsessed with science because it is their overriding goal to try to disprove God. Scientists are the most ego-maniacal people you’ll ever meet, more so even than politicians. They’ve spent a lot of effort over the last hundred years convincing people that THEY are God, and they’re not going to relinquish the title. Never mind that the greatest discoveries in science were made by men who believed in God (no, not all “religious” men, not all Catholic church members, but men who believed in a creator, and in the Biblical God), while atheistic scientists have brought us truly great discoveries like global warming and made careers out of trying to prove at what stage the bio-chemical process of “being alive” takes place. Charles Darwin was an admittedly poor scientist, stemming largely from his inability to fully understand algebraic mathematics (his words, not mine). He wasn’t even the first person to propose a theory of evolution through adaptation (in fact, he was third or fourth, with his grandfather being one of the first), and he is literally worshiped even by modern scientists (if you don’t think so, check out a high school biology textbook). He couldn’t hack regular university training, so he attended Divinity school, and it was from here that he was sent on his famous voyage that yielded his crowning work. He wasn’t even trained as a scientist. The hero of atheism based his entire evolutionary theory on an incorrect perception of cell structure didn’t consider himself a very good scientist or mathematician, had no original ideas of his own and made no significant discoveries or contributions to science (even his evolutionary theory, if you consider that a contribution to science, was an old idea already proposed in the scientific community, which is why his work wasn’t ever “fully appreciated” in its time). But evidently he exhibited critical reasoning skills far superior to the man who conceived of the laws that describe the forces that affect all objects in our universe and form our entire understanding of physics. Because only people too simple to understand science believe in a “god”. Atheists are people who use science to make the universe too big to have a God, but too small to have any form of life more intelligent than that found on this one planet, of this one solar system, of this one galaxy in a universe that has trillions of each. Is that irony, or what? Science itself is their religion, and they believe in it with as pure and blind a faith as any Islamic suicide bomber in the Koran. They proselytize in its name with a tenacity unmatched by any religious sect. The words of scientists and the words of Allah are as equally true and unchanging to each respective group. It is the very same intellectual “crutch” they accuse religious people of using. So who’s the greater thinker, the religious man who unquestioningly believes in his God, or the atheist who unquestioningly believes in his scientist?
As an atheist I find this account accurate. I don’t know any other atheists and only one or two agnostics. I never argue about faith or even tell most
people that I am a non-beleiver. I do talk about my lack of faith with close friends. Martin Marti says that you never convince anyone through arguement, but sometimes in conversation.
Jerry
Not trying to split hairs, but I can’t let one minor point go unchallenged. In a couple of the above posts, it is mentioned that “…Einstein and Newton were both very religious and God fearing men.”
While Newton was, Einstein most definitely was not. This is a common misconception about Einstein most likely attributed to his use of the word “God” in a few famous quotes of his. His definition of God was not the common one.
Some careful research on Einstein will show that he was an athiest or at most an agnostic – defined loosely.
I too am an athiest. I am also a physicist. I find this article refreshing and I believe it to be accurate (at least as applied to me…). And proving God does not exist (as one person mentioned) is the farthest thing on my mind. I have more important things to do. As a matter of fact, I have never met a fellow scientist that has the desire to “prove God doesn’t exist.” Live and let live I say.
In the above comments, I see a severe contempt of athiests by those persons making the comments. I, on the other hand, have no contempt for the religious. I don’t understand why there is so much disdain. I would venture to guess that those making these comments don’t really know any athiests personally, and instead are consumed with reading each other’s hateful comments….
liwfz –
I assume that I am one of the people you refer to who demonstrates “severe contempt” for atheists. If it makes you feel any better, I have no personal contempt for individual atheists; only pity. [And yes, I do know people who say they are atheists.]
However, I do have contempt for any belief system that allows for morally relative thought. If there is no Creator, then there is no universal moral truth; just human consensus that assigns itself the status of morality (or worse, individual preferences that are assumed to be just as relevant as any other opinion).
Moral relativism does not require one to be an atheist, but atheism by its very nature requires one to be a moral relativist. If there is no God who installs a universal moral code, then all morality is, by definition, conditional. I wrote a long essay on this which you can find in the archives under my name: “What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?”
As for your other point, you don’t have to actively endeavor to “prove God does not exist” to lay the foundation for a morally relative social system that has an identical effect. Simply ignoring or disputing the existence of God (which is not the same as addressing the subject of religion) will accomplish the same objective.
By the way — to accuse me of “hate” somehow assumes that you, an atheist, can define “hate” in anything other than subjective, conditional terms. If there is no God to ultimately judge right and wrong, good and bad, then there can be no hate — only differences of opinions. The fact that I express mine strongly could be nothing other than a simple cultural manifestation that you have failed to consider and thus judged me in equally hateful terms as a cultural chauvinist, or a personal quirk as you perceive it, but not necessarily others. My relativistic opinions are just as valid as yours, and you cannot assign any value-laden, morality-influence characterization to them. Since man alone creates morality, then man alone decides what is hateful or not. If I get enough people to support my contention that you are the one expressing hate, then that’s the judgment we all have to accept.
Now do you understand why I referred to a talking cat turd to describe an atheist? Isn’t an atheist-based moral relativism fun?
Game, set, and match to Dr. Jackson.
One thing, Dr. Jackson. You said, “If I get enough people to support my contention that you are the one expressing hate, then that’s the judgment we all have to accept.” I submit that even this is an absolutist moral judgment. If indeed there is no absolute morality, then even a majority vote has no intrinsic superiority over any other moral position.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that relative morality cannot even be discussed on its merits, because it requires the use of absolute statements to describe it. It assumes an operating value system to make its assertions. Otherwise, how do we know if being “rational” is better than being “irrational?” Or that “live and let live” has some sort of moral value?
I was born and raised by Catholic conservative parents. It was not until my years in college that I began to question that faith and progressed over the years from a conservative Catholic to a liberal Catholic, to an agnostic, and finally to atheist. It was not an easy or pleasant transition. But I do firmly believe that I am a better (and happier) person for it.
I guess I just wanted to say that I agree with most of what the essay says as it pertains to me and all the other atheists or agnostics I know. I do have an extremely high tolerance for all beliefs and life-styles as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.
It is true that there are some atheists who insist on bringing forth lawsuits to remove religious symbols or pray from schools and public places. And their are some in history who have led wars or commited crimes against humanity. But they do not represent the majority of atheist. The same can be said for all the religions. In every faith (and even with those of us who do not have any) there are going to arrise people with a twisted understanding of that faith and use it as a justification to exclude, isolate, foster hate, or even attack those who do not share their faith.
Just as it would be true to write an essay that most Catholics are loving, caring, God-fearing people, who opening accept all people as God’s children. It would also be easy to tear that essay appart with examples of extremists who, in the name of Catholicism and exhibiting some twisted perverse morality, commited horrible acts.
The point being that I do believe the essay is mostly accurate when describing the majority of atheists. I just don’t think it is fair or wise to define any group (religious or not) by their most extreme elements and use that to demonize them.
jtwurth –
I’d be “happy” too if I didn’t have to worry about what God might say about my decisions. My happiness would extend all the way to the point of my death, at which time I would either (a) become very unhappy, having now realized that there are indeed consequences to my actions that transcend what other men think about them, or (b) remain firm in my belief that there is no God, and therefore no afterlife, and therefore no “me” anymore once I stop breathing (or in the case of Terry Schiavo, merely become inconvenient).
You’ve summed up very nicely one of the key differences between atheists and those who believe in God. Your mission in life appears to be “happy”. Mine, as a representative of the other side, is a constant search for what is “Right”, “True”, “Good” in a universal sense, because the definition and content of these terms comes from God. [Religion is not "God", so don't confuse me with a religious fanatic Jihadist.]
My happiness comes from knowing that my search makes me a better person, even if I don’t always live up to those Truths I discover because of my human failings. It grounds me, and gives my life a purpose beyond seeking my own “happiness”.
No one is demonizing you for being an atheist. We’re simply pointing out what the full implications and consequences of your actions and decisions are. Since as Mountain Man correctly pointed out, a relativist philosophy prohibits you from making absolutist judgments in any form, I ask you to withdraw your value-laden characterization that our side is “demonizing” you. In your world, our opinions are just as valid as yours.
We, on the other hand, will continue to call things by their proper name, because contrary to relativist logic, there are things that are universally “True”.
As a somewhat lapsed Catholic myself in terms of rituals and ceremonies, I can appreciate how you may have decided to move away from the trappings of the Church. No one is challenging you for that decision. But the “Church” isn’t “God”, and if all we’re really meant to do in this world is seek personal happiness, then I hope you don’t have any really attractive sisters, or daughters (or some recent parolee doesn’t find you “cute”), because I can fairly easily predict what their definition of personal “happiness” might involve.
Regards, Phil Jackson
Great discussion.
Jtwurth, you said, “I do have an extremely high tolerance for all beliefs and life-styles as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.” On what basis do you decide that tolerance, not infringing on the rights of others, not causing harm, whether against their will or not have any sort of merit? And on what basis would you be able to say that I should embrace these values?
If there is no God, then I should be able to do whatever I want, regardless of law, morality, and what others might think I should do or not do. Isn’t that right?
Hi Phil,
You wrote:
“However, I do have contempt for any belief system that allows for morally relative thought. If there is no Creator, then there is no universal moral truth; just human consensus that assigns itself the status of morality (or worse, individual preferences that are assumed to be just as relevant as any other opinion).”
I think it is silly to claim that if there is no God to judge us, then there can be no absolute morality or definitions such as that of “hate”.
What is wrong with the following statement by jtwurth?
“I do have an extremely high tolerance for all beliefs and life-styles as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.”
I think that is a pretty sound statement – and one that doesn’t require a God. Basically, “…do not infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.”
I might even add, “…do not unnesessarily infringe….” since there may be cases where it is necessary (e.g., as in a case of self defense).
What do we rely on when we have to make a snap decision without having the time to console our religion? Are we sure we can make the decision that coincides with our religious beliefs every time? I think we all, at some point, must rely on our “gut instincts” or whatever you want to call it from time to time. Whatever we call it, it’s an at-the-moment decision which in certain cases is most assuredly our “best guess” as to what is right. I would say we all are guilty of moral relativism.
You say;
“However, I do have contempt for any belief system that allows for morally relative thought. If there is no Creator, then….”
You must then have no contempt for the other creator-based religions of the world. I would like to know how you decided your’s was the right one for you. Unless God himself told you (but He’s keeping it a secret from me…), I would think you had to have used some of that moral relativism you spoke of….
Allow me to ask you some questions Phil;
Let’s assume God exists – a God worthy of worship (and this is a key point wouldn’t you say…). Some assumptions I would have of a God worthy of worship would be;
1. God would be the supreme ‘being’.
2. God would be just/fair/reasonable.
3. God would not ask of us anything which was impossible for us to do.
4. God would not ask of us anything which was unreasonable.
Would you agree with those? I understand the fourth is a bit fuzzy, but recall the lady in Texas that cut off her children’s arms because she believed God told her to do so… I think we can both agree that that would be an unreasonable request for God to make. Therefore, I would conclude that God did not tell her to do such a thing and so should she have. The point being, there are clear examples of “unreasonable”.
If you indeed do agree with the four assumptions on the character of God, then perhaps two corollaries may be;
5. God does not provide incontrovertable evidence for His own existence to everyone.
6. God would not expect all of us to believe that He exists since doing so without evidence would not be reasonable.
The fifth not being an assumption – but nonetheless, seems to fit the facts.
Cheers
On my comment about demonizing. I honestly was not directing that comment at you or anyone else on this post and I certainly wasn’t making the case that I feel like a victim who is made out as evil by those who believe in God. I was speaking in terms people of all faiths or those without faith making judgements about others. My use of the word “demonize” was probably out of line since I don’t believe anyone here was trying to commit character assasination. So I do withdraw.
I do want to respond though to your assersation that I only want acheive personal ‘happiness’. Personally I live my life (yes to find happiness) but also for the happiness of others. My personal philosophy in life is to have a positive impact on the lives of the people I know and the people I meet. Whoever I come in contact with I make an attempt to make their lives a little better. That might be only by offering them a kind smile or being patient in line when I can tell the person behind the counter is having a rough day. It doesn’t have to be much and while I am unsuccessful sometimes I would venture to say that the majority of the people who know me have favorable opinions of me and those closer to me would say they love me or know that I love them very much. So, yes, I do live my life seeking my own happiness. But I also seek the happiness of others. I believe you when you say you’re in search of what is ‘Right’, ‘True, and ‘Good’. But you derive happiness from that search. I also strive to know what is the right thing to do. I also want to learn the truth (not in a universal sense but on different subjects ranging from human nature to the origin of the universe) in so far as I can know it. I also strive to do good.
I live my life the way I do because I believe that by doing good (not only be refraining from acts of violence or intolerance but also by commiting acts of kindness and love) we will all be better off.
As for your comments regarding ‘Universality’ vs. ‘Relativism’ I can’t comment too much. I’ve been out of school for two long and probably wouldn’t be able to discuss it in depth. But I know many men and women have debated these philosophies for years so maybe I’ll read up. :).
In response to comment # 12;
“If there is no God, then I should be able to do whatever I want, regardless of law, morality, and what others might think I should do or not do. Isn’t that right?”
Mountain Man, that is just plain silly. I get the impression that fear of punishment is the only thing on your mind. Isn’t there any value in being/doing good for the sake of being/doing good??? Or must there always be a need for a reward/punishment involved?
Further,
“Jtwurth, you said, “I do have an extremely high tolerance for all beliefs and life-styles as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.” On what basis do you decide that tolerance, not infringing on the rights of others, not causing harm, whether against their will or not have any sort of merit? And on what basis would you be able to say that I should embrace these values?”
Do you like pain and discomfort? Or inflicting it on others against their will? What jtwurth said sounds a lot like something Jesus also said….
Why do these values have merit and why should you embrace these values…? Must we be told everything (by a preacher of scripture) or are there some basic intrinsic truths?
Plus, if religion is the solution for morality, then why are there so many crooked religious people including Christians? It seems even when God tells us what to do, we still have trouble interpreting it and doing it.
A better solution is not to need to be told what is right/wrong – but to do the right thing based on one’s principles – “I want to do good because I want to do good.” You may argue that we cannot do good if we don’t know what “good” is – but I think God would forgive us if we ultimately happened to make the wrong choice but we were sincere in our effort (unless God is unfair/unreasonable/unjust…).
cheers
liwfz
You continue to focus on religion when the question is about God.
As to your statement “Isn’t there any value in being/doing good for the sake of being/doing good??? Or must there always be a need for a reward/punishment involved?”, in the absence of God there is no absolute Good or Bad. It’s good to use your talents to invent something and make money in the US where capitalism is seen as something good, but bad to do this in Cuba or China where capitalism is seen as inherently evil. Your assessments represent nothing other than your personal point of view, which in your world have no greater claim to truth than Mountain Man’s, mine, or anyone else.
As for “fear of punishment”, I assume you are referring to the use of the term “consequences”. These also include rewards as well as punishments. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with punishments for bad behavior. The secular world does it all the time. Why, then, is it so strange to assume that the God who created the universe might not like it very much if your definition of happiness involves raping a five year old child? [Before you automatically assume that I am calling you a child rapist, read my article "What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?", where I use this example to prove the existence of a universal moral code independent of man-made actions, societal influences, or human genetics.]
Reading this article will also show you how silly the statement is: “A better solution is not to need to be told what is right/wrong – but to do the right thing based on one’s principles – “I want to do good because I want to do good.” You may argue that we cannot do good if we don’t know what “good” is – but I think God would forgive us if we ultimately happened to make the wrong choice but we were sincere in our effort (unless God is unfair/unreasonable/unjust…).” “Good” is not a relative concept, and yes God might get a tad upset if your own definition of good involved child rape, slavery, elective abortion, suicide bombers killing innocent people, etc.
liwfz,
It seems that you must have missed a number of intervening posts in this thread. Otherwise you would not be raising objections to issues we already have dealt with.
You said, “Isn’t there any value in being/doing good for the sake of being/doing good?” That is the question you need to answer, sir, because I enter the discussion firmly pursuaded there is. More to the point, how do you know what is of value without an objective standard? How do you know what is good and has value? Why should I accept your word or anyone else’s regarding what is good and valuable?
You ask, “…are there some basic intrinsic truths?” Again, this isn’t a question that I have to answer, because I enter the discussion asserting that there are intrinsic, unchanging, transcendent truths. It is the question we have put to you atheists, and we await your answer.
No, I don’t like pain and discomfort, but some people do. Are they wrong? Why?
As far as crooked religious people, how did you know, but for the fact of religious morality, that they are crooked? And, really, why can’t they go ahead and be crooked, if they have decided it to be moral for them?
We all act according to our principles, Ghandhi did, Hitler did, Mother Teresa did, and so did Pol Pot. Devotion to principle is a fine thing, depending on the principles, don’t you think? But you honestly think that God forgives us for following whatever principles we happen to make up for ourselves, as long as we were sincere?
Phil,
You wrote:
““Good” is not a relative concept, and yes God might get a tad upset if your own definition of good involved child rape, slavery, elective abortion, suicide bombers killing innocent people, etc.” while neglecting my belief of
“…do not unnesessarily infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.” Clearly, the list you gave doesn’t fit in with my definition.
Further, does
“…do not unnesessarily infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.” make sense or do you just think it is another man’s opinion. If it does make sense, then maybe not all “opinions” are equal. Indeed, not all opinions are equal. Have you forgotten about logic….
Mountain Man,
My questions were rhetorical, not directed at you. You are deriving your morals from religion/God. But how do you know you are right? Because a preacher told you? Because it says something in the Bible? Not everyone agrees on how to interpret the Bible. How do you know you of all people got it right? Do you really think that God would create us and not give us the ability to figure things out for ourselves? If he didn’t give us that ability, then how can we protect ourselves from others decieving us (either purposely, or perhaps because they honestly believe something which isn’t true)? Instead, I simply think we should let our God given reasoning abilities determine what is right and wrong. And anyone wanting to reply to that with an argument of “child rape, etc.” I would simply say not to be silly. Instead, if you really want to test my ability to decide what is right/wrong, give me a real question and I’ll try to answer it to the best of my ability using my principles.
We both can pull people out of history to suit our own arguments. Hitler for example. Do you really think that had he been Christian, things would have been different? Who knows? But I doubt it.
You wrote:
“As far as crooked religious people, how did you know, but for the fact of religious morality, that they are crooked? And, really, why can’t they go ahead and be crooked, if they have decided it to be moral for them?”
Simple. If they purposely infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will. See how simple that is? I went to see Benny Hinn once (I was asked to go…). For almost three hours (up until the time I left), I watched him prey on others saying the whole time how “…if you give to the Lord, you’ll get it back seven fold….” Never once did he do any real teaching of the scripture. And he made a lot of money that night. Yeah, I’d say he is crooked. Doesn’t require religious morality for that one.
Cheers
P.S. Please forgive any typos, my internet browser is not letting me read what I type…?
P.P.S. Any comments on my 6 assumptions about God’s character in comment # 13. Agree? Don’t agree?
I’ve known several in my time who professed themselves to be atheists, but only one who
I believe is truly an atheist. I say this because the “atheists” I have met, with the exception
of this one person, are all driven by an innate need to mock, ridicule, and deride both
religion and those who hold to it. They are not content simply to live and let live; indeed, the
possibilty that someone–anyone–could believe in a Supreme Being of any kind is simply
intolerable to them. For this reason, they conjure elaborately designed straw men, such as
the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster to “prove” that God could simply
not exist. Such irrational and frankly disturbing behavior drives me to wonder who they are trying
to convince, me or themselves. My hypothesis is that these “atheists” are simply rebelling against
the knowledge in their bones–knowledge that God is quite real and requires their obedience–
and are hoping that if they ignore God loudly enough, He will go away and leave them alone.
I am led to this conclusion by the venom and hostility that I have seen in bloggings by those
who are ostensibly atheist, by some of the more vitriolic bumper stickers for sale on their
websites, and by my conversations with those who profess to be atheist. Usually, they say that
they left the church or “lost their faith” following some indiscretion or evidence of hypocrisy
by a high-ranking church member. I am guessing, however, for these people it was not a
question of “faith,” but rather, they did not want to associate with whatever church they
were a part of, and were merely looking for an excuse to sever ties. Such people may not have
had any faith to lose, really. But knowing in their hearts that their rebellion is wrong, they
seek to make their cowardice into a virtue, all the while hoping to escape the wrath that
they are certain follows them. They may not exactly be masters of self-deception, but they
work very hard at it. I’m guessing that most professed agnostics are trying to escape God’s
wrath by not declaring opposition to Him openly, but only stating that there is insufficient
proof one way or another. This position is even more cowardly than rebellion, as it seems that
the professed agnostic is trying to curry favor with the winner without actively supporting Him.
The one atheist I believe truly does not believe that there is a God is a university professor who
is quite secure in his belief. He does not seek to convert anyone, nor does he ridicule those
who do believe. Being convinced, he seeks not to convince.
God scares me. I am frightened at the thought of a just, righteous God monitoring my activities.
But the thought of no God terrifies me absolutely. If there were no God, then human life would
be the most tasteless, meaningless joke in the universe…with no one there to laugh at it.
Concerning the question as to whether there is any value in being/doing good for good’s
sake, the answer is “no.” The Bible (Isaiah 64:6) says that “all our righteousnesses are as
filthy rags.” Though this particular message was to Israel, its principle is universally
applicable. This verse is usually meant to illustrate that human efforts to “be good” are
inadequate by themselves, but I wish to take the concept one step further: I submit
that an attempt to be or to do good apart from God is to say that we don’t need God to be
good. This is rebellion against God, and God’s prophet Samuel stated unequivocally that
“rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry (1 Samuel
15:23).” Anything that operates in opposition to God, even if it is itself good, works toward
evil.
lifwz
Re: “Clearly, the list you gave doesn’t fit in with my definition.”
It’s heartening to know that you, personally, don’t want to rape little children, enslave people, or electively abort developing human beings. But as we’ve been trying to point out, this discussion isn’t about you, personally. It’s about the implications of your belief system that there is no God, and therefore there is no absolute Right or wrong. The way you view the world as an atheist, there is nothing inherently right or wrong about any of these actions. If human consensus allows it, it’s okay. That’s the logic of your belief system, pure and simple. Without a Creator of the Universe who establishes what is right and wrong, then who are you to tell anyone that their actions are “wrong”, “hateful”, “immoral”, etc.?
Regarding your second point about “… maybe not all ‘opinions’ are equal. Indeed, not all opinions are equal. Have you forgotten about logic?” No, I haven’t. I’ve written extensively on this, as I’ve pointed out to you before. The logic of 1+1=2 is not the same logic as “I think capitalism, slavery, abortion, etc. is Good or Bad”. That “logic” relies on a value system which must be the product of man-made consensus, societal forces, human genetics, or the product of an innate moral code given to us by God.
I have no problem debating this issue with you and insisting that the last option — an innate moral code given to us by God — is the ONLY option. But to do this you have to at least read what I’ve previously written about this supporting my position. I don’t simply throw out words like “logic” and pretend that they mean something “universal”, and further assume that it in any way applies to the particulars of this discussion unless it is properly defined.
Your analysis that recognizing “hate” is a universally-understood concept, and therefore there is no need to have a God to provide this universality, is kind of silly, to be perfectly honest. I’ve already showed you by the example of capitalism and communism that “good” and “bad” can be misused when employed as relativistic terms. The same is true of “hate”. What you view as hate may be nothing more than cultural chauvinism. Or, it could be something universal. What makes the action either relative or universal? I’ve pointed to that mechanism in “What kind of Car would Jesus Drive to Take His Girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?” All you’ve done is give us your opinion without telling me what makes that example of hate “universal”. Again, before you glibly reply human consensus, social forces, genetics, etc, you’ll need to knock down what I’ve said about these issues. None of them rises to the level of assigning universality. The only thing left that does is God.
I’m not trying to be insulting to you, but your “gut instinct” references for understanding good/bad, right/wrong are extremely shallow. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but you’re just talking out loud here. This isn’t a serious analysis, just your “feelings”. And feelings are influenced by a lot of things.
Regarding your comment “You must then have no contempt for the other creator-based religions of the world. I would like to know how you decided your’s was the right one for you. Unless God himself told you (but He’s keeping it a secret from me…), I would think you had to have used some of that moral relativism you spoke of….” You obviously haven’t made any serious effort to understand what I’m saying. Not only does my analysis conclude that multiple religions are in fact a logical part of expressing the universal moral code that God gave us, you continue to talk about religion when the subject is God. They are not the same thing. Read my article.
You asked what I thought about your six questions. Your six questions are flawed because you don’t have any true frame of reference to ask your questions. God doesn’t necessarily “ask” anything of us at all. He gives us sentience so we can recognize that we are a part of a larger universe (unlike lower life forms). He gives us genetic potential and genetic deficiencies through the act of human procreation. He gives us societal opportunities and disadvantages through our interaction with other human beings and nature. He gives us a universal moral code that is part of our very being — read my article and understand what this means — and he gives us the free will to ignore it or follow it.
And when we die, He’ll ask us to account for the life we led. How did we use our talents, overcome our difficulties, interact with our fellow human beings and the world we live in , in short, what did we do with the gift of human life? The innate moral code will tell you what God views as right or wrong. Religion can help bring this code out more fully, but it can also work to pervert it. In the end, you are responsible for yourself.
If you are really looking for answers you’ll continue the search and seek out contrary views, evaluate them, and accept or disregard elements of them. If not, you’ll just raise questions and ignore the answers you get to raise more questions.
My impression from what you wrote is that your atheism is motivated by an unwillingness to believe that there is something truly “worthy” in and of itself. None of what I’ve written about requires anyone to hear voices or talk to God. But it does require you to think more deeply about certain things you gloss over.
My standard practice is to go a couple of rounds with people who seem to want a reasonable, civil discussion about an issue, and I certainly place you in this category. But I can’t answer your questions if you’re not willing to invest further time in reading my article in the IC archives which fully explores all of the issues you raised. Then, if you still have questions, I’d be happy to address them directly via my email address, r in this public forum.
I will say one final thing in closing about the question you raised “God would not expect all of us to believe that He exists since doing so without evidence would not be reasonable”.
This ties directly into the notion of free will, and why we were put on this Earth in the first place.
Some people ask, if God created the universe, and by extension created man, why hide from us? Things would be so much simpler if God made His presence known directly and unequivocally. There would be no doubt about His existence, His power, and the consequence of living an existence apart from his teachings.
But if God simply handed man all the answers about life, there would be no individual struggle to improve ourselves. Much like a prisoner in a maximum security penitentiary, an ultimate authority would regulate every aspect of our life. Man could still resist, but how likely is it that an individual would rebel against a God who created the universe, and who makes his presence directly known to each person on the planet?
Even the most hardened criminal still follows the basic rules in prison to avoid punishment. If these individuals feel compelled to obey basic prison rules created by man, they would certainly fear offending a God who has directly revealed Himself to them.
Without “doubt” there is no free will. Without free will, each individual does not have an opportunity to grow. Without this personal growth (or the absence of it), there is nothing for God to judge one’s existence on Earth.
God leaves it to us to use our minds to find these answers. He leaves it to us to figure out how we should behave by looking at the totality of all his creations, and by applying the same motivating force he used to create us to our own interactions with his other creations. In short, God has presented us with all the pieces of the puzzle. It’s up to us to put them together and see the larger picture.
liwfz,
How odd to read you make your defense based on God. You said, “I simply think we should let our God given reasoning abilities determine what is right and wrong.” Are you an atheist or not?
What I am trying to get to is that you assume an existing moral code that everyone ought to assent to when you say things like, “If they purposely infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.” Will you not tell me the basis for this moral code?> Who decided that hurting others is bad? Who decided that infringing on rights is immoral?
You ask me questions about morality in order to establish your case, but it is not me that needs to convince you of my morality. It is you that needs to explain to me why you believe some things are right and moral, while others are wrong. And you need to do this apart from appealing to God.
Just a quick note regarding your 6 principles about God. First, they are or ought to be irrelevent to you as an atheist. Second, what you think is reasonable, just, or fair is merely your opinion, based on your morality. Third, the use of the word “belief” in #6 presupposes the lack of evidence. Your statement is self-refuting and illogical.
In all the readings and ramblings I have read from atheists and secularists, the overriding idea the permeats them all is the idea that nobody should have the right to tell anybody else what to do or to make them feel guilty for doing what they want to do. That is why homosexuals are trying so hard to replace and redefine marriage and, at the same time, trying to erase religions altogether. What they don’t realize, or refuse to see, is they become their own worst nightmare: a religion trying to stifle any opposing view.
One common point I find in almost all the postings by self-proclaimed atheists, is they lost their beliefs and became unbelievers while at a university. This sets up Universities as opponents to religious thinking and belief in God. In reality, as I pointed out earlier, it just makes our supposedly free-thought-teaching places of higher learning another place where one religion tries to displace another over a pulpit.
jtwurth
No offense taken by the term “demonizing”, even if it was used in a way you didn’t intend. I was just using it as a way of linking my answer to your general comment. I didn’t take it as an offensive term, just a description of how you felt about a subject that I then responded to.
As for the “living your life for happiness” comments, I think that you are arguing a bit out of both sides of your mouth. If you reject the notion that there is a universal “Truth” — understanding that universality can only come from God, not the actions of men (and genetics doesn’t count, because as I’ve written extensively, genetics does not provide value-laden content, just physical and mental characteristics) – then the search for “Truth” is an individual one. Your “truth” may be different than my “truth”, and who’s to say yours is right and mine is wrong. NAMBLA members sincerely believe that sex between adults and children is good for the child. Under your system, how can you possibly refute their claim?
Focusing on happiness is a delusion. Lots of things will make me happy. More money, for one thing! If happiness is the goal, then tell me why it’s wrong to defraud my insurance company to get lots of money? You can make a case that if too many people do it the insurance system would collapse, and this would be bad. But that doesn’t make it intrinsically wrong. Why is it okay if 10 people do it, but “wrong” if 1000 people do it? Is that all there is to moral judgments? A few rapes are okay, but not too many? A few abortions are okay, but not 50 million? And so on.
Striving to know “truth (not in a universal sense but on different subjects ranging from human nature to the origin of the universe) in so far as I can know it,” isn’t a search for Big-T Truth. All you’ve said is “I want to understand why the French do X, or Aborigines do Y, or Liberals do Z, or rapists rape, or abortionists abort. That’s a quest to understand how humanity conducts its affairs. It’s not a search for what is actually Good/Bad, Right/Wrong, etc.
Unless, of course, you don’t believe there is anything intrinsically good/bad, etc. In which case I invite you to take the challenge I posed in my essay “What Kind of Car would Jesus Drive to Take His Girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?”, and tell me under what circumstances it is NOT wrong to rape and murder a five year old child? If I can show you that this is seen as a universally “wrong” behavior in all societies, at all times of human history, then you must explain to me why someone living in China in the year 206 would have the same opinion as an American in 2006. If it isn’t social organization, technology, education, genetics (there is nothing genetic that prevents us from killing people and aborting fetuses), then why is this universally true?
You’ll find the answer in my essay if you’re really looking for it.
Of all the comments from those of you from the non-athiest side of this argument, it seems that only Phil’s is well thought out and has any merit. And a certain few seem to have a chip on their shoulder and seem bent on only wanting to antagonize. I am not here to make enemies. If my comments offend you, then don’t read them. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. (By the way, speaking of trying to convince, I get a lot more Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. knocking on my door that I do athiests….)
Phil, I have yet to read the article you pointed me to, so until then, I suppose I’ll hold off from responding to your arguments. But sheesh!!! You didn’t tell me that it was your Ph.D. thesis you wanted me to read. Man that article is long!!! (Just kidding…. :) )
Until then, I’ll, as simply as possible, restate my case.
ASSUMING God exists, a God worthy of worship (because who would want to worship a God that is not worthy (e.g., Satan for one…)), some of MY basic assumptions about the character of God would be:
1. God would be the supreme ‘being’.
2. God would be just/fair/reasonable.
3. God would not ask of us anything which was impossible for us to do.
4. God would not ask of us anything which was unreasonable.
And a couple corollaries would be;
5. God does not provide incontrovertable evidence for His own existence to everyone.
6. God would not expect all of us to believe that He exists since doing so without evidence would not be reasonable.
When you read these, either they will fit your view of God or they won’t. Simply understand, I am approaching God from the standpoint of what I would imagine Him to be like, while most approach God from what comes from scripture. I’m sorry, but I just don’t trust the scriptures. These assumptions have been accused of being “self-refuting and illogical.” If you believe this to be so, then simply make the list mean the OPPOSITE to what I have written and ask yourself if that makes more sense to you (e.g., #5, “God DOES provide incontrovertable evidence for His own existence to everyone.”). I would hope that you would finally come to agree with me on these assumptions (although I won’t hold my breath :) ).
I understand that there is some fuzzyness in #4 but I contend that there are clear examples of reasonable and unreasonable, and of course, some that are not so clear. However, before you criticize me too much for this, I don’t see too much difference between asking onself “Is it reasonable for a God to want me to do/not do _____?” or “WWJD?”. Actually, I am a big proponent of the WWJD bracelets/etc.
Finally, I have been criticized and told that these assumptions should be irrelavant to me since I am an athiest. Well, they are relevant to me and I would hope they would be relevant to everyone else. If these assumptions are not met, specifically the first four, then I don’t think that God would be worthy of my worship.
Okay, so much for the character of the God I would imagine. Here are some more of my beliefs;
I don’t believe that God has to necessarily exist for there to be an absolute moral code. I do concede however, that this absolute moral code is much smaller than the one given to us from scripture. But I believe some of the “moral codes” given to us from the Bible are not very moral (mostly Old Testament stuff… but still, I don’t want to imagine a God like the one depicted in the Old Testament. That God I feel is not worthy of worship.) And again, before I get too much criticism for that, remind yourself why is it that there are so many different sects in each religion. It’s because different people interpret things different ways. ven in the same church, there will be differences of opinion. Obviously, I am not alone in thinking about the Bible differently from others.
One moral that I believe is absolute is
“Do not unnesessarily infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will.”
The above principle seems very simple and does not require a God for it to be true. It has been asked
“Will you not tell me the basis for this moral code? Who decided that hurting others is bad? Who decided that infringing on rights is immoral?”
Simple. The person unnesessarily being harmed against their will. If that person don’t want you to do whatever it is that is causing them harm, and it is not necessary that you do the thing that’s causing them harm, then it would be immoral for you to continue to do it. And yes, in some cases it is necessary to infringe on the rights of others or cause harm (e.g., in self defense or in protecting someone else from harm).
Not all opinions are equal. It has been posed that without a God, everything is just one person’s opinion against another’s – or the opinion of the majority is what must be right. This is just plain bunk. Reasoning and logic play an important role and that separates good “opinions” from bad ones.
If God doesn’t exist, I don’t believe that society would fall apart from a lack of morals etc. But I will concede that I do believe religion/fear of punishment/etc. DO keep certain people from doing harm against others. And, of course, even that doesn’t stop some people (seems like all the people in prison are religious *roll my eyes*).
I think God wouldn’t create us and not give us the ability to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong for ourselves. Otherwise we couldn’t protect ourselves from people decieving us either purposely or not. I think we should use our reasoning.
Universities, as believed by at least one person commenting above, are NOT out to turn anyone into an athiest.
If God does indeed exist, and He is like the one I imagine, I don’t believe that I’ll be punished for my beliefs (even though the Bible may say otherwise…).
I have been criticized by my use of the word “God”. I would hope that you would at least acknowledge that I capitalized it and tried to be respectful. Also, I was criticized for saying “…our God given abilities….” I would hope that it would be understood as meaning something akin to “…our natural abilities….” My apologies for having to explain that.
And ultimately, and the reason why I posted a comment in the first place, I believe the article to be accurate (at least as applied to me).
There are probably things I’m failing to mention, but c’est la vie. If you’ve gotten this far, you’re probably hoping I’ll shut up anyway….
Wish you all the best,
liwfz
liwfz
You continue to use God and religion as virtually identical terms (the “scriptures” define God, therefore God is what the scriptures say He is). This is silly. God is what He is, whether a particular religion got it right or not.
I’ve given you the answers to virtually every question you asked in my article. Rather than read it because it is too long, you simply re-state your position. I’m not all that surprised. I’ve never really had a conversation with an atheist who was interested in exploring the issue as opposed to simply re-stating his personal feelings about the issue as you do.
Your feeling that “Do not unnesessarily infringe on the rights of others or cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to others against their will” is a universal moral code is on the right track. But you have no mechanism to account for it its universality. “Unnecessarily” is a relative term that must be defined, as is “others”. We routinely kill people in wars, execute criminals, and abort developing human beings. Some of these things are clearly immoral, others might be – or might not be. I show you how to decide this without resorting to your feelings or opinions.
And all opinions are equal. That’s why they are called opinions. I don’t like broccoli. My wife does. Neither opinion is more valid than the other. Your confusion lies in the fact that you assign opinion status to things that are not opinions. The sun is a star. It is not a balloon, regardless of any “opinion” that it is.
You don’t believe in God because you can’t see Him, touch him, or directly interact with him. Do you believe in electrons? You can’t do any of this with them too. All you can do is observe them indirectly, and make predictions about their behavior on a subatomic level (because you can’t know what they will do with absolute certainty ala quantum mechanics). Yet, you’re perfectly willing to concede that electrons are real, but won’t entertain any notion that God is real.
In the end, I’m not all that surprised by your reasoning, though. You focus largely on God as an instrument of punishment (because you confuse the existence of God with the practice of specific religions). You focus on personal gratification and rewards as the important elements of life, and won’t believe anything you can’t directly measure or touch. So I guess love is out of the question too, because it can’t be directly measured either — only perceived indirectly.
Phil,
Believe it or not, I can differentiate between God and religion. I have nothing against “God”, but I do think the religions exploit Him.
You wrote:
“I’ve given you the answers to virtually every question you asked in my article. Rather than read it because it is too long, you simply re-state your position. I’m not all that surprised. I’ve never really had a conversation with an atheist who was interested in exploring the issue as opposed to simply re-stating his personal feelings about the issue as you do.”
I have tried to express to you that I intend to read your article. But I do have a job to do also. Why do you keep harping on that? Sheesh… give me a little time will you! Plus, I do not have the luxury of copping out of an argument by saying “If only you would read my article, you will learn everything there is to know….” like how you are doing to me. You have little patience….
Why can’t my moral code’s mechanism be logic and reasoning? That principle should make sense to everyone, whether they choose to follow it or not. Simply, it makes sense. And it is not done to please a God, it is done for the sake of doing good.
Not all opinions are equal. But some are. You do a good job of only stating the ones that are trivial.
Sorry, but the reason you say I don’t believe in God is not true in my case. It is not entirely about proof for me. I have nothing against having faith. My case is, that at the present moment, I think that indeed a God could exist, but I find it highly improbable. So, you see, I do entertain the notion that God could be real. And yes, there is a lot more evidence that electrons are real – overwhelming evidence. But I also keep open the possibility that they are not (albeit a very low probability as I’m a physicist…).
No Phil. You are wrong again. I do not focus on God as being an instrument of punishment. But from what I gather, the other side does – that consequences are necessary for there to be morality. This I do not necessarily agree with.
In short Phil. you are completely wrong on your assumptions on what I believe and the reasoning behind my beliefs. And you forgot (or you simply didn’t know…) that love can be observed. Observation is one way we do astronomy – afterall, we cannot go out and “touch” the rest of the universe (at least not yet).
So Phil, I still haven’t read your article which I’m sure you’ll point out in your response, again, and again, and again…. So can you please let that be. I told you that I will read it sometime in the future. In the meantime, you continue to draw me into having to defend myself from your accusations on my beliefs and then criticize me for not having read your “answers to everything” article. *Roll my eyes* What do you expect me to do…? Plus, from skimming the comments in that article, it seems that you have not done a good job of convincing everyone that your “answers” are correct….
Anyway Phillipe, take care and try to do the right thing, :)
william
William (aka liwfz)
I appreciate the fact that you are willing to participate in a civil conversation. Not everyone who drops in on this site does.
I keep harping on my article because you keep raising your same issues again and again (i.e. your 6 assumptions), which are rather easily dismissed … if you want to read what I’ve already written on this subject. As long as you revive the same issues, I’ll have to again remind you where the answers are.
I know that you know the difference between God and religion. The problem is, your examples about God usually tie back to a set of religious beliefs. There are a lot of religions that exploit God — I can think of a prominent one in the Middle East. That has nothing to do with the topic we were discussion in the comment section, namely, is there a God?
You ask “Why can’t my moral code’s mechanism be logic and reasoning? That principle should make sense to everyone, whether they choose to follow it or not. Simply, it makes sense. And it is not done to please a God, it is done for the sake of doing good.” The answer is simple. It was “logical” at one point to think that the Earth was the center of the universe. That didn’t make their conclusions true. Some people have perfectly consistent “reasoning” that allows them to justify mass murder of innocent people. “Doing good” — as I once again point you to my longer article — without stating specifically what “good” is, leads to relativistic gibberish (like the communism/capitalist value system I referenced earlier.
In short, you’ve approached logic, reasoning, and the notion of “good” from a western value system, and make the unsubstantiated and quite frankly silly claim that everyone should intrinsically think, reason, and see good the same way. They don’t, which is why we have different cultures and value systems throughout the world. There is a universal “good” however, but it does not arise through the mechanisms you point to. As I once again direct you to the place where you can find that answer, you’ll see that it can’t possibly come from culture, society, education, or even human genetics. It can only come from God.
Your comments about proof of God vs. proof of electrons is quite interesting, particularly since you are a physicist and I most definitely am not. I do know that a hundred years or so ago no one believed they existed. And when they did, they thought of them as particles. And later, they decided that they were really strings. And now they are assumed to be part of an 11 dimension reality where membranes interact.
In short, science has no solid idea of what they actually are, just a bunch of theories about what they are made of, where they are located, and how they act within a range of probability. That sounds a lot to me like a discussion of who/what God is, and how He does/doesn’t interact with us.
As for your companion contention that “love” is observable, it most certainly is not. Fire producing heat is observable. Love is inferred from actions. If a man saves his child from a burning house, is it because he loves her, or has a genetic disposition to protect his biological progeny, or because he has a belief system that values all human life and it could be a stranger in that building and he’d act the same way, etc.?
Any of these are possible explanations. “Science” tells us we can only make judgments and inferences about this behavior. We can’t observe it directly. Yet we all “know” that love exists. In the same vein, we can measure the process of human thought by looking at brainwaves, but we can’t measure the content of that thought (i.e. read another person’s mind.) Some real world things (like love and thought) cannot be directly known. And so it is with God.
And no, not all opinions are equal. That’s why they’re called opinions. And opinions are like A*holes — everyone has one. I assume you are using “opinions” as a shorthand way of saying “reasoning”. I would only point out that reasoning from a set of facts is not the same as expressing an opinion.
This, ultimately, is the problem I see with your analysis. You use words carelessly and interchangeably, and muddy an issue instead of focusing it. Regardless of whether you began your comments with a personal expression that the book being reviewed was a good one, the focus of the ensuing debate has been on atheism — that is, the belief that there is no God. Not agnosticism ( a debate over the nature of God), and not over the scriptures and tenets of Religion A vs. Religion B.
I may, in fact, be completely wrong in my opinion about what you believe — unless you want to repeat your claim here that opinions are equal — but I’ve based it on what you’ve said about yourself and the subject at hand. The one firm opinion I do have, is that contrary to the way you’ve positioned yourself, you are not that eager to delve into the issue of whether God actually exists. You pose and repeat questions that are somewhat shallowly framed (I’m not trying to be insulting, just accurate), and simply repeat them when you’ve been challenged. Yes, it will take you about 3 hours to read what I wrote. That’s the downfall of taking on moral relativism — there’s a lot of relativism out there that has to be addressed. But well over 100 hours have gone by in this discussion, and you won’t see if I’m on to something or just talking through my hat.
You ask “What do you expect me to do…?” I expect you to either spend three hours reading what I wrote and tell me where I’m wrong, or answer the challenges I raised in this comment sections that your universal “logic”, “reasoning”, notions of “good/bad” aren’t universal, but merely culturally relativistic. Just repeating yourself isn’t an answer. Tell me why and more importantly how everyone recognizes “logic” and understands what is intrinsically “good”. I’ve done that … if you take the time to read what I wrote.
As for “it seems that you have not done a good job of convincing everyone that your ‘answers’ are correct”, if we exclude the self-described atheists who don’t seem to be all that interested in what I’ve actually said in the first place, any disagreement with those who believe in God seems to be over the subject matter of religion — which is perfectly understandable, as I’ve written about at length.
Rather than just write back and tell us what your opinion is again, I’d rather have you do one of two things:
1. Tell me how I got it wrong in my essay on moral relativism, insofar as it addresses the subject of God. Or
2. If you still don’t want to do any further reading, tell me exactly how we humans come to know what is intrinsically good/bad, logical/illogical, etc., so that this is true for all people, in all cultures, in all time periods? How exactly (what process, when and where?) is the value laden system of good/bad universally infused into the human consciousness across time periods, cultures, etc? And if logic is so tangible that it can guide humanity’s actions across time periods and cultures, how does this actually work? Isn’t logic dependent on known facts — and what happens if the base assumptions are wrong? All you have then is a logically-consistent, but incorrect answer when we’re searching for a universal Truth. How do you do all of this without God?
Phil
liwfz,
It feels like I have to repost my questions, because you don’t bother to answer them, you just restate your arguments. And that’s all I’m doing: asking you to explain yourself. It has nothing to do with animosity. However, I will admit that I am becoming frustrated because of your refusal to answer a simple question.
This is my last try. Let me try to phrase it simply: How can there be an absolute standard for any moral principle without a reference point apart from human experience?
You have suggested, again without explaining the basis for your position, that your morality is dependent on how someone reacts to you: “If that person don’t want you to do whatever it is that is causing them harm, and it is not necessary that you do the thing that’s causing them harm, then it would be immoral for you to continue to do it.”
That seems to suggest three things. 1) Your morality manifests in interpersonal relationships, which means that things like hate, lust, and greed are not immoral if they remain internalized; 2) your morality is external and really not yours at all; and 3) your morality can change depending on cirmcumstance (that is, the reaction of others can vary), yet the principle itself is “universal.”
This all begs the question that you have yet to answer: How have you decided that not hurting people that don’t want to be hurt is moral? What is the underpinning that makes your regard for others to be noble or valuable?
Let me try some answers. “Because violating someone’s rights is wrong.” Why? “Because each person has a right to dignity.” And why is that? “Because it is wrong to treat someone in a way that demeans them.’ Still need to get to the root, so why is that wrong? “Because humans have value.” Why do you value them? “Everyone should value human dignity.” Where do you come by this moral imperative?
You see, even four or five steps farther in logical procession has gotten us no closer to finding out the source of the atheist’s morality. Liwfz, perhaps you can go all the way and finally tell us the foundational principles that govern your morality.
Last point. You said, “These assumptions have been accused of being ‘self-refuting and illogical.’” Actually, I said that your point #6 is self refuting and illogical. By definition, to believe is to accept a proposition without enough evidence. Therefore, if God provided enough evidence of His existence, then we would not have to believe in Him, we would simply assent to the sufficiency of the evidence. That is why your statement is illogical.
Now, I exercise my faith (that is, in the absence of evidence I hold out hope) in expecting you to finally answer my question.
Phil,
I printed out the article that you keep insisting I read. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this article, it is ~90 pages of printed paper. And it cost me 10 cents a page to print. I hope that this at least will make you happy Phil – and make you stop accusing me of;
“The one firm opinion I do have, is that contrary to the way you’ve positioned yourself, you are not that eager to delve into the issue of whether God actually exists.”
Which is untrue…. Plus, I’m not really sure how reading your article all of a sudden makes me “eager”…. If you continue to repeat this, you will be incorrect.
By the way, do your morals include reimbursement? :) (Just kidding.)
Best,
william
P.S. I still think you are one ‘ell of a basketball coach! Ha ha.
William —
I would have simply downloaded it and saved it to a file, then read it electronically. But that’s just me.
As for what you’ll find, it depends on the questions you ask. I’ve challenged you to explain how your universal understanding of “good” can exist apart from God. This article tells you how I arrived at this conclusion. If your counter reply is 90 pages, I’ll gladly read that (without complaint).
Regards,
Phil
Phil,
I sent a fairly long response yesterday. Hopefully, it didn’t get lost in the spam filter!!!
william
Phil,
I’m about 1/3 of the way through your article. Sorry, but I just can’t read it in just one sitting. To be honest, it is a bit long – especially for an IC article.
I read in the comments of yours that you request a full reading before critiquing it, so that is what I’ll do. Although, I could start now if you like. There are things that I can say without having read the full article. But I’ll hold off. And… I’ll probably post my comment in that thread and not this one as that seems more appropriate.
Something else is bugging me. I mentioned that I posted a fairly long response yesterday. That response was to your “request #2″ and I put a lot of effort and time into it. Plus, I think it is something you would generally want to read. In reading through your article Phil, I believe I address the issues you bring up. The problem is… it has not been posted yet. It should become the new comment # 28 if it makes it past the moderators.
So here is what’s bugging me; forget that I spent time and effort in writing it… nowhere in that comment did I break any of the IC rules. There should be no reason to not post it (unless there is a limit on length…). If it doesn’t make it, this doesn’t seem fair (or moral :) ) to only present one side of a discussion and suppress the other side. I could email it to you Phil (I had the forsight to save it in a text file…) but it should be posted here for all to see.
To the moderators: I would appreciate if you post it. If you do, then I thank you. If not, then it would have been a colossal waste of my time and effort and I would lose motivation to comment in the future (wouldn’t anyone?). :( I believe you value comments – otherwise why have a “comments” section.
Best,
william
William —
There’s a glitch in this particular file. A couple of posts of mine did not go through either. Fortunately, they weren’t consequential.
As to the length of the article, for our purposes I simply need you to account for the existence of a universal moral code without invoking God. (a) Does it in fact exist, as I contend (and you have intuited previously), and (b) how does is it instilled in each of us if not via God?
The rest regarding abortion and islamo fascism flows from this, but is a side issue to the question “is there a God?”
Phil
One other thing —
If you post a reply in that thread, let me know here when you do so I can go and look for it.
Phil
Posting has become a real pain. Of course, this website’s pages are also rather slow to load, the commments box goes off the right edge of the page as well, and this is the third time I am attempting to post this reply.
Anyway, liwfz,
All I’m doing is asking you to explain yourself. It has nothing to do with animosity. However, I will admit that I am becoming frustrated because of your refusal to answer a simple question.
Let me try to phrase it simply: How can there be an absolute standard for any moral principle without a reference point apart from human experience?
You have suggested, again without explaining the basis for your position, that your morality is dependent on how someone reacts to you: “If that person don’t want you to do whatever it is that is causing them harm, and it is not necessary that you do the thing that’s causing them harm, then it would be immoral for you to continue to do it.”
That seems to suggest three things. 1) Your morality manifests in interpersonal relationships, which means that things like hate, lust, and greed are not immoral if they remain internalized; 2) your morality is external and really not yours at all; and 3) your morality can change depending on cirmcumstance (that is, the reaction of others can vary), yet the principle itself is “universal.”
This all begs the questions that you have yet to answer: How have you decided that not hurting people that don’t want to be hurt is moral? What is the underpinning that makes your regard for others to be noble or valuable?
Let me try some answers. “Because violating someone’s rights is wrong.” Why? “Because each person has a right to dignity.” And why is that? “Because it is wrong to treat someone in a way that demeans them.’ Still need to get to the root, so why is that wrong? “Because humans have value.” Why do you value them? “Everyone should value human dignity.” Where do you come by this moral imperative?
You see, even four or five steps farther in logical procession has gotten us no closer to finding out the source of the atheist’s morality. So, would you please explain the sources of the foundational principles that govern your morality?
Last point. You said, “These assumptions have been accused of being ‘self-refuting and illogical.’” Actually, I said that your point #6 is self refuting and illogical. By definition, to believe is to accept a proposition without enough evidence. Therefore, if God provided enough evidence of His existence, then we would not have to believe in Him, we would simply assent to the sufficiency of the evidence. That is why your statement is illogical.
Now, I exercise my faith (that is, in the absence of evidence I hold out hope) in expecting you to finally answer my question.
Hi Phil,
Thanks for your kind response. I apologize if I am unclear in what I say. My only excuse I guess is
carelessness and maybe a lack of time spent in writing since I’m not really putting my best foot forward as I
would in writing a publishable article.
Phil, I assure you that I do care about these issues. I am not just trying to defend my position with closed
eyes. And I also assure you that I intend to read your article. I am intrigued. It’s just that I want
to spend some quality time with it and not haphazardly read it so I can make a quick rebuttal.
So, for now, the best I can do is address your request #2. What follows is my attempt – NOT just a
restatement of my opinions. You asked for this one! :)
“2. If you still don’t want to do any further reading, tell me exactly how we humans come to know what is
intrinsically good/bad, logical/illogical, etc., so that this is true for all people, in all cultures, in
all time periods? How exactly (what process, when and where?) is the value laden system of good/bad
universally infused into the human consciousness across time periods, cultures, etc? And if logic is so
tangible that it can guide humanity’s actions across time periods and cultures, how does this actually
work? Isn’t logic dependent on known facts — and what happens if the base assumptions are wrong? All you
have then is a logically-consistent, but incorrect answer when we’re searching for a universal Truth. How
do you do all of this without God?”
Okay, I cannot say that action “A” is always wrong and action “B” is always right (at least not without more
thought… (but see below!)). But what I can say is, what does remain constant, is that all the persons
involved perceive such actions as unharmful. We all know what we like and what we don’t like – at least
for the moment. That is, we know what we perceive causes us or others harm. For an action to be moral,
all parties involved must agree on this. And this does indeed change depending on the parties involved.
But again, what remains constant – what is absolute, that is, what determines if an action is morally
acceptable, is that all parties must agree that the harm done to everyone involved is minimized. I use
the word “minimized” with the understanding that hopefully in most cases, the harm done is zero, while
leaving open the option that some actions MUST be taken which do result in harm. Such would be the case
when a certain action becomes necessary.
I shouldn’t have to point out that this definition excludes “mass murder,” “child rape,” etc., etc., and
basically everything you have cited as resulting from reasoning and logic. Actually, you need not look
farther than the Bible for examples where murder/slavery/etc. was justified – which is part of
the reason why I don’t trust it.
Who decides what is harmful? The parties involved. ALL the parties that is. If all agree that said action is okay, then it is not
immoral. If at least one of the parties involved disagrees, then the action would be immoral (although,
see below, under “Death penalty”).
Why is this not necessarily cultural/temporally relativistic?
Because the thing that trancends culture/time/etc. is the part of minimizing the harm of any kind to others
and doing harm against one’s will. The actions may differ, but the attempt to minimize harm and the necessity of consent remains unchanged. That is universal.
How does this work?
It is up to all the parties involved. There must be a 100% agreement with all the parties involved, else the action is not moral. Further, in doing the action, one or more of the parties involved may change their mind. In other words, in doing the action, they may learn that there is indeed harm being done. Then the action should be stopped and re-evaluated. If one of the parties involved is unable to decide (e.g., an infant or an animal), then we can only act to the best of our abilities. We must ask ourselves, “Would this action harm me if someone were to do this to me?” and “Would this action harm someone else if done to them?” And we must seek the knowledge of those who can best supply it at the time. In short, we must do the best we can to minimize the harm using the resources available to us. “To the best of our abilities” is, by definition, the best we can hope for.
What happens if the base assumptions are wrong? Well, it is the parties involved who decide this. If there is 100% agreement (and I emphasize, 100%
agreement of ALL the parties involved), then the action is not wrong. Plus, we are able to change our
minds if we find out at a later time that harm is being done. Indeed, the action should be ceased and
re-evaluated.
What then is the flaw I see in your stance? I believe you have overlooked the CONCENT of ALL
parties involved. I will ask this simple question; if all parties involved agree that action “A” is moral,
and by doing said action the harm done to all involved is minimized, then tell me – why would action “A” be
immoral?
Why is this not necessarily “God-driven”? Because we all know what we like and dislike. All it
takes to deem an action immoral is for one of the parties to say so, provided they are capable of doing
that and provided they have not lost their right to “vote” (e.g., prisoners kept from doing harm to
others). If they are incapable of doing so (e.g., an unborn baby), then we must act, to the best of our
abilities, to minimize the harm done.
Why is a “God-driven” morality actually dangerous? Because God has not provided us with what He wants
beyond all shadow of doubt. “My book says this…” and “his book says something else…” and even “no,
our book says this… not what you say it says….” It seems no two people can agree on everything
pertaining to God’s desires. Simply put, we can never know for sure if what we are doing is pleasing God.
Very immoral acts can be done in the “name of God”. Islamic fundamentalist terrorist acts for one. In
short, is seems much to easy to brainwash someone into doing horrible acts by using religion and “God”.
I will now attempt to apply this principle-based to some examples:
(Note: This is not an attempt to spout off my opinions – I simply want to apply this belief system to some
real-world examples.)
Boxing: I’ll use the example of the sport of boxing. It is generally not moral to punch someone in the
face. However, if the parties involved all agree to do so, then I would say that it is not immoral for two
boxers to punch each other in the face. Now, if one of the boxers has had enough and wants to quit – or
gets knocked out and no longer can make spur-of-the-moment decisions, the fight should be
stopped with the quitter becoming the loser of the match. From this instant on, it would not be moral
for the other boxer to continue once one or more of the parties involved decides it is not okay to be
punched in the face (or is incapable of deciding, i.e., unconscious).
Premarital sex/homosexuality: Another example I might cite, would be that of premarital sex. Most religions
teach that it is immoral – a sin against God. I would say, that if ALL the parties involved are in
agreement, then it is not immoral. Such would be the case with a couple that engages in sex before they
marry each other. Once married, and if they remain married, then I don’t see how such an act would be
immoral since no one involved would be harmed. Okay, so what if they don’t marry that partner, or what if
they don’t remain married? Well, that must be taken into account. The persons involved should weigh the
effect it might have on future partners/boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses/etc. But I still would contend that it is
not immoral since the future partner has the choice to be with that person or not. Something akin to this might be
homosexuality. I don’t see how this affects anyone other than the parties involved. And I think the
reason if offends so many people is because they were taught (incorrectly in my opinion) that it is immoral,
i.e., a sin against God.
Child rape: You might bring up the question of child rape etc. But clearly, certain actions bring about
negative consequences and obviously, in the example of child rape, the child’s welfare is not being taken
into account. Plus, I’m not convinced children have the mental facilities to make informed, rational
decisions (e.g., see “Tattoos” below).
Tattoos: Speaking of children, well, we all know that most children are… well… to be blunt, dumb. That
is, they are not mature enough to judge what is right or wrong for themselves. In that case, I think it is
not immoral to withold certain actions until they are mature enough to make their own decisions. An example
of this would be a child wanting to get a tattoo. An elder, knowing how we as humans change over time, our
tastes and values change, might be better off keeping the child from getting a tattoo until the child is of
legal age or has clearly demonstrated that they are mature enough. Yes, there is some fuzzyness involved
here. How do we know when the child is mature enough? That depends on the circumstances. All I’m saying is
that it might be best to postpone the tattoo as long as possible. That, in my “opinion” :) is the moral
thing to do. And if that is not possible (for who knows what reason), then to a point, the child is also
responsible for their actions. There is only so much we can do realistically. Notice that postponing a
tattoo is not causing harm to anyone.
Santa: Another example involving children comes to mind. Many of us let our children believe in Santa
knowing that he isn’t real. Is that immoral? Afterall, aren’t we sort of lying? I would say no
(well, yes – we are not telling the truth…). But I don’t believe that it harms the child involved or us.
Eventually, the child will learn the truth and will still remember Christmas Eve with fondness – perhaps
more fondness than if they had known the truth at the time. Some children, it is conceivable, might feel
“lied to” or deceived when they are old enough to learn the truth. This too must be taken into account.
Personally, I suppose the way I would handle this, is I would let the child be influenced by his/her peers
(when it comes to Santa) and attempt to remain neutral – not spoiling the fun for the child while doing my
best to not directly lie to him/her.
Abortion: The “ultimate” question involving children would be that of abortion (see… I’m willing to
tackle the tough questions!). The child involved cannot give agreement. Therefore, he/she cannot give
his/her consent. I would have to conclude that abortion is not moral. In the case of the mother’s
life being in danger, then what must be decided is how to minimize the harm to everyone involved. This
includes the unborn baby and the mother, and also families/etc. The mother can choose to risk it, or
collectively, perhaps the best they can do is decide without the baby getting to “vote”. I don’t mean to
be callous. Rape? I would have to say that it is not the child’s fault, and an abortion in that case would
be immoral. Sometimes life isn’t fair – we have to play with the cards we’re dealt. “But isn’t it the
mother’s body?” Yes. But it is not ONLY her body that has to bear the consequences.
Contraception: The last I knew, the Catholic Church teaches against using contraception. My question is,
is abstinence also a form of contraception? I don’t know. But I don’t think using contraception is
immoral. However, this may be a case where it is morally relative. I don’t think I can be convinced
that using contraception is immoral, but if others feel that way, then by all means, don’t use it. (N.B.
I don’t deny that there IS moral relativism.)
Death penalty: I believe the death penalty is just. Firstly, because I believe there are worse things than
death. Secondly, in certain circumstances, one or more of the parties involved lose their right to
“vote” on what action is moral. Such would be the case when they are perpetrators of harm on others.
They must not be allowed to carry out actions which harm others, and we must weigh the “collateral” damage
done to society by either keeping them alive or executing them. I have not fully made up my mind on
this issue yet, mostly because I am not in a position to affect anything.
Doctor-assisted suicide: Here is a case where the parties involved are able to decide. If ALL can come
to a decision, then whatever that decision is, I believe it wouldn’t be immoral.
Euthanasia: Clearly, there may be cases where the main person involved is unable to give consent. In
this case, we can only do the best we can with what we are given. Yes, I value human life, but I believe
there are worse things than death. A best case scenario would be if the person had the forsight to
either give consent or not when they were capable of doing so.
Nazis: Clearly, they didn’t ask the Jews if they would mind being gassed. => Immoral.
Human sacrifice: You had mentioned in your article about human sacrifice done by ancient cultures.
Clearly, if the victim hasn’t given concent, this would be immoral to “sacrifice” that person. However,
what if the person being sacrificed wants to do so? Is it then immoral? I could ask a similar question
about a soldier sacrificing his life by bravely falling on a grenade to save his buddies. In each
case, the “victim” is willingly doing the act (although, in my opinion, the soldier has a much
better reason). Indeed, this example can be used to show how religious beliefs can make people do
“unreasonable” – and even immoral things (as in the case of human sacrifice in ancient history).
Animals: What about non-humans? Well, believe me, I am not the poster-boy for what is moral as far as
animals are concerned. For example, I like to fish. It is probably not in the best interest of morals to
crank a fish to the shore by the lip, but that is something I have to wrestle with. But it clearly is
immoral to cause harm to an animal for no reason at all.
Environment/etc.: What about non-sentient things? Again, I am not the perfect person to speak of such
things in this area either. But again, there are clearly things we could do to the environment which
would be immoral. Such things I imagine would involve harm to either animals or humans in a present or
future time. An example might be dumping your motor oil carelessly – where perhaps someone in the future
might dig a well. That is why we have laws on how to dispose of motor oil and the like.
So, in short, certain actions may indeed be moral in one instance and not in another, but what determines
if it is moral, is that all parties involved agree that it is moral. Yes, I understand this is probably
exactly what you would call “relative morality”. But, if ALL parties agree, that is the thing that I’m
saying is the “absolute” part of my argument. THAT, is what must occur for an action to be moral. And I
already spoke of instances when one’s concent cannot be given. In such a case, we must do the best of our
abilities. Anything short of our best effort to do the right thing is immoral.
Well, that’s all I got until I read your article. Hopefully, there is a “printer-friendly” version of it.
Addendum:
a. Phil, I use the term “opinion” a bit in this response. I would hope that you would not use that
against me. The point of using it is to say that I don’t claim to have the answers. I only state what
makes sense to me. Indeed, to claim to have the answers beyond all doubt is a dangerous thing I think.
Very dangerous!
b. Also, I would hope that you wouldn’t accuse me of just restating my opinions. You had asked of me to do
one of two things, and that is what I attempted to do to the best of my ability.
c. I use some examples pulled from religious teachings. I would hope that you wouldn’t accuse me
of confusing religion with God. I cannot cite an example from God since He hasn’t personally given me one.
d. For the last time, I’m going to read your d*mn article. Keep your pantyhose on! :) It’s all I can
do to respond here, keep up with my work, and keep my loved ones happy. Give me your patience.
e. To say that something exists beyond all reasonable doubt is to say that it is observable. Either we KNOW
love exists beyond all doubt because we can observe it or we don’t know it exists beyond all doubt.
f. Pertaining to your references about science; science takes time. Some ideas fail where others
succeed. Anywhere there are humans involved, there will be challenges to overcome. But the scientific
method I feel is the best we can do to uncover the truth – whatever that may be. To lump it all together
as “just theories” is a bit unfair. Be patient.
g. I want to know the truth. I think all scientists should. I believe that is what science is about. If,
in the end, I find that I was wrong about something, I simply accept it and revise my world view. I
definitely do not let my ego get in the way. If you’re wrong, then you’re wrong, and it’s best to find
out why and move on.
h. My restating of things once said is an attempt at clarity – not one of dodging an argument. I would
appreciate the civility of not being accused of such.
i. My six assumptions on the character of a God worthy of worship are… afterall, MY assumptions. They are
difficult for me to dismiss yet you say that they are easily dismissed. This puzzles me since I believe
that they are sound, and moreover, they seem to coincide with most of the major religions’ picture of
God. If they are indeed easy for you to dismiss, at least, one-by-one, tell me why they are not valid.
I really would like to know. If you refuse to do so, I will interpret this as you just wanting to be heard
and not wanting to reciprocate – and this discussion will cease.
j. You say that this discussion is about whether God exists. To me, it seems this discussion is more about
morals and ethics with the underlying theme being “God-driven” morals or not “God-driven”. Just thought
I’d give you my take on this discussion.
k. Hallelujah! There is something that we can agree on. And that is, as you say; “Some real world things (like love and thought) cannot be directly known. And so it is with God.” I agree. If God exists, He will not (or at least, has not) let His presence be directly known to everyone – hence, my assumption #5.
l. Let’s dispense with calling each other’s arguments “shallow” and accusing each other of being careless or not caring about the issues being discussed. I
addressed this in my opening statement. If you want my continued respect, then you too have to be respectful. So far, you are head and shoulders above the rest commenting here in that regard, but still, I think it’s best to cease said behavior forthwith. I will do my best in this regard also.
m. No doubt some reading my previous comments might have labelled me as “liberal”. In reading the above comment, ask yourself if I really do sound like a
liberal. I don’t think I do. Just saying that being an athiest doesn’t make one a liberal….
n. As a final thought, I can’t help but feel that I am the one putting forth ideas to be shot down. It is always easier to analyse an idea than it is to invent
one. Yes… you Phil have the article you referred me to. This footnote doesn’t directly apply to you, but instead, to the others here that are quick to engage
me – but not so quick to state their beliefs. I have tackled some pretty serious scenarios in this comment – stuff a lot of people would shy away from. And I’m sure I could have articulated myself better – it doesn’t help in an argument to critique solely on choice of words. If there is disagreement with my
interpretation, I only ask that the rebuttal be respectful – it only seems “moral” to do so….
Best,
William
From The Editor:
Today I located several comments that were routed by the server to the blacklist spam file. After reviewing them I was unable to determine why. They did not violate any rules. I must assume that there was a computer glitch.
Apologies for the inconvenience. I will be checking the blacklist file more frequently, now that this has come to my attention.
Steven Laib
Comments Editor
Hi Phil,
Well, I just finished your article. Now all I want to do is read the reader comments. Overall, I enjoyed it. I already mentioned that I felt it could have been shorter (and I DID read the “unabridged” version by the way…), and there are a few things I didn’t agree with – which I’ll be happy to explore further IF (see below…).
You should be happy to know that I believe we agree on almost everything. In reading your article, I made many notes in the margins (one advantage to printing it). A few of those notes read “Bunk” but many, many, many of them read “Yes!!!” I think you will also agree that we agree on many things once you read the comment I alluded to that, unfortunately, hasn’t been posted as of yet. Steven Laib, the comments editor, was kind enough to email me showing his concern for my unposted comment. I, in turn, emailed him my comment for his review and I trust that if he deems it as “fit,” it will be posted for you to read. Again, I believe that you will find that we have many more common views than not.
And… this takes me back to the original two reasons I first posted in this thread; to start, let me quote Einstein:
‘Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as “pantheistic” (Spinoza).’
I had originally stated that Einstein did not believe in the same “God” as that of the one person commenting here stating that “Einstein was a God fearing man.” The way I see it, in your article, if I interpret your use of the word “God” with that of Einstein’s (which I know is not the way you meant it…), then it may be that we agree completely with the exception of a few minor errors in some of the details of your article.
The second reason I originally posted here was to say that I felt this article on athiests was accurate. Once you are finally able to read my “MIA” comment, I’ll simply ask you if you think you have more to fear from my (athiest) beliefs than you do “all the other’s”. Or, in other words, was the author of this article/study correct in saying “We have far less to concern ourselves when it comes to atheists.”? You see, I think you do not hold an accurate picture of athiest beliefs. One thing being, we do not reject the notion of God just so we can “run amok”.
And… I will be delighted to elaborate on my thoughts on your article IF you do me one favor in kind (and I sincerely believe that you would value my comments – not because I’m “special,” but because I do not simply say “You’re full of sh*t!” and move on, without even reading your article);
In my “MIA” comment, I had made a simple request from you. I’ll repeat it here:
“My six assumptions on the character of a God worthy of worship are… afterall, MY assumptions. They are difficult for me to dismiss yet you say that they are ‘easily dismissed’. This puzzles me since I believe that they are sound, and moreover, they seem to coincide with most of the major religions’ picture of God. If they are indeed easy for you to dismiss, at least, one-by-one, tell me why they are not valid. I really would like to know. If you refuse to do so, I will interpret this as you just wanting to be heard and not wanting to reciprocate – and this discussion will cease.”
To further drive home the point that I would like your heart-felt analysis on this, let me quote from the “Methodology” section in your very own article;
“…don’t simply say that the reasoning is “flawed” in your opinion because it goes against your favorite philosopher’s position or political party’s world view; tell us why your line of inquiry will lead more directly to the truth than the one I used.”
Need I remind you Phil, you did say above that “I keep harping on my article because you keep raising your same issues again and again (i.e. your 6 assumptions), which are rather easily dismissed … if you want to read what I’ve already written on this subject.”
Well, I read your article now and I still can’t easily dismiss my assumptions. I probably spent a good 8-10 hours in reading your article. I would appreciate it if you would one-by-one, either confirm or refute (with explanations) my 6 assumptions – which shouldn’t take as long as the time I invested in your request to read your article….
I also want to use your “18. Reader Comments” section in your article to emphasize this simple request of mine. In case you forgot what you wrote, read “1.” and the first two paragraphs of “2.” Pertaining to my 6 assumptions, you clearly ignored your own requests at my expense.
Best,
william
Hey there MM,
Mountain Man wrote:
“This is my last try. Let me try to phrase it simply: How can there be an absolute standard for any moral principle without a reference point apart from human experience?”
and
“Now, I exercise my faith (that is, in the absence of evidence I hold out hope) in expecting you to finally answer my question.”
MM, I hope you find my rather obnoxiously long comment to your liking. You see, I wasn’t refusing to answer. I feel like I gave a rather detailed answer. It just was taking a long time to get posted.
Okay, here is one of the pitfalls that I believe you and Phil have fallen into. You both seem to claim that;
a. God is necessary for there to be an absolute morality/moral code.
b. An absolute morality/moral code exists.
Now… can you guess what “c.” might be (even though neither of you has stated it)? I’ll dispense with the suspense…
“c. Therefore, God exists.”
Maybe you two didn’t realize it, but you both just proved that God exists. Now wouldn’t you say that is a little presumptuous??? Or… would you like your Nobel Prizes now? :)
Alright, I am hoping that my super-long comment will at least show you that I am earnestly attempting to answer the questions being asked of me. So, for now, may I ask you MM a question (actually two…)? (It only seems fair wouldn’t you say….) Please answer me this;
1. If two or more people agree to do action “A,” and action “A” results in no harm done to any of the parties involved, then why would action “A” be immoral?
Note: By “all the parties involved,” I mean that to be not only the people directly involved, but also people that the consequences of said action will affect, even if they weren’t directly involved. Basically, everyone that will be affected.
2. If two or more people agree to do (or even want to do) action “B,” and action “B” is the option that minimizes the harm done to all the parties involved, or possibly it may harm the persons directly involved who have agreed to partake in action “B” but no one else (e.g., two boxers), then why would action “B” be immoral?
Also, if your answer MM includes something like “It may not harm any human but it would harm God.”, then that is really not an answer at all, since even Phil agrees with me that “…man cannot actually read God’s mind….” as he states in his article.
Best,
william
Oops…
a quick comment about my questions posed to Mountain Man;
I should have added that the persons involved are capable of giving consent. Also, when one or more is incapable of giving consent, the persons involved in the action make a decision to the best of their abilities that would minimize the harm done.
This should have been clear if you read my super-long comment.
… and please don’t try to be cute and ask for a definition of “harm”. That would be interpreted as “dodging the questions” which is what you accuse me of…. If you insist on a definition, use dictionary.com.
One last thing,
You wrote;
“Let me try some answers. “Because violating someone’s rights is wrong.” Why? “Because each person has a right to dignity.” And why is that? “Because it is wrong to treat someone in a way that demeans them.’ Still need to get to the root, so why is that wrong? “Because humans have value.” Why do you value them? “Everyone should value human dignity.” Where do you come by this moral imperative?”
How about when the person your actions are affecting requests that you cease said actions. And there is no necessity for your actions which they don’t like.
It doesn’t matter how trivial or severe the actions are, if they are not necessary, and the person asks you to stop, thereby no longer giving consent, then you should stop.
Here is a real-world example:
(We will test your ‘moral compass’)
I don’t appreciate the “aggressive nature” of your comments towards me. You have admitted a frustration with me and, while I believe you are asking sincere questions, I also feel that there are snippets of mockery and attitude. I feel that it would be more instructive if we all drop any attitudes and try to address each other with respect. Now… will you kindly adjust your writing style to a less aggressive one?
Okay… knowing simply that I don’t like the aggressive nature of your comments, and that I have asked you to stop, I wonder if you will adjust your writing style…?
(Note: Don’t worry about if treating someone with respect is right or wrong, or if mockery is wrong, or if violating someone’s rights is wrong, or if I have a right to dignity, or if it is wrong to treat someone in a way that demeans them, or if humans have value, if everyone should value human dignity. Simply make your decision on whether or not to adjust your writing style based of the fact that I don’t like the aggressive nature of your current writing style and that I have asked you to adjust it.)
Cheers,
william
Note:
Comment #30 is almost identical to #38. This is because of the glitch in the system. But #38 is newer and has more in it since I had more time to think about what to say. It is that one (#38) which should be read and #30 can be ignored.
Best,
william
Response from Jackson to William: 1 of 3
William — Here’s my reply to the points you raised. See my ***
One thing to put up front, though. You said “Let’s dispense with calling each other’s arguments “shallow” and accusing each other of being careless or not caring about the issues being discussed. “
*** William: I’m not being insulting to you. I respect the fact that you’ve been willing to debate this issue in a civil manner. But where your reasoning is shallow, it needs to be said so by me so you can refute it or concede the point. The same with your analysis of my work. These are not insults (like “stupid”, “moron,” etc.) They are not pejorative, but descriptive terms. I apologize if you interpreted them differently; they were not intended to be read that way. But precision in this discussion is extremely important, as I will illustrated below in pointing out the holes and flaws in your thought process.
So with that understanding, here’s my reply to your comments:
(1) “that all the persons involved perceive such actions as unharmful. We all know what we like and what we don’t like – at least for the moment.”
*** Point #1: Perception is not reality. Therefore, perception cannot equal Big-T “Truth”.
*** Point #2: If a person is ignorant of the facts and acts in an unintentionally harmful way, they are not acting with immoral intent. But if they simply decide that a developing baby isn’t human to have an abortion, to cite one example, and justifying that decision from a legalistic, political philosophy, or convenience perspective, then that’s simply a rationalization.
Note: I realize later that you state that in your opinion abortion is not moral for precisely the reasons I cite below. Where you and I disagree is that you believe this is an opinion, and I believe it is a fact. My analysis shows why abortion must be considered immoral, but your analysis only allows you to say you think it is immoral — while someone may hold an equally valid opposite view that it is moral. All they need to do is arbitrarily say that the developing child isn’t human. If it’s not human, it can’t be harmed any more than removing a tumor harms it. Your “moral” judgment about abortion is a relativistic opinion, nothing more.
(2) “For an action to be moral, all parties involved must agree on this. And this does indeed change depending on the parties involved.”
*** This is not morality. It is consensus. If you mean “all parties” literally, then there must be 100% agreement an every action to assign morality or immorality to it. This is often impractical within a family unit, let alone a society. If you allow subgroups to achieve consensus, what happens if Group A (NAMBLA) defines child rape as moral, and Group B defines it as immoral? Is it ok for Group A to rape children as long as all parties agree? Your criterion for morality is arbitrary, capricious, and eminently changeable. Morality, by its very nature, is none of these.
(3) “… all parties must agree that the harm done to everyone involved is minimized. I use the word “minimized” with the understanding that hopefully in most cases, the harm done is zero, while leaving open the option that some actions MUST be taken which do result in harm.”
*** With all due respect, this is gibberish. How do you minimize harm to an aborted fetus? Just kill it humanely? If your “moral” consensus allows slavery, is slavery ok if you feed the slaves really well, and give them a warm coat in the winter? As long as “all parties” agree to abortion and slavery, then these are logical consequences of your moral system. [By the way, how does the developing fetus register its vote?]
(4) “I shouldn’t have to point out that this definition excludes ‘mass murder,’ ‘child rape,’ etc., etc., and basically everything you have cited as resulting from reasoning and logic.”
*** Why? There’s nothing in the fundamental “logic” of your “all parties agree” system of morality to automatically include or exclude anything? This is simply your opinion. But in 1930s Germany, if enough people want to kill the Jews to reach that critical mass of moral consensus, then it’s “moral” to do so.
“All parties agree” cannot be taken literally. You and I don’t agree, therefore according to that logic we can say nothing about the morality of an issue. Your “all parties agree” prescription can only work in the real world if you look at majority opinion. In this case, the Jews lose, and it’s moral to kill them.
And just how is this consensus achieved, by the way? By a formal vote? Most of the world is ruled by dictators, not democracies. If not a vote, then do subgroups decide (like “community standards”)? If so, what happens if the subgroup is a NAMBLA cell, or a cult that believes in child marriage at age 10?
Once again, when you apply your prescription to the real world, you are saying nothing more than morality = consensus (however defined). And what happens if that consensus concludes that people who don’t believe in God should be imprisoned or killed? Are you prepared to go quietly, or now argue that attacking you would be “immoral” in its own right — regardless of the fact that “all parties agreed” to do it?
(5) “you need not look farther than the Bible for examples where murder/slavery/etc. was justified – which is part of the reason why I don’t trust it.”
*** Which is why I argue that morality does not come from religion. Certain religions and religious practices may help bring out the universal moral code, and others may pervert it. But before you end your analysis here, substitute “political systems” for “the Bible” in your original statement. These systems — some of which are the basis of human consensus like the US Constitution — allowed slavery and abortion.
(6) “Who decides what is harmful? The parties involved. ALL the parties that is. If all agree that said action is okay, then it is not immoral.”
*** Again, by what mechanism is this decision made? If a mob steals from a department store, has the mob “decided” that looting is immoral? Or are they simply acting as a bunch of (immoral) criminals? And once again I ask, how does the embryo vote to decide whether it is human or not?
(7) “Why is this not necessarily cultural/temporally relativistic? Because the thing that trancends culture/time/etc. is the part of minimizing the harm of any kind to others and doing harm against one’s will. The actions may differ, but the attempt to minimize harm and the necessity of consent remains unchanged. That is universal.”
*** You have supplied no practical definition of or example of “harm” (is giving a slave a warm coat not “harming” him? What about denying him his basic liberty? Isn’t that “harm”?). And you have not told me how an aborted fetus registered his/her vote.
(8) There must be a 100% agreement with all the parties involved, else the action is not moral.”
*** As I’ve dealt with this before: is this a worldwide consensus? A community consensus? A family consensus? Let’s say it’s a family. Little 10 year old Suzie consents to having sex with her daddy because she’ll get a new X-box game, or just because her daddy asked her and she thinks her daddy can do nothing wrong. Is this sex now “moral”? If she’s 16 years old, does that make it okay?
If you say she’s “too young” to consent, “too naïve”, or her motives are “wrong”, then you are introducing your own subjective interpretation into this “moral” decision. What give you the right to make that judgment when you said that the issue is all parties agreeing?
I could go on for pages. This is all relativistic nonsense.
(9) “We must ask ourselves, ‘Would this action harm me if someone were to do this to me?’ and ‘Would this action harm someone else if done to them?’ And we must seek the knowledge of those who can best supply it at the time. In short, we must do the best we can to minimize the harm using the resources available to us.”
*** Gobblygook. Not everyone will see “harm” the same way. In a capitalist society, it is not harmful to your fellow man to start your own business. In a communist society, it is intrinsically harmful to do this. A masochist likes pain. Something hurtful to you would be welcomed by him.
Again, I’m not trying to be insulting to you, just direct. I do believe you are sincere in what you say, but since you reject the notion that there is an intrinsic right or wrong apart from man’s own decisions, everything you say is just relativistic mumbo-jumbo. It’s “feel good” language that has no practical aspect to it. It relies on your western notions of values and subjective reasoning to fill in all the gaps I point out that you don’t even see.
Your escape clause about “changing our minds” is meaningless. How does this change occur? A formal vote? A town meeting? Is it world wide, local, etc? There is not ONE SINGLE THING that all of humanity agrees on, in any subject area. Therefore, according to your 100% definition and other reasoning, nothing can be said to be moral or immoral.
(10) “What then is the flaw I see in your stance? I believe you have overlooked the CONSENT of ALL parties involved. I will ask this simple question; if all parties involved agree that action “A” is moral, and by doing said action the harm done to all involved is minimized, then tell me – why would action “A” be immoral?”
*** I believe I have thoroughly explained this above. Not only can you not get 100% consent, consent is — by definition — ephemeral. Morality is not. It can’t be moral to own slaves on Monday, and immoral on Tuesday, and moral again on Wednesday, all due to the presence or absence of human “consent”. This is the definition of what is “legal”, not what is “moral”. The two are not always synonymous.
(11) “ Why is this not necessarily “God-driven”? Because we all know what we like and dislike.”
*** William, in all honesty, this is the basic problem with your analysis. You think that morality is what human beings “like”, or “agree to do”. I like to do a lot of things. That doesn’t make them intrinsically moral or immoral regardless of how many people like the same thing. Your definition of morality is pure relativism.
I will continue on in another post.
Phil
Phil Jackson’s Response to William: 2 of 3
(12) Why is a “God-driven” morality actually dangerous? Because God has not provided us with what He wants beyond all shadow of doubt. “My book says this…” and “his book says something else…”
*** Again, you mix a discussion of God with what specific religions say. This is not the fountainhead of morality, as I explained in my article.
Your examples of Boxing, Premarital Sex, Tattoos, and Homosexuality, Euthanasia, etc. are not relevant to this discussion of the innate moral code given to us by God. They apply to specific religious beliefs and practices, which may or may not reflect that moral code (see my article). This is again an example of what I pointed out about you of before — mixing a discussion of God (and God-given morality) with the practices and beliefs of certain religions.
(13) In discussing child rape, you say “clearly, certain actions bring about negative consequences and obviously, in the example of child rape, the child’s welfare is not being taken into account. Plus, I’m not convinced children have the mental facilities to make informed, rational decisions”
*** I ask you, why does every culture in the world see child rape as a “negative”? Is it the result of a vote? A town meeting? Just how did this universal consensus form? And why is it true in every society, in every period of time? Why does everyone intuitively understand this, and not the other so-called moral issues you raised that are the product of human consensus?
(14) “ Contraception: The last I knew, the Catholic Church teaches against using contraception. My question is, is abstinence also a form of contraception? I don’t know. But I don’t think using contraception is immoral. However, this may be a case where it is morally relative.”
*** Again, you confuse what a religion believes with what is/isn’t inherently moral.
(15) “Death penalty: I believe the death penalty is just.”
*** I do too. Unfortunately that, and the remainder of your analysis, only tells people what you think. It doesn’t say anything about whether it is moral or immoral. I wrote a lot about this in my essay, so I won’t repeat my analysis here, other than to say it’s not my like or dislike of the Death Penalty that assigns morality or immorality to it.
(16) “Animals: What about non-humans?”
*** Okay, this is a long reply, but it shows you what I’ve already written on the subject.
In the West we might love our pets and treat them like family, or drive around with Animal Friendly license plates to show our solidarity with them. But in other parts of the world they routinely eat the same thing I just played fetch with. Cute or not, it’s a meal that feeds a family of five, not counting leftovers.
… some people have espoused the notion that dogs and monkeys and other animals have rights just like humans do. They advocate laws that recognize these alleged “rights.” Dog owners become dog stewards or dog guardians or some such designation. Because human beings are not monolithic, we can always find cases here and there of bizarre ideas and practices. However, while it may seem like a worldwide animal-rights movement is starting to take off — requiring moral Relativists to give serious thought to an emerging world consensus that “animals are people too” — I need only remind you of two things.
First, San Francisco is not the world, regardless of how much air time these idiots get on NBC. And second, even if everyone in the world thought the same way they did, it wouldn’t make a dime’s worth of difference when drawing a conclusion about whether animals have “rights” just like humans do.
Even though I may love my dog more than say, Howard Dean or Dan Rather, I can still tell you with absolute certainty that if Rover and the worst excuse for human debris were trapped together in a burning building and I could only save one of them, I’d be looking for a new puppy as soon as I recovered from my burns, not to mention the shock that I’m the guy responsible for Dan or Howard still showing up on TV. Substitute a brain-damaged human in a vegetative state lying in his own filth who was probably going to die in a week anyway, and it wouldn’t make a difference. Rover would still be toast, literally and figuratively.
Even a supposedly worthless (in the eyes of the mainstream media), brain-damaged, bed-ridden woman like Terry Schiavo has more intrinsic value than the smartest, most wonderful, rarest, most precious animal on the planet. That person was created — literally or metaphorically — in the image of God. She has a soul, and an inborn code of morality that all of us share. Whether she was born that way or became that way makes no more difference to me in recognizing her intrinsic human nature than focusing on the color of another person’s skin, or any other physical attribute you choose.
Whether I have a DNR provision in my own will or not is irrelevant to this calculation. If I’ve violated an intrinsic moral code by allowing myself to die a natural death without having my life artificially prolonged, then there’s only one guy in the universe whose opinion I need to worry about, and it isn’t the story editor at CNN. However, signing my own Do Not Resuscitate decree, or making my opinion on the issue perfectly clear well before the event (not telepathically several years after a lawsuit is settled where my spouse got more money by keeping me alive), is not the same as you or anyone else deciding that it’s time for me to go because you wouldn’t want to live that way.
Killing and raping a child, or pulling the plug on me or Terry Schiavo against our expressed wishes, or arbitrarily deciding that a developing human being is not worth bringing to term are exactly the same things. Anyone with a clear moral compass can see it because the logic is so straightforward. The only ones who can’t are the ones who won’t because it interferes with another agenda. Or they don’t want to see it so they can keep mouthing platitudes and slogans disguised as reasoning. Or, in the worst case of all, they can’t see it because their own moral compass is buried so deep inside them that it no longer registers.
So I ask those of you who think that morality comes from civilizing forces, or is genetically deposited in all of us apart from God directly placing it there, to consider this final question. When you talk about the link between (a) genes and morality, and (b) morality and being human, and (c) human beings acting in a morally correct way, aren’t each of these part of the same overall thing?
Fred stealing my credit card is not the same thing as Rover grabbing my wallet and burying it in his favorite backyard stash. One’s a thief who has the ability to reason, think symbolically, understand moral concepts of right or wrong, and act or not act in accordance with them. The other is an animal. Not just because he smells really bad and has manners like a pig, but because no matter how much we like to think that “the kitty is smiling at me” as my young nephew once said right before it attacked him, an animal has no ingrained morality or a soul. All it has is instinct and basic animal intelligence. And possibly an owner with an overactive imagination.
(17) “Addendum: a. Phil, I use the term “opinion” a bit in this response. I would hope that you would not use that against me. The point of using it is to say that I don’t claim to have the answers. I only state what makes sense to me. Indeed, to claim to have the answers beyond all doubt is a dangerous thing I think. Very dangerous!”
*** You have been accurate in your use of the word “opinion”. And it is the foundation of your moral relativism. I’m not being nasty toward you, just direct.
Your reliance on opinion/relativism is found in your following sentence. You don’t believe there are universal truths. I’ve suggested that there is at least one, and demonstrated that it does not come from human consensus, society, or genetics. We both seem to agreed that not raping a child is a universally shared feeling. So I ask you again, where did it come from?
“b. Also, I would hope that you wouldn’t accuse me of just restating my opinions. You had asked of me to do one of two things, and that is what I attempted to do to the best of my ability.”
*** But that is all you are doing.
“c. I use some examples pulled from religious teachings. I would hope that you wouldn’t accuse me of confusing religion with God.”
*** But that is what you are doing.
“ I cannot cite an example from God since He hasn’t personally given me one.”
*** This is sophistry. I’ve never seen or touched an electron, a black hole, or a star. Yet I know they exist. You can’t see God because you are too busy running away from Him. Every time he shows you that He exists you trot out some religious zealot or silly religious teaching and say “That’s wrong, so God doesn’t exist.” Well, just because you guys still don’t really have a clue whether an electron is a particle or a string, or pops in an out of other dimensions, or can point to where the membrane is, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They do or don’t independent of whether you got it right or not.
“e. To say that something exists beyond all reasonable doubt is to say that it is observable. Either we KNOW love exists beyond all doubt because we can observe it or we don’t know it exists beyond all doubt.”
*** Okay. Prove to me that Love exists. It does. We all know it. So give me the obvious proof that saving my child from a burning building is due to my love for her, vs. my genetic tendency to favor my progeny, or my intellectual or moral belief that all human life is worth saving. By your definition, Love cannot exist unless we “can observe it or we don’t know it exists beyond all doubt.”
“i. My six assumptions on the character of a God worthy of worship are… afterall, MY assumptions.”
*** Forgive the sarcasm, but how nice it is of you, a human being, to decide that God does or doesn’t exist, and is therefore worthy or not of your worship, based on how you feel about him? God, by definition, created the universe. He didn’t create the universe because you found Him worthy, and not create it because you didn’t find Him worthy. That’s like me saying to a physicist “I’ll believe that an electron exists if I think it’s important enough to be believed. If I don’t, then it doesn’t exist.”
“j. You say that this discussion is about whether God exists. To me, it seems this discussion is more about morals and ethics with the underlying theme being “God-driven” morals or not “God-driven”.”
*** Morals do not come from men, as I wrote about extensively and showed above. And they don’t come from genetics. Therefore, they come from God. That’s the linkage, and the proof of God’s existence. And you’ll be able to see it better if you stop thinking about God as Jesus, Allah, Buddha, etc., and start thinking about God as the Creator of the Universe (and us in it).
“ask yourself if I really do sound like a liberal. I don’t think I do. Just saying that being an athiest doesn’t make one a liberal….”
*** Not necessarily, but your wholly relativistic thought process is virtually identical to the contemporary Liberal thought process.
More on another post …
Response from Jackson to William 3 of 3
“You should be happy to know that I believe we agree on almost everything.
*** See, I told you it wouldn’t be that painful :)
“was the author of this article/study correct in saying ‘We have far less to concern ourselves when it comes to atheists.’? You see, I think you do not hold an accurate picture of athiest beliefs. One thing being, we do not reject the notion of God just so we can ‘run amok’.
*** It’s not a purposeful effort (i.e. run amok) that’s the issue, but the supposed scientific basis for moral relativism that bothers me, because it leads to such bad policy (slavery and abortion)
“My six assumptions on the character of a God worthy of worship are… afterall, MY assumptions. They are difficult for me to dismiss yet you say that they are ‘easily dismissed’. This puzzles me since I believe that they are sound, and moreover, they seem to coincide with most of the major religions’ picture of God. If they are indeed easy for you to dismiss, at least, one-by-one, tell me why they are not valid. I really would like to know. If you refuse to do so, I will interpret this as you just wanting to be heard and not wanting to reciprocate – and this discussion will cease.”
*** Okay. Here it is. You start by saying “A God worthy of being worshiped by you… ” Your foundation premise is completely flawed, as I discussed above. Forgive the sarcasm, but how nice it is of you, a human being, to decide that God does or doesn’t exist, and is therefore worthy or not of your worship, based on how you feel about him? God, by definition, created the universe. He didn’t create the universe because you found Him worthy, and not create it because you didn’t find Him worthy. That’s like me saying to a physicist “I’ll believe that an electron exists if I think it’s important enough to be believed. If I don’t, then it doesn’t exist.”
All this makes the rest of the assumptions flawed. But, I’ll still go through them —
1. God would be the supreme ‘being’.
*** Correct
2. God would be just/fair/reasonable.
*** Correct. And it is God who defines these terms, not men.
3. God would not ask of us anything which was impossible for us to do.
*** God doesn’t necessarily “ask” anything of us at all. He gives us sentience so we can recognize that we are a part of a larger universe (unlike lower life forms). He gives us genetic potential and genetic deficiencies through the act of human procreation. He gives us societal opportunities and disadvantages through our interaction with other human beings and nature. He gives us a universal moral code that is part of our very being — read my article and understand what this means — and he gives us the free will to ignore it or follow it.
And when we die, He’ll “ask” us to account for the life we led. How did we use our talents, overcome our difficulties, interact with our fellow human beings and the world we live in , in short, what did we do with the gift of human life? The innate moral code will tell you what God views as right or wrong. Religion can help bring this code out more fully, but it can also work to pervert it. In the end, you are responsible for yourself.
4. God would not ask of us anything which was unreasonable.
*** Correct. But again it is God, not man, who defines this term.
“Would you agree with those? I understand the fourth is a bit fuzzy, but recall the lady in Texas that cut off her children’s arms because she believed God told her to do so… I think we can both agree that that would be an unreasonable request for God to make. Therefore, I would conclude that God did not tell her to do such a thing and so should she have. The point being, there are clear examples of “unreasonable”.
*** Yes. And some not so clear. Like not aborting a child who is the product of a rape. Yes it is horrifying for the mother to carry that baby to term, but what did the developing child do to deserve being killed? Only if you have a clear understanding and appreciation of the universal moral code given to us by God can you judge whether this is a reasonable thing or not.
If you indeed do agree with the four assumptions on the character of God, then perhaps two corollaries may be;
*** But I don’t. Your basic premise that God must be worthy of your worship is flawed, because you mix God with religion. And your criteria for assessing reasonableness, etc, is based on what you (or humanity) decides is reasonable. You might as well just build a stone statue and worship that, since man is creating God in your world, not the other way around.
5. God does not provide incontrovertable evidence for His own existence to everyone.
*** Of course He does! For one thing, we have the universal moral code that can only come from God, per the article I wrote that showed how this was true.
6. God would not expect all of us to believe that He exists since doing so without evidence would not be reasonable.
*** He’s given you all the evidence you need to believe in God. As long as you interweave religion with God, you’ll remain confused.
FYI: I’ve kept this part short because it ties directly into everything I’ve said above. I didn’t think you wanted another 30 pages repeating myself.
“Well, I read your article now and I still can’t easily dismiss my assumptions. I probably spent a good 8-10 hours in reading your article. I would appreciate it if you would one-by-one, either confirm or refute (with explanations) my 6 assumptions – which shouldn’t take as long as the time I invested in your request to read your article….”
*** Well, if it’s any consolation, I’ve spent a good 4 hours responding to your response. I’d be curious if you are still convinced that there is no universal moral code, and if it does exist, how do you explain it apart from God?
Regards,
Phil
William:
There are a couple of fundamental flaws in your reasoning. Let me state them this way:
1 “Proof” of God is not the same as “proof” that the earth orbits the sun. That is, it’s not a scientific proof, but the same type of proof we use to know that Love exists. You can’t touch Love any more than you can touch God.
2 This proof requires eliminating all other possible explanations. I demonstrated that there is a universal moral code: “It is wrong to deliberately harm innocent human life”, and I gave practical examples of this harm (the rape and murder of a 5 year old child). I showed that this universal aversion all mankind shares to this is not the product or society, education, human consensus, or genetics. I also showed that it can only be instilled at one point: conception. All this leads to the conclusion that God is responsible for giving us this moral code, and therefore God exists.
3 Your confusion, I believe, is expressed by your original premise. You are looking for a God “worthy” to worship, and therefore to believe in. This is what I mean by mixing a discussion of God with a discussion of religion. As a scientist, you are looking for the right “theory” to support — Newtonian physics, Quantum mechanics, string theory, membranes, etc. This will tell you whether you “got it right” (i.e. understand the phenomena). However, like God, the phenomena exists whether you understand it or not.
4 In short, you are looking for a particular kind of God. I’m just arguing that there is a God, who by definition is the Creator of the Universe. I have no other description of Him than that. If The Creator of the Universe did in fact create the universe, then he created us (at least indirectly). If he created us, then He can certainly be responsible for instilling the content of the universal moral code. We “prove” this by eliminating other potential explanations, as I have.
5 The problem with your “100% consent = morality” analysis is that it has no application to the real world. There is never 100% consent on anything. Therefore, by your definition, nothing can ever be labeled immoral. Further, since morality/immorality is just the by-product of human consensus, then morality is fleeting. It can be moral to own a slave Monday, immoral Tuesday, moral again Wednesday, etc. This is absurd.
6 You and I both oppose abortion. But your opposition is based on your opinion, which as you have stated previously, is just as valid as someone else’s opinion. You believe that abortion harms the developing child. But not everyone agrees. Are they illogical, lying, ignorant, depraved, etc? That’s the debate that flows from your premise. Mine is more straightforward. To abort a child, an abortionist must define away its humanity, because doing so conflicts with the innate moral code of not deliberately harming innocent human life. This is a rationalization, not a logical conclusion, as I showed in my essay (19 weeks 6 days vs. 20 weeks determines its “humanity” – absurd). The fact that an abortionist must rationalize their actions this specific way proves that the moral code exists, since they don’t explain other decisions that way (i.e. to remove a tumor).
7 I don’t conclude from my analytical framework that prostitution is inherently immoral (unless it is forced prostitution). The same with homosexuality. These are religious determinations. Religion gets it right sometimes, wrong other times, makes reasonable assertions sometimes, and unreasonable ones other times. Which means, man sometimes gets it right, and sometimes gets it wrong. But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the discussion of whether God exists.
8 I don’t think that universities create atheists. But the application of scientific-level proofs to the possibility that God exists certainly does. You’ve taken a useful tool for explaining natural phenomena and applied the same exact standards to assessing a metaphysical one. They require different approaches. [Again, scientifically “prove” that Love exists. You can’t. Are you now forced to conclude that Love does not exist? That’s absurd.]
9 As for blindly defending my theory, there’s nothing blind about it. As a social scientist with practical experience in government and the private sector (I’ve worked in Washington and built 3 companies), I know that your 100% consensus foundation for determining morality is a fantasy. I laid out precisely (and you will say excessively) my methodology and thought process to deduce the existence of a universal moral code, and to eliminate any possible explanation for it other than a metaphysical one. Neither you nor anyone else has explained to me how this “works” other than to invoke God. Until someone does, I’ll continue to support my original claim. That’s not dogma. That’s a fact-based conviction.
10 As for politics, I’m glad to know that you aren’t a member of the Looney Left. But on this issue, your relativistic analysis puts you in that company! Anyway, this has been a good debate, and I’ve enjoyed it as well. I won’t publish these remarks unless you reply publicly to my post. Otherwise, feel free to give me a call. I’d enjoy getting to know you better, and to discuss your reasoning in more detail. Believe it or not, I do this for the intellectual exchange, not simply to state my positions and leave. If I didn’t get it right, I want to know. But right now, to be perfectly honest, your framework doesn’t hold up.
Take care,
Phil
PS: I think that you are really more of an agnostic than an atheist. I think you are willing to concede that there is a God, and that God can create a universal moral code. But you don’t like what man-made religions are telling you about that code, so you’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Do what I counseled instead. Look for the code within yourself (independent of human consensus), recognize that it exists, and understand where it came from. Use that as your starting point for analysis. I wrote one of the foremost hard-core “Catholic” novels (The Lucifer Covenant — see the reviews on my website). And yet, I don’t agree with my church on certain “moral” issues as they define them. I don’t mix the existence of God with the practice of religion.
Phillip Ellis Jackson, Ph.D.
Note to all: Response 46 was actually a private conversation that inadvertently ended up being posted. I had trouble posting my 3 “official” responses, and had to go through IC to have them re-posted. This inadvertently got included in the mix.
There’s nothing in this response that I wouldn’t say publicly, but since I said I wouldn’t post it and it appeared, I thought I owed everyone an explanation and William an apology. To this end, I’ll give him the last word on any points he wishes to reiterate in defense of his own position.
This has been a good debate, and has helped sharpen our understanding of the issue under discussion. I appreciate William’s willingness to participate in a cordial manner, and I again apologize for the unintended post.
Phil Jackson
Wow, what a dialogue. What a great opportunity to flesh out these grand issues!
William, all I have ever done in this series of posts is to ask you questions. I don’t know why you would think that this suggests that I’m being aggressive or lacking respect. If you do not explain to me the fundamental basis for your morality, I have to keep asking.
I re-read my posts just now. In them I have never questioned your character, intelligence, or personally attacked you in any way. I have only dealt with the substance of your arguments at every point. Therefore, I must conclude that your offense is concocted as a smokescreen to divert us from obtaining the foundational assumptions upon which you base your morality.
That is, after all, what I am after. You have made many moral assertions in your posts but have failed to deal with the “a priori” assumptions upon which they are based. You assign moral value to certain things and then use those very things to establish your morality. Do you not see that this is a conundrum?
Dr. Jackson is quite right when he boils down your morality to a relative status. Everything you have said about morality is conditional. Therefore, all morality is simply just another viewpoint with no intrinsic worth or universal application. What is good and right for you may not be for me.
We all then make up our own minds what is moral, and no morality can then claim superiority or value beyond the bounds of the individual. Every man does what is right in his own eyes, an no one can say with authority that it should be any different. This is inescapable.
The real problem as I see it is that you are trying make your case with people like me who can agree with you that, for example, treating other people badly is immoral. You appeal to this shared moral sense to build you case upon. However, your arguments would fail if you were debating someone who was amoral. They would not agree with your premise.
And that is where my arguments are coming from. That’s why I challenge your assumptions. This is what you are building your argument upon, and it needs to be justified without invoking God, religion, or an shared concept of what might be right or wrong.
We have not yet arrived at the foundation of your morality. I happen to believe that without God as the foundation, there is no foundation at all. It’s up to you to prove otherwise.
Final thoughts:
Firstly, I really enjoyed this discussion!
Secondly, I really appreciate that Phil responds. How cool is that to be able to interact with the author of some of these articles (even though he didn’t write this particular one). Thanks Phil. :)
Okay, I tend to think that I say too much and I end up only muddying the waters. I’ll try to be brief (but will probably fail again…).
My “God worthy of worship” doesn’t have anything to do with His existence, but is only meant to get people with crazy ideas that they feel “come from God” (e.g., terrorists) to question the reasonability of their ideas. I would hope that they would conclude, in the end, that their ideas either didn’t come from God, or that they should re-evaluate the “God” they worship. This is akin to asking “What Would Jesus Do?” The point of that discussion was serarate from the discussion of the existence of God.
When I say 100% agreement I don’t mean consensus. Surely two people can either come to an agreement, and if not, the action shouldn’t be taken. For example, boxers that agree it is okay to punch each other in the face. If even ONE person doesn’t give consent, then the action is immoral if done to THAT person. That is what I claim is the “absolute” part of my argument and is what is universal.
In short, if I don’t want you to do something that affects me, and it is not necessary that you do it, and provided my past behavior doesn’t nullify my “vote,” (e.g., if I harm others and your action is meant to prevent this), then it would be immoral for you to do it even if you think otherwise. And even animals can “communicate” to you if they don’t like something. Heck, if I put my finger next to a spider it even can communicate to me that it “doesn’t like it” by running away (in reality, it probably is in fear for its life). And for those who cannot give their consent (e.g., the unborn), if your action will render them harm, then the action must not be taken. Here “harm” could mean a number of things, and included in the definition of harm would surely be an action that would render them permanently unable to give their consent (i.e., to kill them).
I do tend to think that there is an absolute morality but I’m just not ready to say that God is the foundation for it. In other words, there may be some other source for it, and it may be as simple as what I have given in my previous argument – the simple thing that we can “communicate” to others that we don’t want that action to take place provided the action is not necessary. And by communication I mean direct or indirect.
If I have muddied the waters again, I only ask that you read what I have written again and try your best to understand what I mean. Things are a lot clearer in my mind than what I can put into words.
One of the dangers when we invoke God is the people that think they can read God’s mind. Terrible things can be done when that happens.
Alright, let’s move on to the proof of God’s existence given indirectly by Phil. In short, here is how it goes:
a. God is necessary for there to be an absolute morality/moral code.
b. An absolute morality/moral code exists.
c. Therefore, God exists.
If “a” and “b” are indeed correct, then “c” is inescapable. So let’s analyse “a” and “b.”
I have hinted that I believe “b” to be true. However, I am wrong more than I’m right. So let’s play “devil’s advocate.” Phil gives the example that it is always wrong to rape and kill a 5 year old child. He picks a young age for the child to demonstrate innocence and shock value. Phil also asks for a volunteer to go out in public and yell “Hey! I love to rape and kill 5 year olds!” And indeed, the person who does this will… let’s just say, have a “bad day.” :D
Okay… I recall a few years back the story of a 5 or 6 year old boy taking a gun to school and killing a 5 or 6 year old girl. I believe this took place in Flint Michigan in case you want to google it. This was a shocking tragedy. But what made it shocking? Well, partly due to the 5 year old child who was killed, but also that another 5 year old could DO such an act.
The point to this story, is that if a 5 year old went out in public and yelled “Hey! I love to rape and kill 5 year olds!”, that child wouldn’t have as “bad of a day” as the adult who yelled the same thing. Further, if this child yelled this in front of his class instead of in front of adults, his fellow classmates wouldn’t react the same way as adults would. And, this child’s fellow prisoners wouldn’t react the same way to him as they would an adult who committed the same crime, even when the child reaches adulthood.
Of course this says nothing about the fact that the act of raping and killing a 5 year old is still immoral, but it does add a “twist.”
So when would such an act be “moral”, or at least, “forgivable?” (Geez Phil, I hate that you are making me even think about such things!!!)
Let me set up a scenario that, I’ll say on the onset, I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO! (So don’t flame me….) Okay, picture your “favorite” group of “bad guys.” They could be either terrorists, psychopaths, or even the devil himself. Now, imagine they tell you to kill (I leave out rape because I’m not sure how any sane person would be able to “function” in such a scenario, but you can add it if you want…) this innocent child or they will rape and kill that child and another (i.e., TWO children). Your action clearly would cause harm to the child, but your inaction would cause the same or worse harm to TWO children. Let’s also say that this child “understands” what must be done. Let’s say that they look at you with their innocent eyes and tell you “Phil, I know what these guys are forcing you to do. I know I will die either way. But I would rather it be YOU than them that has to do this.” And clearly, the “bad guys” are CHOOSING to be immoral. Is either, or both actions you could do, in the very least, forgivable? Believe me, I hate to play the “numbers game,” but in this scenario, what is the moral (or least immoral) answer? (For the sake of argument, let’s say there is NO option “c,” that is, no other option. But believe me, I’d try to find one! And no cheating. You can’t say that the terrorists or whoever is your favorite “bad guys” will watch you kill the child and then do whatever they want. For the sake of argument, take this scenario as is.)
If that scenario is too far-fetched, then how about this one. We are all familiar with the events of 9/11. At one point, the president had to decide whether or not to shoot down the remaining planes. He could either shoot down the planes and lose lives, or not shoot them down and MORE lives could be lost. Would either action/inaction he could take, be in the very least, forgivable? Suppose one of the planes was full of children on a “field trip.” Does that change anything?
Again, I tend to think that there IS an absolute morality, but maybe my brain is not of a high enough quality to always be able to determine what it is. But I do think it is immoral to rape and kill a 5 year old for “personal pleasure.” This would imply an absolute morality. So I DO think premise “b” is valid.
Okay, now let’s explore premise “a,” that God is necessary for an absolute morality. This is the part which is more obscure.
I think one point of confusion here is the term “absolute.” Off the cuff, people would think of absolute as in “absolute action.” I tend to think of “absolute” as more esoteric. What I invision as absolute is the IDEA that a person can decide for themselves what actions they don’t want to be done to them – and said actions would be immoral provided the criteria of necessity is not met and that their past behavior doesn’t negate their “vote,” and that they are able to give consent. Clearly, this doesn’t require God – only the individual. I realize that this is pretty abstract stuff. If you don’t quite understand what I mean, I don’t think I can explain it any better (it seems clear in my mind…).
On to Mountain Man;
MM wrote:
“I re-read my posts just now. In them I have never questioned your character, intelligence, or personally attacked you in any way. I have only dealt with the substance of your arguments at every point. Therefore, I must conclude that your offense is concocted as a smokescreen to divert us from obtaining the foundational assumptions upon which you base your morality.”
I agree that you haven’t personally attacked me, but you did admit to a frustration with me and I thought I detected mockery in some of what you wrote. In the very least you claim that I refuse to answer your questions, but, I feel that I have answered your objections clearly in a few of my comments but there is still confusion over what I really mean. I tried to explain this to the best of my ability and can do no better. If it is still unclear, then I don’t know how else to explain it. It seems clear to me. I don’t mean to say that “you just don’t get it,” but for some reason my explanations seem to you to be insufficient. I will accept the responsibility that my communication skills are simply not good enough to explain what I mean.
Before you ask the same questions, ask yourself if you have answered my questions to you (the answer is “no” by the way…). And if you ask your questions again, I must conclude that I just cannot convey my thoughts to you in a way that you will understand. I did the best I could. In no way have I tried to “concoct a smokescreen.”
Still, Mountain Man, I appreciate that you have adjusted your writing style in your last comment and that you take time away from your “mountain activities” to converse with me. :)
Anyway, I appreciate this discussion. If nothing else, this discussion has brought morality to the forefront of my mind. It may be that I am more of an agnostic than an atheist – this is something I’ll have to figure out.
I would hope more of the authors on this site would interact with the readers as Phil does. He even gave me his phone number and offered to let me call him! How cool is that! Phil, you have a new fan – me. Phil, feel free to give a rebuttal. I don’t require the “last word.” And Steven Laib I think deserves a raise. He is caring does a wonderful job.
If I ever get the chance to have a beer with Phil I’ll do just that. We’ll get sloberknockered and impress loose women with our combined intellectual brilliance. And Mountain Man should come along too. :)
Cheers,
william
William –
A five year old child is not capable of exercising reasoned judgment; therefore what he/she does cannot be evaluated in moral terms. Like a retarded child they possess an innate moral code, but are unable to express it. The retarded child is blocked due to mental incapacities. [Autism, for example, blocks the expression of things like love, but love still exists. Genetics does not provide the content of values, but may work to suppress (or enhance) the expression of that content).] An otherwise normal young child has not developed to the point where they can access their inner moral code to guide them in all circumstances. Their reasoning and other mental abilities are not fully mature.
And in a just war, for example, innocent people do die without their death being an immoral act. When you get a chance, re-read what I said about dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. Also, have another look at what I wrote about Islamo fascism. It pertains to your example about immoral people acting under the guise of morality.
I’ll end by repeating that if you believe there is an absolute right and wrong in at least some circumstances, then you need to explain how this is true for all people, in all societies, in all time periods, if society/education/human genetics, etc. cannot account for it. It leaves only one answer. God.
By the way, if we ever meet, I’ll have the beer but probably pass on the loose women. For some reason, my wife tends to frown on things like that.
Take care,
Phil