Well, I won’t argue with that. I guess I am confused though on where I misrepresented atheist worldview. I won’t be surprised if I did, I just don’t know where exactly.
I don’t need to repeat what @T_aquaticus has already gone over.
Depends… Penner called Craig a violent apologist… and still does as far as I am aware
It’s a very mixed bag for me. I have had a few moments that I remember well and they help me to look forward to the great amd glorious day
If what you are arguing is a subjective opinion, I think that would be fine. If you want to claim that the Bible is true in some objective sense, then some objective evidence would be handy.
If belief is God is a subjective opinion, then that would be fine.
I don’t share their subjective opinion, if that is what you are offering. Since we don’t compel people to believe in God or any gods and one person’s belief does not impact others then there doesn’t need to be a majority opinion. We each believe as we want.
However, this is very different from ethics and morality. Humans do interact, and the rules we set out for those interactions are ethics and morality. So we do need some consensus where ethics and morality is concerned. This is why we have laws and social customs.
I would think your values and beliefs are important to you.
The one thing I do find interesting is that when you ask about morality you ask for my subjective opinion. You don’t point to something objective, but instead ask what peoples’ values and ideas are. Morality makes zero sense outside of what humans value, and that is what makes morality subjective.
3 Likes
I wouldn’t go as far as saying you misrepresented the atheist worldview. Instead, you assumed that all atheists would share your belief that morality has to be objective. Even among atheists there is a wide spectrum of beliefs about the objectivity and subjectivity when it comes to morality. There are indeed atheists who believe morality is objective in some sense, but I just happen to not be one of those atheists.
1 Like
This surprised me, I either forgot you were an atheist or hadn’t come across you stating it before. Surely you realize this is a metaphysical claim, and it’s what surprised me most.
What is “this” in that sentence? As far as I am aware, lacking a belief in deities isn’t a metaphysical claim, it is just an assessment of what I believe. I don’t make the additional claim that gods don’t exist, if that is what you are curious about. I also don’t see how it is a metaphysical claim when I say that morality is based on human opinion. Again, that’s an assessment of what I see.
You stating yourself to be an atheist
Possibly for an agnostic, but even then I still see metaphysics as being inescapable. Which can be illustrated by an experience I had with a philosophy of law professor who wouldn’t say whether reality can contradict itself. Not even a “I don’t know” would come from his lips. It was as if the “it’s not even wrong” got flipped on him.
I wasn’t even thinking about this… and yet ironically, morality is in large part based on the human opinion that other people exist
Since you are a believer, that is probably the case. At what point are we responsible for the beliefs of others?
If there was only one human in existence there wouldn’t be any need for morality. As the old saying goes, the freedom to swing your first ends where another person’s nose begins.
That’s wide ranging. At what point are YECs to be ridiculed for being on par with flat earthers?
As for metaphysics, the question is inescapable anytime something happens.
Video games are going to be wild when NPCs have a believable AI driving the dialogue and actions… it’s going to be something what people do in these virtual worlds… it’s also wild how everyone most people who talk about how this world could be virtual do so assuming other peope are really there
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.2353910.23
edited to add correction and link
One regret:
I write this with deepest regret regarding @RichardG ’ s valid concerns. I want to address something quite different from what I think he means by apologetics. Something we’ve just seen demonstrated here in this thread and in a few other current threads (as well as others).
Returning to Misrepresentation:
@T_aquaticus, I want to come back to my claim that the atheist worldview has been misrepresented. I understand if you don’t. I think much of this thread demonstrates exactly the reasons I’ve given before for my dislike for what is commonly thought of as “apologetics.”
I believe these claims about grounding for “moral intuition” are simply false and therefore a misrepresentation:
a certain world view has no grounding for that intuition
A lot of people say atheism has no grounding for morality, and through apologetics they try to show that they will require more “blind faith” than reason to believe that their world view does have a grounding for morality when they have no reason to believe so.
The existence of morality, or some vague thing referred to as “moral intuition,” can be explained well in ways that have nothing to do with God or God creating humans with a “moral intuition.” We even see evidence of “moral intuition” in higher mammals, who cannot attest to their belief in or unbelief in God/god/gods. The most rudimentary features of morality, such as whom one may and may not kill, or with whom one may mate, or from whom one may take food, are clearly understood in the animal world and enforced subjectively and violently. With animals, we might call it socialization. There are probably better terms zoologists use.
In the human world, using Kierkegaardian, actually Hegelian terms, The Universal is not so universal. It is universal within its cultural sphere. Move to other wider cultures, you will see wide variation in what cultures call “moral.” And among Christians, even, you will see great differences regarding, for example, the poor, the Other, women, justice, injustice, freedom, autonomy, community, spousing, etc.
The Hitler example seems to be a pet example in our culture for the existence of “objective” morality and it’s superiority over “subjective” morality. But what it shows us, is that within the wider Christianized western world at that time the NAZIs were outliers, as well as the Italian fascists. Although other forms of killing were justified. However, torture, genocide and slavery were practiced at other times in history by the same groups. Objective morality is not so objective as we would like to believe, and certainly not objective enough to make a universal claim that would lead to believe God gives humans an objective moral intuition.
Regarding “techniques” used in this thread:
-
The apologist “establishes” the categories for the discussion, whether the apologee thinks that way or not. By focusing the argument on the concepts “objective” and “subjective” the offensive team can distract the apologee from the wider view outside the categories.
-
As much as the apologist is able, the apologist keeps the apologee on the defensive.
-
Whenever possible, the apologist uses vagarities: “it is pretty widely regarded”, “A lot of people say”. There is a lot of strategic wiggle room here.
-
The apologist makes claims and refuses to support them, I refer you to this.
-
Rather, when support is demanded, the apologist put the burden of disproof on the apologee. See the point above.
-
The apologist misrepresents a person’s world view, and then puts the burden of disproof on the apologee.
-
The apologist is free to misdirect or bring in unexplained tangents to baffle an apologee.
-
The apologist uses perfect etiquette in order to humiliate the apologee all the more, when the apologee becomes frustrated with the game.
-
The apologist attempts to leave the ball in the apologee’s court, in order to appear undefeated, and further humiliate the apologee.
I’m sure I’ve missed other strategies. I don’t have time to look for more.
To the OP: Is apologetics (often) a waste of time?
As I see demonstrated in this thread and have seen elsewhere, the brand of apologetics I discuss in this post is something quite different from a waste of time.
1 Like
A rational case can be made for Hitler being evil; it rests on the (observed) concept of self-ownership and the principle that if I want to most enjoy exercise of my self-ownership then I must respect the right of others to express their self-ownership.
Yeah, it’s the Golden Rule on a minimal level: refrain from infringing on others as you would have them refrain from infringing on you.
So is the above derivation of the Golden Rule still subjective even though it is reasoned out?
1 Like
Interesting observation!
Of course there would – there are still animals.
1 Like
Objective?
In a discussion online about a game I recently acquired a common complaint was that diplomacy sucks. Someone said, “So what if it had ChatGPT to run diplomacy?”
The first answer was, “I don’t want it THAT real!”
2 Likes
To me none of that is apologetics, rather it’s “how to be a total jerk”. The apologist should have actual solid data, non-fallacious reasoning, and an ability to hear what his ‘opponent’ is actually saying.
The one about using perfect etiquette has me puzzled 
In a way similiar to how it is wrong to treat people like they don’t exist if you believe they do? It seems to be subjective and objective at the same time but in different senses.
Randy has linked this blog before, but it is still good advice to keep friends and influence people:
2 Likes