Neo-Atheism is not Atheism

[Tim_nz]

@Vinnie

For it entirely removes from the world essences and final causes, and thus the possibility of making sense of the good as an objective feature of reality. (See The Last Superstition for details.) And since modern atheism tends to define itself in terms of such a radically anti-teleological or mechanistic view of the world, it too is to that extent incompatible with any possible morality.

You appear to be conflating “any possible morality” with objective morality (“good as an objective feature of reality”).

Does Feser make the (in my opinion) rather extreme claim that objective morality is the only possible form of morality?

[Vinnie]

I think he does but his position is rather nuanced.

But proximately ethics can be done at least to a large extent without reference to God, just as natural science can. In that sense, many moral truths would still be true even if, per impossibile, there were no God – just as the periodic table of the elements would be what it is even if, per impossibile, there were no God. (All of this is discussed in chapter 5 of Aquinas. And see the first half of this article for a sketch of A-T natural law theory.)

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))]

@Vinnie

it entirely removes from the world essences and final causes, and thus the possibility of making sense of the good as an objective feature of reality.

Agreed. And thus BioLogos, in the ultimate sense, is not in a position to bring joy to those who oppose the divine attribute added to nature by the Divine aspect of the Universe.

The mature atheist understands this quandry …. but knows that the problem “AT HAND” is not Atheist’s disbelief in God, but the Creationist’s disbelief in God’s use of natural processes (including evolutionary processes) to execute His divine order.

Every time we allow discourse where an IMMATURE Atheist criticizes Creationists for believing in the divine, the BioLogos Christian mission deteriorates a little further.

[Kendel]

I’m not sure if by quoting Edward Feser’s blog post you represent your own view or something else.

No matter.

@Vinnie

But to opt for a completely anti-essentialist and anti-teleological view of the world – one which holds that the natural order is entirely mechanistic and that there is nothing beyond that order – is, the A-T philosopher would argue, to undermine the possibility of any sort of morality at all. For it entirely removes from the world essences and final causes, and thus the possibility of making sense of the good as an objective feature of reality.

This is a definitional argument, contingent on unprovable concepts of essences and teleos. Feser’s explanation must assume that essences and telos exist at all if they are later to be “removed”.

Applying Feser’s quote in this discusssion overlooks factors that don’t fit into his definition as well – Christians that don’t view the concept of essence as essential,
Disagreement among Christians about moral action and “the good” it will do,
A large group of atheists who do view history as teleological, Marxists,
Moral acts and systems of morality of atheists.

@Vinnie

And since modern atheism tends to define itself in terms of such a radically anti-teleological or mechanistic view of the world, it too is to that extent incompatible with any possible morality.

Again, this claim can only hold if it actually describes reality. As it cannot be demonstrated to do so, it is an opinion.

And, as I observe, an ill informed one. If Feser really believes this, he needs to get out more and actually interact with real atheists.

[edited slightly 12/2, 04:58]

[Tim_nz]

@Vinnie -- quoting Feser

But proximately ethics can be done at least to a large extent without reference to God, just as natural science can. In that sense, many moral truths would still be true even if, per impossibile, there were no God – just as the periodic table of the elements would be what it is even if, per impossibile, there were no God. (All of this is discussed in chapter 5 of Aquinas. And see the first half of this article for a sketch of A-T natural law theory.)

I can see two problems with this:

1. “The periodic table of the elements” would appear to be a purely human invention – a human-created model of how the elements ‘fit’ together. I am therefore not seeing the connection to God. I would note that the same could be said of the A-T framework (that it is a human-created model).

2. “But proximately ethics can be done at least to a large extent without reference to God …” would appear to be an admission that some form of atheistic morality is possible. Feser may be of the opinion that God-referencing morality is superior to atheistic morality – but that’s an entirely different proposition to one that states that atheistic morality is outright impossible.

[Apistos]

@gbrooks9

Every time we allow discourse where an IMMATURE Atheist criticizes Creationists for believing in the divine, the BioLogos Christian mission deteriorates a little further.

Apart from, you . have . got to be joking, I don’t see any remotely since @Gary_M left, and he matured noticeably. BL’s mature uphill mission against a huge jarring spectrum of Christian immaturity, from wooden fundamentalism to Thomism, is a noble one. Did Gary threaten the little ones? I.e. those Southern and Mid-Western, non-metropolitan kids coming out from under?

[Apistos]

What impressed me is that she is not as rash as me, going where angels have no need to tread, and stating the obvious, though she implies it in our ignorance of physics, that not only is spooky fine tuning a fallacy, projected back down the wrong end of the telOscope, but that the 6-23 values are the result of self tuning, emerging in the finest mist of existence, of being, grounded by the eternal instantiation of logic. Order does not require meaning. Intent.

Love is not abstruse, occult.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Vinnie

@T_aquaticus

I have seen many people express their views that atheists are amoral or immoral, and that there is no way an atheist could have any reliable foundation for morality.

This may be true of some people but I think for many of us we would say atheism cannot have a reliable foundation for morality, not that atheists are are amoral or immoral or don’t think they have adequate grounds for being moral. I think that is a very important distinction. I’m sure some Christians vilify atheists in the former sense. The irony is that is unscriptural. But I know for me that when you say morality is subjective, …

No-one said morality is subjective.

There are objective moralities that are not based on religion, such as utilitarianism.

@Vinnie

…a lot of us theists understand that as being synonymous with “not having a reliable foundation.”

I suspect those theists all pick and choose which parts of their ‘objective’ morality to follow, and which parts to ignore.

@Vinnie

And if Christianity is true, we are in the same boat in that human-based goodness is incomplete and insufficient without God’s intervention.

And if Christianity isn’t true, what then?

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Vinnie

Feser: … And since modern atheism tends to define itself in terms of such a radically anti-teleological or mechanistic view of the world, it too is to that extent incompatible with any possible morality.

The concept of utilitarianism is proof that Feser is simply wrong.

[Apistos]

@Roy

There are objective moralities that are not based on religion, such as utilitarianism.

Hmmm. There ain’t no such thing as objective morality. No non-knowledge believer has any. And no knowledge believer can demonstrate any either.

[Apistos]

@Vinnie

Feser: As I say, then, atheism per se is not a direct threat to the very possibility of morality. Someone who denied the existence of God but accepted Aristotelian essentialism could have grounds for accepting at least part of the natural law. So too could someone who endorsed an atheistic form of Platonism (if there could be such a thing). But to opt for a completely anti-essentialist and anti-teleological view of the world – one which holds that the natural order is entirely mechanistic and that there is nothing beyond that order – is, the A-T philosopher would argue, to undermine the possibility of any sort of morality at all. For it entirely removes from the world essences and final causes, and thus the possibility of making sense of the good as an objective feature of reality. (See The Last Superstition for details.) And since modern atheism tends to define itself in terms of such a radically anti-teleological or mechanistic view of the world, it too is to that extent incompatible with any possible morality.

Then the A-T philosopher is an idiot.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Apistos

Then the A-T philosopher is an idiot.

Or, more likely, Feser is an idiot.

[Kendel]

@Roy

No-one said morality is subjective.

Maybe not yet. In this thread.

@Roy

There are objective moralities that are not based on religion, such as utilitarianism.

To some degree, utilitarianism could be considered objective, in that well-being can be measured (to some degree).

But there are subjective aspects even to that measurement, I think:
The selection of “features of wellbeing” that are determined to give an accurate picture of well-being.
The limits that are established where levels of well-being are inadequate.
How to handle competing interests (see the Global warming thread) that affect various groups’ well-being.
The willingness to disregard the interests of minority groups whose well-being is statistically insignificant to the whole.
and so on.

I don’t intend to argue against the reality of morality demonstrated by atheists, but to consider that even utilitarianism is not entirely objective.

To your earlier point (that no one has that morality is subjective), I think there are likely good philosophical arguments that it is in fact subjective. Not being a philosopher, I am unprepared to offer them, though. However, I think that Christians, of which I am one, who want to claim that their morality is thoroughly based on something objective, which I do not, fail to look out their window. We are cultural creatures, who do not, cannot adhere to absolute, objective, (“biblical”) morality much less understand what it is.

The most basic, “Do unto others,” is entirely subjective.

[Kendel]

@Roy

@Apistos

Then the A-T philosopher is an idiot.

Or, more likely, Feser is an idiot.

Idiots or not, Feser and the “A-T philosopher” (Aristotilian-Thomistic Philosopher), have made a subjective choice to rely on Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ thought to ground their own.

[Apistos]

@Kendel

@Roy

No-one said morality is subjective.

Maybe not yet. In this thread.

See three up!

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Kendel

@Roy

There are objective moralities that are not based on religion, such as utilitarianism.

To some degree, utilitarianism could be considered objective, in that well-being can be measured (to some degree).

But there are subjective aspects even to that measurement, I think:
The selection of “features of wellbeing” that are determined to give an accurate picture of well-being.
The limits that are established where levels of well-being are inadequate.
How to handle competing interests (see the Global warming thread) that affect various groups’ well-being.
The willingness to disregard the interests of minority groups whose well-being is statistically insignificant to the whole.
and so on.

I don’t intend to argue against the reality of morality demonstrated by atheists, but to consider that even utilitarianism is not entirely objective.

To your earlier point (that no one has that morality is subjective), I think there are likely good philosophical arguments that it is in fact subjective. Not being a philosopher, I am unprepared to offer them, though. However, I think that Christians, of which I am one, who want to claim that their morality is thoroughly based on something objective, which I do not, fail to look out their window. We are cultural creatures, who do not, cannot adhere to absolute, objective, (“biblical”) morality much less understand what it is.

The most basic, “Do unto others,” is entirely subjective.

Apart from there being a difference between a moral system and the basis of that moral system, such that the basis can be objective yet the system not, there is a more obvious point to be made be subjectivity:

The subjectivity involved in deciding what contributes to wellbeing isn’t much different to the subjectivity in deciding what constitutes honouring parents or keeping the Sabbath or (as you note) doing unto others. There’s also subjectivity in choosing a Christian denomination or even choosing Christianity over Islam, Buddhist, Sikhism, etc.

I think we’re mostly in agreement that no moral system or basis thereof is entirely objective, and it comes down to assessing degrees of subjectivity.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@Kendel

@Roy

@Apistos

Then the A-T philosopher is an idiot.

Or, more likely, Feser is an idiot.

Idiots or not, Feser and the “A-T philosopher” (Aristotilian-Thomistic Philosopher), have made a subjective choice to rely on Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ thought to ground their own.

Based only on that extract, “A-T philosopher” is ambiguous - it could mean “anti-teleological”. More context is needed.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Vinnie

This may be true of some people but I think for many of us we would say atheism cannot have a reliable foundation for morality, not that atheists are are amoral or immoral or don’t think they have adequate grounds for being moral.

Since atheism is just a lack of belief in deities, this makes sense. We also wouldn’t say that not believing in UFOs is a foundation for morality.

@Vinnie

But I know for me that when you say morality is subjective, a lot of us theists understand that as being synonymous with “not having a reliable foundation.”

Being an atheist who subscribes to subjective morality, I have run into this quite a bit. If our subjective intuition of what is moral is not a reliable foundation then we are without a foundation. I would argue that this is consistent with Christian theology where the laws are written on our hearts.

Romans 2:14-15: For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

I would argue that this is the foundation of subjective morality, our inner conscience that tells us what is wrong and right.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Kendel

To your earlier point (that no one has that morality is subjective), I think there are likely good philosophical arguments that it is in fact subjective. Not being a philosopher, I am unprepared to offer them, though.

I think there are good theological arguments for subjective morality. I quoted one Bible verse above, and another example is the Adam and Eve story in Genesis. They ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, coming to know these things as God does. Even the authors of Genesis understood that we have an inner sense of morality, or at least that is what I take away from those verses. That inner sense of morality is subjective morality. In my view (for what it’s worth), part of Christian theology is meant to work with our subjective morality, as a guide to the morality we already have.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Vinnie

As I say, then, atheism per se is not a direct threat to the very possibility of morality. Someone who denied the existence of God but accepted Aristotelian essentialism could have grounds for accepting at least part of the natural law. So too could someone who endorsed an atheistic form of Platonism (if there could be such a thing). But to opt for a completely anti-essentialist and anti-teleological view of the world – one which holds that the natural order is entirely mechanistic and that there is nothing beyond that order – is, the A-T philosopher would argue, to undermine the possibility of any sort of morality at all.

That makes no sense. Even if there is no purpose or objective essence to our morality we still have wants and needs in this world. We still have emotional intuition of what is right and wrong even if our brains are entirely mechanistic in a Monist fashion. We want the world to be a certain way, and we often strive to change the world to match our intuition of how we think it should be. That’s morality.