Is this thread going to devolve into discussing THEODICY …. again?
G.Brooks
You are assuming that I hadn’t already read the bible and seen what happened in my life.
I suspect what I would have done then is ask whether and how your claims could be confirmed, noted they could not be, and moved on.
False. You’ve only claimed one exists. If you had shown it, we’d know what it said.
So if your supposed objective moral system didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be able to find it.
You can’t find it.
They’re verified by your own eyes. Or do you think the universe explains its own existence somehow?
Even after knowing the universe is quite literally information.
To say we are rendered in the Logos of God is not a “gap”, it’s a verified prediction by a theory of the Apostles.
Hm, I wish I had had that sort of a course. You can probably teach me. My dad and I always talked about lying to protect our families if an intruder came.
Would that be a different case?
Thank you
An argument that I couldn’t agree more with, I agree with it wholeheartedly Apatheism Is More Damaging to Christianity Than Atheism and Antitheism - Public Discourse
I also have a bunch of people to reply to and I haven’t yet, I have had very little time in the last two days, but I will as soon as I can. But the argument above is 100% spot on. I mentioned apatheism many times and many Christians don’t realize how dangerous, deeply dangerous, it is
1 Like
The general position of natural moral law is that lying is always wrong. Even if you were hiding Jews in your attic. You can be silent, you can be ambiguous, you can violently resist to the point of death. But lying is always wrong. But in this case you would not be morally culpable in the same way if you were lying to defraud someone of money. But telling falsehoods is objectively wrong even if it’s about Santa Clause to children or don’t to try to save one. Consequentialism is pretty bankrupt as a moral system.
Of course, we need to be prepared to discuss John 7:8.
Vinnie
2 Likes
There is, however, a hierarchy among moral goods: saving a life is immeasurably more important than refraining from lying. In such a case, lying would not become an intrinsic moral good, but rather a lesser evil—tolerable only in order to achieve a greater good.
That said, consequentialism is not acceptable (otherwise one might argue that it would be good to kill one’s children immediately after Baptism, since this would guarantee them eternal life and salvation). At the same time, I do not think Kant’s categorical imperative is truly Christian either.
I feel like you put forward a consequentialist argument (greater good = outcome) then said consequentialism is not acceptable.
I mean, I’m not seeing a mother who lies to protect her children as a great evil. I would say her lie is wrong but given the coercion involved, moral culpability is not there.
But at the end of the day, we are told not to fear those who can kill the body. We are called to live morally, trust God and let the chips fall where they may. And I am not saying that like it’s easy or I have it mastered.
2 Likes
Not really. What I mean is that an objective evil, while still remaining evil in itself, can become tolerable (that is, not good—otherwise there would be nothing to tolerate) for the sake of achieving a greater good. Consequentialism, by contrast, would imply that in such a situation lying could become morally good.
To be honest, I would see her refusal to protect the child simply because she doesn’t want to lie as an enormous sin. I mean, when I was a child, it never even crossed my mind for a single moment that my mother wouldn’t have protected me in that situation.
And I very much doubt that God would want a child to be killed in that situation, or consider it a better outcome than the mother lying.
2 Likes
I’ve just finished reading the entire essay, and I have to say, honestly, I’m thoroughly unimpressed. I mean, even if I’d gone into it fully expecting to be unimpressed, I still wouldn’t have believed I could end up this unimpressed right now. 
Joking aside, I find there to be a lack of solid reasoning behind his claims. I mean he says
“I am no memetic engineer, and I have very little idea how to increase the numbers of the supernice and spread their memes through the meme pool. The best I can offer is what I hope may be a catchy slogan: “Atheists for Jesus would grace a T-shirt. There is no strong reason to choose Jesus as icon instead of some other role-model from the ranks of the supernice such as Mahatma Gandhi (not the odiously self-righteous Mother Teresa, heavens no). I think we owe Jesus the honor of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense that he inevitably espoused as a man of his time. And perhaps the oxymoronic impact of “Atheists for Jesus” might be just what is needed to kick-start the meme of superniceness in a post-Christian society. If we play our cards right, could we lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into the kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity enlightenment?”
But I passionately disagree with him, because I believe that Jesus’ radical ethics only make sense in light of a meaningful world—one created by God and ultimately oriented toward God. In a meaningless universe, which is precisely the kind of universe Dawkins believes in, there would be no reason to follow Jesus’ radical and self-sacrificial ethics at all. In fact, I would be the first enemy of such ethics if I were truly convinced that existence is meaningless.
If the universe has no meaning, if death has the final word, and if we will all eventually die and become nothing more than worm food regardless of what we do—both we and the people we love—then that alone would already be an unbearable burden. We certainly would not need to follow, in that case, the moral teachings of a merely “human, all too human” cit. Jewish man from two thousand years ago.
I’m sorry, but I am far more radical than Mr. Dawkins: either we have something—something worth living and dying for—or we do not. And if we do not, then all bets are off. It’d be useless to pretend we do. I would certainly see no reason to be “super nice,” as Mr. Dawkins likes to put it—not even to myself.
In that case, I would resent the very fact that I was born. (And I say this as someone who is currently happy and who loves life very much.)
He asks: “If we play our cards right, could we lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into the kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity enlightenment?”
The answer, my answer, is: yes, maybe we could. But why should we? Why?
I also suspect that Dawkins’s notion of “super niceness” would still allow—and perhaps even encourage—many things that I find morally abhorrent. So the question is: super nice according to whom? By what standards?
For instance, if a society collectively agreed that the age of consent should be lowered to ten years old, would that make pedophilia compatible with the kind of “super niceness” he has in mind? Should we really assume that the moral standards of a man living in the 2020s ought to define what counts as “super niceness” and remain unquestionable forever? And if not—since there is no reason to make such a leap, given that without any transcendent foundation it is simply a fact that human moral norms are constantly changing—then why shouldn’t pedophilia become compatible with “super niceness” a hundred years from now? Or perhaps the “merciful killing” of the elderly, so as not to burden welfare systems? We would kill them in a super nice way, Mr Dawkins, obviously…
Honestly, his argument strikes me as rather superficial—especially coming after his earlier claim that niceness itself is an evolutionary aberration (which, under the purely materialistic framework he adopts, it arguably is).
1 Like
Although I agree with Vinnie in this matter, I understand the thinking behind your claims. Ethical cost-benefit analyses typically handle cases where there are ‘bad’ consequences in every alternative. We just have to select the option where the balance of the benefits and costs is the best possible one among the alternatives we have.
I am a ‘purist’ in the sense that Vinnie described: we should never lie. Yet, I would not condemn strongly a mother who tries to save her child by lying - what she does is basically wrong but understandable as she puts the benefit (survival) of the child before her own benefit.
What I have observed is that even ‘white’ lies often have bad consequences. They erode the mutual trust and often lead to additional lies, when the person tries to cover the previous lies. When all the accumulated lies are revealed, the consequences may be worse than what the original ‘white’ lie tried to prevent.
I also agree with Vinnie in that being silent or being ambiguous are not lying, although they may be sometimes misleading. We are not supposed to tell everything that we are told or know. In some professions, like priests or medical doctors, revealing the secrets told confidentially may be seriously wrong - churches take it very seriously if a priest reveals what has been told in a confession and a medical doctor might loose the job if s/he tells confidential information about the patients to outsiders.
3 Likes
We are conditioned to think consequentially but that is not a comprehensive moral system as you know. I think it is important to note that lying goes against the natural end of reason which is truth. if we do not accept this simple fact then I believe objective morality is indefensible. It may exist but we could know nothing of it. Catholic thought also distinguishes between objective sin and moral culpability. This would be a very minor sin given the circumstances. So let me see if I understand you correctly:
I see friction between these two statements because I think you are limiting options. You seem to be saying not lying is the worse sin but but these are not the only two options, Remain silent. Respond with a question. Charge at them. Cry hysterically and keep saying don’t hurt me, what do you want. No one is saying the woman should say, “They are right over there, go get them.” I agree that would be morally wrong. There are other options. Nothing should happen to your children that doesn’t happen to you first in that situation. Heck, she could pray for them on the spot.
Nothing obligates you to answer a question. Remaining silent is not sin. Talking about something else is not a sin. What you cannot do is answer a question falsely. But some people will freeze up, panic, and not be able to even think rationally as they are being coerced and biological imperatives to protect your children will come into play…etc. Again, even if you lie, it’s wrong but how culpable anyone is under such duress is going to be very low in my opinion.
Peter denying Jesus 3 times wasn’t a good thing because he went on to lead the early church. Even if he did it not out of fear and self-preservation, but for that reason, it was still not good. Early Christians could have lied and said they did not believe in Jesus to avoid brutal death. It could have just been a simple lie to avoid being tortured that they did not mean. What the harm? Why not say a few words to a mad-man you don’t believe to avoid being harmed? That is consequentialism. Christian morality is tell the truth and carry your cross.
In my mind, early Christians made the right and I only hope I would have the conviction to so the same in their shoes. Because I think about this issue if I could lie to save myself but not really for me. I believe in heaven. To live is Christ and to die is gain. My consequential thinking is what is if I die my wife and family are going to live a much tougher life and suffer. My wife has some medical problems and that is what I think about. Being there for here. So if lying to a madman gets me home and gives my family a better quality of life shouldn’t I do it? The correct answer is no. Personally, I pre-empt this situation by exercising my 2nd amendment rights everywhere I go where it is legal to do so (basically 99% of the places I go outside school). For me, that is the right answer.
We are called to trust God and do good and let the chips fall where they may.
Vinnie
3 Likes
Okay, sure — if you have other options, it’s obviously better to choose those (assuming you’re in a clear enough state of mind to do so). I was really thinking more about a situation where you have no alternatives at all, and the only choice is between outright lying or allowing your child to be killed.
That’s different, though: choosing to be a martyr is a saintly act (of the highest kind, even), but it’s still a decision you make for yourself, and only for yourself. Allowing a child to be killed in the example above would be very different. When you said that, if possible, it would be better to remain silent or change the subject, I agree. I was simply speculating about a situation where there would be no way out — where the only options would be either to lie or to surrender your child to death.
I’m no advocating consequentialism because I said that in that case lying would be tolerable, which doesn’t mean good but tolerated to avoid a immensely worse outcome. It would still be an intrinsic evil.
2 Likes
Sophie’s Choice might be closer to this situation and is a worst nightmare type decision.
Through as you said:
That said, consequentialism is not acceptable (otherwise one might argue that it would be good to kill one’s children immediately after Baptism, since this would guarantee them eternal life and salvation).
Doesn’t children going to heaven imply the correct answer is always to do what is right.
Vinnie
Yeah of course it wouldn’t be right to kill them in order to send them straight to Heaven.
Yes, that is a priotization of various ‘good’ outcomes. The ‘calculus’ of ethics or morality is sometimes easy, and sometimes hard. Even if all the underlying conditions are understood, the relative ranking or weighting of axioms can lead to substantially different conclusions.
I mentioned elsewhere that humans and their societies share similar, basic principles or affinities. Humans are diverse but still share many traits because of biology and the limited number of ways systems can be practically implemented (inherent constraints). What differs is how the relative priorization of these drives are prioritized when two or more come into play and conflict: eg. does one prioritize immediate family over the larger community or ‘strangers’?, & etc. Out of simple rules, complex systems can form.
2 Likes
I meant that knowing children go to heaven is a good reason to suppose we should not have to resort to sin to protect them from a Christian framework. Prematurely killing them is certainly morally wrong and goes against what nature intends just as does lying.
1 Like
If you mean unimpressed with Dawkin’s T-shirt sloganeering as a solution to his ethics grounding problem, I agree with you.
But this is precisely what Dawkins is being unusually honest about in his essay, I think. He begins by admitting that “true altruism” or “super-niceness” is a stupid goal from a (materialist) evolutionary perspective, i.e., evolution can’t select for behaviours that reduce one’s biological fitness. Yet, he realizes that this kind of altruism is increasingly what society needs (and he admires it). And yet he can’t find a way to ground that “other-centered ethic” within his meaningless/indifferent universe.
I did applaud his lucid wrestling with the issue in that blog.
3 Likes
They are not.