I do not believe that modern science has established an anti-teleological view of the natural world. I’m not sure that is even possible to establish.
Is that the place for people who refuse to listen to others’ views because they think they already know them?
It has not, in fact. But that’s what those devoted to the cult of scientism — which is not science — believe, and want others to believe.
You just answered it.
Atheists don’t believe in either category of gods, creator or created.
I understand the distinction, but since ‘gods’ includes both categories, I can’t see why it would be a category error to say ‘lacking belief in gods’.
I’m not asking him to apply it, only to describe it.
Using your analogy, he can’t do calculus. The difference between e.g. knowing that dy/dx sin(x) = cos(x) and knowing when and how to use this knowledge is like the difference between knowing whether capital punishment is permissible and knowing when and how it is justified. He not only lacks the latter, he lacks the former too.
There’s no rhetorical trick. I simply don’t consider your monotheistic ‘one God’ any more real than the god(s) of any of the other monotheistic, pantheistic[1] or polytheistic religions.
Nor does your complaint have any merit, since it could equally be made in the other direction by a polytheist or pantheist.
Context suggests you actually meant polytheistic. ↩︎
I’m not one of them.
What of other issues? There are very different opinions on whether homosexuals should be executed. What women can or can’t do is very different, and would draw the ire of many women in Western culture. The caste system in Hinduism certainly goes against many norms in Western culture.
I would answer that they are tapping into human nature.
Already addressed this. Morality can advance by drawing closer to our subjective sense of what is moral. That subjective morality comes from our human nature which is shared amongst humans and is a product of our biological history and cultures. Since we share this history and culture we share many of the same moral judgements.
How do we know if a singer is improving? It’s subjective.
How do we know if one pizza is better than another? It’s subjective.
How do we know if someone’s writing is improving over time? It’s subjective.
Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. **45 **You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. **46 **You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Moral or not moral? Is this an objective morality, and if so why isn’t it moral today to take slaves from foreing countries and own them as property for life.
Wants and needs are subjective.
Those are human wants and needs which are subjective by definition.
Many attempts at establishing an objective morality try to argue from considerations of human well-being. OK, but who decided that human well-being is what is important? We did! This whole enterprise starts with a subjective leap. Yes, human well-being is what morality is all about but human well-being is all about human feelings and preferences, and is thus subjective.
When the Aztecs obeyed their gods requiring the fresh blood of children to be appeased, were they also tapping into human nature?
And why do you say the Aztecs were wrong to sacrifice children to their gods? Why shouldn’t their culture be respected? On what basis are you judging the morality of their actions?
This honestly sounds like baloney to me. Suppose I’m an atheist and find myself in a position where I can gain maximum wealth and well-being for myself and my family—at the expense of others—without facing any legal consequences (in this scenario I have very powerful friends protecting me and assuring that I’m untouchable)…why shouldn’t I do that? Why should I care at all about some made-up morality? From my perspective, whether I live like El Chapo or like Gandhi, the same fate awaits me: a pack of worms devouring my corpse (or fire burning it to ashes). That’s it. So why choose the so-called ‘moral’ path, which seems entirely fictional, when I could secure the greatest benefit for myself and my offspring and loved ones by doing otherwise?
Is the argument that, from an evolutionary standpoint, it’s better for individuals not to exploit others—because otherwise society would collapse into a Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes? But again, why should I give two flying f**ks about any of that? Evolution doesn’t give two literal figs about me: it‘s just (from an atheist perspective) an heartless, cold, indifferent mechanism, and in the end, there’s only cold dirt and starving worms waiting for me, no matter what choices I make. So why shouldn’t I take full advantage of a situation where I know I can get away with it?
Sure! Any developed culture will have a host of social mores, from trivial to serious about all these things. I’m only speaking of the core things (‘principles’ for those who will) that find pretty widespread agreement. Generally, life is prized and generally to be protected - even in sacrificial cultures, where something valuable is needed for sacrifice (hence a backward acknowledgement of the value of life, even though it is being subverted toward some cause deemed higher yet.) Most religions would generally frown on things that generally lead to murder, mayhem, and chaos; and would correspondingly value things that lead to flourishing of individuals and communities. Yes - exceptions to all these things are legion - too many Christian communities up and down history have tolerated (or even encouraged) very evil practices like slavery, spousal abuse, child abuse, greed, tyranny, and such. But the same Christian religion also has within it the tools to challenge all those things, call them to account, and banish them, for those who are willing to look to Christ.
Speaking of - you had and have been asking others to provide some example of what they might call an ‘objective’ basis. I don’t offer this as a basis on argumentative or logical terms. But my basis that I aspire to is not so much a set of moral principles as it is a person: Christ, whom I regard as my foundation (or its cornerstone). So how do we know who is really following after Christ and who isn’t - since so many today claim it while obviously not walking according to anything he taught? For this, I look to the testimonies about Christ up and down history, but especially favoring the original (now recorded) testimonies of the followers who spent time with him in person (the gospels). Note: I’m not claiming “the Bible” or even just “the Gospels” as my objective basis - but a person instead. The gospel testimonies (the nearest things we have to Christ’s actual words and teachings) are what direct me to look to the fruit of what people are producing. What kinds of leaders do they admire, elect and promote? Do they promote violence, domination, and empire? Or peace, humility, and looking after each other - especially the vulnerable? Looking at all these resulting fruits is what separates the anti-Christs from the Christ-disciples in our (or any) culture. It isn’t about those who loudly declare “Lord, Lord!” At least according to John, it’s about actual obedience (John 15:10 - and other places too). And I think John is right (and Matthew too), that we are known more by our love (or sometimes an appalling lack of it) than we are by our outward declarations.
While both of these are important and problematic, even without them the explosive and divisive nature of some issues remains and this forum tries to focus on just the evolution/science and Christianity connection. We have our hands full with just that one. We don’t want these other issues involved on this forum no matter HOW obvious you think your particular answer on those other issues seem to you.
So… simply asking how you can distinguish God from the devil is a topic you consider explosive. I suppose so. But I cannot support ignoring or burying that question. It seems pretty crucial to any theological discussion. After all we are dealing with the direct words of Jesus Himself, who suggests that some of the most religious people of His day are not following God but the devil. I am not suggesting that we accept people making accusations like He does. But I don’t think we should avoid even asking the question – not just of other people but of ourselves as well.
Absolutely! Demonstrably so! I did it myself when I was in junior high school as many many others have also done. For me it was based on psychology (both my parents were psychology majors). And trying to tell people who have done this themselves, that this is impossible just invalidates everything else you say. It is like saying the moon is flying cow – something everyone can look up and see is just wrong.
I dont think a sense of morality is only ‘inner’ and subjective. It seems to me one’s sense of morality comes from largely how you have been brought up within your family, with parents having a particular effect. Then as you develop and grow up you come to understand general morality within the society in which you live, which may be largely in agreement with your own sense of morality or there may be differences. As Tom Holland has shown many countries and societies around the world have been deeply affected by Judeo-Christian morality, such that even atheists largely abide by that. From a Christian pov, morality is ultimately based on God and what he has chosen to show humans.
My mistake—I didn’t expect that condemning abortion in a Christian forum would be seen as divisive (!?!?!?). Clearly, I was wrong, I’ll take note of that for the future.
Suggesting that someone is worshipping the devil—as you did in the quoted sentence—didn’t strike me as particularly gracious. But perhaps I was mistaken even about that.
Those weren’t my words—I was quoting Edward Feser. The point he was making was considerably more nuanced than that. Moreover, even secular Western psychologists have been influenced by Christian ethics. A secular psychologist born and raised in a society where child sacrifice to Huitzilopochtli—or to Moloch, as referenced in the Bible (Moloch being, in fact, a demon)—is considered normal, would likely have reached very different conclusions, even without embracing that religion, assuming for the sake of argument that such a society could have survived into the modern era and achieved a level of development comparable to contemporary societies.
Well I think that is basically a different issue. This is not that dictation by God is necessary for morality but whether God has had any impact on the content morality. As a theist I certainly believe God (and religion) has had an impact on the content of morality – but then I think even a majority of atheists would even agree with the second part (impact of religion).
I did nothing of the kind. And now I am furious. I call you a liar!
I think it depends on which moral question we’re discussing
I asked Aquaticus the following
“Suppose I’m an atheist and find myself in a position where I can gain maximum wealth and well-being for myself and my family—at the expense of others—without facing any legal consequences (in this scenario I have very powerful friends protecting me and assuring that I’m untouchable)…why shouldn’t I do that? Why should I care at all about some made-up morality? From my perspective, whether I live like El Chapo or like Gandhi, the same fate awaits me: a pack of worms devouring my corpse (or fire burning it to ashes). That’s it. So why choose the so-called ‘moral’ path, which seems entirely fictional, when I could secure the greatest benefit for myself and my offspring and loved ones by doing otherwise? Is the argument that, from an evolutionary standpoint, it’s better for individuals not to exploit others—because otherwise society would collapse into a Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes? But again, why should I give two flying f**ks about any of that? Evolution doesn’t give two literal figs about me: it‘s just (from an atheist perspective) an heartless, cold, indifferent mechanism, and in the end, there’s only cold dirt and starving worms waiting for me, no matter what choices I make. So why shouldn’t I take full advantage of a situation where I know I can get away with it?”
What would a godless morality say about such a situation? And why should an atheist choose the “moral” path in that context? For what reason?
You wrote: “This is the kind of goofy reasoning which renders any claim that God is good to be utterly meaningless. I could say it is very useful for the devil who wants to be your god, but more realistically it is very useful for those using religion to get people to do whatever they want”
Perhaps it was poorly worded, but the bolded statement seemed quite clear to me. Sure, you didn’t explicitly talk about worshipping the devil, that’s true. But the implication of what you wrote seemed quite clear to me.
Can we at least agree that you could have worded it better?
I’m a little busy and wasn’t anticipating another discussion on morality but let me leave with a more substantive response that addresses the issues and some comments by T and Roy. This will be my final word here. For the atheists, Philippa Foot’s (atheist) Natural Goodness. might be worth perusing.
The goal-directedness (in a Thomistic sense) or final causality of things is what makes morality objective. This seems obvious for anyone who acknowledges final causality. Objective morality rises or falls with final causality in my view. A heart pumps blood. Eyes see. We can reduce these things to parts but this is one way of understanding their general ends. Feser uses the analogy of a triangle to help illustrate the subjective/objective point often under contention. I’ll try to summarize.
What is the Essence of a triangle?: a closed plane figure with three sides (made of line segments) and three interior angles (which add up to 180 degrees).
Now we can draw good and bad triangles. A good triangle is one that is as close to this description as possible. If each of your line-segments were in the shape of a parabola, this would be an objectively bad triangle. I would make a student redraw this. If you drew a triangle with 4 sides I would also call this an objectively bad triangle. Obviously there will be some fuzzy lines in terms of how precise a drawing needs to be, but in the end, what is a good or bad triangle is fairly commonsensical to most of us most of the time. A good or bad triangle does not depend on mere feeling, it’s based on the definition of what a triangle is. That is makes it objective. If you said red triangle are the best or you liked small triangles better than big triangles, those would be subjective preferences about the types of triangles you like, but they say nothing about the essential essence of a triangle.
This analogy can help us with understanding human beings and morality. Given final causality, there are things that go against the essence of what it means to be human. There are things that lead to our flourishing and there are things will thwart it. Just as there are crooked lines and straight lines when drawing triangles. This is all objective. Think moral naturalism but without the scientific reductionism or idea that only science defines our essence. Now it is easy when looking at a chair, an eyeball or heart to understand the ends or purposes of these objects. But humans are beings of will and intellect so it’s not as straightforward to define the essence of a human because we are dealing with thought and mental states as opposed to physical objects. We can objectively access morality but it will be more controversial because of this:
We are dealing with mental states and beliefs as opposed to common physical objects.
People are completely biased here. If someone likes having one-night stands every single day and this turns out to be immoral behavior, they are naturally going to try really hard to dismiss this idea. Likewise, if someone thinks all sex outside marriage is wrong but there are no good grounds for believing so, they might devise some rather flimsy reasons. We are not impartial here. We are moral beings and what we deem moral or immoral through reason has consequences for our behaviors and how we see ourselves and each other.
We are culturally conditioned or prejudiced towards some ideas.
I say this because I think people fallaciously assume that because issues are so hotly debated or because they don’t know how to prove something, it must be subjective. This does not follow. It is a fallacy and is probably an argument from incredulity similar in error to those made about evolution (this can’t be true I can’t imagine how evolution could make us so it can’t be true). Morality is debated so intensely because people like to do immoral things and they are not neutral observers. But let us keep it moving with a simple quote from Feser:
So I have to disagree with @ T_aquaticus here:
Needs are not all subjective. It is an objective fact that we need food to survive. The type of food you like to eat is a subjective preference. That we need oxygen to breathe is not a subjective fact. It is an objective part of reality. You are mistaken when you say “wants and needs are subjective.” You are categorically declaring needs subjective and that simply is not true. Wants usually are but please note the Thomist doesn’t look at individual wants to make statements about human nature in general. Sometimes people want things not good for them or others. The position is much more nuanced and looks at the direction nature itself intends (not nature in a scientism sense).
You are not addressing it well. It is not an advance. It is a change. It is only an advance towards a subjective standard you hold to. Which tells us nothing new. You have a subjective morality and now have made subjective standards of growth that depend on your subjective morality. This is just doubling down on subjectivism. For the slave, the abolition of slavery might be a moral advance. To the slaver, it is the opposite in fact. You are simply saying morality is not arbitrary by appealing to our history and shared culture. I don’t think my preference for chocolate ice cream is arbitrary either. Now through a personal whim, I may order (and immediately regret) the fruit-rollup-lucky charms flavor of the day. But humans are mixture of objectivity and subjectivity. We don’t put people in jail because they don’t like chocolate ice cream. As much of a crime as it is to prefer vanilla or strawberry over chocolate, we just don’t do this.
You are simply calling it a moral advance when people agree with you. Sorry, the author quoted simply slipped up.
You have to define the word better or improving. Better at what? To what end? Once the end is defined there will be objective metrics for all of these things. Taste? Being nutritious? Making a person money. If you identify an end or goal directness of something in its nature (final causality), there will be objective answer. Just to be clear. A raw pizza or one with rotten ingredients being served to crowd of people is objectively inferior unless you want to get everyone sick. I am also objectively worse at singing than Adele in much the same way that I am objectively worse than Michael Jordan was in His prime in basketball. This is not a subjective statement. You can’t define being good at basketball as “not being able to score points, not being able to get rebounds and not being able to get defensive stops.” That is just nonsense. It is a fact of reality that Michael Jordan was better at basketball than me. There is no metric by which you could say I was better than Michael Jordan in basketball. Whether Lebron or Kobe were “better” basketball players would depend on your criteria for what makes someone better (more championships, higher shooting percentage or whatever) and is debatable. So it seems there are clear lines (objective) and there are grey areas (subjective). I would use this analogy:
You can have a preference over the type of vehicle you buy. Maybe you want black but the wife wants red. Maybe you want a minivan but she wants a pickup truck. There is a subjective component here based on taste. But you can do empirical tests and objectively determine which vehicle is the safer one. Our wants and desires do not have to correspond to our essential nature. We could want things that harm us or are not good for us or others (they thwart our ends). I mean, isn’t that what immoral behavior generally is? So we can’t compare morality to our subjective desires in that sense but let us go further with the car analogy. So what is the ultimate purpose of a car? For someone it could be a status symbol or even a way to compensate for some perceived “deficiency” in their physical anatomy, but I am confident that we can all agree the ultimate purpose or essence of a vehicle (or at least one primary purpose) is to provide safe transportation from A to B. Vehicles that are safer and more reliable are the ones that are objectively better. It is not a subjective preference if you accept final causality. It is built into the very nature or essence of what a car is. A machine designed to safely transport objects across large distances. It is the same for human nature which you honestly keep defaulting to. Where controversy might arise is in determining what the essence or nature of a human actually is. But since we have a nature, morality is an objective part of the world. It seems that is ontologically true. But now we have the epistemological issue of determining what is and isn’t moral. That of course depends on how we understand the essence of a human. Remember, we also have the moral issue of people not liking being told what to do so we would hardly be neutral or impartial observers here.
This seems like a red herring. I don’t consider slavery ethical or moral–even if regulated or sanctioned in the Bible. I would agree with you in rejecting slavery as say a moral advance for people but disagree that your worldview can adequately say so.
Also, I think there is a confusion of issues. We know morality is an objective feature of the world from the reasoning above and final causality. The epistemological question is how do we know or how can we be reasonably certain that some things are moral or immoral given our nature or essence? The truth is, there might be a lot of grey areas in life, but we can answer questions on a broad level in my opinion.
Most of the time I would not go this far morally. I note that not being able to prove why something is the way it is doesn’t mean you can’t “know” something. I “know” the sun will rise tomorrow. I cannot prove that it will. That is where I would choose to leave moral issues in most debates. I would point out that the atheist (of the materialist variety who deny final causality and teleology) cannot in principle have an objective morality. Then I would say, “Since we all know rape is wrong and so is slavery, what does this tell you about atheism as a philosophy?” I would end it there as I find most people (outside of those we find on the internet) to have a clear sense of some things actually being right and some things actually being wrong. I’ve never found someone arguing with me in the real world demanding that I give an account of why torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong. Some people might think of it as a thought problem but I suspect they are always going to add a caveat: "I know torturing babies for fun is wrong but can we explain why?). This is the default position but this is the internet and Tacitus’s description of Christians in Rome matches it quite well. It is a place where “all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.”
That is not what you initially asked for. You intentionally asked questions about highly controversial things like the death penalty to start. Also, I note Philippa Foot (atheist mentioned above) is credited with the trolley problem. I stopped reading at the end of that since it indicated to me gracious dialogue was not your purpose. Going back, you did ask for other things after that but maybe you should have led with the legitimate questions. But you asked about a couple of issues, and I’ll discuss rape.
I don’t think rape being immoral is that difficult to spell out on the basis of a natural morality, considering every indication is that for humans, nature intends sex to be unitive and procreative. I am not going to spell every aspect of this out for you but it is not really hard or controversial to understand that the primary purpose of sex for us is to make new offspring. As for being unitive. Well, children are vulnerable for years and need family care and women who seem to be designed or evolved in such a way as to get pregnant frequently–and remain pregnant for the better part of a year–would be quite vulnerable at various stages. Nature clearly drives humans in a direction towards the institution of marriage of some form. I can’t say polygamy is bad or wrong on this alone, only point out that nature seems to also seems to make it pretty universal for people to be jealous of their spouses affections. To the point that competition will be murdered in many cases. This also is attributable to the procreative nature of sex.
Things which are contrary to our essence are immoral and rape thwarts the unitive purpose of human sex. That makes it objectively immoral. We can also go the way of humans being rational creatures but that is a more complicated discussion. I’ll quote Feser from the Last Superstition (ignore the capital punishment part):
Now Aquinas himself does not have a theory of individual rights; that is a concept that only later becomes prominent in Western thought. But later Scholastic philosophers influenced by him did have such a theory. The basic idea is this. Nature has set for us certain ends, and the natural law enjoins on us the pursuit of those ends. We also live in society with others - man being a social animal as well as a rational one, as Aristotle noted - and these others also have ends set for them by nature. But we can all pursue these ends only if our fellow human beings do not interfere with that pursuit. Hence the existence of the natural law entails that we have certain rights against interference with that pursuit; and since there is no greater interference than being killed, it follows that every human being has, at least until he forfeits it by committing a serious crime, a right not to be killed. This also entails many other rights (such as a right to personal liberty that is strong enough to rule out chattel slavery as intrinsically immoral - the claim made by some that natural law theory would support slavery as it was known in the United States is a slander.
You both can have the last word.
Vinnie
Agnostic chiming in late …
Fortunately the claim that atheists lack any basis for morality is not common. But when I see it, it is sometimes extended to mean that atheists are incapable of empathy and compassion, or in so many words, that atheists are not fully human.
So yes, it’s a sore point - an indication that you might be dealing with someone truly vile. On the occasions I have confronted someone about this, explaining what it means to me, they usually reconsider. This is good; consideration is all I can ask. A few will double down.
I’ve never met a single person in real life who believed this.
Vinnie
This has been a colorful diversion from the original post.
We’ve seen lots more demonstrations of @Roy 's original, legitimate complaint. But no real interest in addressing the complaint itself in a meaningful way.
Ended up with a lot of philosophizing to indicate that morality must be objective because some can’t imagine otherwise.
Had some great examples of intermingling of objectivity and subjectivity, as well as the objective application of subjective standards. Which all supported the stated explanations for the subjectivity of morality.
And some really fine examples of manly childishness, particularly this one:
Maybe the thread does, tangentally address the OP. Morality is subjective, which makes it ok for some Christians to subjectively interpretive and subjectively interact with other people’s worldviews, while objectively holding to the values of their own subjective morality.
Which means, @Roy, your complaint will continue to be misunderstood and misconstrued.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.