Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 16, 2012 at 8:36pm

It's a feature of the Moral Argument for God.

The argument asserts that in order for anyone to be able to say that something is wrong there must be objective morality. But in order for there to be objective morality we need a lawgiver in which to ground our morality objectively (otherwise, they allege, morality is subjective, or relative). That lawgiver is of course assumed to be God.

So the statement "rape is wrong", if it can said to be wrong absolutely, is only wrong absolutely because it is objectively wrong. Hence, if rape is wrong, God exists.

Of course it's not true at all. But that's the explanation for how they attempt to go from "rape is wrong" to "God exists".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lucas M. Tavares on February 16, 2012 at 8:45pm

OK, I think I'm starting to understand it better now. What would be the answer to this statement? If a person says that "rape is always wrong, therefore there is objective morality, therefore there is a god" what would be a good answer to give?

Also, Sam Harris says that there is objective morality, right? What are possible arguments about it's existence or not?

Also, thanks!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 16, 2012 at 8:59pm

There's lots of ways to come at it. The best as with all these arguments is to mount a cumulative case against it so that the success or failure of a single point doesn't see to the success or failure of the entire argument.

So I might begin by getting the theist to define "objective" in this context. And when I find that they, like most people, simply mean that morality isn't grounded in the thoughts or attitudes of a person or persons I would point out that God certainly seems to be a person with thoughts and attitudes and so in what sense is that objective morality as they define it?

I can point out that if an alien from an advanced civilization that could see the future and read our minds gave us a list of things that we should consider as moral and not moral, this would meet the definition of objective morality as given but still wouldn't seem to be what people want from objective morality.

I can point out that religious morality seems to be anything but objective, having changed through time and varied from place to place through history, with that change usually the result of being dragged kicking and screaming into modernity by the light of reason.

You can get into all sorts of issues to undermine the idea that the theist has objective morality. And I could list more.

As for Harris, he does say that science can lead us to facts about morality, thereby giving us an objective morality that isn't grounded in God. But Harris's thesis has been largely rejected, his book The Moral Landscape seemingly having been negatively reviewed and picked apart (sometimes eviscerated) by most authoritative sources.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lucas M. Tavares on February 16, 2012 at 9:11pm

It seems so simple now, hehe. Thanks for the explanation!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 16, 2012 at 10:15pm

Well, "simple" isn't precisely the word I'd use, but it's certainly not so difficult that it can't be understand with some reading and some thought. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Bennett on February 17, 2012 at 2:28am

This video might help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk

It is 30 odd minutes long but very good. I need to watch it again myself. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kairan Nierde on February 17, 2012 at 2:47pm

You might also enjoy bringing up a case in which God's/Jesus' given law contradicts itself.  What are we humble humans to do with such conundrums, if we can't rely on our own reason to understand morality?

Another fun tack is highlighting the places in which the bible condones rape.  See the evilbible.com on rape.  Oh, noes, what should we think now!!!?  We need a new prophet, asap! :-P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave Gibbs on October 7, 2012 at 1:18pm

Another fun tack is highlighting the places in which the bible condones rape.  See the evilbible.com on rape.  Oh, noes, what should we think now!!!?  We need a new prophet, asap! :-P

Yes!

A common argument against absolute morality (objective morality from say, god) is that the person arguing for absolute morality accepts a book that claims to be the word of god, yet condones rape—or whichever evil that this absolute morality is supposed to reject, but that the person him or herself does not condone said evil, thus showing that they them self do not actually accept the absolute morality from the source they claim it comes from.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Walski on February 17, 2012 at 3:20pm

Morality based on repercussion from a daddy figure isn't morality at all. Its obedience. 

Empathy is the only true basis for morality not obedience.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on February 17, 2012 at 7:31pm

What we consider rape is fairly common in the rest of the animal kingdom and no one bats a lash. The notion of how severely "wrong" rape is between humans is fairly recent and the punishment for rape varies over time and from culture to culture. According to the bible, a man who raped an unbetrothed female was to buy her from her father for 50 shekels. The female then had to marry her attacker.

Obviously we don't agree with this today, nor do we condone slavery or treating women as property. These recent morals clearly didn't come from God or the bible yet religious people still hold tightly to the idea that morality comes from religion while disregarding the religious morals of the past that directly contradict modern secular morals. I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute morality, Morals evolve and there are always exceptions. However, I do mostly agree with Harris' notion that science can help us determine objective morals. If you haven't read his book "The Moral Landscape" I highly recommend it. It's interesting food for thought.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on October 7, 2012 at 2:32pm

The rationale, Jewelz, that most theists give, is that the more primitive laws of the Old Testament were done away with with the advent of the new, or the "coming of Jesus," but Jesus - actually, Yeshua - is quoted in Mark as saying that he did not come to do away with the law - not "one jot or tittle" (and I'm awfully fond of tittles) shall pass away until the end of the earth, blah, blah, blah - it's in the book! So an atheist that knows the Bible, can keep them from getting away with that assertion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by onecae on February 17, 2012 at 9:36pm

To get beyond myself, I believe that there is something other.  I can't prove it, but I believe it enough to impute to some of my experiences that they were modified by the ideas/actions/existence of something other than myself. If you believe there is something other than yourself, you might want to consider its existence when formulating ideas. The consideration of yourself and something other than yourself is the topic of 'objective morality'.  It should be a main subject of religion, but of course it isn't. Relative morality does not require the existence of something other.

This is one of the big problems of the current understanding of religion. If God is everywhere, then God is right here (right here, right here where you read these words) and so if that’s true, then what does that  imply about the other that is like you? The subject of religion could address the paradoxes and mysteries that develop when one considers s/he is here and that s/he is not alone. But instead it's turned into a reactionary circus of vanity. The current popular understanding of morality (2012) is virtually entirely relativistic - the subject of 'unifying' self with other is implicit in some religions, but no understanding of the subject is evidenced even by those who profess to believe in it. Instead, all that is ever presented are models for dominance and submission, usually with a political/monetary angle.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page