Defend Your Faith
Posted on 05 August 2008 by Michael Callaway
One day while I was trolling through the bowels of the Internet I came upon a Website that said that Christianity is a delusion. It also said rather boldly, I might add, that their 15 minute video would completely shatter my delusional beliefs. Being intrigued by the prospect that my whole world view could be shattered in 15 minutes, I accepted the challenge.
Here is their argument:
[…If you knew an adult who still believed in Santa Claus you would think that they were delusional and indeed they would be. It is cute if a child does but if an adult does it is a delusion. Next they say that of the five billion people in the world only one billion are Christian, perhaps the rest of the world knows something that the Christian does not. Other religions are delusional too; Mormons claim that Joseph Smith was magically visited by an angel who gave him golden tablets. Those who are not Mormon know that they are delusional.
Muslims believes Mohammed was visited by an angel who magically dictated the Koran and took Mohammed on a magical journey into heaven. Those who are not Muslim know that they are delusional. Finally, Christians believe Jesus was magically conceived, magically fed thousands and healed many, and finally, magically was raised from the dead. Do you see a pattern here?
They then go on to say that they all are delusional and that the only ones that are not are those that know that there is no God. There is no evidence to support a God and people who claim to have a faith act out in ways that is contrary to that faith all the time. Finally, if such a God did exist why does He not show himself and rid the planet of all the evil that is in it? The answer is because He is not real just like Santa is not real.]
This concludes the argument; we will resume our regular scheduled blogging already in progress.
This website was designed to be an interactive one and many Christians had voiced their displeasure with the arguments that were made. Many of them would quote from the Bible to prove their point which I found ironic being as they are atheist, they will not care what the Bible says. If you are a Christian do you care what the Book of Mormon or the Gnostic books say?
Being someone who loves to talk about politics and religion I decided that I would weigh in. The problem with most people when it comes to talking about either politics or religion is that they get too emotional with their argument. When I write a blog about any subject my objective is not to convert you to my way of thinking (however, the world would be a much better place if we all did) but rather it is to entertain and to make you think.
The lone exception would be when it comes to my love of Def Leppard, then my mission is clear, to make you into a full blown, “Hysteria” record loving, Def Leppard believer. “Songs From The Sparkle Lounge” is a fantastic album and I have not heard a single song on the radio, this is unacceptable, but I digress.
I worry when I hear people refer to themselves as a “Ditto Head” on the Rush Limbaugh show. My goal is not to create a Ditto Head but rather to explain an issue from a perceptive and then make you question if I am right or not and why. It was with that spirit that I crafted my careful reply and submitted it to the website.
I can tell you that they never posted my reply even though I submitted it twice just to be sure it went through. I checked back in latter and saw that they did post other “crazy” replies but not mine. That by itself shows the hypocrisy of their view, however, that is neither here nor there. So, without further ad due, he is my response:
[…You bring up some solid points, ones that a religious person has to answer and few can. Most people of faith, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or any other can not really articulate why they believe what they believe and when you question them they get angry. If God is who he says He is then why doesn’t He make himself more known?
Many people say, if God were to pull back the clouds and show his face then they would believe. Short of that they will say that there is no proof that He exists. Of course, to bolster their argument the atheist will point out the inconsistencies of the religious person’s beliefs and then compare that to their actions and few can stand up to that test.
However, neither can the atheist. The atheist will say that they are respectful and enlightened, yet when dealing with a religious person they will be rude, condescending, and down right mean. Also, the atheist will say that the religious person is acting off of irrational faith. Well, guess what, so are you.
While there is no evidence that you can point to that God exists, you also have no evidence to say that He does not. Have you been anywhere in this vast Universe other then this small rock known as Earth? Do you know all the mysteries of the Universe and how we began?
The fact is you do not, all you know is the little piece of it that you have experienced in your small life time. Based on this extremely limited knowledge and with no evidence other then the absence of evidence, you are able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no God. You are making this choice using an irrational faith based on what little you have seen or experienced.
You bring up that there are four billion people who are not Christian and use that as evidence that the Christian argument is false. I would argue that of the five billion people (give or take a few) that over 90% believe in a god of some kind. If you want to talk about numbers, the numbers that believe in a god far out weigh those that do not, maybe the religious person knows something that the atheist does not.
Finally, the burden of proof is not on the religious person anyway. You bring up the story of Santa to show how naïve the religious person is. Santa can be proven to not exist because the presents that show up on this magic day did not come from him at all, they came from the children’s parents.
If I want proof all I need to do is look at the Visa bill come January. If you have a “Visa bill” type of evidence that shows that there is no god I would like to see it. If the religious person is wrong and dies a religious person they have lost nothing, they are still dead. If however, the religious person is right and you go through your whole life saying that there is not a god, then the non-religious person will be in grave danger. You are going to have offer a lot more proof before I would be willing to make that choice.]
Popularity: 9% [?]
August 5th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
While the website you mention certainly sounds a bit inflammatory and combative, I think you do atheists a disservice by misrepresenting the most common atheist position.
The thoughtful atheist argument tends to go something like this:
1. There is no evidence for the existence of God
2. There are plenty of very convincing arguments that God does not exist
3. Therefore, it is most likely that God does not exist.
As rational beings, when we are faced with a decision between two possibilities, we take the one that evidence suggests is most likely.
You might stop there and say “A-hah! So you’re an agnostic!” — But an agnostic believes that there is no way humankind could ever prove or disprove the existence of God, therefore the question is moot.
An atheist usually believes that we can certainly imagine evidence that would prove God’s existence, but s/he also notices that such evidence is conspicuously absent from the world at large. S/he is therefore “agnostic” about the non-existence of God in the same way that s/he is agnostic about the sun rising every morning. Sure, s/he might conceivably be wrong, but through no fault of our own.
The reason we end up in this agnostic/atheist murky middle ground is because definitions of God vary. I can very certainly say that if God is a pink bunny that sits on my desk all the time, he does not exist. However, I *cannot* very certainly say that if God is an immortal, ubiquitous presence that cannot be measured or detected by any way known to man, he does not exist. Such is an “unfalsifiable hypothesis.” I can’t disprove a statement that leaves no room for its own disproving.
Also, regarding your point about the atheists with a firm command of biblical literature… They don’t quote it because it holds authority for them, they quote it because it holds authority for their audience. A well crafted, persuasive argument takes into account your audience. Therefore, while I might make logic-based arguments when discussing with an agnostic friend, I might make scripture-based arguments when discussing with a biblical literalist friend.
If you’re going to complain about being given short shrift by the small community of atheists that simply make fun of the religious instead of thoughtfully (and powerfully!) disagreeing, then please don’t make the same mistake.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Well said, Derek. Is it fair for me to assume you believe evolution? If so, I will challenge your three statements with three of my own:
1. There is no evidence in natural laws / physics that accidental explosions occur and produce order.
2. There is no explanation in evolution for the beginning. The Big Bang, or any other such sudden explosion/collision, requires substances to exist with which to collide. Where did they come from? It’s a neverending cycle of unexplainable beginnings.
3. If chaos to order is illogical and violates all natural laws, and evolution only refers to existing materials as the “beginning”, evolution must be false.
Feel free to dissect and we can discuss.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
My point in responding this way, Derek, is to show that I can just as easily dissolve the logical argument for evolution. So if we’ve simply proved God doesn’t exist and evolution is false, then we know next to nothing and are floating in an abyss of ignorance.
In other words, anyone who chooses to live by the style of argument you presented will, if behaving logically, admit that nothing can be “proven” because there is always a simple logical argument against it.
If that is the case, we either live our lives knowing nothing or we admit the simple argument is flawed and does not apply just because it sounds good.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Perhaps I’m misreading, but it looks to me like you’re confusing evolution with The Big Bang.
I do subscribe to both theories insofar as I understand them, but I don’t think they are necessarily related.
The evidence for the Big Bang is well documented online, in popular books and in University science texts. Since this is a blog comment and shouldn’t be the language of an astronomy dissertation, I’ll give the two important one and trust you to look it up if you’re interested:
The universe is expanding. This is an observed fact, measured by the Doppler shift of observable light-producing objects, such as stars. Since it is expanding, and has been for some time, we can assume that at some point it was not expanding. This point would have been the point directly preceding The Big Bang. Simply because there is no evidence that “accidental explosions” occur doesn’t mean that they do not. However, I am aware that this is not a positive proof. The point is that there is still no evidence from this point that a God figure must have started it. It is certainly a possibility, but it doesn’t appear to be the most reasonable one.
Regarding evolution, again, there is loads of evidence that it occurs and continues to occur. Micro-evolution is a well observed phenomenon. Macro-evolution is not observed because it takes billions of years to occur. However, the hypothesis has more support than alternative hypotheses.
And as for your trap: “anyone who chooses to live by the style of argument you presented will, if behaving logically, admit that nothing can be “proven” because there is always a simple logical argument against it.”
As a post-modernist, I’d agree with that statement. But many more modernist-minded scientists would disagree. Their stance would simply be that many things CAN be proven. For example, there is a bottle of advil on my desk. This can be established as fact.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Apologies for typos… A bit distracted at the moment.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I do not want you to think that I feel like all atheists are what I call angry atheists like the website I found. I know I certainly do not want to be compared to some people who claim to be Christian. However, to be fair, you sound more like an agnostic then an atheist, an atheist says that there is no God, no way, no how, end of discussion.
Agnostic are generally more reasonable then that, they say that while they do not see evidence for a God, they can not say that there is no God beyond a reasonable doubt. I respect your right to disagree and the tradition of the Church has not always lived up to this ideal.
However, your argument about seeing a bottle of aspirin and therefore knowing that it is there is not a valid one when it comes to the divine. Fish have no proof that they can see about the complex nature of human life, just because they do not see it does not mean that we do not exist.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I don’t think I am confusing evolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory. One supposedly deals with beginnings and one deals with how things progressed since then.
The Bible is also well documented online, in popular books, and in university studies. That statement is not impressive. Anything can be and has been documented and written about in multiple journals and scholastic sources.
The Big Bang Theory is illogical as an explanation for the beginning of everything. Insofar as I’ve been made aware of the theory, it involves some sort of matter or anti-matter or whatever you want to call these particles that collided and exploded. The problem isn’t that things collide and explode. The problems are many:
1. Particles existed prior to the Big Bang in order for them to collide, yes? non-existent things do not collide in reality. Therefore, the Big Bang is not a beginning, because something exists prior to it.
2. An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon.
3. An object at rest tends to stay at rest until acted upon.
4. I have heard no plausible explanation for the beginning of matter and the cause of motion. Natural laws are natural laws because they are facts as far as we know. And the laws of physics require something to be acted upon for motion to begin or to cease. Therefore, you have to have a “first”. A mover. An agent acting upon the matter. Neither evolutionary theory nor the Big Bang Theory have established an adequate explanation for this.
5. Referencing the expanding universe is fine, though seems to be irrelevant. It doesn’t respond to any comment made thus far that I’m aware of.
6. As a postmodernist, you would assume correctly. A group of modernist scientists believing the same thing does not support any theory. It would be helpful if we could just eliminate popularity and scholarly support in this discussion as proofs, as they are not.
7. Many scientific “facts” have been disproven, yet they remain in popular teaching. A world renown museum in Washington D.C. still displays disproven data about certain “missing links”. Why haven’t they updated their displays years after the missing link data was disproven? Good question. Perhaps someone has an agenda. I believe the current explanation is a lack of funding.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Michael:
I do not consider myself an agnostic. I make the statement “The is no God” and I justify it with evidence. An agnostic makes the statement “There can be no answer to the question of God’s existence.”
If you design your God hypothesis in such a way that I cannot test or disprove it, then so be it. However, non-falsifiable hypotheses prove nothing. See the Celestial Teapot argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot
My willingness to admit a stalemate when it comes to non-falsifiable hypotheses does not constitute agnosticism.
Daniel:
1. I was not using the fact that the Big Bang is well-documented to support the argument. You are correct in stating that popularity does not prove anything. I was, however, explaining why I didn’t write a treatise on the validity of the Big Bang: such treatises exist, written by people more intelligent and articulate than myself. You need only to look them up.
As for your “ultimate beginning” question, it is a valid one. I will be the first to admit that I have no answer to where the first matter of the universe came from. However, this does not mean “It must have been God that created it!” In common language, such a stance is called a “sky hook.” You create an explanation which needs an explanation. If you say that God created the universe, then you must answer what created God. If you say that God has always existed, then you undermine your own argument: you fail to explain why the universe could not have always existed, but God could.
2. / 3. These are quotable pop-science observations, but have no relevance. See above — you can’t say that God instigated anything, because then you are faced with the ample task of explaining what instigated God.
4. 1-4 are the same answer. When it comes to evolution needing a mover, it doesn’t. Evolution is the economics of the biological world. It’s a passive process, it has no intention behind it. Mutations occur, and if beneficial to the survival of an organism, they help it live long enough to reproduce, increasing the chance of such mutations in the future.
5. I mention the expansion of the universe as evidence that the Big Bang occurred. Many thoughtful theists grant this, they simply believe that God was the instigator. The fact that the universe is expanding at a predictable rate means that we can chart it, and that chart shows that about 14 billion years ago, the universe was a compressed point of gas and dust. In order to be expanding at a predictable and increasing rate, it must have “exploded.”
6. I find your “point 6″ enjoyable, whether you intended it as a joke or not. Truth is contested in a postmodern worldview, so to tell a postmodernist that he or she “assumes correctly” ignores the fact that he or she is a postmodernist.
And I mention the modernist scientists not for popularity points, but because I don’t wish to speak for all atheists — many of whom consider themselves modernists and detest such Liberal Arts guys as myself.
7. Suggesting a scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the schools and the museums is silly. There’s no reason! Scientists have the same goal as theists: the search for truth. Museums, school, and everything else are victims of bureaucracy. Any scientist interested in producing good science would have no reason to revise displays and placards and books. However, the real world is driven by board members, money, and personal interest. I don’t know why a museum in Washington would be displaying incorrect information, but I assume that if there is good, peer-reviewed criticism that has reached scientific consensus, such faulty information will soon be removed.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Argh… Sorry, no matter how many times I proofread, something always sneaks in:
“Any scientist interested in producing good science would have no reason to revise displays and placards and books.”
should read:
“Any scientist interested in producing good science would have no reason NOT to revise displays and placards and books.”
August 6th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Here is where the rubber meets the road.
“If you say that God created the universe, then you must answer what created God. If you say that God has always existed, then you undermine your own argument: you fail to explain why the universe could not have always existed, but God could.”
I can say with confidence that God is not subject to natural laws. In fact, he created them. I don’t actually have to show what created God because he is uncreated. He can always have existed while the universe could not because he is not physical matter and not subject to the laws of the natural universe which he created. That which is physical/created must submit to the laws of physics. That which is not does not.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The postmodern comments are tongue in cheek. A bunch of frail, limited human beings trying to decipher what is real and what isn’t and placing labels upon concepts as though establishing/recognizing truth officially is laughable, when the questions are simple mental constructs better used for mental exercise.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Aaaaand the debate ends, of course, with the unfalsifiable claim that God is not subject to natural laws.
I’m afraid that such a position leaves us at an impasse. I see no reason to exempt God from natural law: doing so only makes sense if you’re trying to justify an assumption you’ve already made (e.g. that God exists).
From a position which doesn’t make any assumptions about the existence of God, there is no reason to invent such an explanation. Either the evidence suggests it or it doesn’t.
You might say that the only way we can explain the existence of God is if he is not subject to natural law — but I would say that we don’t need to explain the existence of God.
The “prime mover” or “first mover” argument is old hat. It’s a rhetorical trick. It looks like it’s answered the question, but it’s really just shifted the focus.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Wow. That takes a bit to swallow. You never read words typed by me that implied that I was going to or was claiming I could prove the existence of God.
The comments began when I read your three point argument against the existence of God, which we’ve since established can be used against anything we don’t want, like, or accept, and as an argument it will stand against anything (hence it’s lack of relevance).
I have always been speaking from a Christian perspective, which obviously implies bias in favor of my beliefs. I never claimed otherwise. At best, I just leveled the playing field by showing the impotence of the “simple argument.”
I don’t have to prove God to you. He doesn’t need me to defend him. As the only uncreated being, he is the explanation for prime mover, creator of matter and the laws that govern matter.
It’s not a rhetorical trick. The point is that God is the explanation for beginnings that atheism does not have. You don’t have to agree, obviously. But I’ve still yet to hear even a theoretically logical alternative that can answer the question of beginnings.
If I wanted to go Occam’s route, I could say this:
1. A logical fault can be found with every other explanation for beginnings.
2. The only fault found with the explanation of God as prime mover is a lack of proof, not a flaw in logic.
3. If the logic is sound and no other logical explanation can be offered, the existing logical explanation must be true, even though proof has not been offered.
That’s the gist of it. There’s no trick. Show me another logical explanation that can’t be dismantled easily.
The point is, saying there’s no proof is a weak argument when the alternatives can’t even pass the theory stage.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I’m sorry Daniel, simple saying that God is uncreated doesn’t make it so. You claim that theism provides the answer that atheism does not have.
I contend that atheism’s alternative answers:
a) The “stuff” of the universe has always existed
OR
b) The “stuff” of the universe spontaneously occurred at some point, with no prime mover kickstarting the process
Are not only just as logical, but MORE logical.
We can observer that the “stuff” of the universe exists. We can’t observe that a prime mover exists. Therefore, if we had to bet on which spontaneously appeared OR has always existed, the “stuff” of the universe is the more likely culprit.
Your explanation, that God is uncreated is just an extra layer of mediation that has no evidence.
As for the need to find a beginning, it is a uniquely theistic need. Your explanation of God as being uncreated and therefore having no beginning alludes to your understanding that time is a flexible, subjective and wholly human concept. Beginnings and endings are hardwired concepts that are useful in finite human existence. Infinity is much less useful. This is perhaps why humans have such a difficult time grasping the idea that the “stuff” that the universe is made of could possibly always existed.
It shouldn’t be so hard to grasp, considering humans have already invented “God” or another prime-mover explanation that is, itself, independent of time.
If we TRULY would like to go Occam’s route, we could say:
Either…
1. The universe and all of its “stuff” has always existed or spontaneously blinked into existence.
OR
2. A God or Prime Mover figure has always existed or spontaneously blinked into existence, then subsequently created the “stuff” of the universe.
3. Since we shouldn’t multiple entities unnecessarily (that is, if an explanation with fewer qualifications suffices) we should accept possibility 1 as the most likely.
In your last comment, you seemed rather taken aback, so I apologize if I misread the intention of your words. I don’t argue that God doesn’t exist to upset people, I argue because I find it an interesting topic that nearly everyone has an opinion on. It’s not a life or death matter, for me at least.
I DO argue against biblical literalism and conservative moralism, with the intention to upset or change minds, and this is because I believe that such attitudes create a toxic, hateful and intolerant society — in which we must all live. However, it doesn’t look like this particular argument has anything to do with homophobia, misogyny or blue laws, so I’ll try to leave my brass knuckles at home.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I will agree with you on one point, when the argument of God or no God is discussed it is usually done in an ugly way. While I would love to lay the blame at the feet of the atheist, many times that is just not the case. It is a sad fact that some of the most intolerant people will be people of faith. This should not be the case.
I will also argue that while I believe many of the laws that we have are inspired by the Bible, the laws of the land do not have to mirror the Bible. If the people of a State want to recognize gay marriage I have no problem with that. However, I also believe that a religious group should not be forced to recognize gay marriage if they believe that it is wrong. To me, the laws of the State and the Laws of God do not need to be one and the same. Has Jesus himself said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”.
While many Christians may not believe in the Big Bang Theory or in Evolution I do. I do not believe in the all of the Evolution of Darwin but the notion that species change over time is not something that bothers me. The Big Bang Theory might as well come out of Genesis, while scientist may not know what caused the Big Bang as Christian we do. When God said let there be light, I believe that there was a huge bang that we now call the Big Bang.
With that said, you said that you have “evidence” that God does not exist. I would love to see this “evidence”. The atheist website that I saw compared belief in God to that of belief in Santa Clause. I can prove that Santa Clause did not bring the presents by showing you who did, this is evidence and this would stand up in a court of law. You have no more evidence that God does not exist then I have evidence that he does (however, I believe that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence but that is not the point right now).
What you have is an observation, a theory, and finally faith. Yes, faith. The faith that you need to be an atheist is just as strong as the faith that I need to be a Christian. Until you have evidence, which it is impossible for you to have; you will simply have to admit to being a person of faith just like a Christian, Muslim or Jew. If you truly are an atheist that will bug the heck out of you because faith is for the weak minded, not a rational person such as yourself.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
We’re beating a dead horse here, as you argue a point already addressed. I am well aware that my claims do not make it so. I have both said so already and also stated that debating existence based upon proof ignores the reality that the logical premise has no flaws, as opposed to Big Bang theories and such. Do we really need to repeat the cycle again, where you ignore the point made and counter by saying “that proves nothing”?
I offer no proof. I contend that we must first find a premise without flaw. You have offered no such premise without flaw. You have offered me this:
“a) The “stuff” of the universe has always existed
OR
b) The “stuff” of the universe spontaneously occurred at some point, with no prime mover kickstarting the process
Are not only just as logical, but MORE logical.”
I must wholeheartedly disagree. Your repeated argument again ignores a point already made: matter is subject to natural law. Man did not invent natural law. He observed that matter responds the same way every time under certain circumstances and when affected by certain influencers. These natural laws are not “pop science” as you referred to them earlier. These are known as Newton’s First Law of Motion.
This is why beginnings are so important. If you can explain beginnings, your entire system henceforth eliminates certain plausible explanations because they are incompatible with the beginning. You can say that John Doe deserves life in prison or capital punishment for murdering a stranger, but all the implications of murder and the punishment for murder cannot justly be discussed until we first know that a) a stranger has been murdered and b) that it was John Doe, and not Sam Hill, who committed the act. Beginnings are fundamental. They are foundational. They are absolutely necessary to influence a “worldview”.
Take either of your two statements and analyze them. Neither can explain the very first movement, i.e. the cause of motion. Unless you are going to tell me that Newton’s First Law of Motion is wrong, which no scientific atheist I’ve heard of has claimed, then your explanations are in error. This has already been established at least twice through this thread and has not been adequately explained.
“We can observer that the ’stuff’ of the universe exists. We can’t observe that a prime mover exists. Therefore, if we had to bet on which spontaneously appeared OR has always existed, the ’stuff’ of the universe is the more likely culprit.”
That statement assumes that our explanations are on equal footing to be considered. Since yours violates natural law, it is not obviously true. If anything, the said violation of natural law makes your proposition all the more implausible. God as prime mover violates no natural laws. It simply introduces an explanation which answers the question without violating itself with statements already proven wrong.
What I think happens here is that you call this explanation “convenient”. There is nothing “convenient” about God. It is simply the explanation that does not violate logical constructs.
Insisting upon simplistic arguments is fine as long as you don’t consistently ignore the flaws I point out in yours.
“1. The universe and all of its “stuff” has always existed or spontaneously blinked into existence.
OR
2. A God or Prime Mover figure has always existed or spontaneously blinked into existence, then subsequently created the “stuff” of the universe.
3. Since we shouldn’t multiple entities unnecessarily (that is, if an explanation with fewer qualifications suffices) we should accept possibility 1 as the most likely.”
This assumes that the deepest problem is the mental fabrication of entities. The most immediate concern you have not addressed is how atheism can explain beginnings without violating laws you can’t change.
If your next response will be concise, without cyclical duplicitous response, please answer this question:
1. How does atheism answer beginnings without violating natural law?
That is all. Answer that. We can best proceed from that point.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Michael: I have given a synopsis of the observational evidence that suggests to me the non-existence of God. Since God as postulated by theism is non-falsifiable, I cannot direct you to any positive proof that s/he does not exist, merely that his/her existence is improbable.
Daniel: I’m making the same point because you failed to adequately address it. Your interpretation of “Natural Laws” is based on assumption. Read the (very short) article at SecularHumanism.org for an explanation of why:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/smith_18_2.html
To summarize:
1. The premise “Whatever comes into existence has a cause” is not sound. Since we have no observable evidence of anything ever coming into existence (matter changes form, but has never been observed first hand coming into existence), we do not have any reason to believe that there is a natural law that material must be caused to come into existence.
2. An “Uncaused Universe” is actually supported by current science from leading scientists. A theory developed by Stephen Hawking, among others, predicts that the probability of this universe that we live in existing is about 95%. Since the theory requires that the universe come into existence by natural, mathematical chance, God’s causation of this would violate the theory itself (and since the theory has observational evidence supporting it, it’s God not fitting the theory, not vice versa). But more importantly, since the probability of the universe existing is only about 95% (a number supported by observational evidence) a theist’s construction of God could not possibly have created it, since his supposed inerrancy doesn’t fit with an imperfect probability.
I have had the pleasure of attending a debate between theist philosopher Dr. Craig and noted atheist naturalist Dr. Shook. I can assure you that the debate did raise the issue in the article I linked, and that from where I was sitting, it didn’t appear that Dr. Craig had much more of an answer than, “It’s self evident that everything that begins to exist has a cause!” (Which, as I hope you understand from the paper, simply isn’t self evident!)
I have no doubt that you will disagree vehemently with these statements, and I am interested in reading your reply. However, please do read the article I linked. It is short, easy to read, and (I think) non-inflammatory.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
My point is not to try to prove that you are wrong as an atheist, I am only trying to prove that you are not acting off of evidence but on faith. Atheist will say that they act off of three things logic, reason, and evidence. However, has our discussion has pointed out, there is no evidence and it is quite logical and reasonable to believe in a God.
What you are acting off of is an observation, a theory, and faith. Those are the exact same things as a Christian or anyone other religion for that matter. The observation comes from your life experience, what you have read and learned the theory is developed and nurtured and in a supreme act of faith you hope you are right.
The website that I found (and yours as well) makes it sound like you are only dealing with facts and evidence. If this was true then no functioning adult would believe in a god just like no functioning adult believes in Santa Clause. You and Daniel can go back and forth with logic and reason until the cows come home, until there is evidence, you have nothing to stand on to refute my claim that you are a person of faith.
It is possible to make a very logical and reasonable argument that we did not land on the moon but rather that it was a staged event to help us win the space race. The logic and the reason may be perfect, but the evidence, moon rock being the biggest would suggest that we did go to the moon. Now, I wish I had a piece of “moon rock” evidence that I could reveal, unfortunately I do not. All I have is an observation, a theory, and faith, the same as you.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Three points I would like to clarify.
1) The people that I said that were quoting the Bible were Christians. They were quoting this to atheist as their proof. That is why I said, “If you are a Christian, do you care what the Gnostic gospels or the Book of Mormon has to say?”
2) I would like to thank Derek for his posts because it has made this post far more fun then the usual. Of course, Derek’s reply to Lisa’s post does prove one of the points that I made. “The atheist will say that they are respectful and enlightened, yet when dealing with a religious person they will be rude, condescending, and down right mean”. Derek, I think you went three for three, way to bring home the gold.
3) Finally, Derek doubted if the website that I found really exists or not. Well, I guess that would be fitting, if you will doubt the existence of God why not doubt the existence of anything else that you find offensive or annoying. It must be nice. Well to prove that I am not making this up, here is the website: http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
IN RESPONSE TO MICHAEL’S THREE POINTS
1) Sorry for misreading that point.
2) I would like to think that I’m respectful and enlightened, but I know that I do make errors in judgment on occasion. However, I don’t believe that I was being rude, condescending or downright mean in my discussion on Lisa’s post. I suppose there’s room for subjectivity, but I don’t believe disagreeing with someone’s position counts as being any of these things. And respecting a person’s right to make up their mind about something doesn’t mean respecting ridiculous beliefs. Just as I don’t feel the urge to respect a misogynist’s opinion that women are second class citizens, I don’t feel that I have a duty to respect biblical commands to classism and sexism.
Of course, you’re welcome to think of me as rude, condescending and downright mean. I’m sorry if this is the case.
3) I don’t doubt that loudmouth, obnoxious atheists exist. I was suspicious that you criticized a website you failed to link to. I find arguments are always weaker without evidence. I didn’t doubt it because I didn’t like the idea of it — I doubted it because you conspicuously left the website generic and unlinked.
Anyhow, as you’ve shown, the website you’re responding to does exist. Evidence accepted.
ON THE TOPIC OF ATHEISM AS FAITH
The contention here is what “faith” is. I consider two types of thinking “faith.”
1) Believing something without examining it.
2) Believing something that goes against existing evidence.
As I’ve explained before, some formulations of God are “non-falsifiable” — this means that they cannot be conclusively disproved. However, evidence can suggest probabilities, and the evidence (I’ve cited some of it in previous comments) suggests that God doesn’t exist — in fact, it suggests this is a very strong probability.
You’re making the mistake of saying that “faith” is simply “belief in something that is not 100% certain.” If this were the case, I would require “faith” that I will not wake up as a giant cockroach tomorrow. I would require “faith” that the sun will rise every day. I don’t consider myself faithful of these things, because evidence suggests the outcomes that I assume.
The difference between atheistic “faith” and theistic “faith” is that atheism is in line with the best evidence, whereas theism is in opposition to the best evidence.
Therefore, I would contend that using the same word (”faith”) for both is misleading — since they don’t require the same level of belief.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:20 am
I find your reasoning interesting, basically you are saying, I can be respectful and enlightened when I am debating with someone who agrees with me. I would agree with you that disagreeing with someone is not rude or condescending by itself; in fact, this is what the website is for. However, you created a false argument about what it means to be a Catholic and what it means to respect the authority of the Bible, one that as of yet has not even appeared on CultureFeast and attacked it.
Now, if I used your exact reasoning, “respecting a person’s right to make up their mind about something doesn’t mean respecting ridiculous beliefs. Just as I don’t feel the urge to respect a misogynist’s opinion that women are second class citizens, I don’t feel that I have a duty to respect biblical commands to classism and sexism.” Then I would be within my rights to rant and rave as many on your website have.
To many religious people you arguments and logic are just as ridiculous and your views on homosexuality are just as offensive. If I started comparing atheism to Nazism and then homosexuality to child pornography and then gave myself a free pass and said that I was just disagreeing with your view, would you say that is respectful?
If I said, “You can believe what you want, however I will not respect the ridiculous beliefs of someone who claims that there is no God, just like I don’t feel the urge to respect a Nazis view that Jews are second class citizens or that child pornography is okay.” You would cry foul if a Christian said that but when an atheist does it is okay because it agrees with your world view.
Now, I have read some of the “Christian” responses on your website and have to say that I am horrified at that type of response. As a Christian I want to make sure that you know that is not the way most Christians feel. I used your own words when I said that they are the “vocal minority” that gives the rest of us a bad name. I also realize that most people can not really tell you why they believe what they believe so instead of looking at it logically they get angry, theist and atheist.
I made the choice not to give the website because I did not want to give them anymore exposure by putting it there. To me, their approach is just as ridiculous as some of the Christian responses on your website. However, if that was the evidence that you needed then I was willing to do that.
Now, to a larger point, I define faith the way the Bible defines faith. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hebrews 11:1. Your point about having faith that you will not turn into a coach roach when you wake up, not really a valid point. Never in recorded human history as that been an issue, I think you have solid, verifiable evidence that can not and will not happen. If however you feel like you need to hope that you will not turn into a coach roach and if the evidence is not seen by you that it will not happen, then yes, you are a person of faith when you go to sleep and wake up a human.
The origins of the universe we do not have this type of verifiable evidence, we have our observations and what we think we know, but when it comes right down to it, we can not replicate any of it. Your evidence is not evidence at all, it is mere speculation. If you notice, I have not listed my long list of evidence as to why I believe the probability that God does exist. That has also been a deliberate choice because you would choose not to believe them and simply disregard them as “a misogynist’s opinion that women are second class citizens.”
August 19th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Shotgun response to nobody in particular… feel free to ignore this post.
The right to “make up your mind” about something isn’t the same as the right to free speech in a public forum.
Please quit trying to attribute things to an idea/belief/theory/hypothesis/scientific fact that have nothing to do with said idea/belief/theory/hypothesis/scientific fact. Things like:
Evolution, the changes in life over time, which doesn’t cover the origin of life. Instead try Abiogenesis.
The Big Bang may discuss the origin of the universe as we see it, but, and I’m taking a huge leap of faith here, it doesn’t discuss where the matter/energy came from to begin with.
The theist will use the “God did it” to fill in the holes that science hasn’t figure out yet, that’s cool, so long as the theists don’t all get together and keep the scientists from working on the question their way. But I don’t see how the “God did it” argument is supposed to invalidate any other argument. Please explain this to me.
Unintentionally offensive example: If a person A is trying to convince other people that jumping off of a 1,000 foot cliff is a good and safe thing to do, but the other people don’t believe person A’s claims, is it up to the people to provide proof of anything?
I’m not trying to deliberately equate anybody’s ideas with suicide or murder or malice. I am trying to illustrate why it is not up to the atheist to defend their lack of being convinced by the arguments of a theist. (another unintentionally offensive example): Its up to the snake oil salesman to convince me to buy some sugar water with a fancy name, not up to me to convince the snake oil sales man that I think he’s full of it.
“Now, to a larger point, I define faith the way the Bible defines faith. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hebrews 11:1. Your point about having faith that you will not turn into a coach roach when you wake up, not really a valid point. Never in recorded human history as that been an issue, I think you have solid, verifiable evidence that can not and will not happen. If however you feel like you need to hope that you will not turn into a coach roach and if the evidence is not seen by you that it will not happen, then yes, you are a person of faith when you go to sleep and wake up a human.”
By acknowledging an entity that is not bound by the clockwork of this universe, that has the power to create things and destroy things and change things at whim, you allow for the possibility that one day he could wake up as a cockroach.
Nothing is ever really 100% certain, the best you can get is 99.999999999…%. Every day that he goes to sleep, there is a small chance that he will wake up as a cockroach. Everyday that he wakes up and is not a cockroach falls into that 99.999…% but there is still that infinitely small .0…1% chance that he will wake up as a cockroach.
Normally, I would agree with the previous poster that this scenario is ridiculous, but it seems that if you believe in something that exists outside the bounds and restrictions of the universe that we inhabit, there is the possibility that the “something” in question might decide one day to pay a visit and turn somebody into a cockroach while they were sleeping (being that it doesn’t have to follow the same rules as the rest of us do.) If this being exists then I would absolutely HAVE A NEED to HOPE that every morning I wake up, I don’t do so as a cockroach.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Sorry for the long response cycle, have been quite busy.
Moving on… It’s nice to see Jolly Sapper in here lending some support.
1. I don’t believe I ever claimed that you don’t have a RIGHT to have silly opinions. I was merely saying that when someone comes to me with an opinion that is, by the standards of basic logic, silly… Well, I don’t think it’s “rude” to not respect it. Just as you would not respect the belief that someone might wake up as a cockroach.
2. I don’t make “false arguments” about what it means to be Catholic. The Catholic church sets out the rules, and all I did was call someone out on not following the rules as established by the church. I’m not the Pope, it’s not my responsibility to manage the excommunications. There are many branches of Christianity that allow for interpretation and exegesis, but Catholicism has never been noted for it. And when someone explicitly says, “I am Catholic” and then elsewhere says “I don’t believe in the submission of women,” that brings up the point. Questions about such statements are totally in context.
3. I’m really not following your point on homosexuality, Nazism, child pornography, etc… I never claimed that I was gay, or that anyone else was gay. Or that anyone was a pornographer or Nazi. When I review the entire conversation, all I see is a passing comment that I made that homophobia is nasty. As a straight, middle class, white male, I stand by my comment: homophobia is at best silly, and at worst, outright cruel. I can’t conceive of how my opinions on global equality, social justice, love and compassion to fellow humans could be construed as “offensive,” but if they are, so be it. I know, (and am friends with!), many Christians that agree with such a sentiment.
Being offensive has nothing to do with what “in-group” you belong to. I (and most atheists, secular humanists, etc.) condemn silly, offensive comparisons no matter who they come from. I’d never equate Joe Q. Churchgoer, who goes to church on Sundays, with Jim-Bob Biblethumper, who beats his gay son. These are different beasts, and are treated differently.
4. You have no more verifiable evidence that humans have and will never turn into cockroaches than you have about the origins of the universe. Of course the cockroach premise is ridiculous, I’m pointing out that having a non-falsifiable argument doesn’t amount for much. Review the Celestial Teapot argument, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster arguments, for more famous incarnations. I believe we’ve already established that I admit there’s a possibility that God as you have postulated created the universe. But the same argument you use can be used to postulate any number of beings that created the universe. Just because you can logically show that something is possible does not mean that it’s probable.
Here’s the kicker: You, and everyone else I’ve heard make this argument, have failed to show why YOUR construction of God is the most probable beginning to the universe. In fact, among the religious, none of you can convince each other. There are more religions and creation stories than you can shake a stick at.
I think you’re simply mistaking possibility for probability.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I never assumed that you were gay, maybe you were, maybe you were not, my point was to show how I could equate something like homosexuality and child pornography and then say that I will not respect the views of a homosexual just like I would not respect the views of a child pornography producer.
While I believe that homosexuality is wrong from a Biblical point of view it is a least two consenting adults and should not be a crime in society. To equate child pornography to homosexuality is wrong and both you and I would agree on this. However, there are many in my camp that sees them as being one and the same issue. What I was trying to say is if you say you can not accept the views of someone who believes in God as a silly view and then equate it to something outrageous you are bound to never have a fruitful discussion on the issue and that will be your fault just as some fundamentalist can not be civil on the issue of homosexuality.
I asked this question on your website and I will ask it here, what proof would you need to believe in a God? Would you need the clouds to be pulled back and hear a booming voice saying “Here I am!”? Again, while I would like to convert you I do not believe that someone can change their views on life because of a simple blog posting.
As far as the faith issue goes, I still do not think that you have answered my point in saying that you are a person of faith. I understand your reluctance to concede this point because the word faith gets thrown around a lot. If we agree that faith is simply believing in something, no matter what that something is, even though we do not have all the facts (and never can) I think that should be acceptable.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Faith by definition, requires that a lack of verifiable fact or proof. It wouldn’t be called “faith in God” if you could take me to the steps of your church and bring me before something that I could conceive of as a God. It would be called “fact of God.”
Atheism isn’t faith in the same way that not collecting stamps is considered a hobby.
“[W]hat proof would you need to believe in a God?”
Anything that makes sense would be a nice start. As insulting as this sounds, its my honest answer.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
While I appreciate your definition of faith let us go to Mr. Webster’s himself, one of the definitions is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”. You as an atheist have a firm belief that there is no God even though you have no proof. You have your rationalization as why there is no God but you have no proof just like the theist can not offer you proof that there is a God.
The definition of an atheist is defined as “one who believes that there is no deity” where as it defines an agnostic as “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable, broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.”
So when I paid Derek the high complement of being an agnostic which to me makes much more sense given your views then being an atheist he choose not to accept that label. If I were to take your approach to this debate I would insist on my definition and continue to label him as an agnostic since that is what I believe him and you to be. You claim that you are atheist so I let it go.
Jolly was kind enough to point out that my argument is not about being a Christian and he is right. While there are many people who do not realize that there is a deference between being a Deist and being a Christian or that polytheism is not the same as monotheism fear not my agnostic Jolly who is pretending to be an atheist, I am not one of them.
At this point I see no reason to make the claim that Christianity is better when you do not acknowledge that there is any God at all. Someday when you are promoted to a Deist or polytheist I would be glad to have that debate, right now I am trying to make one point and one point only, you as atheist (or agnostics pretending to be atheist) live on faith just like a theist. You have a firm belief in something with no proof, if you can acknowledge that fact then I would be more then happy to move on to the bigger questions.
Definitions found at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
August 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Then by your logic I should still believe in Santa. Not only should I still believe in Santa but that I would be contradicting Logic if I were to say that I don’t believe in Santa. So in essence it is wrong to not believe in Santa as I have no proof that there is not some rotund jolly man who lives in the North Pole with lots of elves (which I would be wrong to deny the existence of) who make toys and then loads everything up into a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer (which I would be wrong to deny the existence of) with one of their number having a glowing red nose (which I would be wrong to deny the existence of) all for the purpose to deliver those toys.
Now you cannot prove that the Santa I’ve described doesn’t exist. Even if you were to tell me that you are the one that puts the presents under the Christmas tree, I can always say that somewhere on the planet Santa delivers toys and for reasons only Santa knows does not deliver toys to your house.
Nor can you prove that Cthulu, or the Elder Gods, or the Necrocomicon as described in Lovecraftian stories don’t really exist either. You cannot prove that the Terminator from the movie Terminator isn’t walking among us looking for some kid.
By the logic that you’ve given me to work with, I would have to believe in anything and everything. I would have to believe that its possible that I could wake up as a cockroach. I would have to believe that one day somebody will give me the choice between the red or blue pill. I would have to be afraid of going outside because a Windego may swoop down and grab me, fly me to some snowy mountain top to kill me my dragging me through the snow until I died of exposure or shock. I would have to believe that I would receive bad luck if I didn’t leave a saucer of milk out to appease the brownies/pixies.
So where would it end?
As far as asking me for proof, I’m once again left wondering why its up to me? You’ve given me all of the proof that you have at your disposal, and I remain unconvinced that you are correct. This is no different for me than being unconvinced that the boogyman is real, Windegos are real, brownies and pixies are real. This is why I am an atheist, its not because I have some special glasses that I ordered from the back of a comic book that gives me some view of the universe that is denied to you. I see the same things that you do but for some reason I come to a different conclusion.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Not so fast my friend, when you say I have given you all the proof I have at my disposal you are wrong. I have not begun to fight. I have NOT tried to prove that God exist. If you read my post you will see that I was responding to an angry atheist website that boasted that their 15 minute video (they have since got rid of the video part and make you read their long diatribe instead, they also got rid of their open comment section) a video that was supposed to shatter MY delusional beliefs. (In honor of Derek’s skepticism I will reference the link again http://godisimaginary.com/i7.htm)
My point was that they offered nothing that would prove anything so the proof was on them given their bold claims. Also, your point about Santa is not valid, we can prove where the presents come from. If however there were millions of children all over the world getting presents from some unknown source then yes, Santa would be a viable option.
Again, you fail to answer my question because you do not like the outcome. I have not offered any proof nor will I that there is a God, all I have said is that you have no proof either and that you are living on faith the same as a religious person. Every time I read yours or Derek’s response I think of the Great Ronald Reagan and say, “Oh there you go again!”
I have come to the belief that atheism is nothing more then long list and boring links. That should be your slogan, come join our faith, the faith of long list and boring links. Now, to be fair, Derek’s own writing is actually quite good, while I disagree with his views it is well organized and thought provoking (expect of course when he reverts to the atheistic creed of long list and boring links).
I am not one of those Christians hell bent on proving you wrong, you do not believe in God, that is fine, you will, someday. My hope is that you can be like the great CS Lewis who once held to your views and later saw the light, Derek would make a fine CS Lewis with his writing style.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The the you was not meant to be specific to you personally. I’m pretty sure that in my few years on this planet everybody who believed has had something that they consider proof. These people are also not trying to keep it some deep dark secret, so its not to hard to some research and start to see what other have come up with.
You keep telling me that no matter how many times I DON”T see a God in the universe, I am physically unable to see every part of the universe at the same time so that I have no grounds in saying that a God/s/etc does not exist (or that I don’t believe in God/s/ect) because there is always doubt about my claim/belief. Now unless you can physically see every present given to every child at every time during human history/present/future, your claim that Santa does not exist is just as lacking in veracity as your claim is invalidated if at least ONE child sometime in human history/present/future gets a present from Santa. So you saying that Santa is not real because 99.999999…% of the time when a child gets presents its not from Santa is wrong.
Any ways, I’m thinking that your last paragraph means that I’ve worn out my welcome. Its been good chatting with you, thanks for your time and take care.
August 28th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Oh come now, surely you can take a little sarcasm in a debate? Of course, that is the one bad thing about a blog post, tone can be misread. Well, let me make myself perfectly clear, your views are welcome here and it has made this post more enjoyable because of them.
Now to Santa, if we could explain 99% of the universe then I would agree with you. Heck, if we could explain 50% of the universe then I might agree with you. I would venture to guess that we can not explain even 1% of all there is to know in this huge known universe let alone the Super Natural if it does exist. Now, someday you maybe able to be like Hon Solo and say, “Kid, I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe that there’s one all powerful Force controlling everything. Cause no mystical energy field controls my destiny. It’s all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.”
September 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I guess I missed the sarcasm.
Well now, you seem to be agreeing with my reasoning. It seems that we both believe in the things that we believe in for roughly the same reasons now. Interesting that we’ve come to different conclusions.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Now I would like to ask what I think is a simple question but one that I think is important. If there is no God, where did the conscience or as CS Lewis called it, Moral Law come from? We can not simply say that it evolved because while we all know Moral Law, none of us follow it all the time. If it was man made we would have made it easier to follow.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I know it has been some time since the arguments for the cosmological argument has been discussed, but perhap I might make a point which perhaps may help the argument give a little more credit to itself.
Mainly my point is simple: Assume god is a being that is a limited being, in that it relies on some sort of law / dictated principle that neccessitates the creation of the perameters that is God.
If this were true, then the nothing that created God would have rules that neccesarilly dictate God’s existence, but the problem is that if there were no laws that dictated the created of God, then No God (or anything that relies on the existence of God for its own existence) would therefore exist.
The point is until an athiest can prove that the laws they assert that something can come from nothing in the laws of physics, then their argument lacks evidence to support the claim that something c (including their laws of physics) could “always have existed to dictate the existence of everything in existence.” More or less their evidence for “god not existensing” is an assumption that they can explain something coming from nothing. After all, if the “laws of physics” were alwasy there, then we could alwasy state the same statement often asserted by the atheist argument of “and what about the nothing that came before god” by saying “and what about the more powerful nothing that came before the laws of physics?”
It also brings up another good argument for the cosmological argument: Until humans can prove that something can come from nothing, then humans cannot deny the neccesity that something that is limited in power must rely on something else to create its existence. While one may have trouble graspoing of something with no beginning, what can be grasped is that as limited creatures, we are reliant upon other things in order to exist, and any limited creature requires these laws to exist, or else it cannot exist. If nothing existed, then by the laws of physics, nothing should have been created, AKA this universe that we currently exist within.
SOmething does exist, so one cannot say that nothing came before something. That alone gives great power to the cosmological argument.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
@Calloway: As far as Moral Law is concerned, it doesn’t really exist. Its an opinion of what ought to be at a given point in time. What is considered morally impermissible in one era is permissible in another, things change. So if Moral Law is a gift or command from the divine, then it seems to lack permanence and kinda diminishes the power of that the divine is supposed to have.
Personally I think that what can be considered moral law is something that comes about when a group of people are forced to live in close proximity, with limited resources, in a hazardous environment. Without some base ground rules the group won’t survive as well or will completely fail.
@Carlos: I thought that God could not be limited in any way?
Your presumption that atheism is about proving that something came from nothing is pretty new to me. It violates what we mere mortals call Physics. It seems that theism advocates that something came from nothing more than non-theism. At least by my understanding of religious texts and pro-creationist arguments.
If one of the fundamental laws of physics is the conservation of energy/matter then is it not possible that everything always existed (just not in the same form as it does at this very second?) Energy changes to matter and matter changes back to energy, some of the energy changes to matter but the rest stays as energy, forever and ever.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am
If what you are saying is true, that morality is just “an opinion of what ought to be at a given point in time” and that “what is considered morally impermissible in one era is permissible in another” then we can not say that anything is wrong.
Slavery in the Americas was not wrong in 1776 because it was the opinion of that day, it was the morality of that era so to say that slavery was wrong would not be correct. Also, we can not judge the Nazis as war criminals, they were acting off the opinion of what out to be done in Germany in 1940. To call the situation in Darfur genocide would be reckless in you example. How dare we compare the Sudan to the values of the Western world and use our opinions and era to judge them.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:32 am
You seem to have forgotten that there were lots of opinions at the time regarding slavery during the 1700’s. Some people lived in countries where slavery was illegal, some lived in countries where there was slavery but it was called a different name and had some regulations involved, some people lived in places where the notion of slavery had not even come into existence. So during the time that you mentioned, which one of these groups would have a logically defensible idea of the morality of slavery that also had enough physical evidence to “prove” they their idea was correct and the others where incorrect?
Probably about half of the world during WWII disagreed with what the Nazi’s were doing before it became common knowledge (ie, more than just a rumor) that the Nazi party did some pretty sick stuff during the war. So one group of people had an opinion while another group had another opinion, I can agree with either of these opinions, but what makes my opinion or the opinion of the other two groups correct?
I may personally find slavery bad, genocide bad, religion bad but what makes my opinion THE CORRECT one? Going back to Nazi Germany, there were lots of people who didn’t like the way the Nazi’s were doing things. Some tried to do something about it like the White Rose (students who tried to circulate some anti-Nazi propaganda and were all executed) and there were several attempts by Nazi officers to kill Hitler (all of which failed and resulted in the execution of the conspirators). My opinion is that the failed attempts at fighting the Nazis instantly qualify the conspirators as bono fide bad assed mamma jamma’s but do you agree with my opinion because we share the same opinion or because of something else? If its something else, how can we be sure that there really is “something else” besides wanting things to be a certain way?
Its not a matter of judging one group by the standards of another group, I’m not defending moral relativism. I just don’t have a way to proving to other people that the things that I want to be moral absolutes are actually morally absolute.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Yes but without any moral absolute saying that the Nazis were wrong would be like me saying that 90’s grunge music is wrong. It is my view that it is wrong type of music and that only Def Leppard, Bon Jovi and AC/DC is good music. To me 90’s grunge is wrong but I would not say that it is morally wrong. It is just an opinion.
I can and I do say that genocide wrong, rape is wrong, slavery is wrong. What you are defending is moral relativism. Either there is right and wrong or there is not.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
No, you can choose to think of something as right or wrong. That’s okay.
You can think of something as being absolutely being right or wrong. That’s okay, I do it all the time.
But how can I prove that genocide is absolutely wrong?
September 14th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Sorry about the double post, this just came to me.
Moral relativism is about the lack of objectivity that a member of one set of morals has when criticising or observing a member of another set of morals.
Often relativism of this sort is explained by pointing to Europeans who studied the native inhabitants of some other land (America and Africa come to mind). The Europeans described the inhabitants through the eyes of a European, so a tribe of people living in mud huts (as opposed to a home of bricks and mortar and 2×4’s) and wearing animal skins (instead of leggings and shirts with buttons) would be deemed uncivilized. A more objective observer might look at the native tribe in the context of their surroundings.
Moral relativism does not tell me, is that I am unable to look at the moral norms of another society and think that what they are doing is wrong. Moral relativism only tells me that I probably cannot objectively judge the norms of another society without my own norms biasing my opinion.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“But how can I prove that genocide is absolutely wrong?”
Well, YOU can’t. But I can, because I have evidence and a Reason for morality whereas the atheistic worldview does not. Heck, there is not even a good reason for an Atheist to use logic. How, in a naturalistic worldview, can you use something non-physical like logic to prove your argumentation? In your worldview, you can’t prove morality and you can’t even make an argument without borrowing from a Theistic worldview.