Dawkins: Religion equals 'child abuse'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 1/8/06

[RunningWolf]

Bump to your 259 BlackElk, glad you're here.

Wolf

[bornacatholic]

You are wise to try the dismissive "you're a troll" tactic. Disengage and stay disengaged

B. E. has forgotten more about Conservatism than you are likely to ever grasp.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" B. E. has forgotten more about Conservatism than you are likely to ever grasp."

It seems to have forgotten how to make a rational argument, too. That must have been one of those conservative things It forgot. I have 3 quotes by Rand on my homepage, 2 by Darwin, one each by Lock and Jefferson. The political quotes are about property rights and religious freedom. I am not an Objectivist, yet dark fawn thinks It can pretend I am to change the subject. When has obfuscation been a conservative virtue?

I correctly pointed out that Rush Limbaugh recommends Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" on his website. Does that make him an Objectivist too? Is he a conservative heretic? Would it be correct, in a debate with Limbaugh, to start attacking Objectivism, and only that, because on his web page he recommended one Objectivist book? He would correctly say that you were changing the subject and assuming far too much.

With dark fawn, I have repeated this and yet It still continues to press on with Rand. I say, let It debate Rand to Itself. It seems to be enjoying talking to Itself anyway. Trolls are like that.

As with all trolls who reveal themselves, eventually you have to just walk away from the train wreck.

[Diamond]

The rules of baseball are an odd choice of metaphor to support moral subjectivism. While they are a human construct, and arbitrary, they are not subjective. Though the interpretation may be subjective, the rules themselves are completely objective. Atheism as a foundation of morality makes about as much sense as trying to play a game where there are no real rules or objective so everyone just makes up their own, and then calling it baseball.

..."because someone else said so" does not strike me as an especially "coherent" basis for an "objective" moral system

That "Someone said so" is the only basis for morality. Morality, like the rules of baseball, requires an authoritative voice because moral rules come in the form of personal, propositional commands from an authoritative source. I could put on a home plate umpire uniform like Leslie Nielsen in The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad", start calling balls and strikes, and though I would be a personal voice, I would not be an authoritative source because I'm not a real umpire, and the players would not be obligated to obey my commands

The reason that the center fielder has a legitimate complaint that the second baseman (presumably the opposing one) is taking steroids is because the second baseman is violating the objective rules of MLB. If everyone makes up their own rules which are all equally legitimate the center fielder has no grounds for complaint, which precisely illustrates my point that if you make a moral objection to something you are assuming some moral standard which the thing violates, and you are assuming that there is moral incumbency. If morality is subjective, there are no legitimate ethical objections to anything and no moral incumbency because morality would be as subjective as 5 billion brain states at any given time.

Cordially,

[Senator Bedfellow]

The rules of baseball are an odd choice of metaphor to support moral subjectivism. While they are a human construct, and arbitrary, they are not subjective. Though the interpretation may be subjective, the rules themselves are completely objective.

LOL. I admit, I certainly didn't see this tack coming :)

Okay, so concerned are we with the notion that moral systems might all be subjective in some sense, that we merely redefine "objective" in such a way as to cover all cases. So, no matter how we define the actual rules of baseball, they're always "objective" - if the new rule in baseball allows tackling on the basepaths, that's an "objective" baseball rule. And naturally, no matter how we define the laws of society, they're "objective" as well by the same exact logic. Whatever rules we construct for a moral system, that moral system is "objective" by virtue of the fact that all the rules are "objective". So a moral system with the rule that infanticide is permissible is still an "objective" moral system.

My, my. That's a rather clever solution to the problem of subjectivity - just define everything as objective. Of course, "objectivity" loses all value for differentiating between moral systems, in that case - all moral systems are equally "objective", and hence none can claim to be somehow "better" than any other.

Morality, like the rules of baseball, requires an authoritative voice because moral rules come in the form of personal, propositional commands from an authoritative source.

Of course, as in the case of baseball, that "authoritative source" can be composed of human beings. The commissioner of baseball, despite certain delusions otherwise, is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and yet the rules committee under his purview has created an "objective" set of rules. Similarly, humans can just as easily create "objective" rules that govern non-baseball behavior. In which case, atheism may as well be the de facto approach - the commish is no less authoritative by virtue of being an atheist, and neither would anyone else be.

If everyone makes up their own rules which are all equally legitimate the center fielder has no grounds for complaint...

See, the problem you're having here is that nobody is saying that it's either God or no rules at all. Actually, I should say that you're trying to say that, but not very successfully.

The question is whether moral systems are possible without invoking a Creator. Of course they are. All that's required is that we agree on what the rules are, and agree to abide by them, just like in baseball. If you and I are neighbors, and we agree to allow each other to borrow tools from our respective garages and return them without needing to seek permission first, we have created a moral rule to be in effect between us. We didn't need God to tell us that's how we should behave, we didn't need some external third party to tell us that's how we should behave - we agreed on the acceptability of some behavior, and then behaved accordingly. This does not mean that you have "no grounds for complaint" if this rule we have agreed upon is violated - if I take your drill and then keep it for myself, for example. Extend that to society at large, and presto - a moral system by consensus, with the newly discovered virtue of being an "objective" moral system.

...which precisely illustrates my point that if you make a moral objection to something you are assuming some moral standard which the thing violates...

Of course, but that in no way obviates atheists as moral actors. The whole point is that you can create coherent moral systems without appealing to some other thing. If we agree that it's immoral to fail to tip your cap when a lady walks by, then we've created a moral standard for ourselves. An "objective" one, no less.

[Virginia-American]

Carolina Guitarman: You posted all the Randiana on your home page. It makes you and her fair game

Fascinating as I'm sure it is, the thread was about Dawkins and his atheism, not CGM's home page.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

The thread had actually turned to Hitler and whether he was an atheist. Then, out of the blue, Black Elk went on a rant about Ayn Rand because three out of the seven quotes on my homepage were from her (They were mostly about property rights; very radical stuff lol). He assumed I am a dyed-in-the-wool Objectivist. Instead of arguing the issue at hand, he started to argue Ayn Rand. That's why I stopped posting to him; if he can't have an honest debate, let him talk to himself. My tolerance for Trolls may be high, but it isn't that high.

[Diamond]

The whole point is that you can create coherent moral systems without appealing to some other thing. If we agree that it's immoral to fail to tip your cap when a lady walks by, then we've created a moral standard for ourselves. An "objective" one, no less.

I've been thinking about your example of a moral system with the rule that infanticide is permissible. It seems to me that such a "moral system", if such were possible, illustrates why conventionalist, or a moral system by consensus, defining what is right does not really encompass what morality is, and why moral rules are not arbitrary like the rules of baseball.

Aside from the ambiguities of what constitutes "society" (which "society" does one obey?), if society is both the origin and justification of morality, several counterintuitive examples come to mind:
1.If two people lived on an island and shared no society between them one could go over and kill the other on a lark and no moral rule would be violated.
2. If there is no moral law above society, no external standard, there is no basis to criticize or oppose ANY other societies' practices, no matter how repugnant to outsiders those practices might be. Stuffing Jewish people into gas chambers is ok if it's done by consensus.
3. If society is the origin and final measure of morality then all its laws are moral by definition; there can be no such thing as an unjust law.
4. If morality is defined by present society's standard, then any challenge to that standard by a moral reformer would by definition be acting immorally, which seems oxymoronic.

Cordially,

[BlackElk]

Regardless of the original subject (asinine in itself in the form of Dawkins and his beloved Darwin), it is quite traditional in cross-examination (of Carolinaguitarman's Randian erroneous thunderbolts from on high or wherever that we are to acceopt because he says so) to find underlying reasons for the lack of credibility of one's opponents.

The very Catholic Gilbert K. Chesterton observed something to the effect that many believe that a person who rejects the Truth will believe nothing when, in actuality, such a person will believe anything.

The persistence of Rand's little cult in spite of the evidence of her life simply demonstrates Chesterton's wisdom.

Like communism, Randianism does not work without atheism. If you don't believe that, reconsult Rand's written record. Thus the Randian has an agenda in advocating atheistic rationales. Now dead, La Rand has learned the Truth to her great and eternal, ummmm, discomfort.

[metmom]

bump

[Senator Bedfellow]

It seems to me that such a "moral system", if such were possible, illustrates why conventionalist, or a moral system by consensus, defining what is right does not really encompass what morality is, and why moral rules are not arbitrary like the rules of baseball.

The rules of baseball are hardly arbitrary - they are intended to facilitate the playing of the game. We could certainly imagine, in theory, a rule that allowed pitchers to bean batters without penalty, but in reality, the players (and fans) would never agree to or tolerate such a rule.

1.If two people lived on an island and shared no society between them one could go over and kill the other on a lark and no moral rule would be violated.

In reality, of course, people in such circumstances can be, and are, answerable to a wider society when such acts come to light. This, then, is merely an attempt to redefine "society" in such a way as to avoid the consequences of violating social strictures. It doesn't work, as a practical matter - Vincent Bugliosi once wrote a book about a real case that came about from such circumstances, as a matter of fact.

2. If there is no moral law above society, no external standard, there is no basis to criticize or oppose ANY other societies' practices, no matter how repugnant to outsiders those practices might be. Stuffing Jewish people into gas chambers is ok if it's done by consensus.

"Society" in this case may again consist of a wider set of actors that those immediately at hand. If outsiders object and are in a position to do something about it, the act will not stand.

If, on the other hand, objective moral rules exist and are handed to us by God, but nobody lifts a finger to do something, two million Rwandans will still be just as dead. You can explain to them, I'm sure, how much better off they are with objective, external moral rules, and how much worse things might have been for them if morality existed by consensus.

3. If society is the origin and final measure of morality then all its laws are moral by definition; there can be no such thing as an unjust law.

Sure there is - you just have to do the legwork to persuade others of the injustice of some law in order to see change come about. Which is, of course, exactly what you have to do now. Of course, you may view some law as unjust even in the absence of consensus agreement with your point of view, but you don't get to impose your wishes on everyone else. Which is, of course, exactly how things are now. Obviously, then, this hardly constitutes affirmative evidence in favor of external moral systems - the practical difference is naught.

4. If morality is defined by present society's standard, then any challenge to that standard by a moral reformer would by definition be acting immorally, which seems oxymoronic.

Only if you ignore the context and methods of such challenges. There are plenty of ways in contemporary society to challenge the current standards that are not themselves inherently immoral - they are built into the system itself. If you find some law unjust, you are free to speak out against it to convince others that it should be changed. You are free to work for the election of representatives who will implement the changes you prefer. You are not, however, free to simply ignore the current standards on the basis of your unilateral determination that they are unjust - for that, you will encounter the consequences society has set forth. Nor have you ever been free to do so, under any moral system, of course.

[Diamond]

We could certainly imagine, in theory, a rule that allowed pitchers to bean batters without penalty, but in reality, the players (and fans) would never agree to or tolerate such a rule.

Why not? I mean, what is to prove they would never tolerate it? I remember Bob Gibson and Don Drysdale, after all, and mound charging and all the rest of it. If history is any indication, gladiators, medieval combats and hockey fights demonstrate that there no inherent reason why humans would be against it in baseball, too.

The point is that the rules of baseball are arbitrary in the sense that they exist by agreement and they can be and have been changed over time. They are not fixed. The mound can be lowered. A DH can be instituted, etc.

In reality, of course, people in such circumstances can be, and are, answerable to a wider society when such acts come to light. This, then, is merely an attempt to redefine "society" in such a way as to avoid the consequences of violating social strictures.

It is not an attempt to redefine society to note that society and culture are very complex entities with overlapping spheres that sometimes make conflicting claims. Who is to say that the "wider society", whatever that is, is right? Why should one accept that the population at large is the relevant society determining morality? In the first place, that just presupposes a prior moral rule, which does not explain it, and further, it does not account for why it it is not equally valid that those with power to rule determine morality instead of the population at large.

Asserting some prior moral incumbency requiring morality by consensus assumes the very thing in question, namely; where such a standard comes from and how the purported brute fact of evolution out of primordial tar by dumb luck provides any foundation for it.

Are the moral principles of the "wider society" fixed, or are they simply conveniences and tactics learned over time, and thus subject to change according to current tastes? If abortion-killing is common here, and euthanasia-killing is being promoted to become so, are they morally permissible just because the culture says so? If the preponderance of public opinion is sufficient to define right and wrong then whatever you're able to persuade people to do, by hook or by crook, is right or wrong, then if you're able to persuade people that torturing babies for the fun of it is right, then it is right?

If, on the other hand, objective moral rules exist and are handed to us by God, but nobody lifts a finger to do something, two million Rwandans will still be just as dead. You can explain to them, I'm sure, how much better off they are with objective, external moral rules, and how much worse things might have been for them if morality existed by consensus.

Again, you seem to be assuming, but not acknowledging the existence of some overarching a priori moral structure that does not in fact exist if atheism were true. What sense would it make for the Rwandans to assert any subjective moral distinction between good and evil, if morality is subjective? If so, then I like chocolate ice cream. On the other hand if they asserted some objective distinction between good and evil, given the basic assumptions of your worldview, neither you nor they could justify that distinction. On your assumptions, the bi-pedal carbon units called Rwandans objected to being slaughtered; carbon units who slaughtered them did not. And so what? One group decided that the other didn't deserve to live. Who's to say it's wrong? It's no different than a day at the ball park with a hot dog and my copy of the official rules of Major League Baseball with the picture of Albert Pujols on the cover. Well, I guess if you can get a majority then everything is permissible: abortion, euthanasia, and even Rwandan genocide.

... There are plenty of ways in contemporary society to challenge the current standards that are not themselves inherently immoral - they are built into the system itself. If you find some law unjust, you are free to speak out against it to convince others that it should be changed. You are free to work for the election of representatives who will implement the changes you prefer. You are not, however, free to simply ignore the current standards on the basis of your unilateral determination that they are unjust - for that, you will encounter the consequences society has set forth.

Again, you are assuming a standard not in evidence or accounted for in an atheist world-view. In this society, to a certain extent, you are right. But if I lived in NAZI Germany I would most certainly not have been free to challenge the current standard; I would have "encountered the consequences society has set forth". I would have been put into a concentration camp and there's nothing to say it's right or wrong because the consensus of that society no doubt would have been that by all rights I belonged in the concentration camp. By that society's lights, my acts would have themselves been inherently immoral. If morality is changeable by the current preferences of the wider society, then complaining about "injustice" literally doesn't make any sense at all because by definition, society is the origin and justification of morality. If, as you say, there is no objective standard to appeal to, then it doesn't make any sense to appeal to some objective standard that does not exist outside of society.

My overarching question is, what is the justification for the prior moral rule requiring that morality be determined by consensus?

Cordially,

[jackdog]

to all really, not just Diamond. I gotta know. Do all you self-proclaimed christians actually believe in the existence of a mythicall sky daddy who watchers over everything and sticks his nose in the sordid waste of this planet? do you actually believe when you die you're going to go to some puffy cloud beige heaven to listen to platitudes for all eternity and anyone you don't like is going to be eternally tortured by flame? Are you insane? You might just as well believe in Thor and Zeues and Quezecoatl or majic faires and elves.

[Diamond]

I gotta know. Do all you self-proclaimed christians actually believe in the existence of a mythicall sky daddy who watchers over everything and sticks his nose in the sordid waste of this planet? do you actually believe when you die you're going to go to some puffy cloud beige heaven to listen to platitudes for all eternity and anyone you don't like is going to be eternally tortured by flame? Are you insane? You might just as well believe in Thor and Zeues and Quezecoatl or majic faires and elves.

The short answer^TM, is, "no, I don't believe what you allege I believe, and neither does any other Christian that I know."

I have a question or two for you. What is the basis of your gripe about the "sordidness" of this planet? The planet is what it is. What are you complaining about, if it's just part of the material universe? What are you comparing it to, to account for your value judgment?

Second, how do you justify the notion that human brain chemistry, which I would guess in your view is the sole cause of beliefs, whether of sordidness, or Thor and Zeus and Quezecoatl or magic faeries and elves, or any other belief for that matter, can be judged "insane". What are you comparing human brain chemistry to?

Cordially,

[RightWhale]

Is Dawkins a scientist or was he a scientist before he became deranged?

[Dead Dog]

Materialism is blight on the human soul and apparently rationalism.

important-sounding dead languages

Yah, Latin has no place in Science apparently. This dork is dilluted.

[x_plus_one]

Having children, many children, means you are future oriented, not "now" oriented.

This may be obvious to the casual observer but it whizzese right past the secular-humanist-agnostic-atheists like Carl Sagan.

Common ssense isn't all that common.

[x_plus_one]

Hitler exterminated as many Catholics and religious as possible. Then he went for the Lutherans and anyone else brave enough to be visibly Christian.

Hitler and the pink swastica crowd were neo-pagans - worshiping the Gods of Yore. Hitler Adored Wagner and his "Ring" operas.

[x_plus_one]

Neo-pagansim is making a come back in England and on the continent. Europe is a hollow log and needs to be re-born in the spirit.

[Scotswife]

wow...I guess I should stop trying to pass on values to my children that encourage honesty, self sacrifice, humility, and fidelity and start subscribing to the present religion of materialism and hopelessness that I see with so many troubled youth today.