My initial response to the assertion that "objective" morality cannot be derived from any worldview is, how do you know that for certain? Have you looked everywhere? How can a finite human being possibly have enough knowledge to assert with any certainty a universal negative?
Before you answer that, my second response is, if morality is not objective it is subjective. I have merely been pointing out the impossibility of the atheist alternative to give an account for any morality at all worthy of the name. r9etb said it very well:
If we accept this as true, and if we deny the existence of any supernatural or irrational basis for moral principles, it follows either that there is no such thing as morality, or that morality must have a scientific basis.Your reply to the logical implications was instructive to me in that while denying the logical implication, you tacitly acknowledge the existence of the objective rules:
No, it really doesn't follow at all. If morality isn't handed to us on a silver platter, all that really follows is that we're responsible for rolling our own.Responsibility denotes some sort of moral obligation or incumbency, but this is what I mean when I say that atheism cannot give a coherent account of morality; you cannot account for the existence of morality simply by positing a prior moral rule because to do so is to simply assume the very thing in question.
r9etb is also correct to point out that if you deny the existence of objective morality then then you have no legitimate complaints about anything at all, which is a very difficult philosophy to actually put into practice, as Dawkins so incoherently demonstrates. Whenever there is an objection to something, there is an assumption of some standard that the thing violates. So when some non-Christian like Dawkins objects to the Christian faith he assumes some standard that Christianity violates. In order to do so, though, since he cannot justify the standard from an atheistic worldview, and (I would argue) since he actually lives in God's world, and is made in God's image, he cannot help but use unacknowledged Christian presuppositions such as the existence of objective morality in his attacks on Christianity. Anytime Dawkins or anyone else makes a moral judgment they are tacitly assuming the existence of objective standards and thereby of God's existence as the authoritative source of those standards.
What those standards are, how they are known and what difficulties arise therefrom are related, important and vexing questions, but I think the fact that this unacknowledged presupposition has been pervasive throughout this discussion is the evidence, or the proof, if you will, that is already evident to you.
Cordially,
How many times did you have to put your hand on a hot stove before you inferred that it was never going to be a pleasant experience? Do you still light it up and mash down firmly from time to time, on the theory that you, as a finite human being, cannot possibly have enough knowledge to assert with any certainty the universal negative proposition that it will never be a pleasurable sensation for you?
Tell you what - if you have a candidate for an objectively "correct" or "true" moral system, bring it forth. I'll fire up the stove, and we'll see if this time it'll finally be fun for you.
Responsibility denotes some sort of moral obligation or incumbency...
Not at all. "Anything goes" is a moral system of sorts, and it requires nothing of us at all, except that we do as we please anyway. You will have a moral/ethical system in place, no matter what you do or don't do - there's no obligation upon you to do anything.
...this is what I mean when I say that atheism cannot give a coherent account of morality
Allow me to reiterate, in that case - "because someone else said so" does not strike me as an especially "coherent" basis for an "objective" moral system.
r9etb is also correct to point out that if you deny the existence of objective morality then then you have no legitimate complaints about anything at all...
Absurd. The rules of baseball are entirely human constructs - we invented them, and we can change them any time we see fit. Does that mean that the players "have no legitimate complaints" when someone violates the rules as they're currently understood? Are their complaints only "legitimate" if Abner Doubleday was, in fact, God?
Whenever there is an objection to something, there is an assumption of some standard that the thing violates. So when some non-Christian like Dawkins objects to the Christian faith he assumes some standard that Christianity violates. In order to do so, though, since he cannot justify the standard from an atheistic worldview...
Of course he can. Just like the centerfielder doesn't have to invoke God to point out that the second baseman is taking steroids.
...I think the fact that this unacknowledged presupposition has been pervasive throughout this discussion is the evidence, or the proof, if you will, that is already evident to you.
You mistake your own limitations for universal limitations upon everyone.
Cheers!